bill_pearce1

Get Doug Fisher's holders, and ANR glass. Tape neg strips to glass, scan. Marvel at grain and lack of sharpness.

Bill Pearce

Great choice. It may be a tourist trap, but it's the greatest tourist trap in history. I paid my third visit there on 11/11, an interesting time. Your travel agent probably doesn't know about this, but there is a small airport in Florence that is served by commuter airliners. It is convienent, and I recommend that connection if possible.

There is a camera shop that has a minilab that I've used to good result. They are on the street that connects to the Ponte Vecchio, a couple of blocks up on the Florence side (no, I don't remember the street, address, or their name.) They are connected to an optician.

Film and processing there isn't prohibitive, but is higher than in the USA.

On my last trip to Tuscany, last summer, I noted faint xray fog on 400UC that wasn't noticable on prints. It went through four passes in carry on in a lead bag.

Eat at bucca del'Orafo! (I wanted to use more exclamation points, but PN won't let me!)

Bill Pearce

In many areas, there are frequently used sinks available from pro labs, industrial photo departments, etc. If you don't mind stains, they can be as cheap as free.

I don't know where you're from, but in many parts of the US, there are also the ubiquitous green fiberglass sinks. They are quite good, and come in many forms.

Bill Pearce

Dwaynes did a huge volume of this several years ago, probably still do some.

Amazing how this stuff won't go away.

Bill Pearce

An interesting sidelight to this is that for years, Kodak recommended dry mounting for archival materials. The theory being the dry mount tissue is neutral, and isolates the print from any impurities in the mount board. Don't know if they still do, or even care.

Reversable is the standard for museums.

Bill Pearce

Just did some with DD-X, 1:4 at 69 degrees for 7'45". I thought the negs were just a bit dense. There were shot in VERY bright midday sun, and print at #1 or #2. No one will accuse this film of being fine grained, but it's not objectionable.

For flat light I would continue with that time. Otherwise, I would reduce the development time or change dilution. That time also might make a good one-stop push under hard light.

Bill Pearce

I've also shot EBX in Colorado, and I generally liked it. Especially as altitude increases, the haze gets worse (remember those days before things like gas guzzlers and the Four Corners power plant?), and it really helps. Also, things can have a bit of a flat look anyway, especially in times of low rainfall.

In general, after a lifetime of trips there, I prefer a film with more snap.

Bill Pearce

Not all published rail photographers go along with Grumpy's ideas. He has a, errrr, narrow focus.

For actual railfanning, use Provia. Shots at a museum event, probably the same. If shooting a negative film, I'd use 160NC.

Bill Pearce

Don't be hasty. The meter reading will be off if there is no film in the camera.

Bill Pearce

There was a time in the fifties when jazz musicians all took up photography. For most of them, it soon went the way of narrow ties and lapels, but for Milt Hinton, it was his constant companion.

During his lifetime, he was the most recorded bass player in America. I had the pleasure of meeting him and talking several times, and he was a gentleman. He is held in the highest respect by all jazz musicians, not just bass players.

Bill Pearce

I'm with Keith. I have gone through galleries, and I've seen photos signed and unsigned by great photographers all. Paintings have been done either way for eons at the artist's option, and I think that is the best answer.

If you are making a gift, leaving it unsigned makes more sense than if you are selling prints, from an advertising aspect. Signing on the mat, however, is a silly pretension, since, as Keith says, it makes the decision unsigned for you.

I remember one gallery that was showing some of my photos relating that someone asked if they bought it, could they have it matted to exclude the title, number and signature. I told them it was OK as long as they got cash!

Bill Pearce

Are you friends with any pro lab people in your town? There are independant servicemen and businesses that deal in used, rebuilt machines. Get some names from the lab managers.

Bill Pearce

Wow, jeff, you must be really young! This is what we used before inkjets.

The Chromira prints on RA4 paper, just like an enlarger. The landfills are full of discarded RA4 processors. You should be able to get a used one fairly cheap. I don't know where you are located, but if you live where a lab has gone out of business, there will be at least one. Kreonite will likely be the cheapest for comparable age/condition, and can be reliable.

If you find one, also get spare pumps and gears, etc. if available.

Bill Pearce

Since I have both the Xpan and "regular" Hasselblad equipment, perhaps I can help. First and most important, the 6x6 equipment is what puts food on the table, not the Xpan. If that's what you're after, take advantage of the incredible bargains in used 6x6.

Now. The Xpan isn't a semi-MF camera. The pan frame is wider than a 6x6 or 6x4.5 camera, and is virtually equal to a 6x7 frame. If you're comparing the Xpan to a cropped M7, it's about the same. If you are comparing prints from the Xpan and cropped 120 and the results aren't identical, something else is wrong.

The M7 is the closest thing to the Xpan. The M7 is a fine camera, and certainly an alternative, but you must consider that the standard lens for the Xpan is almost the same as the widest for the M7. And yes, a 6x12 or similar is going to provide a HUGE negative with the obvious result, but remember, getting them scanned or printed will be an expensive proposition.

What the Xpan does that the others don't is provide a camera that could be taken traveling without a lot of pain. It can be used well wherever a Leica or other RF can be used (no, it's not as quiet, but for most situations it's just as good). It will be less conspicous than the MF cameras. And, how much longer this lasts I don't know, it offers more film choices and availability than MF cameras.

It all boils down to what your intended uses are. If you value ease of carrying and hand holding, get the Xpan. If more contemplative photography is your cup of D76, get a MF camera.

Bill Pearce

Don't know about scanning, but I understand that Dwayne's (same folks that do Kodachrome) print from discs. Might be worth asking tham.

Bill Pearce

Chris is dead on, with an addendum.

Modern cameras must be AF to be a commercial success. This is even the case in MF. Olympus just didn't even try to make an AF system that could equal the OM.

For those of us in the USA, the system was dealt a mortal blow by Olympus of America. The OM10 had a problem (the "oily magnet" situation) that required repair of most all sold. Since this problem generally showed up shortly after the warantee period ended, OM USA chose to not honor claims, despite the fact it was a factory defect. Too many dealers dropped the line, not wanting to deal with VERY mad customers quite so much.

Bill Pearce

The earliest lenses had the letter prefix (x)-Zuiko, and most had the silver front ring, and were mostly single coated. As competetive pressures increased, multi-coatings were added, and the letter was usually dropped, and the letters MC were added, although not as a prefix. With the passage of time, the MC was dropped. The coatings may have changed over time, depending on the lens. There were exceptions!

The SC lenses do have a different look, and there are those who prefer it, especially for B&W.

For many camera makers, the 50/1.4 was the showpiece lens, but not for Olympus. I suppose when you had things like the 21/2, you didn't spend as much time on a 50.

Frequently compared favorably to Leica lenses is the most recent 50/1.8, with "Made in Japan" engraved on the front ring. This lens may be had very inexpensively. Commonly considered to be the peer of the Leica lens (I'm not familiar with all the permutations of Leica lenses) is the 50/2 macro. One of the last new designs for the OM, it is considered by most to equal Leica's efforts, but unlike the 50/1.8, prices are not so reasonable.

As with all things, there are areas of disagreement, but I would suggest you examine the following: 18/3.5, 21/2, 28/2, 85/2, 90/2, 100/2, and the 135/2.8. Some users aren't that impressed by the 28, but mine is superb. Others like the 35/2, but mine is but average. Of the above, the most affordable will be the 85 and the 135.

The OM2 is a fine camera. If the highly sophisticated metering of the 4T is useful to you, that will prove a good investment.

Bill Pearce

Sorry for the digression, but I note that B&H and others have dropped all but this one Minolta scanner. Is Minolta going out of the film scanner business?

Bill Pearce

I take an incident reading on the ground, before takeoff.

Bill Pearce

Simple. On the 30, use it with panoramas always. With the 90, never.

Bill Pearce

Just to clarify so there isn't a bunch of Kansas City area shooters that go bonkers, Dwaynes is in Parsons, about a half day drive. I don't know what the price difference is, but I believe they take mail orders, so you may be able to cut the time lag depending on your location.

Bill Pearce

The "battery problem" is highly overstated, not even all OM4's have it. The bad circuit was updated during production, and early OM4's could be upgraded by Olympus under warranty. I've got an OM4 with the updated circuit and an OM4Ti and I get years of use out of a set of 357's.

Be sure that you are using silver oxide cells. Because of the discharge characteristics, the alkaline cells will become useless before completely used up.

If you do have the oldest version, some on the OM list have had good luck with a mail order watch battery supplier in Minnesota, and pay only about seventy-five cents in quantitys of a dozen or so. Compare that to a set of lithiums!

While some repairmen may have replacement circuits in stock, it is generally considered uneconomical, as a replacement camera will likely be cheaper. The means to check your for the updated circuit has been discussed already on this forum.

One possible other cause is jamming the camera in a bag where the release button or the button for the viewfinder light is repeatedly pressed, so the camera is on continously. this will run batteries down quickly.

Bill Pearce