peter_mcm.

<p>A man here in Indianapolis was once detained by police for photographing a public art sculpture that happened to be on a street corner just outside the City/County Bldg. On the news report, Sgt Matthew Mount of the IMPD advised people with cameras to restrict photography to "marked tourist spots". Keep in mind he failed to specify exactly what constitutes "marked".</p>

<p>I think that either Kodak or Fuji unveiling ANY new emulsion these days is something to celebrate; I almost don't care if it ends up having the grain of sandpaper. I'll try it as long as they keep the price point reasonable.</p>

<p>We never got to see how those photos that Richard Dreyfuss and Melinda Dillon took with their Kodak 126 cartridge cameras turned out...</p>

<p>Wonderful shots, Andy. What film did you use? I've been wanting to take my AE-1 out in the snow, but haven't been sure what to load it with...</p>

<p>My local Target recently had Fuji 400--four rolls of 24 exp. PLUS a bonus 36 exp. roll, still within expiration, for a mere $3. </p>

<p>Another view. Note that both say "Lens made in Japan".</p><div></div>

<p>Here are the two lenses; the Focal (left, on camera) and the Sears.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Stephen. The 135 that came with my AE-1 is also a Focal brand; I've been happy with it, mainly because it's so much faster than the comparable kit lens that came with the Minolta Maxxum I still use.</p>

<p>Thanks, Mark. What is SC, and is there a clue I can look for somewhere on the lens itself that will tell me?</p>

<p>Included with my recently-inherited Canon AE-1 outfit are two 28mm F/2.8 lenses. One has the Sears name on it, the other is a Focal brand (manufactured, I believe, for K-Mart). Both say "Auto MC". I've largely ignored these lenses, concentrating instead on portraiture and other things with my 50 and 135mm glass. I'd like to start experimenting with wide-angle work. Question: is one of these lenses considered better than the other? The glass on both appear to be clean. I can't seem to find ratings or feedback on either.</p>

<p>In order of acquisition: Minolta Maxxum XTsi, Minolta Maxxum 70, Canon AE-1.<br>

These days I tend to reach for the Canon more often than either of the Minoltas--not that I'd trade any of them for the world! :)</p>

<p>Every once in a while I'll have a stubborn rear cap on one of my FD lenses. As it turns out, they're sometimes just as tricky to get secured on in the first place! :)</p>

<p>I inherited my AE-1 outfit; it came with several lenses, including a very capable 135mm f/2.8 "Focal" brand (manufactured, I understand, for K-Mart).  Being an off-brand, I can't imagine it would be very pricey on the after-market.<br>

Alan: if you are "ashmade", I'm sure the right lens filter would make you look better!  :)</p>

<p>As long as there is still some good film to be had, I'm not gonna complain about what or how often they (re)name it.</p>

<p>My AE-1 just sucks the battery power. Found this out the hard way soon after acquiring it. Good thing it only uses one at a time; those 28Ls are expensive little buggers. My Minolta Maxxums, on the other hand, seem to last forever on a pair of CR2s--not that they're any cheaper.</p>

<p>I misloaded my AE-1 just once, but it was at the wrong time. I spent the day at a local museum with a special friend, and snapped a lot of photos--only to realize when it was all over that the film was not advancing. Needless to say, I could've shot myself...and not with my camera.</p>

<p>In the prophetic words of The Buggles: "Video killed the radio star..."</p>

<p>Another Peter, here, with a surprisingly similar story:<br>

A couple of years ago an old girlfriend I dated while in college (circa 1984 or so), and with whom I had kept in touch over the intervening years, contacted me. Her father had just passed away. She was left with the arduous task of sorting through his personal belongings. It seems he was something of a shutterbug, and had accumulated some nice photography equipment. She gave one of these nice camera outfits to her daughter, at that time just leaving for college. The other, an AE-1 with several nice lenses, she gave to me.<br>

My friend figured this Canon had not been touched in at least 10 years. Sure enough--the film counter indicated a partly-exposed roll of something-or-other. I finished the roll, opened the back to find Kodak Gold, and had it processed. It came out fine, including the pictures of the aforementioned daughter, whom her mother estimated was 8-10 years old when they were taken.<br>

The camera, itself, I had checked and cleaned; they declared it in excellent condition. It sits on my desk in front of me as I write this, and is still my favorite of all the cameras I own.<br>

Develop that film, Peter. It can't hurt, and you may very well find yourself rewarded with some wonderful memories. As for the AE-1, get some repair estimates. I am confident it will be worth it to fall in love with 35mm all over again.</p>

 

<p>Got any pictures of those skirts, John? ;)</p>

<p>I think there's a definite bias against men taking photos in public. Of all the accounts I've read, on this site and others, of photographers being detained for some trumped-up reason by some cop too cowardly to be doing his real job fighting crime, not one incident I can recall involved a woman.</p>

<p>It would seem to me that John has the implied permission of mall security to photograph. If the detained individual has any legal claim, it would first be against them and their employer. If this were a public street, he'd clearly be covered under 1st Amendment protection.</p>

<p><em>The Unbearable Lightness of Being</em>, 1988, directed by Philip Kaufman. Memorable for a scene featuring Juliette Binoche, Lena Olin, and a Praktica 35mm.<br>

Andre: I second <em>The Notorious Bettie Page </em>(2006, dir. Mary Harron). Besides being a tasteful, sensitive biopic about one of the 20th Century's most recognized, and even beloved, models, it gives us a realistic glimpse into the private "camera clubs" that were prevelent in the 1950's.</p>

<p>Dan:<br>

I'm with you; I read the title of this thread and the first thing that went through my mind was John Cleese yelling, <em>"Albatross! Albatross!..."</em><br>

Seriously...after playing happily in 35mm for the last seven years, lately I've been wanting to get me a quaint MF. I've noticed Seagulls can be had for relatively cheap, but have been wondering about the inherent quality. I've been watching the used listings in B&H, Adorama, etc for Mamiyas...</p>

<p>Thanks, Andrew. I never think about going online to price compare something like batteries--especially since I normally don't buy more than one set at a time; my Minoltas use so little power. My Canon AE-1, however is another story; leaving that thing on will drain a 28L practically overnight! </p>

<p>Went to my corner Marsh Supermarket for the family's Easter ham, and found a clearance on Duracell batteries--including those expensive CR2s; $3.49 each, or 2-packs for $5.74. I bought half their 2-packs, which should keep my Minolta Maxxums happily powered for the forseeable future. :)<br>

Have a glorious Resurrection Day, everybody!</p>

<p>Best ISO 400 I ever scanned was Kodak Ultra Color 400 (formerly Portra 400UC); too bad it's not available anymore. I have yet to try any other of Kodak's Portra line--VC or NC--but I hear they also scan with a minimum of fuss.</p><div></div>

<p>I keep all my film inside the compartments in the door marked, "Dairy". Of course, I really should relabel them; I woke up for breakfast one morning, and my wife had made me a Fujicolor omlette...</p>