walter_degroot

<p>A couple of years ago when I was thinking about upgrading from my 4 mp digicam,<br> someone offered me an olympus XZ-1 a compact 10 mp digital camera.<br> I happily jumped at thge offer and the camera seems to be as much as I will ever need.<br> a few months ago the operating system on my pc started getting strage and sometimes slow. I made a fix but things got worse and eventually I was forced to wipe the drive and start over from the original cd.<br> I gradually added apps. and this week decided to add the camera app.<br> I could not locate it on my date drive.<br> by checking my correspondence with the generous giver I found thew month and year.<br> there was a TOTAL COMMABNDER in the \p[hoto]cameras\olympus directory.<br> I supposed it was a file manager ???<br> but after determing the date I decided it was the camera app.<br> It seems it wants either VISA or MAstercard<br> i DO NOT RECALL THIS HAPPENING TWO YEARS AGO!</p> <p>I left a message withg olympus. and waith for a reply.<br> I emailed the original owner and I am waiting his reply.<br> meantime has anyoine run into this.,<br> IS olympus so short of money thatr they SELL the camera software?<br> I was also surprised to note that OLYMPOUS name dows not appesar on the software.</p> <p>excuse any typos eyes you know.</p>

<p>at 78 soon to be 79---<br> I did fail the last stress test.<br> the dr says the cardiologist would give me another pill to take<br> I am up to 12 already.. my wife had two strokes and it keeps me busy and active helping her.</p> <p>ISO 25? My Miranda sensorex cameras go that low.<br> others may go lower.<br> I thought that film would eb asa 12 or 6.<br> I guess the asa 25 is witrg acufine or diafine. noplace here to buy it.</p>

<p>I understsand that this is the film made just before the otherrt low speed very high resolution<br> b&w film.. Question is... what do I do with it.<br> years ago I ordered it from freestyle and it was not what I ordered.<br> so it sat in the box.<br> after I moved here in 1995 It sat missing or misplaced since then.<br> I have caneras that could be set at a slow iso. I could use it.<br> with a scanner, I have no need as I did back in the 1.<br> It is possible and likely that the film is not fogged.<br> I developed a 22 year old roll of c-41 iso 400 and it was ok. .<br> any thoughts or suggestions.<br> I have rodinal ( old_) and some d076..<br> but I think hc0110 would be best.<br> might be a test for my Argus AF.</p> <p>I have several rolls.</p>

<p>I cannot comment om a MAC or a laptop.<br> possiubly an inexpensive adapter ebay / hong kong.<br> er did it for a parallel printer and a system with no parallel port.<br> -- another thing I realize.<br> It would be simpler if it were a computer- mac or pc with pCI<br> ports/<br> others may read thius and possibly it would help.<br> In the world of pc;'s and windows-- support for the inexpensive ISA scsi cards ebed with windows 98 and me.,<br> the solution for newer windows pc's was ab ADAPTEC PCI SCSI CARD.<br> IT HAS A BIOS AND THE CARD DRIVER STEP CAN BE INNORED.<br> the smaller scsi connector requires a different cable.<br> this should work on either mac or pc's with a pci slot.<br> but sdly not on a laptop. adaptec 2930 2940 and similar cards.<br> there are also bios updates on the adaptec website.</p> <p>Hope that this helps others.</p>

<p>i may stray a bit but this may hjelp ytou understand.<br> Kodak';s "standard" was 80 sw inches of film. one 8 x 210 4 4 x 5 one 120 or a 35 x 36 exposure ( correct me if I disremeber)<br> I always developed 2-36 exp e-4 ekatachome duping films ( bulk loaded) in a pint -16 ox and then 2 more with extended times.<br> fr tank holding 16 oz with a dial reel.<br> a modern metal tank like a nikkor would be very similar.<br> the jobo as I think is a horizontal roller assembly?</p> <p>if so or not a certain amount of developing agent ( chemicals are required.</p> <p>the film must be adequately covered with liquid or there wiull be erratic developent at the top with a vertical tank. <br> the amouint of developer is the critical num,ber or the developer will be weakened and the film will appear to be inderexposed.<br> In ancuient times a DEVELOPER SUCH AS PANATHERMIC 77 WAS USED<br> and a bug tank was used full of a concentrated solution. possibly more then "full stren grh" by today;'s standards,.<br> today a much more dilute solution is used.<br> Only partly to redice costs but mainly to improve quality of the negative.<br> be sure that enough solution is provided so as not to weaken the development.<br> not byu doubling the strengtrh of the solution but by increading both the volume of water and concentrated developer.<br> It is usualkly best to use developer aS A "ONE SHOT" MIXING ID-11 OR D 76 AS 1:1<br> and ensuring enough solution to do it;'s work properly. so do not skimp in the amount of developer.</p> <p>d76/id-11 is a fine almost universal use developer.<br> after it is used up investigater hc-110<br> at the covington hc-110 page<br> do not use the "kodak method"<br> use the developer as a one shot, no stocvk solution.<br> again apolgied for mis types- yes the VA is working on my eyes. nut it is slow. ands maybe not so sure.<br> I can pretty much see the large kb they gave me.<br> new glasses help also.</p>

<p>I decided years ago noty to repair any older cameras. I bounght extras,<br> now I have six. and bending my own rulke six normal lenses..<br> I stgill paid less than onew repair cost. Not to dislike repairmen. they have a difficult asnd excating job. and partsd are often very hard to get. If one camera really dies beyond a cla., It should be donated to a worthy repairman or placed in a glass case if it is uibnique..<br> uying a closae twin is good advise.. I still wait and wonder what Ricoh will do with pentax corp.<br> It may be that therwe will be a newer model a DIGITAL<br> camera that wouyld make the upgrade path smooth.<br> Canon has been blamed for dropping the FD mount cameras ( a series and T seriesd)<br> but there is a long history of both film and digital cameras that are available. and lenses interchange.<br> ( exception -crop sensor lenses are incompatible with film and ff digital bodies)<br> at this time it seems the way to go.<br> No hope of using any other lenses ,exceps as manual lenses on these bodies.<br> But fror now the thought of putting the dead pentax away so you do not look at it and buying a close model is the smartest move and the least expensive. I do not know where you get color film developed today. but use the Pentax for film and take another route for digital.<br> Canon has a program to sell refurbed digital cameras at low prices for non-slr models.<br> for the cost of a repair you can buy another film camera * with lens)<br> and a digital compact camera. ( refurb) rom canon.</p>

<p>i own cameras with several different mounts.<br> no nikon or minolta or konica all fine cameras.<br> I used to favor the pentax-- if they ever made a full frame camera.<br> if I had a Nikon film camera I would feel the same way about theor digicams-despite some incompatabilities.<br> many of my cameras are cabon A and T series. with the FD mount..</p> <p>But I see them all as dead-ends.<br> the canon eos ( i have some eos film bodies) seems to be the only way to ho<br> weith a digital slr. I would consider a crop sensor body, now available at modest prices. Avoid a big investemnt on crop-sensor lenses and eventually get a full frame camera on which film camera lenses work well.<br> The idea of each lens having it;s own motor., and the lens to body connections being all electrical seems more practical.. I am not deliberately hanging on to film compatability.<br> but the upgrade path is smoother and the quiantity of lenses available with little concern for proper compatability is an advantage.<br> even if there were a pentax ff camera available at a reasonable price, I would still lean towards the eos system.</p>

<p>I recall reading here a few years ago<br> that some college "renseleer?? had<br> switched to all digital? not sure who itr was.<br> seems there are many who dislkikew the word " chemnuical"<br> and feel it violates their sence of enviromentalism.<br> I also recal;l the bride who insisted the photos all be diugital- no film and those "dirty" chemicals.</p> <p>On the other hand when we were given old computers they oftem are full of "family memories" and we do not know who owns them.<br> But I saw a photo of President lincolns inauguration..<br> so what does the future hold for old photos?</p>

<p>yes I admit sometime I use the "film free"<br> cameras. but I still lover the real cameras.<br> and I still have several enlargers and a roll film camera.<br> There may be reasons for this. 24 or 36 exposures is not the same as 500 on a sd cazrd.<br> and this reduces " chimping" and allow an understanding on what is really going on.</p> <p>but still some ol;d 35mm slrs are litytle more than a P&S. all you do with a canon T50<br> is set the iso and focus.. my 1965 sensorex is match-pointer. but that is not a chore.<br> My daughter-in-law refused to use my Konica C0-35 because ir tequired RF focusing.<br> but it is a very good thing when younger folks see how real cameras work.<br> they lear more and that is a big important step.<br> There is sometimes a lot to hate about newer cameras.<br> My former boss take photos at the zoo and all he gets is a sharp fence and fuzzy animals.<br> those camera sd cards are good for one thing. I download books and listen to them on my reader.<br> I do that more than use them for photos</p>

<p>thanks for the clarification.<br> auch a roll flm would ber more like a roll of 120 or film pack film. and not thick and stiff like real 4 x 5 film.<br> from what has been said here. panatomic-x lasts a long time.<br> and comments that ilford pan x had a muich shorter shelf life.<br> from my limited experiences with my 4 x 6 cameras<br> and despite the larger film area., a faster film worksd<br> well. modern films, while not as wonderful as a few of the older films seem to be sip[erior to most old films a iso 100.<br> I still wonder how we ever managed with asa 10 and asa 32 films and f 3.5 lenses.</p>

<p>i DID READ SOME WHERE AS WAS JUST STASTED. PANATOMIC -X manufactured by kodak and sold to polaroid corp.<br> I have read that kodak sid make a panatomic x aerial film<br> NOW that kodak B&W is sold under a different name ( so i read here)<br> this all may be gone.<br> years ago Modern tested / compared<br> ilford pan-x and panatomic x.<br> panatomic x was far superior.<br> Ilford makes good films. but the kodak panatomic x was superior.<br> It is unlikwely that other makers will produce a similar film.<br> adox comers to mind but the few really slow B&W films tend to be contrasty.<br> A mentioerd reason for discontinuing panatomic x was that the quality difference between it and plus x was very slight.<br> but now pluis-x is gone as well.<br> B^W film as well as all film is not a big deal now in the digital age.<br> and possibly the best you can do is use one of the other 100-125 speed films from other manufacturers<br> sorry to sdouild negative but I am constantly chided for my contimuing interst in film and film cameras.<br> sorry for typos. the VA is still working on my eye ( eyes) there is still some hope.</p>

<p>i DID READ SOME WHERE AS WAS JUST STASTED. PANATOMIC -X manufactured by kodak and sold to polaroid corp.<br> I have read that kodak sid make a panatomic x aerial film<br> NOW that kodak B&W is sold under a different name ( so i read here)<br> this all may be gone.<br> years ago Modern tested / compared<br> ilford pan-x and panatomic x.<br> panatomic x was far superior.<br> Ilford makes good films. but the kodak panatomic x was superior.<br> It is unlikwely that other makers will produce a similar film.<br> adox comers to mind but the few really slow B&W films tend to be contrasty.<br> A mentioerd reason for discontinuing panatomic x was that the quality difference between it and plus x was very slight.<br> but now pluis-x is gone as well.<br> B^W film as well as all film is not a big deal now in the digital age.<br> and possibly the best you can do is use one of the other 100-125 speed films from other manufacturers<br> sorry to sdouild negative but I am constantly chided for my contimuing interst in film and film cameras.<br> sorry for typos. the VA is still working on my eye ( eyes) there is still some hope.</p>

<p>yours seems lik a decent camera.<br> my third camera 1-leaky box 2-scratchy metal and 3- baby brownie special<br> was a montgomery ward rolfix 8/16 exp.<br> radionar 4.5 lens and a 1/259 shutter.<br> the lens housing edge was thin plastic and the pc flach connector came off.<br> the repair that cost as much as the camera was not dependable.<br> the 3 el;ement lens was ok. but flash was a problem. the frame vf and the small vf on the lens support left everything to be desired. even with young good eyes.<br> i was less than satisfied. my seagull 203, given to me last year seems much better.<br> the later eye level cameras in the 1960's were an improvement.<br> now that i have a distant cousin of yours, i can again use 120 film.<br> looking forward to it in fact.</p>

<p>optical disks arew handy to use, I have backed up many files since the first cd-r's became available<br> But my appreoach was incremental and I backed up whatever I cvould whenever I could.<br> A couple of years ago I decided to organize these files and remove duplicates and replace the 650m and 700meg disks with newer dvd disks. I realized that many diks fade or become unreadable after a few years.<br> so I set out to copy stacks of disks to a pair of tested 80gb hard drives.<br> to my surprise, many files were unreadable. the backing up became quite difficult.<br> and some older cd's were perfect while some newer cd's were full of errors.<br> I learned that any optical media fils. anmd unless one is willing to recopy every few years or disover which manufacturer ( not sold as a particular brand) that it is an exercise in futility.<br> back up to cd's or dvd's and make another copy on a western digiutal SATA drive that has a 5 year warranty.<br> aNS SORE IT IN A SAFE PLACE.</p>

<p>old cameras except those with co,pur 1/500 shjuuters por contax and leica with fast shitterts coul;d not deal with today's faster films., when the normal film was asa 32.or slower. I looked up options for<br> my 1938 argus af.<br> AND decided that ASA (ISO) 100 F<br> sme for the kodak signet 35.<br> unled you develop it at home. find a color negative iso 100<br> as it is so,ewhjat easdier to get processed.</p>

<p>as long as we realize for qiuck results, go digital.<br> and as a hobby where you wabt to do something yourself go with a film camera.<br> it is a different way to do things.<br> My saone is an amateur radio operator<br> andf a computerwise 65 year old friend says " why bother" as cell phobnes are cheaper.<br> he is totally missing the point.<br> "why ride a horse when a car is faster"<br> <br />"" why hunt elllk when the supermarket is more convenient"<br> well we use an electric stove and a dishwqasher as the alternative is too hasrd.</p> <p>ese typos as it is harder and hardedr to see.<br> mayve we just like film and film cameras</p>

<p>no I didn't say graduate pitcher or measueing cup/<br> well anything OFFICIAL is not for sale hers.<br> I bought a set of kitchen type measuring cups.<br> but since then, ny eyes have gotten worse.,<br> I see there are still dial thermometers with large dials.<br> I gavce up on my Kodak color thermometer as it is hard to read.<br> and our old kitchen cups are ready to fall apart. ( crazed)<br> when I switch to rodinal or hc-110. I have larger ( than 50cc) insulin<br> syringes to measure and usually can see well enough to be withing 1cc.</p> <p>does anyone else face this.<br> I seem to find it easy to load a reel- have not lost my touch</p>