johndc

"it only goes to ISO3200"

 

you mean it only goes to 1600, right?

Ken- Did you see this service on their website? I am unable to locate it, but it sounds interesting.

<i>in</i>-ability is a real word. <i>un</i>-ability is not.

<p>

though you can be <i>unable</i> to do something.

Most roller processor machines that can do 35mm can do 120/220 as well.

 

Try to find a local photo lab that does C-41. Give them a few test rolls to make sure they run a clean line. Check for scratches and dirt in the emulsion.

 

Most drugstore/walmart type places don't run clean lines, and you're right to avoid them. But many of the smaller guys tend to be more careful, in my experience. I get all of my C-41 roll film developed by a local lab, and I have been very pleased with the results.

 

Given my proximity to NYC, I could walk/mail them there and get them back same/next day, but choose not to for two reasons: 1. I like the idea of supporting the little guy, and 2. I've seen some really terrible processing jobs done by city labs. Nothing that would make me think their "better" than anyone else, anyway.

<i>The complete thread is a typical example for the internet: 95% crap, 5% information.</i>

<P>

You forgot 35% poor spelling (<i>unability?</i>) and 50% problems with percentages. ;)

Don't forget Xenar, Xenotar, Xenogon, Rapax, Ilex, and Graphex. Just to name a few more.

I like to use Ilford Pan F+ in XTOL for copying stuff. Might seem like an odd choice, but it's very fine grained and has a nice tonality.

 

If you want something more traditional, you might look into the Maco ORT film, provided it's still around. I haven't used it in a few years, but it did a nice job.

"Joe, why are you posting all over the place on this site with such weak evidence? Here's Joe's "proof" as posted about three other places on this site:"

 

Why are you posting this twice in the same thread?

 

Granted, his 'proof' is not very convincing, but at the same time you can't expect Lupus to provide him detailed information about their contracts or operations, either. I suspect if anyone else wrote them asking the same question, they'd get the same brief answer.

 

That said, I have to go with David on this one: when it's on the shelf (with exp. dates consistent with a new batch), it's "back". until then, it's just a rumor.

And don't forget that 220 film weighs more than 120 film. Be sure to include that in your calculations.

 

;)

If you're using it for backpacking, I would go with the Mamiya 7-II. Not because of weight but because I feel it's easier to use hand-held and pretty compact, especially considering the size of the negative it puts out.

Question for people more experienced than me: would a shorter APO-Symmar give the results he's looking for?

 

p.s. Anyone else see "bouqet" and think of Hyacinth Bucket?

To answer your questions:

 

1) Yes, i-TTL with the Q is unreliable. It tends to put out more light than it needs, resulting in a longer recycle time and over-exposed image. You're better off using auto, though on any flash even this isn't perfect.

 

2) Yes, the Q output is more uniform, particularly when using it as a bare-bulb or with the dome diffuser. The option to use bare-bulb is one of the Q's best features, IMO.

 

3) I have used the Q, and liked the look of the bare-bulb a LOT, but ultimately I never found I needed the extra power, and it wasn't enough to justify paying twice the price. I got the SB-800, because uniformity was not an issue (I shoot through diffusers mostly) and because I wanted the precise control of the CLS.

 

Hope this helps.

 

p.s. yes the SB-600 is a complete PITA to connect to a battery. Quantum does not currently make a cable that can fit into the battery compartment. Unlike the SB-800, which is 4 AA's in a row, the '600 has them in a sort of delta arrangement, which Quantum currently has no mate for. I'm sure eventually they will, but as of right now, they don't.

I second the recommendation for the glass film holder.

 

Also, if you can control the autofocus point in the scanner (you can't with the polaroid), try to focus on the same point in both scans (i.e. somewhere in the center of the frame), this will keep the scale even between scans and ensure it's very easy for you to stitch them together later.

I like the performance of my 28mm/2.8, but perhaps I have a good example. I like the field-of-view it gives (a little wider than a 45mm on film). I've never found it to give bad results, though it does seem to have something of a lateral color problem. That said I think that if I hadn't inherited the 28/2.8, I'd prefer the 28/2 AI-S for the extra stop and shallower DOF. I've also seen excellent performance from the 35/2 AF-D, and wouldn't rule that out as an option.

"speaking of rodinal, my sister has what appears to be an unopened bottle from her days in photography, back in fall 2003. if unopened, is it still good?"

 

I received a 12-year-old bottle of Rodinal a few years ago. It was 1/4 full and had been that way for most of those 12 years. It worked fine with no development adjustment necessary. The stuff is truly amazing.

My story is something of the opposite. I had gotten my DSLR and was forcing myself to use it exclusively, in order to become proficient with it. But then someone gave me the RO200, and I just love it. I shoot mostly B&W and do my own processing, but there is a good lab near me that does 120 C-41 and E-6 well.

 

Where are you located, Bill?

Can anyone recommend a good superproportional reducer (reduces highlights more

than shadows) that works well with a fast film like HP5+?

Bill-

 

Yes, I did, thank you! It was kind of frustrating trying to find the slot in the screw head because you can't see inside. Eventually I managed to get it though. How often these things go out of alignment?

I'm not sure how obscure it is... my understanding is that LOTS of people shot weddings with this camera.

 

But thanks for the info!

What are these holes for?

 

(see photo)

I don't think aspect ratio has anything to do with it -- you can always crop. You want as much detail as possible, and given the equipment available 4x5 is the best option. You can always put some tape on the ground glass to give you an idea of what 8'x4' will look like. But the larger the negative, the more clarity in the enlargement, obviously.

Troy-

 

Did you do any post-processing on those "dredge" pictures? They are out of this world!

"I want to use them for macro and sports and night shots."

 

For some reason when I hear "night shots", I think architecture. And when I think architecture, I think three-way (oh behave!). Seriously though, when shooting at night I like to get my levels zeroed on a three-way head, then compose from there. It's probably just something I do out of habit after shooting with the 4x5 for so long, but I find it works just as well with 35mm.

"Also, the 50mm f/1.8 won't work with the D80/D40? Really? Not even a new AF-D version?"

 

Nope. The D40 has no motor in the camera body, and therefore will only autofocus with AF-S and AF-I lenses.

"Kenrockwell think that is great."

 

lol Ken Rockwell