bgussin

<p>Very Cool!</p>

Here's what I do for my Flash Bantam. I took the backing paper from a 120 roll and slit that to 35-36mm wide. I measured 9 sprocket holes wide and then added a little. I marked a frame number that would show in the "port hole" on the back of the camera. I make the backing paper for 18 exposures. Then in the changing bag I rolled the backing paper along with 35mm film onto the 828 spool. I cut the film near the end of the backing paper. I use a little masking tape to help secure both ends of the film to the backing paper. If I'm shooting b/w I can develop it myself. If I shoot color, I push the fil back into an empty 35mm spool and take it to whosever left developing color film. NOTE: By using backing paper the 35 mm sprocket holes are irrelevant. http://www.photo.net/mobile/forums/mobile-fetch-msg?msg_id=00cz5J

<p>Very nice!</p>

Those photos look as if they were taken with God's own eyes.

I had a bag of garbonzo beans in the fridge, but I threw them out...I figured they would only make me felafel (feel awful). Seriously, as Western culture grows more tolerant, it makes more "traditional" cultures seem even less free. And whether it's religious considerations, security considerations, intellectual property considerations, politcal considerations, one of today's great ironies is that as the ease of capturing and sharing images increases, the obstacles to doing so seem to increase as well.

In the 2005 movie "Must Love Dogs" (a supposed romantic comedy, which is barely either IMHO) the male lead builds traditional wooden racing "skulls" (those long boats for team rowing). The traditional wooden boats can't compete with modern fiberglass and carbon fiber boats. "Do they (the wooden boats) ever win?" he's asked. "No," he replies, "...but they lose beautifully". I often think about that when I see photos like these. Except they don't "lose" because it's not a competition. I may have mentioned this before but I'm in audio, and the best loved speakers, microphones, guitar amps, etc. are often poor performers spec-wise. When a simple smartphone has less than .1% Total Harmonic Distortion at the headphone jack, and a typical tube amp has over 10% THS, why is it that the tube-amp sounds so appealing? Before computers designers "earballed" audio components. If it sounded good, it was good. Same with cameras and optics. They were "eyeballed"to a certain extent. If it looks good, it is good. Of course it doesn't hurt to have the love, patience and talent so many posting here have. I really treasure this forum.

Sweet!

<p>First off, very nice photos! Imaginative, appealing, nicely done! Black and white developing and scanning is much easier than people think. Ten years ago when I decided to try it myself I showed my wife a page on the internet whose headline said "If you can bake bread, you can develop black and white film". We laughed because I am a lousy and incompetent chef and baker, but I can do b/w! The costs are are still relatively low, and if you can photoshop, you can correct for any small variances in development Not needing a darkroom to develop the film means my kit fits in a cardboard box the size of a small microwave oven, and I need only a sink and someplace to hang the film to dry. A bathroom with a shower is perfect. There is ample info on the web, specifically here on Photo.net. If you can understand and handle the Contax and take photos such as these...You can do it! </p>

<p>Rick Drawbridge- I have been trying for years to get closer to your photos in terms of quality and vision. Since I lack the skills and talent, I am now trying to physically place my photos closer to yours, hence the"overlap". Just kidding, I would be lucky to achieve the results that you and others here do. (I do have my moments of brillance, just many fewer.)</p>

Third Down.<div></div>

It almost looks like rugby.<div></div>

From my Yashica FX-3 with faux leopard skin, a few yars ago before it ended up on the disabled list. Probably HP5 and Acufine. Can't remember the lens, but I remember using that orange filter and polarizer combination I keep messing with. Memorial Park, Colorado Springs.<div></div>

<p>The light leaks can be fixed; the vignetting is beautiful IMHO. And the images seem sharp. Nice job on fixing the shutter, nice photos!</p>

<p>I've got a plastic 500mmF/8 (samyang)? I think the shortness of the barrell contributes to the success and steadiness of hand-held 500mm shots. The "smoke ring" bokeh is sure weird, though.</p>

I have two that I haven't used in a while. I used some aluminum foil and electrical tape to make the DX code of the film cannister read as 3200. Then I ran some HP5 through it (pushed to 3200) and push-processed it. Grainy, but fun!

They are beautiful cameras that capture beautiful photos. My QL succumbed to gooey foam syndrome and I just haven't had the gumption to fix it. If I could build a time machine I'd go back to when they were designing the thing, grab the project leader by the lapels and forcefully disuade him from using thqat foam.

<p>FWIW, I get that every so often on my Epson "Perfection" 2400. Luckily, I am not good enough of a photographer so it usual doesn't detract from my image (humor...?)</p>

I love the snow shots, esp with b/w, it really shows the dynamic range of film. Simple, straightforward and (I assume) reliable and look what beautiful photos when used in capable hands.

Tri-Shield<div></div>

There's a Printer's Union home here in Colorado Springs. I'll have to capture its Victorian splendor sometime.<div></div>

<p>More from the "new" Yashica FX-3 Super 2000, Vivitar 35mm f/2.5, HP5@400 in Acufine. Scratches and waterspots "added to taste" (humor).</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice photos. I think I saw "2001: A Space Odyssey" at the Des Plains Theater (as a kid, I slept through most of it). Also down the street isn't the Pickwick Theater still there? Nice camera, too.</p>

<p>When I started listening to CDs in the car I digitized some of my LPs. It was a real hassle to scan the covers since they were bigger than the flatbed and required stitching. And while the LP label fit the scan bed, I was worried about scratching the record. As soon as I got my first digital camera I merely set up an easel and tripod and simply snapped a photo of each. FWIW, I'm a sound engineer an as pristine as my LP transfers were, they cannot compete with remixed and remastered digital releases, IMHO. For instance, the Beatles Yellow Submarine reissue has all the contributing tracks mixed from their first generation multi-track sources instead of the intermediary mixdowns to other multitrack tapes (done because Abbey Road Studios was behind in the multi-track wars). Using modern hiss/noise removal software and eq, plus modern reverb makes the tracks sound like they were recorded this morning. Just as with digital scanning and processing of negatives vs darkroom prints, if you have the original finished product as a guide and target, my opinion is that the artists' vision and goal can be achieved perhaps even more fully...in most cases. For example, another Apple records group, Badfinger had their albums remixed and remastered a dozen years ago and they preserved the too-heavy bass and too-crisp vocals and the overly-compressed mix.</p>

<p>I don't know what the final purpose of the photo is, but in my book, a beautiful family scene like this transcends minor imperfections. BTW, nice touch-up <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1541404">Cory Ammerman</a>.</p>

What they needed in the Canonet manual was instructions on what to do in 35 years when the light seals turn to goo...