djphoto

<p>Has anyone tried #357 silver oxide batteries? They fit in the compartment and are rated at 1.55 vols.</p>

<p>I bought one as part of my original OM kit in 1979 and used it at least into the early '90s. It's a very convenient lens, but I eventually came to the conclusion that mine was not as sharp as it should have been. Check your negatives carefully -- if they please you, then enjoy!</p>

<p>I recently purchased an OM-2n from a member of another forum. When I opened the box I noticed that the mirror was in the up position. Turning the meter on/off switch to the battery check/reset position released the mirror. Then I could fire the shutter one time, but when I worked the film advance lever, the mirror again snapped into the up position and would not come down until I again moved the meter on/off switch to the battery check/reset position. This appears to be true with both manual and auto exposure. Any idea what could be wrong? I used OMs for 13 years and am pretty familiar with them but haven't encountered anything like this before.<br /> <br /> It's a nice camera otherwise and I would like to keep it, but if I can't find a solution to this problem I will have to send it back.</p>

<p>By way of correction, Ariel, the E-PL1 is considered to have the best image quality of any Pen because of the weaker AA filter.</p>

<p>I bought an E-PL1 almost two years ago with the original version of the kit zoom.<br /> <br /> If you like, take a look at the Blurb online version of my book <em>Georgia: A Backroads Portrait</em> <a href="http://www.blurb.com/books/2390260" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.blurb.com/books/2390260</a>. Most of the photos in the book were made before I got my E-PL1, but the wedding photo on page 25 was made with that camera and lens. The mill on page 46 was chosen over a 5D shot of the same scene, and the tree on page 127 was picked over a Rolleicord Vb shot. The full-page photos are 12x12 in the book. All of these were made with the kit zoom.</p>

<p>Wright Walkers do a great job for me.</p>

 

<p>This post is not really relevant, but the VW brings back memories. My wife and I were married in 1965, the year it was made, in Tallahassee and drove away in our own ('59) Bug for a honeymoon tour of the North Georgia mountains. Wish I had been into photography then -- all we have is some poor box camera snaps.</p>

<p>I have many small RFs, but I like the Canon AF35ML as well as any. I find it very quick, accurate, portable, and easy to use.</p>

<p>I had an Olympus OM2S about 18-20 years ago and liked it a lot, although I ultimately dumped my whole Oly system to switch to auto-focus. In a nostalgic mood, I just bought another OM2S from KEH. It carried their BGN rating, and had a few corners of the leather covering coming loose. Otherwise, pretty clean.<br /> <br /> I didn't have the proper batteries for it, so used some alkaline A76/LR44 cells I had on hand. The test negatives I shot, using both auto and program modes, are consistent and overall look pretty good.<br /> <br /> I would be happy to receive your suggestions about batteries and also about what to use to re-attach the loose corners of the leather covering.<br /> <br /> But what concerns me most is that after making an exposure in either Auto or Program mode, the camera emits a series of irregularly spaced "peeps." It stops when I turn the switch to Manual/Spot mode.<br /> <br /> Any ideas?</p>

<p>"Then there's the old collectors who geek out at cameras and fondle more than shoot."</p>

<p>I hope you mean that it's the cameras the old guys are fondling.</p>

<p>I still consider the OM2n one of my all-time best cameras, even though I haven't owned one since 1992.</p>

<p>I used to shoot weddings with an S2a in the late 70s. Great camera, but the shutter is LOUD. Sounded like shooting a shotgun in a quiet church.</p>

<p>That was Patrick Murphy-Racey's site. I bought a GX680 outfit from him in 1999 or 2000. He used to buy and sell all kinds of GX680 stuff, but I don't think he does it any longer. His current site is http://www.pmrphoto.com/.</p>

<p>Missed the last part of your question. Yes, Velvia 100 is very much available in 120 format. You can get it from B&H, Adorama, etc. Personally, I prefer Astia.</p>

<p>David, a TLR is a medium format camera. It makes square images 6x6cm on 120 film, and the image quality ranges from excellent to superb in any of the standard makes. Most will not have a meter, and in fact, if you want to increase your satisfaction in the experience of photographing you should get and use a hand-held meter anyway.</p>

<p>Eliminate your lowest-priced wedding package. Add a more expensive one at the top. Continue to do this until you find the right balance of work and money.</p>

<p>Edit the take from each wedding, then send the keepers out for post-processing to one of the services that handle this.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5940016">Lubos Soltes</a> wrote:</p>

 

<p>"My only issue in MF is that Fuji does not manufacture Sensia in 120 format."</p>

<p>Actually, they do. In 120 format it's called Astia, and is my favorite film.</p>

 

<p>David Loring wrote:<br>

"The thing that I've noticed, however, since moving to digital is that I seem to enjoy photography less. It's less of a challenge. I shoot in RAW and I know that I have some latitude to fix a shot post processing. Now I know that those that shoot film can scan and post-process as well; but I find that with digital I spend more time shooting and less time composing and thinking about the shot to get it "right." Digital is free; film is not. I have lost that excitement of shooting a roll of Velvia and eagerly waiting to see the results."</p>

<p>This is exactly what I was trying to say in this thread: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Wspo?start=40, only you said it better than I did.</p>

<p>After seven years of nothing but digital, my seeing was stale and a lot of the fun had gone out of my photography. So I dusted off my Rolleicord twin-lens reflex, got some Astia 120, and went back to my photographic roots. Looking down into that square viewfinder, I became aware of composition again in a way I hadn't thought about it in years. Even shooting transparency film, I allowed myself only two exposures per scene -- one at the meter reading, and one a half-stop under. And I spent some time walking around, evaluating different angles on the groundglass before I made those exposures. It was refreshing, and in a way, very liberating. As Picasso said, “Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention."</p>

<p>Natalie, it was not my intent to denigrate your business model. Obviously, we all have to sell what our clients will buy. But I do want to emphasize the importance of placing an album in their hands, if at all possible. Photographs in an album have real, objective existence. They can be looked at again and again without any special equipment. They can be treasured, they can be passed down as an inheritance.<br>

A digital photograph, on the other hand, is ephemeral. It has no real existence. It is only an arrangement of electrical impulses until it is printed.<br>

My wife and I were at a party some years ago, before the digital age, and in one of the games we played we were asked to name three things we would try to save, other than our children and pets, if our house were to catch fire. Every person there named their photographs as one of the three things they would save, and more than half placed their photographs first.<br>

Nowadays, I guess we would try to save our computers! I know I would, along with the boxes of family prints and the album I made for my wife.<br>

My point is, though, that I think we serve our clients best and give them the most lasting satisfaction when we encourage them in every way possible to leave our studios with an album of their wedding photographs in their arms.</p>

<p>We may save ourselves time and our clients money by not creating an album for them, but in doing so we have served them very poorly. As William Porter says, it's not just about photos to put on Facebook -- it's about creating a document that is one of the foundations of a family heritage and legacy.<br>

My wife and I were married almost 45 years ago. We had a nice but small church wedding, but there was no money for a photographer, and honestly, we didn't give it much thought. (This was several years before I became a photographer myself.) So all we had in the way of photographs were some slides my dad took, and some 3x3 snapshot prints her sister took with a box brownie. The negatives were lost early on.<br>

Last summer, I scanned those small prints and slides, worked on them a looong time to make the best possible 5x7s, and had them bound in a good leather album from Zookbinders. Most of you wouldn't give the photos a second look, but my wife cherishes her album, and our grandchildren will fight over it.</p><div></div>

<p>And here's a Yashicamat 124 photo of the McDonough, GA town square and courthouse for the "Georgia: A Backroads Portrait" book.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a Rolleicord 5b photograph of Starr's Mill near Fayetteville, GA for my current book-in-progress, "Georgia: A Backroads Portrait." I used an 85B filter.</p><div></div>

<p>I made the switch to digital in 2003 and shot no film for seven years. But I've felt increasingly stale in my way of seeing over the past year or so. I think digital is better than film in most ways (just a personal opinion), yet it can become too easy to fire off a string of exposures(mostly from eye-level), check the histogram, and think to myself "Nailed that one. What's next?"</p>

<p>In an effort to shake up my vision, I brought out my Rolleicord 5b and Yashicamat 124 from retirement, ordered a propak of Astia 120 from B&H, and set off on a road trip for the book I'm currently working on.</p>

<p>Looking down into that square viewfinder, I became aware of composition again in a way I hadn't thought about it in years. Even shooting transparency film, I allowed myself only two exposures per scene -- one at the meter reading, and one a half-stop under. And I spent some time walking around, evaluating different angles on the groundglass before I made those exposures. It was refreshing, and in a way, very liberating. As Picasso said, “Forcing yourself to use restricted means is the sort of restraint that liberates invention."</p>

<p>Following is a photo of my Rolleicord 5b, and then two photos from the book I'm working on, "Georgia: A Backroads Portrait."</p><div></div>

<p>Welcome to the real world.<br>

Film was not without its boring and time consuming elements -- cutting and sleeving negatives, masking negs for the print lab (does anyone remember that? I would rather spend five hours on the computer than an hour masking negatives!), numbering proofs and inserting them in proofbooks -- the list goes on.<br>

I read somewhere once upon a time that if you can spend 10% of your time behind the camera and you can endure the things you have to do the other 90% of the time, you're doing about as well as can be hoped for.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help! I gritted my teeth, screwed up my nerve, and put the SB-28 on my oldest and cheapest body, a 20D. It worked fine, and will also work on the Auto setting. Found it altogether easier to use and more consistent in Auto mode than the Metz 54MZ-4 I used to own.</p>