keith selmes

March 16, 2013

I don't have details to hand, but I believe archival DVD stored archivally are expected to last for one hundred years or more. Obviously we don't know for sure yet. Archival storage implies a chilled vault, although a cool dry location without refrigeration would presumably do.

I don't think that hard drives now are particularly fragile or expensive. They can simply stop working, but if the data is on more than one, they are unlikely to all stop at once, unless they are all in the same place where there is some major destruction - as with negatives in fact.

Hard drives in theory will eventually have corrupted data because it will simply leak, so they should be refreshed periodically. Most of us do that naturally when we upgrade systems, and although I've had drives break down, I haven't had one simply lose data while sitting still.

The nice thing with digital is we have many options for duplication and storage, and if managed properly this should be more secure than film. I have prints and negs and plates more than 100 years old, and have been able to scan and clean these, send sets to relatives, post on Facebook etc., so if the originals are destroyed, there are many copies around the world.

Thinking about the young photographer, my early negs, 50 years old, are the paper ones, and later instamatic, in various oddball formats. I've still got them, but I'm not sure what use they are.

March 15, 2013

Fotokor ?

Looks like an old Fotokor press camera.

Mine had a fold up frame finders, took 9x12 plates or else a roll film holder.

Very poor quality but it worked and didn't weigh much.

Lens was a bit soft or low contrast.

<a href="http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fotokor-1">http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fotokor-1</a>

February 25, 2013

This might help at Agphotographic, they seem to have range of sizes from Ilford, at a price, and the Unusual and ULF orders will be taken by Ilford from May 2013

<a href="http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/unusual--ultra-large-format-sheet-film-29-c.asp">http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/unusual--ultra-large-format-sheet-film-29-c.asp</a>

Also ths page about Adox new production runs is looking hopeful

<a href="http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/new-adox-chs100-ii-486-c.asp">http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/new-adox-chs100-ii-486-c.asp</a>

February 11, 2013

In ten years there should be some useful new film technology ;)

February 4, 2013

"1. If I select the slowest shutter speed (i.e. 1/30) is it still programmed even if I switch camera off?"

</blockquote>

Yes

"2. Which shutter speeds can be programmed: Classic 1/8, 1/15, 1/30 or there are more options like 1/20?"

</blockquote>

In M mode, it's giving me

1.2 , 1.6, 2, 2.5, 3.2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 125, 160, 200, 250

Plus , before 1/1.2, slow speeds from 1 second back to 30 seconds with some slightly odd numbers along the way.

"3. If I set camera for QUIET MODE, will it still be programmed (active) after I turn camera ON again or I need to repeat it every time I turn camera on?"

</blockquote>

No it won't. You have to do it each time, although it is only pressing MF while switching on.

January 15, 2013

My film photography has been a small black and white revival for several years.

I suppose I had not done any for maybe 10 or 20 years, and then started again a few years ago.

I learned to do my own processing, but have never progressed to colour, which looks to be more fiddly. Meanwhile lab processing is harder to get now, and probably means sending away, so I just haven't done any colour. Colour film languishes in the fridge.

So for me, usually, digital is colour, and film is B&W.

I don't know if I will ever do any more colour film, but I hope to do quite a lot more B&W.

Pity about Efke, but I have some Shanghai 5x7 and 4x5 to get on with.

January 11, 2013

what is your first port of call in the UK when you want to purchase a new camera or lens?

</blockquote>

Ebay is my first thought, but actually the last new cameras I bought came from Clifton Cameras, Wex Photographic, and Mifsuds.

I usually would look at Ebay first, but also look at dealers websites to check best buys or availability. Mifsuds are close enough to go and collect, and also to compare used items.

Incidentally I noticed Clifton have moved to a bigger showroom in Dursley , so there probably still is money in the business for those who do it properly.

January 11, 2013

You can do some camera fondling at LCE, which has "28 branches nationwide".

( <a href="http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/">London Camera Exchange </a>)

Otherwise I think it's a regional choice, take a trip to the seaside and visit Mifsuds in Brixham (Devon), there's Robert White in Dorset, Ffordes in Essex, Clifton Cameras in Bristol, Quiggs in Glasgow etc., but I think all of those are backed by a serious mail order business based in one location, no chain stores, and a lot of web sales.

January 11, 2013

analog cameras are electronic

analog computers are electronic

analog does not mean film

not even when spelled properly as analogue

nor does digital mean electronic, a digital computer can be entirely mechanical.

December 28, 2012

The only medium format that will outlast film production are the simplest cameras, the box camera.

</blockquote>

Yes, that has to be right.

And if the lens and shutter ever do become irrepairable, you can put a pinhole on it.

December 27, 2012

I have a 30 year old Mamiya TLR which has had only one roll of film and is in its original box and packing.

When I checked it, and wound through the film and developed it, the camera seemed to be in perfect condition.

If I leave it in the box, I think it will last longer than most !

Even if it gets used, it's only at the beginning of it's working life.

Lots of RB67 were in beautiful cosmetic condition when resold, but completely thrashed inside from professional studio work.

I had the impression you'd be lucky if an RB67 or RZ67 lasted a year of real work.

I'm basing that on comments attributed to Beverly Goodway and to Rankin, among others.

December 3, 2012

For 35mm, I chose and kept an Olympus 35RC.

I also tried a Canon QL, it was excellent but I didn't like it as much.

The Oly just feels handier.

Medium format is more difficult. Even the mechanically doubtful Moscow series of folders aren't all that cheap now.

I have kept mine because the lens is really good. ( Although the camera on the whole is a bit rough, and I had some trouble with misfires, it probably is worth a lot more than I paid )

There might be some MF viewfinder cameras that would take an accessory rangefinder ?

December 1, 2012

Some of the prices are an eyeopener, but I'm not selling mine.

October 18, 2012

www.ephotozine.com

October 6, 2012

Part of my brain is saying, when you keep tripping over stuff.

Another part says, then it's time to clear out and make room and start again.

Actually, I have shifted out some old camera gear to Ebay, and spent the proceeds on odds and ends for home refurb.

Lampshades and rugs and so forth.

I'm a bit worried I might be turning normal.

However, when I get through this phase, I hope to have more time and space to use the remaining kit, rather than just hoarding it.

October 4, 2012

For all the cameras mentioned here, I would have thought hi res jpg would be OK.

In any case, I don't know if they all do it, but mine will save jpg and raw at the same time, so you can have the quick easy jpg if it's OK, and you still have the raw in case you need it.

October 4, 2012

I always figured that there was just some setting somewhere you could toggle on better models to tell the screen display not to be the priority so what you see in the viewport takes precedence

</blockquote>

With an optical viewfinder, it doesn't matter, it is just a simple viewfinder as you would have on a film compact camera. It always works, but you don't see the full view, maybe 80% or 85% of what the camera will take, and you can find the lens gets in the way, so you can't see the whole scene anyway.

With EVF, my cameras do let you toggle between EVF and LCD screen. Also you can choose to have a readout in the viewfinder as with a DSLR, and you can choose to have a rule of thirds composing grid - two vertical lines and two horizontal. EVF is pretty good now, but it's not the same as seeing through the DSLR, and that does throw me sometimes. They should be OK though.

October 4, 2012

Is it really the case that all non-SLR's will only give me jpegs?

</blockquote>

The ones we're recommending will do RAW, which you can then convert to tiff on the computer

October 4, 2012

Perhaps a <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x10">Fuji X10</a> covers the requirement ?

The optical viewfinder will be limited though, much as Lex says.

I found that myself with a Canon G series camera, where I used the fold out LCD as much as the OVF, all for stills.

As much as I like optical VF, both my smaller digital cameras have electronic eye level viewfinders.

The Panasonic GH1 is probably not suitable (too bulky) , but as an example, I use the eye level EVF most of the time for stills and video.

The articulated LCD folds away so the LCD is totally protected when not in use. I like that.

Sometimes though the LCD folds out and allows viewpoints not available any other way, again for stills and video both.

Sometimes though it is not usable due to sunlight.

My smallest is a Ricoh GX200, which has an optional, tilting, EVF that clips on top. It fits comfortably in a pocket with the EVF on, though it is slightly vulnerable. The small sensor means limited ISO and less enlargement capability, but it generally is very handy. I nearly always use it with the EVF, and have used it for casual family snapshots, technical photos for work, and reference and texture images for 3D virtual worlds. The tilting EVF is actually quite handy.

In other words, although I think two or three current models could fit the requirement, I also would agree with other comments, that the requirement might be a bit too picky.

September 26, 2012

some idiot decided to give it greater 'authenticity' by cladding it in black and white timber boarding

</blockquote>

Is that really what happened ? It was a 16th century building, and that is how they were done - although some were plastered over, the underlying structure would still be there

Something like this

In 1666 Staple Inn escaped the Great Fire, as a result of which new building regulations came into force that required the timber buildings overlooking Holborn to be faced with fireproof plaster, which remained covering the timbers until 1887

from here <a href="http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=COL109">http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=COL109</a>

I do find it difficult spotting which buildings have been modified and which have been stripped back and repaired

September 22, 2012

without a viewfinder it's just pointless.

hard to say what market it's aimed at, if it is aimed at all

September 18, 2012

Not much to add except confirmation of the earlier comments.

Sounds a fair price, but it does depend on the model and condition of both the camera and the lenses.

If it were a slightly worn earlier model camera with the basic original lenses, the price would look high, if a later model in really good condition, and especially with, say, one of the Symmars in a good shutter, then it starts to look like a bargain.

September 12, 2012

I have a J8 that came with as Zorki 4 from a charity shop for £5.

More recently I bought a 61LD from ebay for the usual sort of modest price.

The J8 looks beaten up, but the glass is clean, and it works OK on my micro 4/3 camera.

The 61 is back in the box, since it doesn't seem as good as the J8.

Not as sharp anyhow.

It has the dried grease problem, needs stripping and lubing, and I suppose there might be some adjustment possible.

Anyway, I'm a bit surprised and disappointed that I'm using the cheap old J8, and not the 61LD with it's good rep and higher price tag.

August 7, 2012

professional glass plate photographers were reluctant to use film because they saw it as a amateur medium

</blockquote>

Certainly with roll film it was difficult to ensure it lay flat. Probably true with larger formats as well.

To ensure quality, people used plates. If you needed pocketability, you could use film.

Even in the latter half of the 20th century, Rolleiflex had a small plate back for their TLR cameras, for use where absolute flatness was required.

I recall reading about a conversation in the seventies, where two pro photographers were saying that kids coming into photography then would never know what they were missing in not seeing the results from plates.

So far as I know, plates have continued in use for some scientific work, and Ilford and Slavich are still making them.

Anyhow, people were really using the appropriate technology, so for some pro's film would have been for amateur work, whilst for some it would have been an opportunity to get a camera where it couldn't go before. For example, Frank Hurley used both on the Shackelton expedition in 1914, keeping a pocket film camera when he had to abandon the heavy equipment.

Much like the reluctance many had when digital first was introduced and film photographers were not impressed by the medium in its infancy.

</blockquote>

With digital photography, it was professionals who got in first, as they realised the improvements in workflow and profit could justify the eyewatering prices. When there were affordable cameras for everyone, many of us held off buying because they were still very expensive for what they could do, we waited until we could get a better digi cam at a lower price, that was all.

Being an early adopter with new technology, you can get really stung in the wallet area.

July 15, 2012

My next step is to go back to raw and try that as a base for post processing

</blockquote>

On a GH1, I have found some problems with the EVF, which is often excellent, but in some circumstances just rubbish. Some of this problem seems to be due to white balance adjustment, with the auto white balance not being that good. But I usually use raw, so the output on the computer can be markedly different, as well as easily adjusted. If you've been using jpeg, that could be part of the problem.

have a GH2, so my experience is limited to those bodies with the 14-45 and 45-200 lenses.

</blockquote>

I would expect those would be OK-ish, but rather soft and uninspiring.

On my DSLR, I normally use a mix of Contax manual SLR lenses and Canon EF L grade.

On my GH1, I have tried those, and a wide range of cheaper lenses. Looking back at past images, I have been surprised at the good quality of some, using the Contax lenses, which could have been from a DSLR. Others, taken with cheap cine lenses have been stunningly disappointing.

Somewhere in between are lenses that produce really good or interesting results in the right circumstances, but are not generally going to be in the same ball park as the Contax lenses. So as you'd expect, when a camera can work with a wide range of lenses, you can get a wide range of results, and the quality SLR lenses still are quality lenses.

However, reviews tell me the Panasonic 20/1.7 is a really good lens for this format, so it's surprising if that was not good enough.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by keith selmes