TomHildreth

I got an official company email today in which the sender used the

term "35mm Analog camera".

 

When looking at many photography-related websites, including those of

Canon and Nikon, I cannot find the term "analog camera". I find the

term "35mm film camera" instead.

 

There seems to be nothing in dictionary.com's definitions of "analog"

indicating it can be used as a synonym for the word "film."

 

The use of film in a camera leads to a chemical process, not an

inherent A-D conversion. If you are not going through an analog to

digital conversion in the camera, I fail to see the logic in calling

a film camera an analog device.

 

I'm not trying to be a linguistic nit-licker here. I was sent an

email and I'm expected to respond as part of my job. I want it to be

an informed response, that's all.

 

What are your thoughts on the use of the term "analog camera"?

CE,

I was given a non-functional XG-1 body a while back. Externally it is very clean, but it likely has that capacitor problem, as the shutter won't fire. I have many functioning Minolta bodies that I use, and really don't need this one. You pay the freight and I'll send it to you free of charge. I live in Vermont, and it would be most feasable if you live in the USA.

I shot a lot of Panatomic-X in 35mm and would do the same again if it was available. I never really found a replacement, though TMAX-100 helped. I also shot a few rolls of it in MF with a Mimiya C-33 in 1975. I have often wondered what kind of detail a huge mega-print would contain, but they were hand-held and it was a square negative. Not a combination likely to impress as a poster. I believe one primary use for Panatomic-X was as a B&W copy film, though I used it in daylight for ex. fine grain. I think there were two different ASA speeds available. I shot at 32 (or as close to it as I could get), but I vaguely recall some large formats were available in ASA 40.

I can't increase the image size, but to me the line looks very straight. Too straight to be uneven liquid flow. You said you noticed the problem AFTER scanning. What do you see looking closely at the negative before scanning? Is the line present? Or, turn the negative around in the holder and rescan. Does the line now appear at the bottom of the image? If so, the scanner is the source of the problem.

Thank you all very much. Education made easy-I do appreciate it!

I'm looking for help in deciphering the Minolta numbered lens hood

series. For example: D52NB;D52NC;D57KH;D67NA;D77NB and any others.

 

Specifically, I'm looking for Minolta lens hoods for 24mm f2.8 MD;

45mm f2.0 MD; 50mm f1.7 MD; 85mm f1.7 MC; 100mm f2.5 MD. Is it

possible that somewhere in the cryptic number system above the lens

hoods I want can be found? Thanks.

Thanks for the replies all.

 

It seems like hardener for TMAX is highly recommended. I mentioned this a couple of times when I was having all the problems, but the camera store people kept saying it wasn't necessary. One of the steps I took to eliminate the problem was to stop developing TMAX myself and send it out to the lab. I wanted to settle on one trustworthy lab, but they lost a roll so I tried another and they lost a roll too. I'm on my third lab now. I know, I know, if I developed the film myself it would be pretty unlikely that I would lose the negatives.

 

Glen-I haven't tried APX yet, but hope to do so before too long. I have split my ISO 100 B&W shooting between TMAX-100 and Ilford D100, which is a very nice film. About 10 years ago I tried a few rolls of Agfa ISO 25 B&W film. It was excellent for some of my work, but is apparently no longer available.

 

Neal-I was air drying with Photoflo, film hanging vertically with a small weight on bottom end to prevent curling. I think the cause of most of the scratches was that I was cutting the roll into strips of 5 or 6 frames, and storing the entire roll in one glassine envelope. This meant a lot of neg on neg contact, which was not smart on my part. Nowadays my negatives go directly from the lab sleeves to proper storage pages.

 

Yeah, youthful store employees won't know about Panatomic-X. I don't know exactly when that film was discontinued-I would use it today if it was still around. In 2001 I was checking availability of B&W film in 120 size to test an old Billy Record camera I bought in an antique shop. I asked for Verichrome Pan (VP120-perhaps the most popular of the B&W 120/620 films in the 1950s and 60s). Apparently they had not sold VP120 in that store for some time as I had to convince the store crew that in this case, the term "Verichrome" was not indicative of a color slide film. I think it stood for better B&W sensitivity across the color spectrum, something lacking in earlier B&W films. This was in 2001, right around the time VP120 was discontinued. It always seemed odd to me that Kodak produced Plus-X and Verichrome Pan in 120 simultaneously for decades. I never saw much difference between the two in my shooting.

 

Thanks again.

When I was shooting and developing my own 35mm TMX-100 it was easy to

damage the negs through "normal" handling. I tried different things

to cut down on the dings and scratches that seemed to plague me, but

never really brought it under control.

 

When shooting, developing and storing my own Plus-X or Panatomic-X in

a similar environment earlier, I had the occasional surface abrasion,

but never a severe problem. Obviously my film handling technique was

part of the problem. I haven't shot much B&W lately, but the color

negs I have been handling (in the same environment) are not suffering

from this problem.

 

Scanning some of these TMAX and Plus-X negatives lately has verified

my earlier suspicions. The amount of work required for me to edit

(read clone out blemishes) a TMAX neg is about double compared to a

Plus-X neg.

 

Other than handling technique, where was my problem? I didn't

squeegee the negatives. Would hardener have helped? What are your

experiences along these lines? Have you had problems with certain

film types that seem more prone to damage from handling than other

types?

That's fungus. If it didn't affect the light attempting to pass through the lens, I wouldn't be able to see it. I can see it because it is scattering the light. That's light you want on the film. The claim that "This has no effect" is incorrect. It has an effect to one degree or another. Another problem with the fungus is that you are seeing an ongoing process. If allowed to continue, the degree of its affect will increase proportional to the fungus population. Its presence will not enhance the value of the camera, but it will be a detriment to the photography you might attempt with it.

I ran a roll through my Hi-Matic 9 last year. This was done completely manual, with no battery in camera. It worked fine, and this included several different f-stops.

 

The Hi-Matic 11 is auto-only. I thought I read that it will not function without a battery.

Interesting thread, Daniel. Nice that you are actually using images to illustrate your thread. For some reason there is way too little of this here. That's a dramatic section of river in your first shot. The resolution clip shows good detail, and though it may not be a scientific way to show lens quality, it works for me.

 

I've only put one roll of film through my recently-acquired Canonet QL-17 G-III. I shot about half the roll "sunny f16" and used the auto feature with shutter priority for the rest.

 

This shot shows the yard at a local lumber mill. Both the inset and the full frame image were scanned at 2820 DPI. The full image was downsized, while the inset was allowed to remain in its original state. Of course hand-held shots like this are not the best way to go about this, but still I think the inset shows the details of the wood kiln's ventilation system and distant building structure to good effect.<div></div>

I have one in each focal length. I have not used either one extensively. My impression so far is as follows:

 

85mm MC f1.7. Large, heavy, fast and tack-sharp.

 

100mm MD f2.5. Small, light, and sharp.

Fuji mailers have worked well for me with Velvia and Provia. One thing I have had to watch for with Fuji mailers is that they often have seams that are not sufficiently glued together. You must secure the loose seams with tape to keep the film inside the mailer. Hopefully this was a passing defect and we won't have to deal with it any more. Also, the Fuji mailers have no perforations for the return address portion of the mailer, so you need to carefully cut this part off the outside of the mailer in order to enclose it with the roll. (Never had that problem with Kodak).

 

Regarding postage. Though most mailers instruct you to include enough postage for two ounces, this is not necessary if you do not incliude the plastic film can when you send in the film. I have done it this way for 30+ years. Technically in the US you can send in a 36-exposure roll for .37 (first class 1 ounce rate) plus .12 (surcharge for greater than 1/4" thick). If you are on a tight budget, this saves you .11 per roll if you use individual mailers.

 

A side note about the post office: Recently I found two rolls of slides on my porch on a day when the Post Office was closed. It might have been Sunday. There was a note from my mailman stating he had some work to do at the Post Office. He noticed my film had arrived and thought he would drop it off on the way home. Now that is some fine service!

 

There are smarter ways to use mailers if you have a quantity of exposed film ready for development. Leave the mailers as-is (don't waste your time adressing or stamping them), and include them with the film in an approved priority mail package and send them to the developer. Kodak has been accepting film like this for years. In effect, the mailer then becomes a "chit" with which you can get the film developed. Not quite legal tender, but close.

 

If you are after 4X6" prints, I don't think that the mailer technique makes sense compared with the Fuji Frontier machines found at many stores and pharmacies.

 

I have used Kodak mailers to develope Fuji slide film, but would never try to get Kodachrome developed by Fuji. Doubtful they have access to K-14 processing, and why risk loss of the film by sending it through more middlemen than is necessary?

 

tomh

So that's why my two rolls of Elite 200 came back from MD instead of NJ. The slide mounts look the same (plastic) as before, BUT they sent the 24 exposure rolls back in 36 exposure boxes. This means much greater chance of scratches on the slides due to movement in the box during shipment. Mine didn't seem to suffer from this, even though the 36-exp. boxes were slightly crushed. Hopefully they will get the correct size box in stock soon.

 

Of some concern to me is that the mailer number was nowhere to be seen on the new style envelope in which they sent the slide box. In other words they did not use the little address tab I filled out on the mailer to send the slides back. The envelope was computer-printed with a bar code instead. Also, good luck if there are problems, because it says on the envelope to SEND THE ENVELOPE to them if you have questions about the order!!! So don't toss out the envelope unless you have checked the slides and everything is OK.

 

tomh

I'll probably get a 7sII someday myself, as Rokkor Fan says the smaller size (and weight) make it very attractive. I'm not so attracted to a 40mm lens, I would much prefer a 45mm-but that's just me. Hate to drive the price up on any future bids I may make on a 7sII, but there is certainly a cult-like demand for them on Ebay.

 

I was surprised how large and heavy my recently-acquired Hi-Matic 7s and 9 are. Since using newer Minolta SLRs like the X-370, the Hi-Matics, save for the 7sII, are really pretty large and heavy.

 

Tomh

Gerald,

Thanks for the link.

 

Q. "If the film was important, why didn't you take it to a local lab? "

A. In southeastern Vermont there is no local lab. What this means is that there is no way for me to personally hand my film to the people who are going to do the developing. I am dependent on others for the transportation of the film bothways. I did my own B&W developing for years, but now and I want someone else to spend that time in the dark.

 

Manuel,

$15 per roll isn't biting the bullet. It's more like getting your teeth kicked in.

 

R.M., Thanks for the optimism, but this actually happened some months ago. So I gave all concerned plenty of time before complaining in my post.

 

Mike, Who said anything about B&H?

Jim,

 

As an airplane <a href="http://www.vermontel.net/~tomh/mancha.html"> history buff</a>, I can appreciate what you have come upon. However, I am greatly concerned that you will crack the emulsion on the old negatives if you simply uncurl them. Unless they have been in a very dry location, they are likely to be stuck together at various locations on each roll, which is another huge problem.

 

I suggest contacting Kodak (probably their product anyway), and see if you can generate some interest in this historical stuff on their part. They have likely faced this before, and may have an effective way of controlling the environment (temp, humidity, immersion) while uncurling the negs.

 

Good luck!

 

TomH

Tim,

 

With slide film reusing the roll is risky because of the cutter used in the lab. Commonly the lab will use the first image on the uncut roll to set the cutter location. They aren't likely to see the spot on the roll where your 2nd shooting session begins, and you will have out-of-register slides in the mounts from that point on.

 

This cutter problem can arise if you are taking night (or very dark) shots on slides. Ensure that the first frame is brightly illuminated before doing a lot of dark scenes or the cutter can mess up the whole roll. Heck, just point the camera at a light bulb and take a shot at the biggining of the roll. Small price to eliminate the cutter problem.

 

If these are very important slides you can request the lab develop only, no cutting or mounting. Then you can mount them yourself.

 

I switch print film rolls often, leaving 2-3 frames between sessions. On my cameras the rewind resistance lessens and you can start to hear the film dragging across the pressure plate when the leader is being rewound. I stop rewinding right at that point and open the camera.

 

When reinserting a roll, I put the lens cap on, stop down to minimum f-stop, and set the shutter to max speed and wind on the film. I try to find shade for this operation, but have done it successfully many times in open sunlight. I have not needed to cover up the viewfinder. If the film gets fogged through the viewfinder, it's going to happen when taking the photos sooner or later. I see that as a seperate maintenance issue. I have covered the viewfinder on occassion to ensure correct light metering.

 

At home, keep an old undeveloped roll of film on hand for those infrequent times when you want to test the mechanical aspects of film movement. For a couple of dollars it is a good tool to have around.

 

Tomh

I sent in my B&W film in their mailer. Waited about 3 weeks and

called them on the phone asking the whereabouts of my negatives.

They claimed a holiday had put a delay in their service, so I waited

a couple more weeks and called them again. This time they claimed

they sent the negs out way back during the first waiting period!

 

I requested they put a tracer on the package and their reply

was..."Do you know how much mail our Post Office handles?" That was

the extent of their concern.

 

You takes yer chances with 'em.

 

TomH

Thanks all for the replies. I have 512MB RAM already, so I guess I'm in good shape.

I have been using PS Elements II for my 35mm work. I have yet to see

or work with a MF image on a computer. If I get some of my MF negs &

slides scanned to Kodak Pro CD, will I encounter any limitations

(file size limitations or file type conversion errors) with my PSE? I

think my video card is 64MB, any chance of a choke point there?

 

In other words, if I use MF images from a Kodak Pro CD, will I

need "Pro level" software/hardware?

 

Thanks.

Tom,

Thanks for the information. Subsequent to my post I have seen the "how to" pages on replacement of the capacitor. Failure of electrolytic capacitors is not unusual with age. They are a component produced with a specified lifespan, sometimes expressed in hours, sometimes in cycles. They are essentially a sealed can, and when the seal fails over time the component strays from its rated capacitance with resulting circuit failure.

 

I suspect Minolta was not alone in the use of electrolytic capacitors

in this application. Whether or not a different type of capacitor could have been used at the time of X-series design I can't say, but it is common to see electrolytics used in these storage applications, while other types are most often used in filtration applications.

Thanks again.

TomH

Kent,

I don't know why you started this thread with an assumption, but

before this spins further away from your original entry, "We all know that the X-700, X-370 and XG-M suffer from the infamous capacitor death problem", perhaps you can inform those of us who don't know.

What is the symptom please?

So I'm out there one day and I notice I got a nice big fingerprint on my 1A filter. I carry a little Visine squeeze bottle with Windex in it for these occasions, but for some reason I had no facial tissues with me. Lady nearby says, "Here, use one of mine."

 

That was the day I learned they were making facial tissues that contained skin cream. Needless to say, I had to remove the filter in order to continue shooting.

 

Still, the Windex and facial tissues combinatiuon has been my lens/filter cleaning technique for years. I am thinking of switching to the little Wal-Mart spray solution I have been using on my eyeglasses. Might be more friendly to coatings than Windex.

The XG-1 online manual indicates that battery current flows when making a time exposure in "B". Only experimentation will show you how long the battery will last. If you plan on making the long exposures in cold weather you are probably going to also risk low battery output due to low temperature. There is an interesting warning in the manual that states if you are using a cable-type shutter release, be careful not to let it touch the metal of the camera body as this will cause the shutter to close, ending the exposure.

 

Sounds to me like an older, less automated camera (SRT series) would be more ideal for this type of work.