Sandeha Lynch

Cemera camera cumera. It probably doesn't like punctuation.

Vivek, chances are there are going to be a lot more 'typos' in these posts over the next few weeks ... cemera, camera, cumera.

A stunner. :-(

I really like good tones on white fabric like this, but the plant in the background looks ... like some sort of alien being - weird.

That puts paid to your free weekends, Nicolas. Good luck.

I came across this site yesterday ... <a

href="http://homed.inet.tele.dk/riess/gewir.html">The History of

Kamerawerk Gebr.Wirgin and Edixa Reflex</a>

<p>

I figure there must be loads of other personal histories out

there ... Any you've enjoyed reading and can recommend?

A 35mm with WLF sounds like perfection. (Addendum to my wish-list! Is there no end?)

How's the body condition? Film wind? Focus? If they are all good you can probably find a replacement set of lens cells and get a pro-repair shop to install them.

<p>

Your lens looks terrible, so if the body and mechanics are not sound, just put it on the shelf and buy another.

Well worth the effort, keep at it. Have to admit that it's the highway scene and the last detail shot that I like best.

To repeat the word on filters ... I'd say that your FP4 may well appear bleached if you don't use a yellow or (better) orange. I made that mistake myself on a trip up to Muktinath (10,000 ft) in Feb/March, and while scannable the negs would barely wet-print at all. Enjoy the trip!

"DON'T unroll the spool of film to 'see the picture.'"

<p>

Now <i>that's</i> a reminder of simpler times. :-)

"YOU SEE THE PICTURE before YOU TAKE IT!" as it says in the ad. Can this help us to understand how the snapshot has evolved? Perhaps film cameras today might be marketed as "NO chimping required."

<p>

I guess the snapshot was, in one sense, an immediate consequence of the invention of roll film, with the meaning of the content prioritised above almost every aspect of photographic technique. No problem with that.

<p>

None of which explains why the lady has a cabbage leaf on her shoulder, but perhaps some of the less youth-challenged forum members will recall the fashion.

The pointy bits come out well, but mostly it's the near translucent stem of the yucca pod that looks interesting to me. There's potential for some very interesting tonal stuff if you can find materials that really break up the light. Nice work.

Depends on the film, and the light, but I also find it depends on the lens. I have a light yellow for one, medium yellow for another, oranges, and also some reds that I rarely use.

It does - shift the yellow dot lever from 'm' to 'x' (best leave it there) wind on, and then slide the red dot lever across. Be aware that these self timers can cause jamming problems on old shutters if they have not been properly cared for. So if the red lever seems suspect, leave it alone or get it serviced.

If you do an ebay search you can usually find some Bay1 > 49mm adaptors (I use one for the hood), and I presume for other mm sizes as well. It doesn't block anything as the outer ring is larger than the lens area.

Nancy, those are CooooooooooooooooooooooooooL.

Thanks Claude. Like a different planet, I agree; hope you saw the rest of them in my folder. I was in the UK for most of the eighties, but for me it was The Bhundu Boys and rock bands from West and South Africa. So ... Duran who?

I don't agree that anyone needs to put their own work up in order to criticise for the simple reason that not all good photographers are articulate critics, and not all informed critics are photographers. One thing that is useful if you want to talk about photos, IMO, is understanding where opinion ends and criticism begins.

<p>

I get a buzz from people telling me they like my work - it's a social thing, like enjoying the same food, music, etc, and it breeds dialogue, which is good. Criticism (of technique, of style, of content, whatever) is useful when it is positive and thought provoking - that also breeds dialogue, which is good, but it has fcuc all to do with anybody liking it.

<p>

Incidentally, if I were thinking about sales, I'd <i>only</i> be concerned about people liking it.

Whenever possible, run a test roll (with a lens hood, ideally) before you pay any cash.

About 10 years ago I realised that some of my older negatives had been wrecked by bad storage. With some weird salt or acid streaks across them it would have taken a real master printer to salvage anything, but ... the consumer neg scanners arrived just in time. I scanned this set a few months ago.

<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3502029-lg.jpg">

<p>

<b>1982</b> ... that's Ilford XP1 through a Minolta Elite II

I've used both a 1960 Yashicamat and a 124G from around 1980, both with a Yashinon 80mm. The results were very different and I can only put that down to better quality coatings on the late versions of the lens. Apart from that, I think the other posters here are correct.

Funny thing, but the quality of these shots brings to mind the photos you showed of the inner guts when you had it in pieces. An impressive achievement to bring it back up to this.

Neither. Head for Galway and then go up through Connemara to Westport. Go round the Bay, above the Bay, and hire a boat into the Bay. Be prepared for more rainbows than anywhere else on earth, and the best shellfish in Ireland.

Hi Olivier - funny thread too, at times. I'm still happy with my GX but I never use it for anything really serious, it's just a handy P&S with good extras. Mostly I'm using Hasselblad (thanks be to the digital revolution and the pros who sold off their MF gear) and 4"x5". Of course, now I'm wondering how long the GX will last - It has no resale value worth talking about, but I'm hoping it will still be a viable machine for record shots in another five years.