davecollopy

Marc, as has been noted here, the XA can be used as a zone-focus camera. More important, I've noticed cameras such as the XA that were designed to be rangefinders tend to have more accurate focusing scales than the scales on zone focus cameras. You might try bracketing focus with your XA. Any camera you do find to replace you XA will likely be bigger and heavier, not to mention more expensive. The way I use my XA is I keep it with me at all times(due to its size and weight) except when I know I'm going to be shooting pictures. When I'm going to shoot pictures I choose a bigger camera that fits the bill for the type of photography I expect to be doing.

I guess you should have.

Manipulation is the essence of photography. You take a blank piece of photographic paper and manipulate it extensively until the image You created resides there, not the camera's. That's photography! But the computer program Photoshop has absolutely nothing to do with Photography. Photoshop can only manipulate computer files. Not photographs.

 

Nonetheless, Photoshop is a great program for doing what it does, manipulating computer files.

The Range Finder is admittedly not the XA?s strongest point. I usually zone focus mine and rely heavily on stopping down the depth of field, light permitting. Cleaning the dozen or so glass surfaces which constitutes the range finder will only result in nominal improvements. If you choose to do so, just remember the hidden screw beneath the shutter button. The red shutter button is glued on and can be pried off and glued back on. I use rubber cement. The strong point of the XA is that its built like a tank. I carry one with me at all times. And I can?t think of another camera that could hold up to such abuse.<div></div>

Any image created on light sensitive photographic paper is a photograph, 100%. I look at such photos every day. And yes, they are black and white.

Kelly, you know those are all jpegs. Btw that is a very nice Rolleiflex.

 

So what is a photo?

 

A word wants a definition. I'd go so far to say that all words already do have a definition. A photograph is an image created upon a light sensitive material. Simple. That is not my definition. That is the definition of the word. And it has been for nearly two centuries. Therefore a drawing, a sketch, a painting is certainly not a photograph. A computer generated image is not a photograph. A jpeg is not necessarily a photograph. Technically there are no actual photos on photo.net. In cyberspace all images must be converted to files and all people there are represented there only in their words. So if a person uploads a jpeg file to photo.net they claim represents an actual photograph then we must take their word that it is so, within reason of course. The society operates on a principle commonly known as the honor system. And it would be a far simpler matter for people to only post jpegs of actual photographs to the photo gallery, than to post jpegs of images which are not photographs, and then try to change the definition of the word.

The earliest Anastigmats were mostly four elements. The KA 6.3 circa 1920 is a four element of the dialyte variety and it's a pretty sharp lens but flare is difficult to control. The KA 7.7 from the Teens is a very good lens. It's four elements as well.

 

From some of the literature I have that Kodak was putting out at the time, I gather Kodak was having a hard time getting their customer base to embrace their inhouse glass and abandon B&L's RR. Some of the stuff, in camera manuals no less, comes across as plainly apologetic. Some of the stuff you find in old camera and automobile manuals would never make print today. It always makes for a good read. As lenses go the Rapid Rectlinear had a long and successful run. I'd still like to find a decent example to try out one of these days.

Mike, I like the lighting, the bounced sunlight into the shadow, and I'm very impressed you nailed the focus here with such a shallow depth of field. I'm almost tempted to start taking more risks with my own zone focusing cameras after seeing this. BTw, I just recieved an early Zeiss Ikon in the mail today. A very early Zeiss Ikon: a 1926 Ica Icarette. Can't wait to get it cleaned up and out in the field.

Snow. Snowing. And it's still snowing here in Maine.

Lex turned me on to Microphen for pushing Tri-X after reading many of his posts on the subject. And for pushing I've never looked back. For regular developing I'm at that point where I'm experimenting with several developers so I always appreciate when someone takes the time to do a test like this and posts the results. Thank you Michael.

Not only do I think it is Art, but I think that with time it will be considered some of the greatest art our generation has produced. What amazes me is to go back and look at some of the older Lucasarts and Sierra games and admire what the graphic artists achieved with a simple sixteen color palette.

I would guess an Ensign Carbine but the shutter looks like an Ilex.

That's the problem with those Patent Etuis, they're so compact that they don't allow too much in the way of adjustments or modifications. It should have been a simple switchout, but what it sounds like to me is the focal point of the Skopar is at a slightly different point than the Radionar even though they both mount in the same shutter and have the same focal length. I've had this happen quite often even with lenses of the same design. If you shim the lens you're probably not going to get the case closed. Everything's very tight in this compact camera. Unless your Radionar is physically damaged, you'd probably be better keeping it than having to fiddle with a sloppy infinity stop when you elongate the holes.

Hi Mike

 

A couple years ago my wife went to Greece. Her prior photographic experience was a P&S and disposables, so I gave her an OM-1 with a 24mm lens loaded with slide film and a Balda-six with a Trioplan loaded with 120 color negative. I also gave her a selenium light meter, a quick tutorial and a dozen rolls of film. Anyway, she came back with some absolutely stellar images from both cameras. It kind of put me to shame.

 

Whatever you decide on for your 35mm camera, I think you should plan on having a wide angle lens for touring the ruins. I would also bring that Vigilant for some b&w.

 

I hope you have a fun time.

I agree with Aaron and Mike - not in our lifetimes. There's just too many technological hurdles that digital has to clear before it can do everything film does and then do it better and then do it cheaper, which is what must happen to make film obsolete. Alot of chanting you hear about the death of film is no more than orchestrated market hype aimed at the casual consumer and it really has been going on for years now.

 

A more realistic concern is the diminishing silver content in films or the discontinuation of certain films once they fall out of popular fashion. AFAIC there is still more choices in film out there than I'll ever get around to using. And as far as digital is concerned I'm looking forward to the day when someone designs a digital back for all my 6x9 and 3x4 plate cameras.

My all time favorite camera is the 1922 Kodak No. 1 Autographic Special Model B, a rack and pinion focusing 6x9 120 film camera that wieghs in at 16oz. Runner ups include Speed Graphic for 4x5, Kodak Monitor for 6x9 color negative and transparency work, Kodak Reflex for 6x6(yes 620 film and geared focusing are detractors but price and performance more than make up for it), Canon AE-1 and Olympus XA for 35mm, and my most recent acquisition: Olympus C-5050 for digital(but it's not really a classic).

Fix #1 and take the rest of the weekend off. Hell, you deserve it. Or, what the heck, take the whole weekend off and fix it Monday morning.

Very well put, Aric.

 

I think that consciously injecting meaning is a weak approach, and beating the viewer over the head with it is simply bad photography.

 

I believe there must be a universal language. If you like your work, even if you don't know why you like it, you have done your job. It becomes more likely that others will like your work. If they don't know why they will search for meaning.

That is one cool hearse!

95% of my 5 1/2 floppies some of which are 20 years old are readable today. My 3 1/2 floppies show a significantly lower success rate. Interesting to note that the more recent the floppy the less readable. Most 3 1/2 floppies are perfectly readable from ten years ago. An alarming majority from 5 years ago and more recent are completely corrupted. The situation gets even more bleak when I try to read cdroms. On the other hand, for almost ten years I've had a 100% success rate with zip drives including some which survived a fire. If the file is less than 250megs and the file is important it will be archived to a zip drive. I have no experience burning DVD's, but an unfortunate amount of DVD's I purchase for viewing have corrupt data right out of the box.

 

My personal opinion about all this is that it has less to do with the type of media and more to do with the manufacturer as Bob Blakley stated in the original post. Unfortunately, as John Kelly points out its difficult to know who the actual manufacturer is. Therefore I think a good rule of thumb is: the more expensive the media, the safer your data will be.

TriX 400 almost exclusively for 6X9. But In the last few months I've been playing around with PanF 50 in Rodinal based on the recommendation of another PN member.

TW, your experiences are so similar to mine it sends shivers down my spine. I think it's more than the simple $20 investment why we can't let go. Once we've nursed these babies backed to health they're more like children than they are like cameras.

 

I've dropped so many cameras it's to the point where I'm afraid to take out my favorite camera, at least until I can find one or more duplicates.

"Send a complaint to abuse@photo.net if you think there's abuse."

 

Nonsense.

 

What happens on the playground stays on the playground.

 

-the first rule of the playground.

I can only relate my personal experience, not exactly scientific. For years I didn't use stop bath, just a tap water rinse. Recently in an effort to contain blotchy areas in the negative I started using Stop again mixed in distlled and I've noticed some improvements. That's all.

I thought the bogus frame counter window was funny given the fact that it was located next to the actual frame counter dial and they always showed both when Gwyneth checked her available film. I guess the filmakers felt the real frame counter wasn't intuitive enough for their targeted audience. Also in one scene the camera flashed so I guess Gwyneth's camera also had the optional built in flash that must be very rare indeed. The year was supposed to be 1939 if The Wizard Of Oz can be considered any sort of indicator. I thought the C3 worked well given the general era and enjoyed seeing it featured prominently in a Hollywood film.