shel_belinkoff2

First, to answer your question, no, I've never had problems with Sherry. She has always delivered as promised.

 

However, before sending anything to her, I call her, explain what I want, and she then tells me what to expect. Did you contact her directly before sending her the lens, or did you just send it on, perhaps including an explanation of what you wanted done along with the lens?

 

She is a great person to deal with ... she's a very open and honest and no bullshit person.

Hi ... I've been using the Pentax MX as a compliment to the Leicas and love it. Simple, no need for batteries (unless you want to use the meter), smaller and lighter than the M2/M3, and not particularly noisy when compared to the LX and several other SLR's. I've had a few LX bodies, and still do, but they are bigger, heavier, and noisier than the MX, and, while a fine camera, not quite as nice a compliment to the Leicas as the MX. Pentax lenses are also small and inexpensive. If you can find a good SMC Pentax 35mm/f3.5 to use with the MX you'll be very pleased with the results and the size. A great street shooter ...

I recall reading that Rodinal has recently been reformulated. Has

this happened within the past year or 18 months? Thanks!

<LOL> I used to have about twenty bodies and 40+ lenses. Getting rid of the items I didn't use was very freeing.

 

Down to 8 bodies and 15 lenses now ...

Hi Matt ...

 

I'm not sure DDX is the best Ilford developer for HP5+ ... others may have more experience with it and that particular film. However, since DDX is a liquid, just mix up what you need for each session. Diluted developers deteriorate rapidly. And, if you're not going to be using the DDX at a pretty good clip, even the stock solution will oxidze rtelatively quickly. I'd suggest ID-11 as it keeps quite well from my experience, and it works well with HP5+, imo.

Hi gang,

 

What's the consensus on disposing of used chemicals - developer, fix,

stop bath? Seems like just flushing them down the drain is considered

inappropriate.

Thanks to everyone for jumping in with responses.

 

kind regards

Been using the technique that Roger mentioned for about fifteen years. Seems to work great.

 

kind regards

From Rick Jones: "Shel - I think you will find this article very interesting

http://www.phototechmag.com/previous-articles/2003/ma-dikerson/dickerson.html"

 

Thanks Rick! It does look like a worthwhile read. Cheers!

Thanks to all who have contributed an answer. You've saved me a long drive through tough traffic today! Happy snaps ... shel

Al wrote:

 

"Best thing to do with all those bricks is give them to me for proper "disposal" in my Leicas."

 

Sorry Al, they're set aside for MY Leicas <LOL> I could offer you some out of date Kodak 2475 Recording Film instead. Do you like golf-ball sized grain?

 

kind regards ...

Mark wrote:

 

"Suppose that the new version has a little bit finer grain but needs more fixing than the old version. Suppose that you like the new film just a little bit better. Are you going to throw away the old film?

 

I would suggest that you take that 30 mile round trip, but instead of buying more film, maybe you should stop along the way and make some images."

 

Thanks for the great suggestions, Mark. No, I have no intention of tossing the film, even if the new TX was substantially different. I'm planning to make some photos with a friend tomorrow, and was going to use some of the TX that I have. I then thought that the new stuff may be worth a try on this upcoming photo safari, and, if it were different enough, I'd drive the 30 miles to pick up a few rolls. However, that's a hassle with the other things on my schedule, so if the film weren't too different I'd try it at a more convenient time.

 

Thanks so much for your clever and sarcastic answer. It never ceases to amaze me how often someone asking a simple question is treated to a smart-ass answer on these forums. It's especially interesting since most of the time the smart-ass hasn't a clue as to the questioners situation or intent.

 

Enjoy your clever little life, Mark, and may I suggest that you think twice before giving such answers in the future. You may have a simple question one day, and it's doubtful that you'd appreciate responses in a tone similar to your response here, today.

 

Kind regards ...

Hi,

 

Can someone give me an idea of the differences between the current

iteration of TX and the previous version in 35mm? Is the grain

substantially different? Developing times seem pretty close.

 

I have about 20 bricks of the old in my freezer, and was wondering if

the difference is enough to make the 30 mile round trip to the photo

shop to buy a few rolls of the current to compare.

 

Thanks ...

Is there a powder equiv. to DDX that can be mixed in small (1 quart)

batches?

Grant:

 

That looks awful! Furthermore, I didn't give you permission to modify my photograph and post it here. That's pretty friggin' rude if you ask me ... oh wait, you didn't ask.

Hi Paul ... thanks for your comments. The green tarp never really bothered me, nor did it bother a number of other friends and photogs I and we know. However, since it was mentioned, I'm going to try desaturating the green and see how reducing the intensity changes the mood of the pic. However, I do like the cluttered background ...

 

Thing is, this would probably have been a better photograoh in B&W, which is what I usually use on the street. Might try playing with a few techniques to convert to monochrome and see how that works.

 

Not too interested in posting a lot of pics here - or anywhere - right now. Trying to become more proficient at PS and to get my eye and timing back. Been away from the Leicas for too long.

 

kind regards ...

" As it is, it's just too plain- sorry, but you asked for an opinion."

 

Why would you want to apologize for your opinion <L>. It's fine that you have one, and it's fine that you don't care for the photo that much. I put it here for opinions ... and thanks for posting yours.

" What I'm impressed with here is that you know this fellow's name, which tells me that you've talked with him, not just photographed him from a relative distance. While I agree with the common opinion above

that this photo has too many distracting elements, I think it's a good start."

 

Of course I know his name <LOL> I spent about an hour with him, and shot quite a bit of film, as made several pretty good photos, including a nice close-up. Of course, I gave him a few pics as well. This was posted here for comment because i was not sure if I liked it.

 

" I also took the liberty of checking out your other photos on your website (Gus and the cat mural....). May I suggest finding a theme and shooting copious film on that theme, i.e. explore various avenues and try to tell a story with a series of photos? "

 

The pics at my website are there for specific reasons. The cat mural was put up because I had some photoshop questions, and it was an example of a problem I was having. That image was mainly for the PS list.

 

Gus is there for a couple of friends who sometimes like to see where I've been and what I've been photographing. There is nothing on the site that remains for any length of time. It's just used to communicate with a few select friends and family.

 

Actually, I have several portfolios that have been developed over the years. I don't use my web page to post all the work that I do.

 

As it turns out, the cat mural is part of a much larger body of work on murals in general. Gus was just a fun snap taken on a trip up north with a friend. If those are all the oics you saw, you missed a few in another directory. Again, just random snaps posted for specific purposes.

 

kind regards from Sunny San Francisco ... Shel Belinkoff

I can understand your concern, but it is the man's "home." The "distractions" are part of his environment. Are you suggesting that to rid the photo of the background elements will make it a stronger image, even though it may take away a part of the man's environment? Sometimes the background has to be included to better tell the story. That's my take on this photo ...

Whoops! I'll get the hang of this soon ...<div></div>

A photo submitted for comment, especially on the Photoshop work.

Thanks!

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/eric-at-work.html

While I've not used the 90 ASPH, I have numerous other lenses with built-in hoods, and have found the hoods in all cases to ber marginal. I've never bothered to remove the hoods, instead, I've just attached a screw-mount hood to the lens and in all cases it's worked very well.

 

Just about any lens hood for an 85mm - 105mm lens would work well if it had the correct thread. I've used Nikon hoods on Pentax SLR's and there's one on my digital camera as well. The hood from a Pentax 135mm/f2.5 worked beautifully on the standard lens for the Mamiya 645.

For a while there was a Contax G2 hood on my 90 Elmarit M.

 

The metal Heliopan hoods have proven to be marvelous, and I've been using them for years. 39mm Heliopans are on the 50 'cron M, and the 46mm Tele Heliopan hood is now used exclusively on the 90 Elmarit M.

 

What is the thread size on the 90 'cron. Perhaps I can give you a specific recommendation.

I have mixed feelings about this shot. On the one hand it seemingly reflects an aspect of American culture, yet, on the other hand, it's not a very complimentary portrait, and one could argue that it in some ways denigrates the subject. Is food the problem, or perhaps a medical condition? Still, it does, IMO, tell a story ... and perhaps asks a question or two.

Timing was off, exposure was off a bit, wrong film choice for the lighting, crummy scan to CD by lab, and a little fiddling in Photoshop yields this masterpiece:

More info on the camera can be found here:

 

http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news/articles/story_440.html