craig_shearman1

<p>I have Lumedyne's version of the Quantum Turbo, and it died on me a couple of years ago because I had let it sit without using it for a few years. I sent it to Lumedyne and they re-celled it, checked everything inside and basically made it like new again for around $100 plus or minus. Turnaround was maybe 2-3 weeks including shipping both ways. If you check on their website I think there' information about this service, or at least a number you can call. BTW, Quantum does the same thing with their batteries for a comparable price. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Would have been interesting if they had made them reloadable, not necessarily by users but on an industrial basis back at the factory. But I'm sure they ran all the numbers on what that would have cost vs grinding/melting them down vs throwing them out.<br /><br />I do recall hearing before about saving the sprocket holes, and the rest also makes sense considering the volume that Kodak and major processors were dealing with. <br /><br />Did Regular 8 metal or plastic spools (or 16mm spools) find their way back to Kodak? There were a couple of independent places -- ESOS and Superior Bulk Film -- that both provided processing and sold their own brands of film. I imagine they spooled their house brand film on empties they got in from processing customers.</p>

<p>When Super 8 was popular, did Kodak or the labs have any program for recycling the cartridges?<br /><br />The Super 8 cartridge was not intended to be reloadable and I'm not sure how you could open it without breaking it let alone put it back together. But it was a fairly good size piece of plastic and a couple of parts inside that seems like it would have been a lot to just throw away.<br /><br />For that matter, did labs pop the cartirdge apart to remove the film for processing, or did they pull it out from the opening?</p>

<p>"Do I leave the battery in even if I plan on not using the camera for 7+ days?"<br />Yes. A battery can stay in for years as long as you take a look every now and then (maybe once a year) to be sure it has not leaked or corroded.<br> "The View Finder has black specks when viewing. Is there a way to clean this and will the black specks come out in photos?"<br />They will not affect the photos. You are likely to do more damage than good in trying to clearn them. Leave them alone.<br /><br /><br> "Will the Vivitar 283 Flash work with this camera?"<br />Yes.<br> "When taking a long exposure or using the self-timer it advises to shut the View Finder with the lever. So I find the correct exposure in M or A mode and then shut the View Finder and take the photo, correct?"<br />Correct</p>

<p>If you just bought it and it's not advancing properly, I would return it. Left unrepaired, that's what I call a "fatal flaw" and it should have been disclosed by the seller. A little like saying a used car is "in very good shape" but the wheels won't turn.</p>

<p>I have developed thousands of rolls of film in D-76. It does not leave specks on the film. If it is properly mixed, there are no specks to be left.<br /><br />Kodak says to mixed D-76 at 125F. First step is to make sure you are getting water at that temperature (or slightly higher) from the faucet in your darkroom. At one place where I lived, the hot water heater was set at 120F and I had to turn it up a notch. But be careful -- if you have young children in the house, you don't want to run the risk of them getting burned by hot water. <br /><br />You also have to stir thoroughly, and use a large enough container that you can stir without splashing liquid out. I use to use a plastic pitcher that was just barely one gallon. I switched to a two-gallon floating-lid dakroom container. Mixing in that, I can splash around all I want with nothing splashing out.<br /><br />You have to mix until all particles are completely dissolved. That gets tired with just a spoon or mixing paddle. I have a paint mixing device from the hardware store that goes into a cordless electric drill. All I have to do is stand there and move it around a little. Makes it much easier on my arm than stirring by hand.<br /><br />I always mixed chemicals at least a day before they are needed so they can settle down to room temperature (around 75F plus or minus in my house) before using. That way no need to fiddle with adjusting their temperature when I'm using them.<br /><br />"If you are mixing developer from a powder then let it sit for a while and then filter it using a coffee filter. It can also help to filter fixer when you pour it back into the container."<br /><br />I've never found any need to filter properly mixed darkroom chemicals. And in my darkroom, nothing goes back in the container -- that just creates a situation where any particles, dirt, debris can end up on the next roll of film, and also requires that you keep track of chemical capacity. All of my chemicals are used one-shot and go down the drain.</p> <p> </p>

A D5300 would make essentially no difference. Your camera body is not the problem. The problem is that your kit lenses are too slow. Put the money into faster glass. Also the pawn shop (surprise surprise) is trying to rip you off. $400 is only slightly less than a d5300 with 18-55 brand new. ($496.95 at B&H) And the charger comes with it.

<p>How big is the drawing? if it will fit on a scanner, then just scan it. Even a scanner will pick up some of the texture of the paper/charcoal.<br /><br />If it's too big for a scanner, to do this properly you need to set it up on a copy stand with appropriate lights. If you just prop it up and point your camera at it, it will be very challenging just to get everything square and evenly illuminated.<br /><br />As Jochen asked, what is the purpose of photographing the drawing? Is it for reproduction as a poster? In a book? On the web? His portfolio?</p>

<p>Many photographers work in areas where they cross state lines every day. Here in Washington, D.C., there's the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia all within just a few miles, and Delaware, Pennsylvania and West Virgnia are closeby. From New York, you have New York state, New Jersey and Connecticut right there.<br /><br />As a practical matter, there aren't any photography police stopping you at the border to see if you're on your way to shoot a job. And if your billing and payments are done from your home-base address, there likely isn't a paper trail. But if you are running an actual business -- and it sounds like you are if you have a business license and are asking this question -- the above-board thing to do is ask your accountant. If you are running an actual business and don't have an accountant, it's time to get one.</p>

<p>Whatever it is, this stuff is junk based on their sample pictures. Higher speed transparency film is grainy by its nature, especially older emulsions. If you want fine grain images throw this stuff away and buy some fresh rolls of Fuji from a reputable camera store.</p>

<p>Charles, thanks very much. I will try to work on it this weekend.</p>

<p>Can't tell you how to completely remove the enamel. But when I bought my first F2 at the age of 16 (in 1976) I thought some brassing on the black body would make me look more like a veteran photojournalist who'd been around the block instead of a pimply faced kid with a brand new camera. I remember shooting an outdoor concert where I intentionally rubbed the camera back and forth against asphalt and concrete. The camera eventually looked like it belonged to an experienced shooter. But it was quite a while before I looked as weathered as the camera. :)</p>

<p>Tried cleaning everything I could short of taking things apart, including the calibration area. No changes. Any tips, Charles, on how to go about opening up and cleaning internal parts as you suggested? I'm a little nervous about doing anything that makes things worse. Looking at the scanning mechanism as it moves along under the glass, there is a black plastic box with what appears to be a narrow fluorescent light. No sign of a lens, mirrors, the sensor itself, all of which are presumably inside of that. The transparency unit is basically just a miniature flat panel light box that sits on top of the scanner, no moving parts.</p>

<p>Mathew has the best advice -- make the best scans you can, do what restoration you can and then print them.<br /><br />IMHO there is no such thing as an archival scan because digital is inherently not archival. No, the jpgs and tiffs we make today will not be readable 100 years from now, maybe not 50 years from now. Technology simply changes too fast. Today a jpg on a CD can be viewed on almost any computer, but our grandchildren will have no idea what those little silver discs (or thumb drives) are, let alone what's on them or have a working computer with the right operating system or software to do anything with them. And no, they won't get transferred to the latest media every few years unless they are highly valuable images in a library or maybe stock agency collection.<br /><br />Think back a little over 100 years ago. Music was sold on wax cylinders, not even flat phonograph records yet. And there were multiple formats at different speeds and diameters. Yes, there are still some cylinder players around but how many people have them and how many cylinders have survived? How about two-inch quad videotape from the 1950s and 1960s. Not even the networks have the equipment for that anymore -- as of a few years ago there was one place in New York that had the old equipment that could do transfers. Half-inch Portapak video that was the rage in the early 70s? Same thing.<br /><br />What lasts are film and prints. Matthew Brady's glass plates from the Civil War? You can still hold them up to the light and see what's on them. You won't be able to do that with disc full of jpgs or tiffs no matter how well you scanned them.</p>

<p>If you have an F2, Sover Wong in England is the guru for repairs, cleaning, etc. Had one of my F2 bodies worked on by him and returned to factory specs. I think the cost was around $200 or $250 plus shipping. Debatable whether it makes economic sense but the F2 is still my favorite film camera (I have four of them). <br /><br />I'm still using my D200 (along with a D7000) and will likely keep on using it until it drops. Even if somebody gives me a D5 for Fathers day (hint, hint), it will stay in the bag as a backup, or maybe get handed to one of my kids. But if it dies on me, I would likely put whatever money it would cost to repair toward a newer digital body rather than getting it fixed.</p>

<p>"What software are you using?"<br /><br />I'm using Epson Scan (Twain 5) and have also tried a trial version of VueScan. I get the same line with Epson Scan on an older Windows XP computer (my Epson Scan is too old to work on my current Windows 8 machine) and with the VueScan on Windows 8.</p>

<p>I use sandbags on lightstands pretty much anytime I'm on location where people might bump into a stand or trip over a wire, whether indoors or out, regardless of the type of light or modifier. Better to be safe than sorry.</p>

<p>"Don't try to run a faucet to get water at the right temperature. It won't work unless you have a thermostatic control."<br /><br />That can be true for color, which requires higher and more precise temperatures, but not B&W. I develop B&W at anywhere from 70-75F, which is room temperature in my darkroom. The chemicals are already setting their mixed. If I'm going to dilute anything, it's easy to get the water adjusted to the right temperature and, at least in my house with my plumbing, it stays where I set it. Same for water for rinsing and washing.<br /><br />Your wash water temperature isn't critical but should be about the same temperature as your chemicals. You don't want to use hot water because it can soften the emulsion but you don't want really cold water either because it can cause reticulation.</p>

<p>Something in the transparency adapter would make sense, since it only happens when using the adapter. I may try cleaning that. But if it's in the glass/lens/sensor of the main part of the scanner, shouldn't I also be getting the line on regular scans (scans of prints as opposed to film)?</p>

<p>Matt is correct about the angle of incidence (the angle from which the light originates) equals the angle of reflectance, and his drawings give you some idea of how that works. That's an easy fix sometimes with eyeglasses or a fixed shiny surface. Problem with the guitars is that they are probably moving around constantly (assuming they are being played) so the angle is constantly changing and sometimes it's going to reflect the light back into the camera lens.<br /><br />Professional LED lights that put out enough light to actually shoot by are expensive. The most affordable professional lights are still hot lights. Lowell Tota Lights could be a good option -- maybe $150 each, or a third of that used. You can put them on stands or if you want or Lowel makes all sorts of mounting gadgets so you can connect their lights (or any brand) to the ceiling or whatever you like. They are hot, so you don't want them actually touching a wall or ceiling but they can be mounted a few inches away. <br /><br />Some people are going to say hot lights are too hot. But remember that until just a few years ago that's all there was for film/video. Hot lights have been used for a century. It's time tested technology and still works just fine.</p>

<p>Something with the sensor array did occur to me. But it's just this single line -- maybe more than one row of pixels but a very fine line. Color on the rest of the scanning area is fine. And it doesn't show up when I do a reflective scan, only a film scan. That suggests that it has to do with the film adaptor, but the adaptor is basically just a thin lightbox that lays on top of the scanner and plugs in at the back. It's a 4s5 cold source flat panel of some sort. Occurred to be that there's a line across it and so I tried holding it up an inch or so to see if the line would go out of focus or disappear if the light source was farther away. But it's still there. <br /><br />Very frustrating that it's at the center of the image almost. If it were along an edge I would work around it and crop it out.</p>

<p>If you pay $50 for a bulk loaded you've been robbed. You can get a used one probably for free if you're lucky, certainly not more than $20 and probably more like $10 if you have to pay for it. But by the time you add in some empty cartridges you've ;probably not going to save enough on a single 100 foot roll to make it worth the trouble. And you definitely need to develop film yourself if you bulk load it since most labs don't want to deal with it. And as others have said if you want good B&W developing at a reasonable price you have to do it yourself anyway.<br /><br />A flatbed scanner simply isn't going to cut it for 35mm. Been there, tried that. You would definitely need a dedicated film scanner.<br /><br />Bottom line is I would start with the developing at home. I would highly recommend that you get an enlarger and make traditional wet prints rather than scanning. Bulk loading makes sense only if you are settled on a single emulsion that you're going to use, literally, in bulk. I bulk loaded thousands of rolls of Tri-X in my newspaper days but that was what we were standardized on and I could easily shoot 100 feet a week, and at a time when 100 feet was $20 to $25.</p>

<p>"I keep most of my chemicals in the fridge anyway"<br /><br />Do not keep your photo chemicals in the fridge. The cold temperature will cause the dissolved particles to precipitate out of the liquid. If this works for Pete fine, but with all due respect that's not a good idea to put in the head of a beginner.<br /><br />If you load your film in a changing bag, yes you could develop in the kitchen rather than the bathroom. But I have always avoided doing this just because the kitchen is where I cook and eat. B&W photo chemicals are not particularly toxic but I still don't want them near by food.</p>

<p>Four years old is absolutely nothing to worry about with B&W. Shoot it as you normally would and process normally.</p>

<p>I have a very small handful of medium format color negatives I want to scan, so I pulled out my old Epson 1200U Photo flatbed scanner. Yes, I know it's ancient. Yes, I know flatbed scanners aren't ideal for film. Yes, I know I should buy a newer scanner. But since I'm just doing a handful of negs and only need the images for the web, I'm happy using this for the moment.<br /><br />The problem is that when I use the film adaptor and scan a negative I get a very thin dark blue line that runs across the image. The position of the line is fixed, running roughly down the middle of the long distance of the flatbed. That puts it running across the middle of a 2 1/4 negative in the film holder when using the film adaptor. It's definitely something electronic, not a scratch on the film, since I have the same problem with multiple negs from multiple shoots from multiple cameras over a period of years. The line appears in a fixed place n relation to the glass on the scanner -- rotating the film holder only makes it show up on a different place in the image. Doesn't seem to be a mark on the glass since it doesn't show up when I scan prints.<br /><br />I've tried jiggling the cord that connects the film adaptor to the scanner in the hope it was just a lose connection even tried jiggling the USB cord. Tried with different computers and same problem. Tried with VueScan in addition to the Epson software and I get the same problem.<br /><br />Any thoughts?</p>