todd_evans

<p>This was my first camera. It was handed down to me in 1973 from my mother, who had used it to shoot superslides for at least ten years. I used to shoot outdated Verichrome Pan film that I got at the drugstore.</p>

<p>One of the best things about the "Star" series cameras - no matter what condition they are in when you find them, the shutters almost ALWAYS still work. Oh - and also that fantastic sound the wind knob makes. : )</p>

<p>Waite,</p>

<p>You've been on photo.net for quite a long time, so you probably know that it can be a rough crowd. I get that you were just looking out for the poor soul who might be new to camera collecting who might have been taken by that eBay seller.</p>

<p>So what happened here? Someone decided to use your thread as a soapbox to stand on and preach their world view. It wasn't courteous of Cliff to take over this thread like he did. I expect this kind of thing on photo.net - one person blah-blah-blahs about someone else being "too sensitive" or something like that, and then about a dozen others step all over each other trying to be the first one to say "bravo."</p>

<p>It gets tiresome.</p>

<p>Here's a response I got from Dale in August, 2009:<br>

 

<p>

<p>We stopped processing ECN films at the end of July. We can process other Seattle films.<br>

Elaine<br>

Customer Service<br>

?</p>

<p>Dale Photo & Digital<br>

800-327-1776</p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/www.dalelabs.com">www.dalelabs.com</a></p>

</p>

Intolerant?

 

Sorry I dared to questioned the mighty Gene M. I'm sure I'll be on the receiving end of one of his increasingly belligerent replies before too long.

 

If Gene is going to post links to web pages then we should all expect that those web pages are going to be commented on. The web site page referenced in Gene's previous post mentioned the "whine-bag, liberal, pinko readers" of the Boston Globe. While I'm not a Boston Globe reader, I think if Gene ever really got to know me he'd find me to be a "whine-bag, liberal, pinko" myself. I'll try not to take it personal.

 

So far the response to my rather mild post has turned out to be the smackdown that I predicted that it would be.

 

All I'm saying is that I would like to be able to enjoy Gene's work without having to read any divisive comments. He's obviously free to make them, I'd just rather he didn't.

Gene,

 

There's something profoundly sad about two children that young pummeling each other in a boxing ring. I'm sorry you don't see it.

 

You've been injecting more politics lately on your found film pages, and I think it's unfortunate.

I shot a roll of E100VS in a Nikon One Touch 200, which is not the most sophisticated P&S. It came out pretty good, with a few frames slightly overexposed.

Gary,

 

You are correct. The 35-80mm will act as if it is approximately 50-120mm when mounted on your D50. This is due to the crop factor with a camera (like the D50) that uses an APS-C sensor.

 

It's a decent lens, and I think it would work well for you as long as it isn't too slow.

What a grteat neighborhood! I'd love to buy one of those houses, but that street is probably either bulldozed or blighted by now. : (

I suspect David M. has never used an X-15. The lens is surprisingly sharp, and the user-friendly shape makes it easy to hold steady. I would order some 126 film and try it out.

If you are using an X-700 and you are in Program mode, you must be at the SMALLEST aperture (22 or 16) for the Program mode to work.

Everybody always says that Gold Ultra MAX 800 is really bad, but I shot a roll recently (GT 800-4) and it looked fine to me. And my roll was about 2 years outdated!<div></div>

Larry,

 

I am so sorry that I never got to try GAF Chrome 500. I have used the ASA 80 print film and the GAF Chrome 64. I used a roll of GAF print film in 127 size in my Brownie Starmite in 1973. I still have the negatives.

 

I can remember going into the GAF store at Disney World. I wish I could go back there now!

 

Todd

Ansco's camera division merged with Agfa's in the 1928, and many Agfa and Ansco CAMERAS were sisters. However, Ansco was always an autonomous FILM manufacturer, and Agfa and Ansco films were always different - Ansco made in the USA (Binghamton, NY), and Agfa in Germany.

 

Ansco film became known by the name of it's parent company, General Aniline and Film, shortened to GAF, in April, 1968. General Aniline and Film is a company of German origin and it has an interesting past - check out the following link:

 

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/GAF-Corporation-Company-History.html

 

GAF (formerly Ansco) film disappeared around 1980. When I was in high school I used to use GAF film and I liked it a lot. It had a somewhat unrealistic color palette with very vivid reds.

John,

 

Don't send those rolls to Rocky Mountain or Film Rescue - they're not old enough. They will be fine at your local lab.

Image #2 is fantastic. I love it!

The Quantaray filters in the blue boxes are low quality, budget filters. The more expensive Quantaray DMC filters in the RED boxes are multi coated Hoya filters, made in Japan. I'm looking at one right now, and it appears to be very nicely made. I have several of them.

 

Believe it or don't. : )

It looks grainier posted on here than it does in Windows Explorer and Photoshop. Oh well.

I get film scanned at time of processing from Wolf Camera (Ritz Camera in most parts of the country). I think I get pretty good results. I'm sure somebody on here will beg to differ, though!<div></div>

I've had nothing but great results using Dwaynes the past few years. I think we should give them all the business we can!

I think you should try them out. You're only ordering film, not a Hasselblad or anything. : )

 

They have a good selection. Just order a few rolls and see how it goes.

I always squeegee, first wiping the rubber blades with a clean, damp towel. Never a scratch.

Don't skip the Pentax kit lens - it's one of the better ones. And it costs very little anyway.

Umm, here's why I felt that I didn't need shake reduction. When I bought my K110D, the K100D was $100.00 more than the K110D. I've never used shake reduction before, so why spend $100.00 for it now? The $499.00 I spent for my camera still seemed like too much. I know there are a lot of folks on photo.net who seem to be made of money, but I'm not one of them.

John,

 

Where'd you get that cool box of GAF 64?

Clay,

 

I suspect that your Vivitar 49mm lens is either a 50mm or a 28mm, and the "49mm" is the filter diameter.