johncarvill

<p>Thanks very much indeed, Zoltan. Although I can't see it hanging in any galleries (except Flickr) any time soon, you're not the first person who's said they liked the 57th Street Subway shot.<br>

Both your pics are good, I particularly like the one of the boat, a good range of well-rendered colours there.</p>

<p>You're welcome, Hugh. I do solidly recommend Shore's book. It's particularly interesting when compared with 'The Photographer's Eye', the various similarities and differences etc.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p >Hi Folks</p>

<p >I have recently started my own online arts & pop culture magazine (also known as a website), and we have just inaugurated our photography section. What better way to start than with a review of Thames & Hudson's magnificent 'Magnum Magnum':</p>

<p ><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.oomska.co.uk/?page_id=2215" target="_blank">http://www.oomska.co.uk/?page_id=2215</a></p>

<p >We've also just added a review of Stephen Shore's fascinating book, 'The Nature of Photographs':</p>

<p >http://www.oomska.co.uk/?page_id=2406</p>

<p >We hope to make photography a major focus of the website, and we are actively seeking contributors. If you know anybody who woul like to write for us, please get in touch.</p>

<p >Cheers<br />JC</p>

</p>

<p>Ah right, well I didn't do any of the scanning myself - in both cases the scans were made by the processing lab. But I assumed the negatives were probably fine, and the overly grainy look to the TRI-X was down to the low-quality scan. The other side of these sorts of scans is that they match the printed version, i.e. both the print, and the scan, are actually cropped from the centre of the negative, so you lose some edge areas, I think. A couple of shots where I was careful to exactly frame teh content ended up coming back with crucial areas missing!</p>

<p>Thanks, Larry. Yes, absolutely, I must get some proper scans done. BUt I have the negatives so I will have a look at those.</p>

 

<p>Just posted some links to galleries showing some photos from my NY (and Chicago) trip:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00Wf2h</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone who posted advice in response to my question(s) about film for photography in New York. Here's that original thread:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00WO8x</p>

<p>I eventually tried a mix of Velvia 50 (rated at 40), Ektrachrome EBX100, Tri-X 400, and Fuji Pro 160C. Some results can be seen on my Flickr account, as follows.</p>

<p>A mix of films, mainly slides, from New York:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624260751888/</p>

<p>Some shots from Chicago, mainly Fuji Pro 160C:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624241195234/</p>

<p>Some TRI-X 400 shots from New York:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624135573735/</p>

<p>Overall I was pleased with the performance of the Velvia 50, I didn't see too many shots where dynamic range became a problem. The EBX 100 looks, to my eye, almost as good as the Velvia, and is sometimes hard to tell apart. The Tri-X is ok, but I prefer the look of some shots I took recently with Fuji Neopan 1600. Somehow teh Tri-X looks grainier but the relatively low quality scans may be a factor.</p>

<p>Biggest pleasant surprise of all was how well the Pro 160C turned out, I love the look of the colours this film produced.</p>

<p>Overall it's yet another reminder that this sort of thing just cannot be replicated in digital, not straight out of teh camera anyway.</p>

<p>All thoughs welcome.</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Fair enough. Apology accepted.</p>

<p>I'll be getting 7 rolls of film processed this week, it'll be interesting to see how many frames exhibit the shutter capping problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, I'm back from NY, and starting to sort through my photos. Here's a quick sample, a digital one because I've yet to get my films processed. One of my aims for the trip was to capture the 'definitive' New York yellow cab shot. Didn't quite happen, but I had fun trying.</p>

<p><img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p>This is actually a slightly adjusted crop - the original can be seen, alongside the crop, here:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/7709253@N08/sets/72157624071737509/</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Quote: Quote: <em>Trouble is, the total cost may well exceed the price of a replacement F3.</em> This is false logic.</p>

<p>What you say is probably correct. But the way you tend to say things can come across as didactic and even arrogant. Naturally, I have considered the possibility that a newly purchased F3 might have faults, whereas getting mine fixed and CLA'd should mean it will be in near-perfect working order. But if the cost of doing so exceeds buying an EX++ condition F3 body from a reliable dealer with whom I have had good experiences before, then the decision is not so cut and dried, logically, as you suggest.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>Yes, I agree: the fact that the 'expert' thought that light leaks show up white on the negative and black on the positive casts serious doubts on his other opinions.</p>

<p>At first, he was convinced that the problem was with that one particular roll of film, and therefore with the supplier I bought the film from. Then when I pointed out the questionable state of the foam, he was certain the problem was a light leak.</p>

<p>I'm pretty sure now the problem is shutter-related, and will seek out somebody here, in the UK, who can do a CLA plus check/fix the shutter and replace the foam, which should cover all bases. Trouble is, the total cost may well exceed the price of a replacement F3.</p>

 

<p>Quick interim update. Took my F3 into a well-known camera shop in New York. They declared it in perfect working order. "I'd love to take your money," the guy said, "but there is nothing wrong with this camera." They said the problem was a light leak. But surely, I said, a light leak would cause white patches, not black ones. No, he said, a light leak will turn the negative light, meaning the patches will show up on the positive as black. This argument went against all my preconceptions, but the guy was an expert so I accepted it, but when I started to think it through (and discuss it with my father, who is less prone to having his preconceptions upended by 'experts'), I realised that the guy must be wrong.</p>

<p>After he declared teh camera ok, I asked about the foam, would it soon need replacing. He had another look and said, "Shit! You got no foam! Weird.....on the end of teh door, here, it'slike there's never been any foam here. Well, there's your light leak...."</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for all the advice, folks. It's great to have this forum. On the downside, I'm setting off on holiday in 2 days' time and my camera has a serious problem. I have another film camera, a Nikon F90x, but I really love my F3 and will be gutted not to be able to use it in New York. I wonder how quickly somewhere like B&H Photo could run a CLA on it for me? Will email them and see what they say.</p>

<p>Thanks again<br>

John</p>

 

<p>Great stuff, guys. John R, having read all the posts here I was thinking along the same lines: at high shutter sppeds you are more likely to notice a shutter lag, whereas in a long exposure it won't matter so much, or at all.</p>

<p>On the other hand, *most* of the shots I took with the 1600 film were taken with a fairly high shutter speed and only some show the problem. Ah well, I will take th ecamera into B&H in New York or somewhere like that, and let them look it over. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>The colour film was Fuji Superia 200. As far as I can tell, the lens is clean, and running it through teh aperture range all the leaves look right.</p>

<p>What puzzles me is the intermittent nature of the problem. Why does it only occur now and then? And why only on B&W?!</p>

<p>One thought: on teh F3, you can advance the film, and cock teh shutter, by pulling the film advance lever all teh way, in a smooth movement. Or, you can pull it in two or more stages, something you would likely only do by mistake, you know if you somehow messed up the pulling of the lever. That dies happen to me on rare occasions, if I am dustracted. Could it be that these shots were taken under such circumstances? Clutching at straws, I know...</p>

 

<p>Well, of course I certainly hold out the possibility that the fault is mine. In fact, I really hope it was! BUt I have several photos, all with a noticeably and unexpectedly dark area on one side, always teh right-hand side. Yet many other shots come out fine. Most strange of all is the fact that all my colour shots came out perfect, but this dark area problem occurs in B&W only.</p>

<p>I do very much appreciate the time you've taken trying to help. I put the strip of negatives on a light box and took a quick photo, you can see the dandelion shot at right.</p>

<p><a href="

<p> </p>

<p>But on the negatives, the dark patches' appear as white areas - the right-hand side of the negative frame for that dandelion shot is all white on the negative.</p>

<p>These were pro scanned by Peak Imaging in Sheffield, a well-regarded company I have used before. Can't be the scanning, I don't think: the faults are on the negatives as well.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No flash. Same lens. I think that shot of the dandelion was taken with pretty much maximum aperture, F1.8.</p>

<p>Well I've had a look at the seals etc. I really don't know enough to judge, although I have to say, in general the foam is looking like it could do with replacing; it's not terrible, but probably should be seen to. In fact, now I examine it more closely, I would say that teh foam is a bit more sparse over towards the left hand side of the camera, which might fit with the comment above (ie. dark patches on teh right of frame caused by fault on left side of camera).</p>

<p>But why dark patches on just one side? And if it's leakage, wouldn;t they usually be white patches? On the negatives themselves, the dark areas appear completely white, meaning (surely) that no light has hit those parts, hence they show up dark when printed or, as in this case, scanned.</p>

<p>Damn! I', flying to New York then Chicago on Tuesday, and was looking forward to using my F3. Too late to stop now I guess. I wonder how quickly (and cheaply?) a repair could be done in New York?</p>

<p>It always seems to happen on the right side of the frame. And, of the 4 films I have recently run through my F3, the two colour films all produced normal exposures, whereas teh two B&W films were the ones which occasionally showed this dark area on the right of teh frame.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Worried about my F3. Every now and then one side of the frame seems to be way blacker than it should be. Have a look at these photos, all taken with 50mm lens, no filters, Fuji Neopan 1600.</p>

<p>Here's one which came out normal:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>This one is, surely, not right:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>This one is hard to call - the dark side could be just light difference:</p>

<p><a href="

<p>Should I be worried?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ok, I am looking for quite a bit of contrast, but the real purpose is to test the film so I have some knowledge of it before I run through a few rolls of it in New York later this month. What am I shooting? Actually, I'm taking part in one of Manchester (UK) Modernist Society's series of walks tomorrow:</p>

<p>http://www.manchestermodernistsociety.org/commission.html</p>

<p>This walk traces the route between Manchester's four remaining old-style red telephone boxes. The predicted weather is good (by our standards) and I'll try to do some general semi-street photography as we go round the city centre.</p>

<p>Ok, no need for filtrs, I guess. I'm inexperienced in B&W photography, and was under the impression that *at least* a yellow filter was needed for shootong B&W outdoors. BUt yeah, of course, a red filter loses you a stop or two doesn't it, so will be good to ditch it and, as you say, enjoy the high speed of the film.</p>

 

<p>Hi folks</p>

<p>I'm going to try a roll of Fuji Neopan 1600 in my F3 tomorrow. Since it is a pretty contrasty film, I wa wondering, would you still advise the use of a yellow or red filter?</p>

<p>Cheers<br>

JC</p>