aslan_ivo

<p>I need a recommendation for an inexpensive camera:<br>

I have a friend who wants to photograph herself using a 35mm film camera. She wants to be able to take multiple shots of herself in various poses, without having to go back to the camera to recock the shutter and advance the frame between each shot. So naturally she needs a camera with a built-in motor and auto film advance.<br>

She also needs some way to trip the shutter each time. I am sure that she can do this with a cable release, but I don't know of a camera that has auto advance plus cable release. Any suggestions welcomed.<br>

It would be ideal to use a self timer instead of a cable release too. But I am not sure if there is a camera whose self-timers also allowed multiple shots to be taken in a row. For example if you set the timer on 10 seconds, does that mean it will continuously take a shot every ten seconds by itself? or will it take 1 shot after 10 seconds, and that's all? If there is a camera that can take 1 shot every few seconds until it runs out of film or is stopped, that would be ideal. Any suggestions?<br>

</p>

<p>Thanks John - we need more photographers who stand their ground and assert (politely) their rights because everytime a photographer sheepishly gives in to a "no photography" claim, they're putting the burden on the rest of us to defend that right. Thankfully we have found a volunteer legal association that will help use find representation (even though the PATH is a heavyweight in NYC business and most firms don't want to cross them for business reasons.)<br>

In the case of the PATH system, there is indeed a blanket "no photos without permit" rule, and the rules/standards for the issuance of the permits are ridiculously unconstitutional -- assuming you even manage to get a appliction form in the first place. Read up and laugh (or cry): <a href="http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=456041">http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=456041</a></p>

<p><br />As some of you know, the New York-New Jersey PATH rail system prohibits photography of their property without a license. A group of photographers are getting together to file a legal complaint against the PATH system. If you're a photographer who has been hassled for not having a photo permit, or if you've been denied a photo permit, please send me a brief email, and briefly describe your experience.<br>

<a href="mailto:pathphotosuit@yahoo.com">pathphotosuit@yahoo.com</a></p>

<p>As long as you develop before you fix, everything should be fine.<br>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted per photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines"><b>Community Guidelines</b></A> - http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines:</i><br>

<i>1. No signatures on forum posts. You may not post a block of text or and/or an image and/or your website URL at the end of your posts saying who you are and/or containing a quote and/or other material unrelated to the subject under discussion.<br>

2. Don't post links to your website or online galleries. There's a field in your user profile where you can add your website or gallery URL in case anyone is interested in finding it.</i><br>

<p>Less development time = less contrast, lighter highlights<br>

More development time = more constrast, darker highlights, more grain<br>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted per photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines"><b>Community Guidelines</b></A> - http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines:</i><br>

<i>1. No signatures on forum posts. You may not post a block of text or and/or an image and/or your website URL at the end of your posts saying who you are and/or containing a quote and/or other material unrelated to the subject under discussion.<br>

2. Don't post links to your website or online galleries. There's a field in your user profile where you can add your website or gallery URL in case anyone is interested in finding it.</i><br>

<p>Squeegeeing your negs is simply asking for scratches. Photoflo won't damage anything. Even if you use too much, you can always just rinse it off again.<br /><hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted per photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines"><b>Community Guidelines</b></A> - http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines:</i><br>

<i>1. No signatures on forum posts. You may not post a block of text or and/or an image and/or your website URL at the end of your posts saying who you are and/or containing a quote and/or other material unrelated to the subject under discussion.<br>

2. Don't post links to your website or online galleries. There's a field in your user profile where you can add your website or gallery URL in case anyone is interested in finding it.</i><br>

<p>Paul - Rinse aid would indeed work better than detergent! It is specifically intended to prevent water spots.<br>

If your distilled water is leaving water spots then ... well, I don't know. Weird.</p>

<p>What do you think of this?<br>

<a href="http://www.darkroomguide.com/">DarkroomGuide.com</a></p>

<p>To get reticulation, you'd have to have some pretty wild temp differences. 8 degrees difference isn't going to cause reticulation.<br>

I have heard that the reason why you want all your chemicals to be the same temp is to reduce grain size. Never tested it. It could be an old wives tale, as far as I know.<br>

See <a href="http://www.DarkroomGuide.com">DarkroomGuide.com</a></p>

<p>The amount of dyes and perfumes in a tiny (less than a drop) of dishwashing liquid -- which is washed out and diluted in the water -- will not affect anything, and in any case it is just a suggestion if you don't have any photoflo.<br />How much do you use? If there are bubbles, too much.<br>

But like I said, the best option is to give the film a final rinse in some distilled water.</p>

<p><strong>See <a href="http://www.DarkroomGuide.com">DarkroomGUide.com</a> for setting up and using darkrooms</strong><br /><br />Photoflow is nothing more than a wetting agent or surfactant. A single drop is more than enough. You can use a tiny, tiny dab of dishwater detergent which has the same effect. It makes water more "runny" and less likely to stick to things. When used on film, it reduces the liklihood of water spots.<br />HOWEVER instead of photoflo, a final dip of your film in some <strong>distilled water </strong>is better. And, you can put some distilled water in a spray bottle and spray it on your negs when you hang them up to dry, in case you're worried about dust etc. (Distilled water is not the same thing as "spring" water btw)<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Hypoclearing agent</strong>: it isn't required but it certainly a good idea to use -- far, far more important than photoflo -- especially for prints (film emulsions are much thinner and the plastic substrate is less likely to absorb hypo. THe paper in prints and the thicker emulsion make washing out the hypo more difficult than film.) Hypoclear can be sent down the drain without any worries. LEftover hypo in your prints and negs can indeed damage them.<br /><br />If you're interested in minimizing environmental issues, you may want to consider using <strong>plain white vinegar in your stop </strong>instead of commercial stop bath. Not that commercial stop bath solutions are particularly dangerous (they're not) but vinegar is certainly a lot cheaper and less scary. A 1 to 10 solution of white vinegar in water is all you need to act as a stop bath. That's all a stopbath really is -- a mild acid that stops the developer, and washes some of it off before the film/prints go into the fixer (thereby extending the life of the fixer by minimizing carry-over of developer) Technically, you don't really need a stop bath but then you'd be reducing the life of your fixer. And by reduring the life of your fixer, you're going to use more fixer ... and the fixer is actually a little bit harmful to the environment than the rest of the chemicals used in BW photography (but personally I'd be more worried about the proper disposal of the plastic containers these things come in.)</p>

<p>Reflective lightmeters are calibrated to provide a reading that will make everything look light gray (or 18% gray.) That's because manufacturers supposedly concluded that an average scene is 18% gray -- and whether that's true or not is largely irrelevant anyway.<br />A white dove in snow is not light gray, of course. If you use the setting that your reflective meter gives when you take a photo, both the dove and the snow will come out light gray.<br />So, to make the snow and the dove look lighter, you need to give more exposure -- longer shutter speed and/or larger aperture size.<br />Similarly, a black dog in coal is not light gray. To make a photo of the black dog in coal look darker, you have to give the shot less exposure - smaller aperture and/or faster shutter speed.<br />How much more or less exposure? One solution is to read the exposure off of something that is itself light gray. And old pair of blue jeans is about that, and supposedly so is grass. Or, carry a gray card with you and use that.<br />And if that doesn't work, use a Rule of thumb: 1-2 stops.<br />BUT...<br />Even if you make the dog look black and the dove look white, the trick is to make the dove still stand out from the snow, and the dog to still stand out from the coal. You don't want to get a photo of just a blob of white or black with a pair of eyes on it, after all. You want to set the exposure and develop the film so as to capture the detai (texture) in the dark and light areas sufficiently. And that's where the Zone system comes in...</p>

<p>I don't know , some of these seem to have very low contrast and "muddy" particularly the church and the library</p>

<p>First, condolences regarding your father.<br>

Contarex Bullseye is a desirable, high-quality collectors item. It should cost more than your ordinary, no-longer very desirable film camera. Your best way of finding the "going price" is to check the completed sales on Ebay. Much depends on the quality of the particular camera. Does it still work fine? Is the lens clean?</p>

<p>And there is nothing particularly wrong with touching the emulsion side as long as your fingers are dry and clean, especially if the alternative is to screw up the film loading onto a spool.<br>

Also, I'm not sure that cotton gloves are the best. Cloth gathers dust. The cheap disposable pastic gloves used in food processing is what I prefer to use.</p>

<p>The secret is to use the plastic reels!</p>

<p>The problem really is about dealing with a scene with a wide contrast. This by itself is a tough thing to do. In addition to that, gray overcast days often result in blown out skies simply because cloudy skies don't have much detail to record anyway! Whether you used incident or reflected metering (correctly) wouldn't make a difference because the problem is not with the metering but with the big contrast range. <br>

The "best" solution to that problem is by using the maxim "expose for shadows develop for highlights". Sometimes this means just holding your hand over the incident meter lightdome. This results in a longer exposure. The the skies will blow out anyway but the foreground will have more detail. You can then burn in the skies when making prints. Not an ideal solution, is it?<br>

The sunny 16 rule can be easily adopted to deal with cloudy days but it is all guesswork, to make up for the days when you forget your meter at home.</p>

<p>If your lens is working and there isn't any condensation in it, be thankful and don't do it again.<br>

Having said that I've used Canon lenses in slight drizzle and in very humid environments without a problem.</p>

<p>The best solution to water marks is a final rinse in distilled (not "spring") water.<br>

The best solution for dust is to either use a dedicated film drying cabinet, OR use your bathroom after you steam up the place by running the hot shower to remove dust.<br>

If you have a negative with dust/water marks you can try to soak it in fotoflo and rerinse in distilled water. Sometimes wiping with PEC as well as alcohol helps too</p>

<p>I'd say about $250-$300 max</p>

 

The inside of a lens can be "scratched" by either improper cleaning or fungus that left a mark.

This is a famously-hard to fix problem if you don't have experience. I shipped mine off to Ken Ruth Bald Mountain and got it back 3 mos later.

Oops - I meant See for yourself:

Wait for it....IRAN. Yes, Iran.

 

Fantastic ancient country, super friendly people, not too many tourists, variety of wildlife, mudbrick villages and modern cities, jungles, coastlines, deserts, snow-covered mountain ranges, old exotic buildings, multicultural people, ancient ruins, spectacular mosques etc etc. AND NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE OF TRIPODS!

 

See for yourself:

What exactly was the reason for being leery about RF? Your previous RF experience was with a smaller format so perhaps that's the cause of your concern?

 

Anyway, you could always rent or borrow a MF RF or heck buy a cheaper foldable MF RF camera - or even a MF SLR like a Pentax 6x7

 

I will admit to lusting for a 7II but I own a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta B 6x6 RF which is excellent. Other than the (really expensive) variety of lenses and the auto functions (which I never use) I can't justify spending the bucks on a 7II when I could spend it on LF!