chromatic-aberration

I don't think it's a matter of age or fading vision. I have 20/15 vision in my dominant eye, and I can barely cope with the miniscule rangefinder window on the 35RF. I wish it weren't so, as I actually rather like the darn thing.

Zeiss might also have made something that was close enough to fit on a C3 with an adapter.

Coming into photography from a more general art background, I've seen that same streak of ego in other artistic fields as well. It's nothing unique to photography. If you're actually creating a real piece of art that you're psychologically invested in, it's difficult for many (if not most) to separate themselves from their creation.

 

Photography is unique in that it has a gizmo factor not seen in too many other visual arts, and that gizmo factor often gets tied up in people's internal and external perceptions.

Would a take-up spool from an Exa work in a IIIc?

I've had this camera for over a year now, and realized that I may have the wrong takeup spool... (There seem to be a few different Ihagee spools out there, some with color coded tips.) Mine has a green tip, and accepts the leader in the opposite direction of the direction that it rotates for film advance. Could that weird "doubling back" effect be causing my problem?

I?ve got an early model Exa that has a problem with the spacing of images. As

the roll progresses, the space between images increases. Does anyone have any

ideas of what I should check to potentially solve this?

I'd second the vote for the XA series. 90% of the "magic" of the LC-A look is in the cross-processing

The KE-12 Speed Graphic was the primary still camera used by Signal Corps photographers, and the one you see in most of their training materials. The military version of the non-RF Kodak 35 (aka PH-324) pops up, but I haven't been able to tell how commonplace it was. Some of the smaller ad-hoc photo sections in the Signal Corps used pretty much whatever they could get their hands on.<div></div>

1931 Voigtl䮤er Jubilar in absolutely mint condition for $3.

If the problems of media and format can be worked out, which I'm sure they will, digital has the advantage. A digital image is essentially eternal, if properly cared for. The mystical properties of film aside, digital is information that can be exactly and perfectly replicated with ease. The same cannot be said of negatives or photographic prints. Silver based photographers have a responsibility to the future to ensure that they've taken all the appropriate archival measures to make sure that thier work will last as long as possible. Digital camera manufacturers have a responsibility to avoid quirky proprietary formats and forced obsolescence.

 

Film isn't going to go away, but it certainly isn't going to be readily available to the average Joe on the street. After all these centuries, you can still buy oil paints.

 

Relax, drop the quasi-religious definitions of what "real photography" is, and get back to creating photographs. History, will prove us right or wrong, not some smug ramblings on an internet forum.

Well, the leather has put on a lot of years since the old crocks were new crocks.

Does anyone know when 120 size roll film backs were introduced for Graflex

cameras? I might be in the market for a 1940?s vintage press camera of some

sort, and would prefer roll film to sheet film if I could find a back that

wasn?t anachronistic.

My first reaction was to categorize it as a modified IIIc, but I wasn't really sure if there was some sort of convention in place. I'm both a shooter and a collector. I bought it for the history, but I intend to actually use it. It's not the easiest camera I've used, but it's not as horrendously difficult as some internet pundits would make it out to be. Thanks :-)

What is the generally accepted convention in the Leica "community" for referring

to converted Leicas? In my case, I've got a IIIc that was converted to a IIIf.

 

IIIc? IIIf? IIIc/f? Something else? No convention? Doesn't matter?

<i>frankly and honestly I cannot see any justification for the Holga or the cultic following. When 6 x 6 and 6 x 9 folding cammeras are easily purchased and they often have real lenses ansd shutters. EDven the old Brownie Hawkeys is superior to the Holga.</i><p>

Generally speaking, most Holga users are rather disappointed when they get a new Holga that has a sharp lens and doesn't distort things. People don't shoot Holgas because they're good in any traditional sense.

One trick that seems to help, especially if the mirrors are failing, is to tuck a bit of unexposed but developed color film (or an orange theatrical gel, if you have such a beast laying around) in front of the rangefinder window nearest the rewind knob. It helps a lot to increast the contrast in the rangefinder window. Leica did make a specially designed filter for this purpose, and they tend to run from $25-$50. The film trick is a nice free way to see if it even makes a difference for you.

There is a seller on eBay that sells a modern version. I just got one for $15, and it works like a charm. Search for "ABLON".

Anybody else reminded of the end of Monty Python's "Holy Grail"?

I don't know if they make an adapter or not, but theoretically you should be able to use Leica R mount lenses (film to flange distance of 47mm) on Nikon (film to flange of 46.5mm).

The optical viewfinders on most point and shoots are so pitifully tiny that using the LCD ends up being a better option quite often. It may look silly (and as we all know, the most important part of photography is looking cool), but is it really all that fundamentally different than staring at ground glass from a distance?

$7000 for a camera that doesn't provide adequate cover in a firefight? ;-)

If anyone knows where to find straps like the ones that Alex posted, please let me know. I could find several different uses for those.

Does anyone have any photos showing what the strap from a WWII vintage Leica

should look like? I'm too paranoid to use a strap older than my parents, but

I'd like to keep my eyes open for an appropriately "period" looking strap.

<img

src="http://www.chromatic-aberration.com/gal-industrial/images/DSC_6650-small.jpg">

Having actually dealt with the logistics of the royal family, I can almost guarantee you that they've got some sort of internal mechanism set up for that sort of stuff.