alex_stein

<p>Samy's actually uses A&I, I believe. A&I had a branch in Santa Monica (but still sent B&W out to the Valley), but it shut down late last year. Shooting color for B&W as Curt does isn't a bad idea if you're not going to process at home - Samys turnaround time for C41 is one business day and runs about $5. There's also Fromex in Marina Del Rey (which can do same-day processing for about the same amount) and a few other labs that still process C41 on-site.<br>

I've recently started processing B&W at home and I have to say I get a lot less dust than I ever did with Samys.</p>

<p>David -</p>

<p>I agree, though I would point out my original point still stands: Leica cameras for shooting 35mm film aren't as attractive an investment as they have been in the past, now that cheap and easy processing is going out the window. Yep, we can process our own B&W and send out E6 or C-41 film, and I doubt that will go away completely anytime soon. But the expenses are starting to mount up.</p>

<p>When I owned a Leica, I made a point of shooting at least a roll of film a week, whether or not I found anything particularly worth shooting. It seemed insane to spend what I did on the camera and then let it sit and gather dust. I'd hope the majority of M owners did the same. With Costco processing and even minimal scans, that's was about $150/year on processing costs, and I'd be looking at scans on my PC within hours of finishing a roll. Now I have to pay for shipping to and from a lab in addition to inflated processing rates. That $150/yr. can quickly climb to over a thousand. Which leaves me with the following choices: shoot less, shoot black and white only (and try to keep up with processing everything myself), or finally admit the inevitable and stop shooting 35mm. I think I might be choosing the third option. I still love my Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Pentax MF cameras, and am willing to pay the cost to send the rolls out for proper processing and scanning, but it's getting harder and harder to justify owning 35mm equipment, which I always viewed as a "fun" size, saving any serious work for medium format.</p>

<p>That's just me, of course.</p>

<p>I think that statement is a bit of a dodge. I'm guessing the cameras produced "daily" are the special edition versions - Hermes, Jaguar, 300 year anniversary or whatever. If you're willing to shell out $7000, then yes you can buy a brand new M7 produced this year.</p>

<p>The real issue continues to be how dedicated hobbyists are to film, once access to cheap and relatively quick processing is removed. And whether that dedication withstands the thought of shelling out $1400 for a used M6 (for example). Others in this thread have mentioned processing their own and then scanning, which is where I am now. However, somewhere along the way you start to realize what a torturous route you're taking to what, eventually, will end up being a 720 pixel wide posting on your web gallery of choice. </p>

<p>There's definitely something to be said for the pleasures of using a top piece of engineering such as a Leica, but the importance of that feeling may begin to fade as it becomes more and more difficult and expensive to simply use the camera.</p>

<p>Robert, you bring up a good point. During the film era, photographers who weren't interested in processing or printing their own work had a much easier time of it - just drop the film off at a lab and tell them what you wanted. While labs these days are making huge efforts to court digital customers (digital kiosks, etc.), it's still a system designed around the user taking care of some of the process himself, even if that means simply downloading the photos to your PC and then uploading them again to a lab's site. But this seems to be the way of all things digital - listening to music went from buying a CD and putting it in the player to downloading music to iTunes, then creating playlists and then transferring everything to your iPod.<br>

By the way, Costco will of course continue to offer digital processing, meaning if you are able to get to one (I wasn't clear from your earlier post whether you were mailing film to Costco for processing or taking it in), then it's essentially the same thing, except you bring in your memory card instead of film.<br>

Anyway, if you're serious about becoming a collector, these next few years will be great ones for you. I predict a glut of former high-end 35mm cameras hitting the market as people try to reap the storied "retained value" of their Leicas before the general public realizes they've become, essentially, antiquities better suited for looking at than shooting through.</p>

<p>It's being reported from several users that Costco photo lab locations are phasing out film processing altogether. I asked my local Costco if they had plans to stop film processing, and was told, "at some point, but I'm not sure when." Other users have been given answers at their locations ranging from, "Yes, in a couple months," to "Yes, when we see a sharp enough drop in film processing requests." As far as I've been able to tell, no one has heard a definitive "no" from any Costco location when asking recently if they would stop film processing. I'm giving it another year or two at the most before all locations stop processing film, depending on how many disposable cameras are sold/used during that time. I also realized I suggested in my last post that Costco still processed chromes, which of course they don't (they used to send them out, but have stopped that as well). Regardless, it's a great lab for cheap, quick processing and prints, and I think if/when they stop film processing, it will have a significant impact on the amount of 35mm film being used by casual hobbyists, which will in turn have a significant impact on the sales of 35mm cameras and film.</p>

<p>I think the Costco decision has pretty big implications. I can develop my own B&W but that's pretty limiting for a guy who loves to shoot chromes. The cheapest independent lab I can find out here in LA still runs at $10+/roll of 35mm just to process, never mind prints or even low-res scans. A&I, by far the biggest lab in the area, shut down its Santa Monica branch this year, meaning everything now gets shipped out to the valley, causing a two or three day wait for processing. North Coast down in San Diego has great service but now charges $6 on top of processing costs just for shipping. At a certain point the economics just don't add up to support what is essentially a hobby - it's increasingly difficult to argue a quality difference exists between 35mm and the better DSLRs (or digital rangefinders) out there. I think if anything more of us will move to medium format to gain the picture quality and make the cost a little more worthwhile. On the plus side the price of used Leicas will inevitably come down as people give up trying to justify the expense of using them vs. decent digital cameras.</p>

<p>I think at this point the message to me is to keep shooting and especially talking about film as much as I can because it seems to drive some people so crazy they actually put down their chalk and erasers and start pulling their hair out in front of their computers.</p>

<p>I'm echoing a few others in this thread when I say the mirror slap issue on the 67 (especially the II) is overblown. I bought mine specifically for street photography and it works out great for it. I like that it functions essentially as a 35mm SLR on steroids, and while it certainly draws a little attention, it's nothing near the looks I get with a Hasselblad. It's a little heavy, but with a decent strap I could wear it all day without feeling it too badly, and the image quality is excellent.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/114/316241731_00f8c20f5a.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="408" /></p>

<p>Very interesting discussion, folks, thanks. Hearing about costs in other areas is enlightening. My story (this time) ended with me going to A&I after all and paying for processing only. I (luckily) asked to borrow a loupe and use their lightbox when picking up the rolls and discovered that the two C41 rolls developed in Santa Monica had streaks throughout them. Turns out they'd just changed the chemicals and this was a somewhat normal occurrence. They re-washed the rolls in 15 minutes and I was on my way.</p>

<p>Got a glass holder for my scanner and am happily scanning and printing away now. I guess it's just a matter of re-adjusting my expectations.</p><div></div>

<p>August -<br>

I believe you're correct. We're sort of vaguely looking at new houses at the moment, so I'm going to keep an eye out for any rooms that could be used as an ad-hoc processing room (faucets, space for chemicals storage, etc.).</p>

<p>Again, I don't mean to whine too much about this, and I'm officially okay with it now. I just miss the old days, just like we all do to some extent or another.</p>

<p>Now I'm loupe-shopping, so at least I get to buy something!</p>

<p>-Alex</p>

<p>Hi All -<br>

Thanks for all the responses. I certainly didn't mean for this to just be a whining post (though I was certainly not thrilled when I learned of the price increase), and I definitely feel for the people who aren't lucky enough to live near a quality lab or in a country where $8 processing of 120 is still considered high. It was just a shock to me to drop off three rolls of film for processing only and it still comes to $25.<br>

David - you're right about my math being off, but honestly at $8 roll just for processing and one roll a week, plus my time and effort in scanning at high res, an MF back looks more attractive. Of course I don't use MF to save money and I'm not seriously considering a $10K+ outlay at the moment, but it puts a damper on things.<br>

Erie - I am considering just that, though I think having to develop my own rolls will delay my working on them even more, and my wife will finally throw up her hands and demand I either go digital or stop shooting.<br>

Thanks again, all!<br>

- alex</p>

<p>Hi All -<br>

I started shooting MF about three years ago. I live in Los Angeles and used a number of labs here to develop and scan my negatives and slides. These included A&I and a smaller store called LA Photo which outsourced to (I believe) Isgo out in the Valley. Back then I could get a roll of 120 developed and scanned (medium res) for about $11. Then LA Photo sold out to A&I and the price rose to about $15/roll. Just today I went to A&I to drop off some rolls and found out the price now for developing and scanning a roll of 120 is $20! Developing alone is about $8.<br>

Are others seeing these kinds of price increases elsewhere? I'm going to have to drop the scanning from now on. I have a film scanner at home for doing high res scans, but it was always great to get the medium res for preview and web purposes, as scanning at home is a laborious process. Even dropping that, though, $8 seems really high for a single roll of 120mm. I know A&I is supposed to be one of the top labs in LA, but it still seems like if I shoot more than a roll a week, medium format is going to soon be priced so high that it makes buying a digital back or even one of the newer DSLRs more attractive (I never thought I'd say that).<br>

- Alex</p>

Hi All -

 

I've seen a mention of "trash the dress" bridal sessions, where a group of

photographers get together with a model, a wedding dress, and a location to

practice shooting, compare notes, etc.

 

I was wondering if there was any interest in doing something similar with a

reception. I see quite a few questions here regarding lighting receptions,

considering the size of the room, the crowd, white dress and black tux, etc. If

we got, say, 30 photographers, some strobes, and a bride and groom model, could

we set it up so one person has maybe 20 minutes to shoot the "reception," while

the remaining photographers act as guests. It seems like there is a strong urge

here of people wanting to try new things with lighting, but being concerned

about learning "on the job" and potentially getting sub-optimal results during

someone's wedding. Why not have an opportunity to try it safely first?

 

Having a group would reduce hall and equipment rental costs, as well as allow us

to bounce ideas off each other and compare results.

 

I'm in the LA area, I know there are a few of us here - any interest?

 

I'll post a similar message on the FM wedding forum as well.

 

Thanks!

 

-Alex

Hiya Paul -

 

I did ask about the upgrade, but the quote was a bit ridiculous, on top of the repair. I'm fine with 800 for now, as I don't think I'll be shooting anything faster than 400 in the near future, and will reconsider the upgrade later.

 

In the meantime, just ran the first post-repair roll through, and it's looking much, much better.

Well, for anyone still following this thread, it looks like there was an issue with my metering system. My roll came back almost completely black, except for some shots which were absolutely blown out. I took the body and flash in to Steve's Camera Repair here in LA, and the diagnosis is the ASA-setting mechanism was broken into two pieces! He's replacing that and we'll go from there. I'm a bit mystified why the readings would be so far off both positively and negatively, but who knows how the camera meters things if the ASA setting is off.

Hi Paul -

 

Thanks, I'll order one straight off. In the meantime, as promised I ran a roll of 220 film through the camera tonight, ISO 100 E6. Indoors, ambient was EV6 down to EV2, distances from 1.2m to about 15ft. I consistently got the flashing exposure indicator in the viewfinder at all distances, all f-stops from 4 to 11 and even 16. However, when my model (wife) insisted on a "nice" picture to finish off the roll, I moved in closer and attempted to bounce off the ceiling. No flashing light. Chagrined, I moved back up to 2.8 and aimed the flash directly at her. Still no light! So this is what prompted my original post. It seems sometimes identical shots from the same location will not indicate as properly exposed.

 

Obviously, I'll know a lot more on Monday when I get the film back from the lab, but it does make me nervous going to an event and not being sure I'll even know whether I missed a shot or not.

 

Thanks!

 

-Alex

Thank you again, Paul, and Russ and Danny. I don't recall the shutter speed on the shot posted, but it definitely was not 500.

 

I'm going to take a roll of 220 film this weekend and do a series of tests at various f-stops and distances to find out whether I'm getting expected results. Paul, you were correct - I had the reflector set to tele when I took that shot.

 

Finally, can you provide a bit more information about the plastic cover you mentioned? I assume it's some sort of cover to fit the back of the camera, in lieu of a film back? I bought both my camera and flash used, and neither came with such an item.

 

Thanks again!

 

-Alex

Paul -

 

Thenks for the clear and informative response! Knowing the guide number (I should have guessed!) helps quite a bit, plus the math. This quite useful.

 

I'm still not sure why my wife, sitting mere feet across a table from me, came out severely underexposed when I shot her at, I believe, F11. I'm not 100% that was the aperture, but even at the lens' maximum (F22) I should have had sufficient light to reach almost 2 meters, correct (I'm quite sure I didn't shoot at F22).

 

Could other factors contribute to this?

 

Thanks again!

 

-Alex<div></div>

Hi all -

 

I'm a new owner of a D-Flash 40, which I use with my 503CX. I'm more familiar

with E-TTL flashes from using them with my Canon, so I'm still learning how to

work with the Hasselblad, and have a couple of questions:

 

I'm having trouble grasping the limitations or preferred usage of the flash. For

example, when shooting indoors with the flash as the primary source of light, if

I'd like a relatively high shutter speed to reduce camera shake and a somewhat

closed down aperture to increase depth of field, is there a way to determine

these limits without shooting a test shot and looking for the flashing exposure

indicator in the viewfinder? I can't imagine this is practical in all

situations, so is there a good starting point if you know your ISO?

 

Like I said, this is beginner stuff, so please be patient.

 

Thanks!

 

-Alex

All things considered, then, does anyone think a more economical purchase would be the V700 and Julio's ScanScience kit, rather than the V750, if you're planning on buying the ScanScience anyway? I haven't heard of GREAT quality difference in scans between the V700 and V750.

 

I also understand the software package with the V750 is more complete, so that's another factor to consider.