DWScott

Thanks Bill

Or, just one photo. For some reason PNet thinks there is "something wrong" with picture files #2 and #3. They are output exactly the same way as #1, and I've tried a bunch of different sizes and variations, down to 600 pixel @ 80kb. Sorry folks.

A few more from last week's roll of film. Ilford HP5+ in Diafine, shot on a Nikon F100.

Well, the rolls I expected to post from the Pentax 67 didn't turn out (darn filter factor...) Instead I offer some shots that I took years ago and only just processed this weekend. Taking advantage of the newly-expanded rules for this thread, these are all from a Nikon F100 with a Tokina 19-35mm. Film was HP5+ exposed at 640 and processed in Diafine.

The "standard" lenses (75mm or 80mm on 6x6, 50mm on 135) have always felt too "long" for me as well -- so I empathise completely. 60mm is my preferred focal length for shooting 645. (6x6 I almost always crop to 645 anyway, so my experience carries over.) It's taken me a while and a lot of experimenting, but I believe I could happily shoot for the rest of my life with a 60mm and a 150mm.

Walk alone. Pentax P3n, SMC Pentax-M 35mm f/2, Fuji Superia 400.

I've had two Super Ikonta B's. The image quality is great - comparable to a Rollei TLR. I really like the f/2.8 lenses. The latest models offered a reasonable viewfinder and well coated glass. They are sharp wide open and I find the rangefinder mechanism accurate even with the thin depth of field. I haven't happened to print really large from my cameras, but close inspection of scans makes me confident that you could. These are not modern cameras by any stretch -- but the Zeiss build quality is second to none, and they don't suffer from afflictions common in other folders -- alignment issues, pinholed bellows, etc.

Pentax 67 with the 165mm f/2.8.

The first nice day of the winter brought all of the walkers out to the park. Rolleiflex Automat K4/50 with Ektar 100, three frame pano. I didn't use a Rolleifix (won't fit on the K4/50) and didn't offset the rotation to place it under the lens board, and I didn't use a current version of Photoshop, so the merge is a bit crude.

I appreciate your sentiment John, and would have agreed with you a few years ago. I hope Pentax always makes a traditional SLR -- for some jobs there is no substitute. However, having tasted the mirrorless world with a K-01 and a Fuji X-E1, I love the focus accuracy of mirrorless and the ease of using manual-focus lenses. Getting accurate focus with an SLR started to feel like a Rube Goldbergian experiment, once you could focus directly on the imaging plane. It's like having a view camera ground glass in a handheld camera. And it works so much better than flopping the mirror out of the way for Live View. I couldn't care less about the rest of the "mirrorless" hype ... smaller cameras and shorter lens throws. I want K-mount, I want an eye-level viewfinder and a tilt screen, and I want accurate focus. That won't stop me from buying a KP or a K1. Just hoping for another option that works just as well.

I vote to merge. Love both classic manual and modern film cameras, and there are so many that straddle the gap.

I was about to give up on the forum for a while. But I'll keep giving it a try for now. This thread is my favourite, I look forward to it every week. When I checked the thread this morning, every picture was a thumbnail, and had to be clicked to view. This robbed me of the enjoyment of leisurely scrolling through high quality images. But this afternoon, suddenly all the images are full size. Progress! Hopefully that continues,

Good news. The KP is a very appealing camera. I would definitely have bought it, if I hadn't just bought a K-S2. If Pentax release a camera similar to the KP, but mirrorless/EVF based, I will definitely be buying it.

<p>Marc, your 50 Years Ago posts are going to eventually (sooner rather than later) catch up to my birthdate. I will need to ask you to stop at that point, for fear of feeling old. ;-)</p> <p>Until then, carry on and good work!</p>

<p>Unless the price is unreasonable, I saw go for it. Truly new, or simply lightly used, it's still older. It might need a CLA. But at least you will be CLA'ing a like-new camera :-)</p> <p>I purchased a new-in-box, new-old-stock Wollensak 135mm in a Graflex Raptar shutter. No argument about it -- totally brand new and un-used. I assumed it would be sticky and slow from having sat around in it's original box, surrounded by that stringy "easter basket grass" packing material. Nope! Worked like a charm! Spotless and runs as though it was made yesterday. So perhaps your Nikon will fare just as well.</p>

<p>The best of the bunch, and the only one I still subscribe to/purchase is Black and White Photography from the U.K. This is not the same as Black and White magazine mentioned directly above.</p> <p>It is stylized on the cover as "BLACK + WHITE PHOTOGRAPHY"</p> <p>http://www.blackandwhitephotographymag.co.uk/</p> <p>I find it has thoughtful prompts/exercises in every issue, which is a useful thing as a learner. (The big advantage of taking a photograph class is having someone give you assignments.) These exercises are within reach of any skill level and any equipment bag. People share their results, and sometimes they are from top pro DSLRs, sometimes from antique view cameras, and sometimes from point and shoots.</p> <p>It has also been running a series on bookmaking, which is an interesting angle of the hobby, along with prompts and exercises for DIY bookmaking.</p> <p>Yes the gear reviews are unneccessary repetition of the internet, but blissfully short. I find the portfolio reviews interesting and they have introduced me to photographers and styles I never considered before.</p> <p>They are also scrupulous about not favouring digital or film; both are respected, and given comparable place of honour if not volume of coverage. There is blissfully almost no photoshoppery covered in the magazine.</p>

<p>Hi Emir,</p> <p>I have similar tastes. I liked Neopan 400, and mostly shot Kodak BW400CN (similar but grain-free.)</p> <p>I've auditioned a bunch of different film stocks. Like you, HP5 wasn't exactly to my liking. The best I've found is Acros 100 exposed at ISO 160, or Kodak Tri-X, exposed at ISO 800; both processed in Diafine. There is some grain, but the tonality is nice, lots of detail in the shadows and mids, and a little sparkle in the highlights.</p>

<p>No. 3</p><div></div>

<p>No. 2</p><div></div>

<p>These are all from the first roll out the new-to-me Ricoh 500 (4th version - 45mm f/2.8 Rikenon lens.)</p><div></div>

<p>Hopefully will have a shot to share -- film is at the lab. Mike, love those Mustangs! James, Foggy Backyard is lovely.</p>

<p>A couple of questions for you:</p> <ul> <li>What is the end purpose of your scans? A personal record of memories? Photos to share with relatives via email, or to post on the web? Or would you like to make exhibition-quality prints?</li> <li>Do you only have 35mm negs to scan?</li> <li>Are you an experienced scanner, or very interested to learn?</li> </ul> <p>If you only need snapshots to share with family or for viewing on your screens, you have many options that are much cheaper. I currently use an older Minolta Dimage Scan Dual IV, which was about 100 dollars, connects with USB, and gives me 10 megapixel scans that are perfectly serviceable. Good prints are possible to about 8x10. For 5x7 prints or screens, I could easily use my Epson V500 (current model is the V600.)</p> <p>If you only have 35mm negs, the whole question is also much cheaper and potentially easier to keep running. I would get a current, top of the line Plustek and be done. The reviews are generally good, and the price for a new product is sane.</p> <p>Medium format scanners are, and always have been expensive. The gold-standard Nikon 8000s and 9000s command a premium price. Considering the potential for failure on an older unit, and the headache of trying to service an older machine, I feel like the 9000's command about 2500 dollars too much. The small but desperate market for these scanners says otherwise.</p> <p>Scanning your own film is demanding and has a steep curve to reliably get exactly the result you wish. If you are interested in this work (I am) the process is interesting and enjoyable. If you are only interested in results, you may find it frustrating and unsatisfying. The time commitment alone is daunting.</p> <p>For critical work, I have scans done by the lab. This is most economical if done at the time of developing -- so consider this for your ongoing weekly shooting. It's a bargain to spend 25 dollars on a roll of important photos and get back 30+ megapixel scans of everything. The results are stunning, much better than I can achieve at home. I believe even a Nikon 9000 would be hard-pressed to give me better results. I am happily hanging 20x30 and 16x20 prints that I scanned this way.</p>

I like HP5+ in Diafine. I like it exposed at 640, which is pretty clean and grain is not overwhelming. 800 and 1250 work well but are grittier and contrastier -- which sounds like what you might want.

I'll admit it... my Christmas "selfie" present is a Ricoh 500 headed my way. Inspired by seeing Rick's results from the Ricoh on the weekly thread!

<p>Nice work everyone, and Happy Christmas to all.<br> Rick, I love "December : Late Afternoon 007". It didn't even need the caption; you created the feeling of afternoon winter light beautifully. It looks like a frame from a Bergman film or the Alastair Sim's Christmas Carol.</p>