DWScott

<p>That was Old City Hall in the background of that last shot.</p> <div></div>

<p>It's a snowy night in town, one of the first we've had this year.</p><div></div>

<p>Thought I would share some stereo images I took tonight. I use StereoPhotoMaker to turn the files from my Fuji W1 into traditional Holmes-style stereographic cards. I sent these images to my local lab to print as 5x7's which I will trim to 3.5x7. Viewing is with an antique card viewer.</p> <div></div>

<p>Ciaran, I heartily recommend the Fuji X-T1 camera. It will be a familiar replacement for your Minolta X300s. Picture quality is excellent, camera build quality is excellent.</p> <p>I fear that the Nikon Df <em>looks</em> familiar, but is actually quite a confused design with too many options. (Basically the Df can be used like a modern DSLR, or like a traditional SLR, which makes for a cluttered camera and not giving a consistent user experience.)</p> <p>You also asked about getting a brighter lens. Sounds like you have an f/3.5 zoom. For the Fuji, get the 16-55mm F2.8, which will improve on the low light performance. Combined with the great low-light performance of newer digital cameras, you will be very happy.<br> <br> The Fuji cameras output a very good looking image, straight out of the camera, ready for printing with no computer work. You might even like the Black & White setting, it's very good!</p>

<p>That 45mm really is a super lens. I loved the results from my Contaflex. The increasingly draggy shutter led me to sell it, because a lack or reliable exposures undercut the beauty of the lens. My favourite camera service tech won't even look at these.</p>

<p>I'm sure the AF speed will be great for 98% of the users. Older Pentax bodies lagged, but I was very pleased with my K-5 and my friend's K-5II. Compared very well to the Nikon D300 and D7000.</p>

<p>Don't worry about buying it immediately, because the K-5 is a great camera. But do start saving your money.<br> Buying a K-1 won't make you a professional. But being a professional requires having two fully functional cameras -- backups for everything mission-critical. When you are ready to start work, you may as well buy the best you can afford. Having a K-1 + K-5 would be a perfect pair for a working professional.</p>

<p>And the last one for today.</p><div></div>

<p>I think I'm happy with the lens. Need to have another go with better film and my usual lab.</p><div></div>

<p>I ran a roll of store-brand C41 colour through the Pentax K2 to test out the new-to-me SMC Pentax-M 50mm f/1.4.<br> Unfortunately, the local drugstore lab seems to be having some QC issues. If given lemons, make lemonade. So these got converted to black and white.</p><div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I haven't tried the 135mm f/4, so I can't say anything about it.</p> <p>Loving the 150/3.5 for portraits, I have considered adding an extension tube to get tighter headshots.</p>

<p>I'm very happy with the K2. It feels like the slightly-modernized version of the Spotmatic F that I have been looking for.</p><div></div>

<p>These are processed at the local pharmacy, which still does same-day C41, with a scan, for about $3.</p><div></div>

<p>From last week. I finished restoring a Pentax K2, mounted an SMC Pentax-A 50mm F1.7, and loaded up some Fuji Superia 400.</p><div></div>

The only MC lens that disappointed me was the 40mm. I've recently replaced it with the 40mm PE, but haven't tested it yet. The 50 MC and 60 PE are both great. The 75 EII and 75 PE have my favorite rendering of any lens, regardless of format. And the 150/3.5 MC is my go-to portrait lens, simply perfect.

<blockquote> <p>As well as I know it, there are still schools teaching film movie technology, and need cameras and film.<br> If they want to keep the professional movie industry going, they will have to keep teaching students how to do it.</p> </blockquote> <p>This is exactly right. Kodak continues to sell camera negative to Hollywood, because there are filmmakers in Hollywood who like the film aesthetic and are versed in how to shoot it. If Kodak is to have a hope to continue selling ANY camera negative to Hollywood beyond 2020, they need to ensure a new generation of filmmakers knows what film is, and how to shoot it. Super 8 is a "gateway drug." Look at the marketing surrounding this new initiative -- lots of personal stories from big directors who got hooked on film with Super 8.<br> Seen this way, Super 8 is the canary in the coal mine for everyone who loves analog <em>still photography</em>. We film photographers are being underwritten by Hollywood and the volumes of film required for motion pictures.</p>

<p>Kodak's commitment to Super 8 is amazing. That this format soldiers on despite video, despite the products being difficult to find (even on Kodak's website), despite the cost to process and scan the results, is amazing. There are artists, students, and filmmakers of every kind using Super 8 today. Why not support and encourage those people with new cameras? How is this bad?</p> <p>Kodak has never had a bigger, better offering in Super 8 at any time before today. They offer two tungsten-balanced negatives, one daylight-balanced negative, and a reversal Tri-X. No more Ektachrome, but Ektachrome went away in all formats.</p> <p>A hybrid camera simply makes sense. I thought the newer Super 16 cameras (like the AATON A-Minima) should have adopted the same approach. Optical viewfinders are expensive and require precision manufacture. Digital viewfinders can be built from commodity parts and bring a lot of modern convenience to the shooting of film. Film cameras used to have both an optical finder and an optional "video tap." Why not just make a camera with a fixed "video tap" that can be used for viewfinding, scratch recording and playbacks? Makes perfect sense to me. A new camera can also offer "crystal synced" speeds, cheaply and reliably. This was difficult/expensive/rare on older cameras, that relied on crude electrical and mechanical governors to shoot at "approximately" the correct speed. Believe me, trying to match sound up to a crappy old camera that can't hold sync is no fun.</p> <p>Kodak is also tackling the problem of "where do I buy film? how do I develop film? can I get this scanned?" They want to have infrastructure so that Super 8 users can buy film, with processing and scanning included, for one price. Including electronic delivery of the footage. Again, this makes perfect sense. It's a bit of back-to-the-future (you press the button, we do the rest.) But it's necessary now that you can't develop Super 8 at every pharmacy counter, and labs are closing across the world.</p> <p>As to "why?" I say why not? It's an artistic medium. It has it's own look. Blowing up the tiny frame of Super 8 film reveals all of the texture inherent in analog film. That is no longer a liability -- it's a desirable choice. I'm looking forward to keeping a viable artistic medium alive. Bravo Kodak.</p> <p> </p>

Ferrania are putting a great deal of money and effort into restarting their film lines, and E6 is their first product. As always, if you like products, shoot them as much as you can. Historical prices are irrelevant now; these are artist's materials. Use as much as you can afford and your work requires.

<p>I hate using the Print File sleeves, because I find the same thing. Any storage system that requires you to slide negs in and out (and in fairly tight-fitting slots) makes no sense to me.</p> <p>I would love to use glassine envelopes or similar, but haven't found such a thing (at least reasonably priced and readily accessible.) I shoot 120 as well as 35mm, so it would be good to have a solution in multiple sizes.</p> <p>Obviously I am interested in what suggestions folks have...</p>

<p>The Nikon kit is brilliant, but the limits of 35mm are too great to really overcome. You can maybe get close, but at great effort.</p> <p>Shoot the tightest grain film (Ektar or an old roll of BW400CN) and have it scanned on a Flextight or drum scanner, and you will be pleased. But medium format achieves similar results with a wider range of film and more pedestrian scanning.</p> <p>I shoot both 35mm and medium format, about equally. Primarily Pentax for 35mm and Bronica for 645. Importantly, both systems have lenses that give results I like. I have also shot Nikon, Rolleiflex, and Fuji 6x9.</p> <p>Sometimes having a quick-handling portable camera and/or zooms are important. 35mm does the job. Sometimes absolute resolution and tonality are important. For that, medium format is called for. Absolute resolution and tonality can't be invented after the fact. All things being equal, for portrait work, I choose medium format.</p>

<p>Also Tri-X in Diafine. Had a great long weekend in Quebec, and enjoyed the spectacular weather.</p><div></div>

<p>This one is Tri-X 400 exposed at 1250, developed in Diafine.</p><div></div>

<p>Joining a little late, but here are my contributions. All shot on my Bronica ETRSi with the 60mm PE lens.<br> This first one is Acros 100, exposed at 200 and developed in Diafine.</p><div></div>