erik

When they come out with a TV or projector that can show bright 4' images at the

resolution of my slide projector, I'll go digital. Until then film RULES! :)

 

Has anyone here shot much of the Agfa Scala? (B&W slide film). I burned through about

10 rills a few years back but haven't touched it since then. Is it still around?

Hmm. I used to use e100sw for all my shots. then I recently moved to portra. but i'm

itching to get back into slides again. Have the new Kodak slide films finally produced a

400 film worth shooting?

thanks all, for the advice and comments.

Erik

I finally ordered a SB16 from KEH for interior pics--got sick of using my P&S, and,

well, I'll use it for other stuff too.

 

Now, i KNOW that the F3 is reputed to be relatively 'poor' at flash. Though I've been

taking pics for many years, it was always natural light--and I have, um (embarrassed

to admit it) never used a flash on my F3, or any other non-computerized SLR which

required thought. I'm not including my month using a Maxxum with flash back in

1992 before it got stolen, because I had no real idea of what was going on then.

 

So I guess my question is: Any specific tips for the F3/SB16A combo? Does TTL

(which i'm trying to figure out from the various online guides) work better than

manual? Are there any tricks for fill flash outside (turn the head around and rely only

on the mini-flash in front?)

 

Any and all information appreciated, including web links to info or how-tos.

 

thanks,

 

Erik

Thanks for all the responses. I don't print at home, so lab only for me. I know my lab

wasn't using a digital machine, which may explain their problem. Oddly though--and

I know it seems hard to believe, especially coupled with their apparent incompetence

at printing XP2 or any other C41 B&W film--but they really do machine process true

B&W paper; and I know they process 'real' B&W film like tri-X et al. I've actually seen

results from other labs of non-digital machine printed B&W and it is pretty decent

(though it's a lot more expensive to print).

I'll look into the Portra B&W (wasn't aware that it existed); hopefull it isn't more

expensive than the Ilford.

 

It's really the lab's stubbornness that annoyed me; they didn't say "we can't do it", or

"we won't do it", they said "it can't be done". There's a (small) part of me taht wants to

go back and wave my CVS-developed, almost perfectly-neutral prints in their face and

say "HA!". I just ran into the photo tech today and it seems they're getting a new

digital lab in a few months; *maybe* they'll get my business back then. Until that

point I think I'm going to have to go with mailers.

 

Anyway, i've always wondered about the "true" B&W v "color print" B&W; thanks all for

clearing up that issue.

 

Erik

I often shoot ilford xp2 film. Great stuff--and I can get it developed at cheap color

prices, which are good enough for pass-it-on pics, and enlarge as needed on B&W

paper. There's a local photo store near me which insists it's not possible to develop

on color paper--and when i insisted (rather than pay the $10 or so extra for true B&W

processing) it was, as warned, a truly botched job--lots of color tonality, and different

tonality on every shot. some greenish, some bluish, etc.

 

Now this confuses me, because my local CVS and Brooks labs, apparently staffed by

high school students, seem to be perfectly capable of producing nice, generally tone-

free, prints. The problem is that I've seen their film handling (strips lying on the floor,

etc) and don't trust them not to scratch my negs. in fact, almost everywhere i've

brought XP2--except here--is good. but my local lab and CVS are the only places

within 20 minutes.

 

What can I tell my lab to get them to do it right? they're a photo store with the

capability to machine process true B&W film and paper, so one assumes (incorrectly?)

that they'd know something of what they're doing.

Of course, many of the above people assume you know that you've taken the perfect picture--BEFORE you look at the negs or prints :) Which is a level of skill that (sadly) I don't have...

Search the archives. Lots of places, but to some extent you get what you pay for, especially as you want to blow up a 35mm to 12x18. Landscapes? Portraits? You can track down a Ciba lab and get colorul stuff for landscapes.

 

Are the bad prints you're getting from labs that use internegatives or digital (eg Frontier) prints/scans? Find out (ask) and try a lab that does the other one--maybe you'll like the look better. But nothing will look as good as a well-projected slide.

Those XP2s look washed out for the whites, but maybe that's just my monitor. However the color scans look good--just fine for 4x6 or 5x7 prints, which is what 98% of people use anyway. I think you got a good deal if you do a lot of bulk work. Upload the scans to shutterbug and if anyone wants an 8x10 or a custom print you can still make one.

 

Not incidentally, you may be able to make some spare cash scanning older negs, if your machine will accept already-cut negative strips. Lots of people around with thousands of old photos who want to share them.

snapfish, snapfish, snapfish...... (or ophoto is you're so inclined). Its not THAT slow, it's good, and it's cheap.

Canon now has "FARE 2.0". It's available on their 9900f flatbed, and may eventually be available on the fs4000 or its replacement... it will ostensibly do Kodachrome just fine. I assume it uses a slightly different wavelength to accomplish the same thing as FARE but with better KC capability (though of course it might just be hype).

 

If you can live with 3200 dpi resolution and have a lot of slides it may be worth a look, especially as it will batch scan 24 35mm slides at once, i think, and is well within your stated price range.

I have an F3. I�m curious as to how accurate my meter and shutter

speed are. I hope to avoid a $250 CLA if I don't need it :) And so,

I�ve come up with a few alternatives to test this:

 

1) to check the meter, meter on a gray card and compare to a good new

(borrowed) handheld meter (which I�m assuming would be accurate). If

they�re the same I�m good to go.

 

2) To check the shutter speed, use the handheld meter to set a

shutter speed and shoot. Check final exposure.

 

3) To check overall functioning of both meter and shutter speed

working together, shoot at aperture priority at a variety of

apertures; in bright light this could easily range from over 1/1000

to as low as 1/15. The shutter is �sliding scale� (as y�all probably

know), so it will theoretically work fine even at a true speed of

1/167 or so.

 

But the problem is, how to check final exposure? It seems that only

a gray card will allow me to do an accurate exposure check. But then

I end up with a bunch of gray slides or negatives.. What then? Will

any chemical imbalance in my local lab change things? Are good

camera stores set up to check final exposure relatively

easily/cheaply?

 

And no, there�s no reason to suspect that one or both are

malfunctioning... I think. But I�m a poor enough photographer that I

do get a decent number of over- or under-exposed images. Is it me

(probably)? Is it the F3's basic center-weighted metering? (I use

AP mode more frequently than full manual, especially if I�m shooting

in a hurry in varying light, and want to stick with larger

apertures). Or are the meter and shutter speed off? How to tell?

 

Thanks...

Registered mail is the absolute safest way. It travels (no joke) in armored cars, so I've heard--which is why they're willing to insure packages up to $25,000, including such items as bonds, negotiable instruments, cash, jewlery, etc. You can read more at http://pe.usps.gov/text/dmm/s911.htm#Xgj1408 if you're interested.

 

If you NEED it to get there completely unscathed, use registered mail. Hell, if they will ship a package saying "$25,000 CASH" on the waybill, and insure it for full value, it's going to be pretty damn safe :)

Hmm... i can't quite imagine shooting all these pictures, at diferent ISOs, on one roll. But hey, I'll try! Something tells me I had better try it _before_ the wedding. :)

 

It's especially terrifying to contemplate because I usually shoot e100sw slide film, which is fairly picky about exposures. I'll let you know if I have any more problems

 

And thanks for all the advice...

lol I'll consider MF or LF as a better opportunity as soon as it becomes

 

1) as cheap as 35 mm, per photo (film costs only)

2) as easy to use for me and my family. I can hand my F3 to my mom and she's good to go.

3) as portable. I travel. I walk.

4) as cheap as 35mm, equipment-wise.

 

I shudder to think what my equipment would cost in MF, much less LF. Or what it would be like to use.

 

But hey--it WOULD let me save money on a scanner! ;)

From another thread, I've been advised to use XP2 at 200, rather than

the 400 ASA listed on the box. I'm unsure what's involved beyond

setting my ASA to 200. I'll be shooting primarily in natural light

using an F3 (though as the party goes into the evening, I'll probably

HAVE to shoot at 400, to keep my shutter speed up; I've never used

flash on this camera, I don't have a decent flash anyway, and word is

taht the F3 isn't a great flash platform)

 

Should I expect that the contrast range will change at ASA 200? If I

just shoot at 200 it will tend to overexpose my film slightly, it

seems, since it will allow 2x the light to hit the film. Should i

attempt to compensate by metering on the darks areas of the scene

rather than neutrals? Or does XP2 have enough latitude to compensate

no matter what? What would be any other tricks/advantages of

shooting at 200, and am I correct that if I did so i'd need to let my

lab know for developing?

 

thanks,

 

Erik

I'll be doing a fair bit of shooting at my brother's wedding. No,

I'm not a pro, and i'm not ever trying to be one--and yes, I'll be

staying out of the way. In fact, I'm trying to shoot quite different

stuff, focusing on B&W as the pro will largely be shooting color. Of

course, I have the advantage of being there for days rather than only

hours :)

 

In the past, I've had good results with portraits and candids using

xp2; it isn't too contrasty and it looks promising (any disagreements

there?).

 

But that said, I've never shot at altitude before, and I understand

the light is different. We'll be pretty high up, close to 10,000

feet (it's at the Alta base lodge in Salt Lake City, UT). Do I need

to use a special filter? UV blocker? Yellow?

 

Equipment available is an old F3 and a few older Nikon primes (50/1.4

and 1.8; 20/28 i think; may be a 24 I haven't used it much, and an 80

and 135 that I recently traded for)

 

Thanks

Nobody knows how long they last because none of them have broken yet :)

Canon DOES make dust removal that works with Kodachrome. It's called Fare 2.0 (as

opposed to FARE 1.0), and as far as I know it is only availavle on their newer

scanners, such as the 9900f. I confirmed this for the 9900f through an email

exchange with canon after initially spotting it in a press release. I imagine it will be

included on the next generation f4000us as well.

 

Too bad that Vuescan doesn't support the 9900f, because with the Kodachrome

capability and 24-slide batch vs 18-slide batch, it may be superior to the Epson 3200

that so many love.

1300 GBP? that's over $2100 US! Jeez, you'd be better off gettin' a cheap ticket to the US and buying one there, like a refurbished/full warranty PowerBook G4/667 256/30gb/Combo Titanium 32mb VRAM for $1600 US, or a refurb PowerBook G4/800 512/40gb/Combo/Airport Titanium for $1850 US (both off smalldog.com, BTW). Aren't tickets only about $200?

 

Spend the extra $ on memory and an external firewire 120G hard disk drive, or an external DVD-ROM drive. The memory should easily make up for the slight decrease in clock speed.

Were it me, i'd at least look at getting a new "last year's model" Tibook 15--it'll run

you about the same as your 12", is available at 667 or 800 mhz, and have obvious

advantages like screen size and proven reliability. Check out www.smalldog.com; i

often recommend them because they 1) are good people as far as I can tell, and

firendly and fairly knowledgeable on the phone, 2) Sell older product lines (still new

with full warranties) at a discount, which expands your buying options, 3) Sell

refurbished units (also under full factory warranty) of both new and older models,

which can be a good deal, and expand your options even more and 4) Are nice to

dogs. they carry everything mac, including refurbished displays.

um... no. See, this is where you want to bite your tongue before you switch into (for

lack of a far less polite term) type A mode.

 

I got the sb-22s used as part of a trade. I've never used it, I don't know a damn thing

about Nikon flashes, sb-22 or any other ones, and only recently have discovered that

it's possible to do ttl on my f3 with certain models.

 

What is "dx"? i don't know. Can you use an sb-22s on a d100 and only lose a few

random functions? Will it break the camera? I don't know, never said I did. And

although you may know the answer, you haven't said it yet.

 

I got the impression, in case you missed it, that the poster might not want to drop

$200 plus on a new fancy flash, and might want something basic. (Note: those who

are looking to use an old SB-15, one assumes to avoid spending big money, don't

necessarily benefit from "go buy an SB80DX!"). If the SB22s works, even if it's not the

80 that you 'should' buy, the owner could be ineterested in a cheap trade, or so I

thought.

 

And your comment taht a DX flash "should" be used: "you didn't spend all that money

to have a crippled flash system"... how the hell do you know why, or how, others

choose to spend their money? Even you should be able to see the rudeness of that

comment. Perhaps you'd like to send me some money for my "crippled" system...?

The owner wasn't asking SHOULD, he was asking COULD.

I just had to reply...

I have an F3. I need an SB-15 (tho a 16 would be better).

I also have an excellent condition, fairly new, SB-22s. Which unlike an SB-15, won't

do TTL with my F3.

 

The SB-22s, while no SB-28, is (I believe) "smarter" than an sb-15 and will (I believe)

work fine with a d100. Check me on this, as I'm not a flash guru by any means.

 

Email me if you wanna try to do some sort of trade; it may be a good exchange for

both us.

 

Erik

efilter@REMOVETHISBEFOREYOUEMAILME.hammarlunds.com

Well, sure, it cn be well worth it:

since quite a bit of the speed comes from having lots of RAM, and quite a bit of the

actual useability of ANY machine comes from things like extra HD space, double CD

drives if you do a lot of copying, extra batteries if you do a lot of travelling, Airport

base statinos if you sit on your couch and surf...

 

You can get an older Tibook 15" and upgrade the living hell out of it, end up with a

tested-and-true machine with a full warranty, tons of memory, and every bell and

whistle you want, and STILL be cheaper than a new 15" powerbook.

 

Spend 2 grand on a refurbished 867 mhz 15" powerbook, add a 120G hd, external

firewire DVD burner, extra battery and a gig of RAM and you're still competitive.

 

Or, incidentally, you can start lower (with a new or refurb 667 powerbook) or higher

(you can get refurb 12" models, too).

 

www.smalldog.com is always worth a look.

Although the CD-R format is ostensibly designed to support multiple write sessions

(assuming you set that option when you first write to the disc), I have also found that

it is far less stable than just burning straight. Since discs are only three for a buck or

so if you buy in bulk (slightly more expensive if you need higher speed versions) it's

worth burning in a single session even if it you only fill half a disc--that's the same

money as about 1 to 2 exposures of developed film. Don't let a money-saving

attempt make you leave things on your hard drive for forever without backing them

up :) (and don't ask me how I know that, sigh...)