jonathan_green

I was under the impression that the 67 went out of production a while ago before because of the regulations on the use of lead in cameras, so it wouldn't make much difference whether Pentax still sold film cameras. Can't quite remember though whether it was one of the cameras on that list. I know some Pentax and the Hassy Xpan had to be cut for this reason. Sad, they were good cameras.

Fair enough but I am stubborn. I will eventually get my hands on some of the stuff.

The loading instructions should be fairly self explanatory with help from your back's manual and from the polaroid packet. Theres not much anyone can do over the internet there.

 

I can speak for Hasselblad backs which I am led to believe are similar devices if not interchangeable. They were not actually made by hasselblad anyway (but by polaroid). There are three different ranges of course - the 600 series, the 100 and the older 80 series. Generally 100 backs fit 600 and 100 film but not all 80 backs do. There are some backs which will take all of them (the newest ones). There is the chance that you hace one of the older backs which I believe is about one or two cm smaller than those for 100 film.

 

Try and find out whether your back does indeed take 100 polaroid or 80 - ask the old guys in the shop, the new guys don't even know what polaroid is. Cheapest option is to buy some 80 film if you can get your hands on it (ebay) and test it out. The rest is up to you.

I am basically interested in bulk loading 70mm film. If there is anyone who owns

and runs A70 backs I would appreciate knowing where (I am in the UK) one tends

to find a bulk loader for 70mm film and indeed where one can buy the darn

casettes. Ebay is the obvious bet but nothing coming up there recently. Also

where are the best places to find 70mm reels of film.

There are certainly patterns emerging from these photographs. Wonky horizons, over/unerexposure, differing sizes/formats a certain erraticism all told, especially with a colour image thrown in. Sometimes this slightly rugged 'eratic' feel can be good but you have to be in control of it and know exactly what you are trying to achieve and why. Its good to see someone who is willing to put their photographs up and learn from them. If my senses are right and you are the youthful experimental beginner we all once were, I would suggest as above that you might enjoy TriX film, what beginner doesn't. There are many other interesting alternatives once you get into it. Also try to balance back and front light, there are a few photos which I feel (personal view only) have too much backlight, be careful it is a difficult subject to tackle.

 

Very impressed.

I would say 'please don't think like that. Try to focus on what is important to your pictures and not fall into some kind of aesthetic stereotype.' but I no you are not going to pay any attention to me if I do.

 

I remember a very interesting Japanese photographer who was displaying his work in the Pentax Forum gallery when I was there in Feburary 2006. He had some interesting takes on underexposure and the like, if you can find out the name on google or somewhere have a look.

'Ever since...ohhh...say 70 years ago, mankind has had the widespread ability to record history on film.'

 

I am of a similar mind to you in so much as I believe the true nature of photographs to be informative, in essence a documentary tool. However I am a little confused by your statements as to the useability of photography, which was perfectly accessible in the nineteenth century, especially after bromide came into the equation.

 

However, I do not believe that the opportunities thrown up by the ease and accuracy of photographical recording are being wasted. There are many wonderful examples of anthropological records, some of the best incidentally in the nineteenth century. I particularly appreciate the efforts of all the commercial photographers back in those days like James Mudd, Evelyn Carey, etc. as well as all those anonymous photographers who really did understand the importance of the camera. If you are interested in this issue you should perhaps really try to examine photographic herritage more vigorously, books are the best place to start.

 

'But people seem to have no problem throwing away their negatives, ripping up prints, or deleting files of images from their computers.'

 

I am sorry to say that this is their business and no one elses, you can't possibly expect to lecture them into keeping unecessary photos. If you take Robert Doisneau for example who wandered aimlessly around Paris taking photos and who used perhaps 1 photo per 5 rolls shot. If you insisted that all his contact prints and every negative frame be made public, the importance of each shot would be dramatically reduced, as would be the interest in his work. Every single person must have the ability to censor, the ability to decide whats necessary and what is not. That is more important.

 

'where are all those pictures?'

 

As a last point, you seem to be of the opinion that perhaps photography is not being used as furtively as it could. That there are perhaps not enough pictures of historical merit out there. Look around you and honestly say there aren't many photographs in the room you are in, be it in a book, on your computer or even the cover of food packaging. Our little world is absolutely full of images that say something about the time and the place in which they are produced and found. You just need to interpret and understand them. I urge you to keep your eyes open, your parents basement, jumble sale chuck outs and ebay especially. You would be amazed at what you find. I discovered recently that my neighbour owns the first ever Daguerrotype taken in England, with his great great grandfather in the picture, probably about 1941 (it just popped into a conversation).

 

I think what is a much more interesting and helpful way to approach the question is how can we make everyone else (the general public) appreciate the value of a photograph.