hopsage

Three and a half years ago, my wife and I returned from a three week walking trip in western Scotland, and I sent off the

two print film rolls I shot to Clark (everything else was in slides, and those went to Dwayne's). One of the print rolls had

been changed out after three exposures and put pack into the camera during the time it was shot. That's a pretty easy

technique; you mark the last frame shot, rewind the film, then put it back in and advance (with the shutter blocked off) to

one frame past where you were.

 

I really should have looked for a "develop only/no cut" option, because the developed roll came back from Clark with

every frame physically aligned for the last part of the roll only. The first three frames were physically cut in half, with prints

to accompany them. Clearly, no human being ever looked at the roll or the prints. Dunno if Dwayne's would ever do

something that knuckleheaded, but Clark won't get another chance from me.

<p>Was this color negative or slide film? If slide, perhaps it's possible the lab processed it in C-41 chemistry. A lab did that to one of my Velvia rolls once, and the weird color results were similar to this.</p>

I haven't tried the lock exposure trick, but I see that it was referenced (with a link) in a thread

from two weeks ago, by John Shriver: <a href="http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-

forum/00an1z">http://www.photo.net/film-and-processing-forum/00an1z</a>

Try this one: <a href="http://www.pnwflowers.com/">http://www.pnwflowers.com/</a>

Clark Photo is still a reliable and cheap mail-order option, and I've also been happy with

Dwayne's. For serious work, I'm lucky here in southwestern Connecticut to have a

number of good local options nearby (Milford Photo, Ritz Camera, and in NYC, Luster).

I bought a couple of 35mm rolls of Velvia at Penn, just last Wednesday. Can't say about 120 size, though. Very good people there.

<p>These guys sound like a good choice, and I'd like to try them out. However, their order form has no place for specifying E6 processing. The last cheap slide service I used processed a roll of Sensia in C41 chemistry. I'm not eager to have that experience repeated. The email exchange I've had with them about this (asking what to write on the form) has been frustrating, as it's pretty clear their customer service rep didn't really read my email.<br>

Those of you who've used them for slides, what do you do with the order form?</p>

<p>I use VueScan with a Nikon 5000 (MacOS 10.5.8). It's wonderful.</p>

<p>@Peter - I don't really have an informed opinion of the UL backpacks, as I've not had the chance to use one. Honestly, my concern with them is not so much the strength of the fabric (some of that stuff is amazingly strong), but rather the ability of the suspension to stand up to weight. For example, I was part of a 12-day trip in the Brooks Range an couple years back: the food alone weighed over 50 pounds at the beginning of the trip (all total, I started out carrying 95, and needless to say, the large format equipment didn't come with me). </p>

<p>But the suspension strength is just a concern, not a claim. It seems like you've found yours to be satisfactory in this regard. If I get a chance to check out one of these packs, I'll do so.</p>

<p>I think my original post wasn't completely clear about my pack arrangement. My actual backpack is a 12-year-old Gregory, which itself weighs around 8 pounds. That's more than I'd like, but the pack is absolutely bombproof (unlike most UL models) and its suspension is more than adequate for the extra weight. The Canon camera backpack goes in the top of the main compartment of the Gregory. It makes stuff easy enough to access, and keeps all the photo gear nicely protected, but the whole setup is bleeding heavy. At some point, probably after I finally kill it, I will replace the Gregory with something lighter, if I can find one with the same strength and capacity (or better).</p>

<p>Backpacking, I carry a 4"x5" wooden field camera, spot meter, changing bag, two lenses, four film holders, and two boxes of film (B&W neg. and Velvia). The camera with either lens is light enough that I can get away with using a very lightweight tripod and ball head. In addition, I also carry a 35mm camera, two zoom lenses, two fixed length lenses (20mm and 50 mm), and about 10 rolls of 35mm film. Except for the tripod (which rides on the outside of the backpack), all of this goes in a Canon Deluxe Photo Backpack 200EG.<br>

Fine points:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 50mm lens also doubles as a loupe for the big camera's ground glass, and the changing bag gets used a a focusing hood.</li>

<li>For quick access, the camera bag lives at the top of my backpack's main compartment. </li>

<li>Changing film in the field in a bag is no more difficult than doing so at home: just be careful about washing your hands (backpackers who wear contact lenses can attest that sufficiently clean hands are possible). </li>

<li>Unless you'll be camping in an unlit cave, it will never be dark enough to change film outside of the bag. If your eyes can adjust to the light, it's too bright for film.</li>

</ul>

<p>In general, volume is more of a problem for me than weight. Even with a 5600 ci pack, it can be a chore to fit all of this stuff. On long (> 1 week) solo trips, I've never found a way. Also, though I'm reasonably strong, the pack weight can get pretty serious with all this: it was probably around 75 pounds on a recent 5-day/4-night trip. The total weight of the camera gear is substantial component of that—around 25 pounds—but about half of this is the 35mm gear.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hmm. The link failed. Second try:</p><div></div>

<p>Great thread, and some wonderful images. I'll play, too:<br /> <img src="../photo/6487015&size=lg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I think I may have killed my Bogen 3405 tripod. At the end of a long backpacking trip last week, I noticed that the top section lock on one of the legs had come loose. The leg would no longer stay locked, the friction ring could slide up and down the top joint, and there was a little plastic block -- presumably a part of the lock mechanism -- that falls off without the friction ring over it.<br>

Unfortunately, I can't seem to reset the ring properly, and a brute force attempt at hammering it down seems to have permanently frozen every part of that joint, ring and leg section both.<br>

I should mention that this tripod is 10 years old, it's been a workhorse for hundreds of nights in the backcountry, and I've beaten the hell out of it. It's clearly worthless for resale, but I'm wondering if it's worth time and/or money to repair it. And if it is, does anyone have pointers on how to go about fixing it?</p>

A TIFF instead of a JPEG, eh? Oi. Wonder how I missed that. Obviously, I need to pay more attention when I save files in Photoshop. Thanks.

<p>So I understand that photo.net's caching means that attempts to upload replacement image files take days

before the replacement shows up. That's a pain, but I'm told there are some technical benefits for things being

the way they are. However, I'm running into something a bit more frustrating: when the replacement show up, my

browser no long appears capable of displaying it. All I get are whatever comments existed and a big white space

where the image should be. If I try to view the image directly, I get not displayed but the file name. For

example: <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7836900">http://www.photo.net/photo/7836900</a> and <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7652304">http://www.photo.net/photo/7652304</a></p>

 

<p>What's weird is that this only happens with Firefox 3, and only with images for which I've uploaded

replacements. I've tried clearing the FF cache and setting it to 0mb. Nothing. All I get is the name of

image. They're clearly there, as under Safari, they show up without a hitch. In FF, I can see un-replaced

images without difficulty, so I'm ruling out file type issues. I only have my own machine (a Mac PowerBook) to

try this on, but I've tried it under two different accounts, with the same results. Has anyone else seen this?

Any clue? </p>

<p>Thanks, Ian. Not sure how I missed such a recent thread, though it probably had to do with my using "replacement" in my search terms instead of "replace". </p>

 

<p>The "redo" I'm planning is, like your effort, a replacement of all my posted images with framed versions. No "cheating", as Bob put it; I just like the presentation better, and I want to replace larger files that are currently subject to PN's lousy image compression with ones that fit properly. </p>

Thanks for the replies, Fred. I went looking for those forum posts you mentioned, but came up empty-handed. Count me among those who'd like the replacement functionality back, especially as I'm looking to redo the presentation of every one of 160+ images in my portfolio. The current situation is pretty obnoxious, honestly.

A day?! Mercy. I hope that's not going to remain true!

So far, it's been about two hours. Is that normal?

<p>Is anyone else having trouble uploading replacement image files for images they've already posted? For the

past day or two, I've been unable to replace an already-uploaded photo with a new version. No problems are

reported: the new image file just doesn't show up, ever. All other editing changes show up (i.e. the info

fields), and I can upload new images without incident. I can delete an image outright, and then upload the whole

thing again, but that's not so good if you want to hang on to the comments of others.</p>

 

<p> I've tried the obvious things of forcing reload of the web page and clearing the browser cache. I have

tried uploading replacement files under both Safari 3.1.2 and Firefox 3.0.1, both under OS/X. The (non-) results

are identical under both browsers.</p>

 

<p>Suggestions? Or is this a problem on the PN side?</p>