silverscape

January 21, 2012

I never read anywhere that Kodak was required to shut down their film production in order to get financing. And John, you're trying to spread that as fact, when it's not true. That's how rumors get started on the internet, and pretty soon people believe that rumor and it gets perpetuated.

You are ASSUMING that was a condition for Kodak to get financing, but you're trying to state it as a fact. And it isn't. I have not read a single article or document anywhere that said "Kodak will be required to shut down their production of film as a condition."

In fact, Kodak has stated the exact opposite...that they will continue their film production after the reorganization.

I also don't understand why people who don't use film are in a film forum.

January 21, 2012

Richard, I don't know why you say that something is "quite difficult" to get just because you have to order it? I have a big collection of 8mm movie cameras, and I shoot with them all the time. I can EASILY order the film online. There are a bunch of places you can order it from, just do a search on Google. Just to name a couple:

Dwayne's Photo

http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/

Spectra Film and Video in Hollywood, California:

http://www.spectrafilmandvideo.com/Film.html

Spectra has a bunch of different kinds of Regular 8mm movie film, both color and B&W. I just bought several rolls from them, in fact.

8mm movie film is NOT difficult to get at all. Granted, I live in the United States so maybe for people in other countries it might be more challenging. But I'm sure all of the places where you can order it online will ship internationally. But my point is, don't discourage people by saying that movie film is "difficult"to get. It's not. It's kind of expensive, sure. But so are a lot of other hobbies.

January 21, 2012

To put things in perspective, most movies that you see in theaters right now are shot on FILM. Even new movies that are out right now, with a lot of special effects. This is completely contrary to what you hear from some people who claim that Hollywood is abandoning film. That is simply not true at all. These movies were shot on film, just to name a few:

"War Horse"

"Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol"

"The Dark Knight Rises"

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows"

Even most tv shows are shot on film..."CSI," "Castle", "The Mentalist", "True Blood", and too many others to list here.

You might want to check this out too:

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm

But of course, I'm expecting a certain person to jump in with a snide remark, and then disappear again. That's what he always does in all the film forums. He never participates, just makes a cynical remark and then leaves again. Why? I have no idea.

Anyway...

January 20, 2012

Right now, there is in fact a post in this thread from a digital-only user who regularly makes sarcastic, cynical comments whenever a positive comment is made about renewed interest in film photography. This person never participates at all in the film forums, except to jump in and make a snide remark, and then quickly disappears again. Sure sounds like a film-hater to me.

That's all I'm going to say.

January 16, 2012

Thanks a lot everyone for looking, and all the great feedback! I definitely had a lot of fun using this camera, and I'm planning to get some more pictures with it very soon. In fact, I have a few more pictures from that roll that I didn't develop yet, and when I get around to that, I'll scan them and post them.

JDM, I used a 120 roll. I didn't have to re-spool it. As it turns out, a 120 roll fit fine on the supply side, even though it's supposed to be a 620 camera! (It won't fit on the take-up side though). My camera is an earlier one, from 1953, so maybe Kodak hadn't rigged it yet!

By the way, that has to be one of the most blatant rip-offs I've ever heard of a company doing. 620 and 120 are the exact same film...but not only did Kodak try to sell 620 as a different film, with just a different spool flange, but then they also deliberately rigged their cameras so that you COULDN'T use 120 even though it was the same freaking film?!

Talk about a rip-off! Surely people must have caught on and complained about that back then?

January 15, 2012

ooh...yup, I got the book! I had to have it as soon as I saw it! :)

As far as any "inaccuracies" are concerned, I don't know nearly enough about photographic history to be able to catch them. But I never intended to have it for historical research. I mainly just wanted it as a reference...and maybe a wish list for what cameras to collect! I look through it sometimes and if there is anything that looks like it would be really cool to have, I start hunting for it.

January 15, 2012

Well, I finally finished my first test roll in the Brownie Hawkeye Flash that I bought recently.

And I have to say, I already love this little camera! For the first test roll, I used Plus-X. I developed the

film a few days ago, and I just developed prints in my <del>garage</del> darkroom last night.

The pictures turned out GREAT! A couple of them are a little bit soft at closer distances, but still not bad.

Overall, I was really happy with how the pictures came out. They're surprisingly good for a simple box camera

like this. There were absolutely no light leaks or any other obvious problems that I could see. I was really

anxious to get a couple of pictures with flash bulbs, because I have never in my entire life used them before. I

wanted something worthy of my first attempt (and burning up a bulb), so I got my mom and dad to pose for a

picture!

One thing I noticed right away with flash bulbs is that the lighting is MUCH better quality. It definitely has a

different look to it. The light is more even than a modern electronic built-in flash. A modern flash only

lights up a tiny area right around the subject, and tends to wash out the foreground and leave everything else

too dark. But flash bulbs seem to light everything up more evenly. Even just the experience of using a flash

bulb was so cool! The sound, the little puff of smoke, and even the smell. It made taking a picture a fun and

different experience.

Here's another flash bulb photo. This is my friends, Gilbert, Joey, and Judith. I wanted to get a picture of

them, but we weren't sure where, so they just posed in the hallway.

If I had been using a modern electronic built-in flash, I don't think I could have ever gotten this picture in a

million years. The door frame on the right would have been the only thing lit up, and their faces would have

been totally dark. But with the flash bulb, even though the door frame in the foreground is a little bit

overexposed, there is still plenty of detail everywhere else. The flash bulb seems to flood everything with a

smooth, even amount of light.

This next picture is a Lutheran church a few blocks away from where I live. I've taken pictures of it before,

but I thought it would be good subject. I've always liked how the trees seem to frame it...

Since you can't change the aperture or shutter speed on this camera, you have to choose the film ahead of time.

On a clear, sunny day, 100 ISO film seems to work best. A couple of the pictures I took

outdoors might have been a tiny bit overexposed, but not bad at all. (Heck, maybe next time I'lll try Ektar in

it, since Ektar LIKES to be overexposed).

By the way, I scanned and adjusted these pictures on an older computer with a CRT monitor. I think that with an

LCD monitor, they might be a little too bright. I wish I could mail you my darkroom prints - they came out

pretty good for a simple antique box camera!

I definitely plan to use this camera again soon. It's simple, very easy to fix, and takes surprisingly good

pictures. So I'm sure I'll have some more photos to show you guys soon.

January 8, 2012

Mark, those are stunning pictures! If I can get anything like that from this simple little box camera, I'd be blown away!

And I'm lucky, because a 120 spool actually DOES fit in my camera. On the supply side, at least. It fits perfectly. Maybe because it's an earlier version? I looked up the date code (there's a website that tells you how to find the year the camera was made, based on a letter code that Kodak was using. I can't remember the address for that website is though). My camera was made in February, 1953.

Bill, I've read about the Brownie Hawkeye, and the shutter speed is really slow...I think around 1/40. So a 400 ISO film would definitely get overexposed. I don't plan on using anything higher than 100 ISO. I have another really old box camera - a Kodak Brownie Model 2A (it's from the 1920's and still works great!), and I would never use anything higher than 100 with it either.

January 5, 2012

I've been thinking about getting one of these little cameras for a while, and I finally bought one :)

Although I'm sure Gene got me interested in these...I know he's posted a bunch of pictures from these cameras

before.

I just bought it on eBay and it came in the mail today. It's in good condition, and the shutter works. As you

can see, it even included the flash! I cleaned it up a bit, and I even managed to take it apart and

cleaned the lens. One good thing is that it's such a simple camera, and it's very easy to take apart and fix. By the way, despite what the instructions say, a 120 film spool fits perfectly on the supply side. A 120 spool won't fit on the takeup side though, but luckily there was already a 620 spool in the camera.

I have a question. I'm really anxious to get some pictures with this, and I especially want to get some indoor

flash pictures. I've been wanting to try an old school flash bulb camera like this for a while. But what kind

of flash bulbs can I use? There is a label on the flash reflector, with instructions for an "SM or SF lamp" and

also a "No 5 or 25 lamp." I happen to have some blue Sylvania P25 bulbs...would those work? I'm planning to use

black and white film, probably Plus-X. If those flash bulbs will work, all I need to do is get some C batteries and start shooting. I have plenty of film and developer.

Also, does anyone have any tips? What should I expect from this camera? I know it's just a simple box camera.

Actually, there isn't a single manual control on this thing other than the film advance...you just press the

shutter button and hope. But still, it looks like a really cool old school flash bulb camera, and some of the example photos I've seen from these cameras looked surprisingly good. I can't wait to try it :)

December 21, 2011

I just had a quick warning about Kodak 400 film. If you use a 400 ISO film in a typical 110 point-and-shoot camera, you need to cut the tab off the end of the film cartridge. This is because the tab will press a little switch or something on the camera and make it read the cartridge as if it was 100 ISO, which will cause your pictures to be way overexposed. For whatever reason, Kodak had started putting those tabs on both 100 and 400 ISO cartridges. I read about this on another website, although unfortunately I can't remember where. But it works. The pictures I've taken came out okay.

A couple of years ago, I got lucky and I managed to buy up all the 110 cartridges I could find in the Walmart stores where I live. I knew something was about to happen when I saw them going on sale for like $1.50 each. I have some still saved in the freezer right now. And I do see them being sold sometimes on eBay and other sites.

December 13, 2011

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I'm so impressed with this little camera that I'm thinking I might even chance a roll of Ektar 100 film in it. (Although I will definitely get new batteries first...Ektar does not handle underexposure well at all).

Starvy, you're right, the lens is f3.5

December 12, 2011

Sorry this took a while, guys. But here are some pictures from my first test roll in the Olympus XA2. It's

nothing really special, mostly just snapshots I took around town. (I live in San Bernardino, California). The film is Fuji 200.

So far, it's turning out to be a really cool little camera. It does have a tendency to underexpose a bit, which

you might see in some of these pictures. But I think that's probably because it needs a new battery. There was

a battery already in it, and who knows how old it is. But otherwise, the pictures looked great to me...very

sharp, with good colors.

This first picture is a place called "Fun Corner." It's a novelty and costume shop. I used to go there

sometimes when I was a little kid, in the late 1980's and early 90's. But it's been there forever. I talked

with the owner recently, and the original shop was opened in the 1950's.

While I was looking around town for some interesting subjects, I came across this mural on a realty office. It's

a scene of the city, with advertisements from local businesses. I thought it was kind of cool. One thing I've

noticed is that apparently there are a lot of undiscovered artists in the city. I've come across a lot of murals

on buildings lately where you can tell they put a lot of work and time into them.

This next picture is "Bud Rickert's Art Supply." I've always thought that old car was pretty cool!

And this last picture is my co-worker's car. She really takes good care of it, and you can tell she really loves

that little car! I did crop the picture a little, but that's the only "editing" I did.

That's all for now, but I'm sure I'll have more to post soon. Thanks for looking!

November 28, 2011

Holy Toledo, that camera is awesome, Louis! That shiny steel finish with all the knobs make it look like a fancy pocket watch. And your pictures are amazing. I especially liked "Trees Against A Wall" and the portrait of Alex. Everything is so incredibly sharp, and it looks you really nailed the exposure.

November 28, 2011

I know most of you in the forum are probably already familiar with this camera, but I finally have a picture for you guys. I took this today (with my cell phone...ugh). Here's my new toy:

I cleaned it up and loaded it with a roll of Fuji 200 film. I've already started taking a few pictures and I'm planning to take more tomorrow. One thing that I'm really surprised about is how quiet the shutter is. It's amazingly quiet, just a really soft click. It's a really fun camera to shoot with...it's so small and easy to hold. It has a nice, solid feel to it though and seems really well made. Even though it's plastic, it doesn't feel "plasticky" if that makes any sense. It feels like it has metal parts. I just hope the pictures turn out. I'll post some photos when I get the film developed.

November 27, 2011

Thanks for the comments, guys!

Louis, you know, that's true. There have been so many times where I've seen something interesting and I wish I had a camera with me. (And yeah, I have a cell phone and it has a "camera" but we all know that is NOT the same!) I've been seriously thinking for a while now that I should keep a 35mm camera with me all the time. This one is small and light enough that I could do that. It easily fits into a jacket pocket.

November 26, 2011

hey Mike, how's the availability of the battery? I just looked and it takes what looks like a little lithium battery. The battery that was already in there is "DL1/3N." Is that battery relatively easy to find? The one that's in there is still working, but of course I have no idea how old it is. I'd like to start with a new battery for my first test roll.

I'm planning on taking some pictures with it this weekend.

November 26, 2011

Ray, the Argus C3 is an awesome little camera. It's what got me onto this forum several years ago, and it's still one of my favorite 35mm cameras. It is kind of awkward to use, but it's capable of taking very sharp, crisp pictures...as your photos show. The details in your pictures are razor sharp. Especially since you're using a wide aperture. Even with a shallow depth of field, the foreground is super sharp. That shows that your focus is perfect.

One thing you should know about the C3 though is that you might occasionally have to align the rangefinder. This is so that when you are looking through the rangefinder window to focus, the distance that it's focusing on is actually snychronized with the actual distance. All you have to do is adjust the mirror with a little screw. It's fairly easy to do. You might have to do that maybe once or twice a year. Not very often. But right now, if you're using the range finder to focus in your pictures, it seems to be spot on!

I especially like the picture of the stove. I'm not sure why, maybe just the lighting and especially the reflections on the pot and the water.

November 26, 2011

Hi guys,

I'm so excited right now! About an hour ago, I decided to stop by a thrift shop nearby and I'm so glad I did! I just

bought an Olympus XA2 for less than $2! The price was $1.98, and everything was on sale today. It was 25 percent

off, so I got it for $1.60! I can't believe it, I just bought a camera for less than the price of a soda!

It's a cool little 35mm camera. I've always read about the Olympus XA and XA2. I really wanted an original XA

since it has more manual controls, but it seems to be kind of hard to find and expensive. When I was looking

around the thrift shop and came across the XA2 and saw how cheap it was, I couldn't pass it up. There was even a

battery still inside, and the shutter works!

It needs to be cleaned, and the paint is a little nicked here and there. But otherwise, it seems to be in really good

condition. The lens looks good as far as I can tell...it's clear with no scratches or any other obvious problems.

What's the cheapest you guys have ever bought a working camera for? Share your stories. If you got really lucky

and someone gave you an especially unique camera, or you found one in an unlikely spot (mixed in with other stuff

that you bought at a yard sale or whatever, or found in the trash!), lets see your stories!

I can't wait to clean it and put a roll of film in it. I'm sorry, I don't have a picture of the camera for you guys, but I literally just bought it less than an hour ago.

June 16, 2011

Wow! Amazing photos and story, Doug! Ever since you posted your first pictures while you were on your trip, I was waiting to see how it went. That definitely sounds like an adventure, something you'd remember for the rest of your life. While I was reading your story and looking at your pictures, it seemed like the theme song to National Geographic should have been playing!

Very cool!

June 12, 2011

The lowest shutter speed I'll go down to without a tripod is 1/60. I have gone down to 1/30 every now and then when I didn't I have a tripod and I REALLY wanted to get a picture. But then it's kind of "shoot and hope."

Peter, as much as a Leica costs, that thing should be able to create a time warp and take pictures from last week.

June 11, 2011

Mike, thank you. My SRT-101 has definitely been my workhorse camera lately.

But I just wanted to say that Plus-X has NOT been discontinued. It was only discontinued in 120 size rolls. It's still available in 35mm. I just bought several rolls of it too.

June 10, 2011

That's a really cool little camera, Rick. I just looked it up, and I'm going to have to add it to my ever-growing wish list!

You definitely have some really nice pictures here. I'd say my favorite one is the 3rd one, with the path leading into the distance. You got some really nice reflections in that photo of the small lake too.

June 10, 2011

I know I haven't posted here in a while, but I've been out a lot with my Minolta SRT-101 lately and I have quite

a few pictures to show you guys. In fact so many that I'll probably have to post a few new topics. And using 3

different kinds of film too! :)

This first picture is a Masonic Temple, not too far from where I live. (I've noticed that there seem to be a lot

of Masonic Lodges in San Bernardino for some reason). Surprisingly, no creepy guy in a cloak and hood came out when I took this photo. This was with Kodak Tri-X.

About a week ago, I went up to Big Bear Lake in the San Bernardino Mountains to get some landscape photos. I

actually took these next pictures with a new film, Adox CHS Art 100. Well, it's new for me anyway. I've seen it in the catalog for Freestyle Photo Supplies before, and I've been wanting to try it for a long time. It's supposed to have an

old style emulsion with a lot more silver than other films, and supposedly gives a different look to pictures. I

finally decided to buy a couple of rolls.

This was with a yellow filter on the camera:

And here I used a 135mm telephoto lens (with no filter):

When I was developing the prints, I noticed right away that there was definitely something different about this

film. It really DOES have a different look to it. I can't quite explain it, but somehow everything looks

sharper and the pictures have more "texture" than other B&W films I've used. I could see more foam and ripples

in the lake, and in general it just seemed to have so much more detail. I guess it picks up more detail because

the film has more silver. It also seems to be a lot more forgiving with underexposure than other films. It

doesn't loose detail in the shadows. But in any case, it's awesome and it just might end up becoming my new

favorite black and white film. I say this reluctantly, but I just might end up liking it even more than Plus-X.

Well, as long as I keep getting pictures like these. It's beautiful.

This is a path near the lake, also with the same film.

And nearby, I came across a small creek that had the clearest water I had ever seen in my life. The water was so clear that it looked completely transparent, and you could see the rocks at the bottom as if the water wasn't

even there.

Okay, here are some pictures I just took within the past few days. I just got this roll developed today,

actually. I took all of these with the same camera (Minolta SRT-101) but with Kodak Gold 200 film.

I had always seen this water tower (at least I think it's a water tower) from a distance from the freeway. A few

days ago, I was in the mood to go bike riding and get some pictures. I took a little journey to try to find

where this tank was so I could get some pictures of it up close. And after riding my bike for several miles, I

found out it's WAY out in the middle of nowhere, at the south end of the city.

It's surrounded by a fence and there's a few abandoned buildings nearby, but I'm not sure what it's for.

On my way back home, I came across this place - "Far West Meat." On the front of the building, they claim that

they're the "Home of the Hot Links."

Then I found this old car. I have a feeling that it isn't going anywhere, any time soon. It's a shame though,

I'm sure an antique car like this has a lot of history and a lot of stories to tell. I wonder who rode in it,

and everywhere they went...

Now this next picture is hilarious. Just imagine how much THIS would confuse visitors:

Yup, it's actually possible to be on the corner of "Del Rosa and Del Rosa." It's actually Del Rosa Drive and Del

Rosa Avenue. Couldn't they have been a little bit more creative when they were naming the streets? I mean

obviously, one existed before the other...did some city official just have a weird sense of humor? I think we

should make this street corner into some kind of landmark or tourist site, kind of like the Four Corners. It's

the only place in the city (or maybe in the world) where a street intersects itself.

And this last picture is a long exposure I took of the freeway from a bridge. I set the aperture to f/11, and

the exposure was 15 seconds, if I remember right. I was trying to get light trails from passing cars. But I got

a cool and even weirder effect. This was late at sunset, almost at nightfall, and yet the picture looks like it

was taken during the day. And the freeway looks empty, even though there was a lot of traffic at the time! You

can faintly see light trails from passing cars...

Okay, that's all for this post. Thanks for looking, and I'll have a lot more to show soon!

May 31, 2011

Hi guys,

I just bought an Olympus Infinity Jr from a yard sale (for $5!) and it takes surprisingly sharp pictures. It has

auto focus and auto exposure, and it's definitely a change from what I normally prefer using. I usually like

classic cameras with completely manual exposure control. But I have to admit, I've been playing around with this

one a lot lately and it's fun to also have a point-and-shoot film camera for snapshots. But there are times I

wish I could at least set the aperture so I could control the depth of field (like for blurring out cluttered

backgrounds).

Can anyone recommend a point-and-shoot camera that has at least SOME manual control? Like maybe aperture

priority. I always hear about the Olympus XA, and I've been wanting to get it for a while, but it always seems

like it sells for crazy prices.

So if anyone can think of some point-and-shoot cameras with some manual control that I might be able to find for

cheaper, that would be great. And if it's a vintage camera, that would be better yet. Were there any classic

cameras like this?

May 27, 2011

Great pictures, Gene. It's definitely green, that's for sure! I mean really bright vivid green! All that rain apparently helped. It's been really overcast even where I live in southern California. It was cloudy and drizzling for like 2 weeks. It finally started to clear up over the past few days. I'll have some new pictures to post soon.

Kodak Gold 200 is one of my favorite films. It has a really nice warm look to it, which you can see in a few of your pictures.

And holy cow...that camera is awesome too!

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by silverscape