Argenticien

I tend to write down exposure notes with pen and paper on most medium format work, and of course in my very infrequent outings with large format. Even with medium format (8 or 12 frames per roll, as I own no 6x4.5 gear), it's almost too much work. For small format, I'll usually at best write down general notes like "#1 - 19: 50/1.4; #20-37: 28/2.8" or "#15-25 mostly 1/500ish, f/2.8ish", and make exposure notes only on specific very challenging frames where I'm keen to have the exact facts when looking at the negative/picture later. (How else to learn and improve?) I've thought of using something like ExifNotes instead of pen and paper, but the barriers for me include risk of fumbling phone, possibility of dead phone battery, tedious need to unlock phone between frames if greater than my screen lockout time, etc., so I continue with notebooks -- mostly plain blank Field Notes ones, but someone gave me the gift of a few PhotoMemo ones recently. On MF & LF images, I then use Phil Harvey's EXIF Tools (mentioned above), plus some code I wrote myself to run atop it, to encode the camera, lens, ISO/ASA, aperture, and shutter speed from my handwritten notes onto the image files. And I'm not even a young person. --Dave

Nice pictures for a high school level of (in)experience, Mike. I was not taking anything that good at that age. I am a bit younger so only remember the tail end of the 1970s, and only as a little kid, but even so I also partook of the sartorial mischief of that decade. I remember learning as a toddler the first rule of dressing oneself is "don't wear stripes and plaid." I suspect that rule is not top of mind these days as we are no longer wearing acres of plaid. Or maybe I should say hectares. I note the display introducing unwitting Americans to the metric system! That clearly did not take hold here. I'm also noticing that your high school was somewhat integrated at that time. Was that a big deal and controversial at the time, in Mississippi? Do you know if that is still so, or was perhaps somewhere around your tenure the high-water mark for that? (That is, between the original segregation 1.0 and today's segregation 2.0, being the result of the Big Sort?) I know things are moving backward toward the bad old ways in a lot of places today, including where I am. --Dave

In my experience, albeit much more limited than that of others here, one can get that tonality with any proper medium format camera & lens (so, that excludes your Holga) with proper film (so, that excludes flagrantly expired or some Lomo emulsions) with proper exposure. I've done so with sizes between 6x6 and 6x9 (admittedly not 6x4.5 myself) and cameras from Bronica, Rollei, Voigtlander, Zeiss-Ikon, and Mamiya at least (probably forgetting some others). I don't know exactly how tight your tight budget is, but if it's dire, consider also the fact that 6x9 cameras guzzle film at twice the rate that 6x4.5 ones do, so that will double your film and processing costs (if the number of pictures you make were held equal, which is not automatically the case). You also spend a lot of time reloading with 6x9, especially since there is no more 220 film, and many older 6x9 cameras (folders etc.) couldn't use it anyway. --Dave

I have got one of these. It's fun to pass around and shoot as entertainment at a party or in the pub. That seems to be mostly the use Fuji's own Instax cameras as well, which of course use the same film. I would never entrust a once-in-a-lifetime shooting opportunity to any camera armed with Instax film, of course. That said, if you're going to shoot Instax at all, the InstantFlex does it better, since it has full manual aperture and focus, unlike most (all?) of Fuji's own cameras, and seemingly a somewhat better lens. Given the InstantFlex is a mostly plastic beast, the fit and finish are surprisingly good. You want the Mark II model, which has a much improved focusing screen. I have a Mark I, but got the available focusing screen upgrade. The original screen was so dim that it significantly impaired indoor use. I don't closely follow Mint's plans, but I'd be surprised if they make a digi version of this camera. Their whole business appears to be based on fanatical instant film enthusiasm. They were doing Polaroid retrofits/rebuilds before they started making the InstantFlex. --Dave

You've not got space for enough film amongst the foam in that faux-Pelican case, Rick. :) Semi-seriously: I don't know if you have any of those Japan Camera Hunter five-roll 120 cases, but if you don't, I'd quite recommend them. Carrying one of those is more space-efficient than five film boxes, stops unboxed films rolling around like they can do if stored loose in a camera bag (granted, not a problem with your foam case), and serves as a nice light-tight storage (if you get the case in black) for exposed rolls whose wrappers have been binned. Seriously: superb pictures. --Dave

I've actually found that the BetterScanning ANR glass for 120 can successfully pin down a most curly negatives, but the 35mm one is not heavy enough (simply because it's a smaller piece of glass) to weigh down moderately to ridiculously curly negs. The obvious solution is to flatten the negs first for days under a pile of books, but sometimes you need or "need" to scan negs straight away just after they've dried. In such case, I find the Epson OEM holders with clip-in frames can better tame the curliest ones. (This is a V700 I'm talking about.) --Dave

Ross, those Point Lobos pictures are great. I have photographed that very same Pinnacle (as have millions I guess), but in my case with an octogenarian 6x9 Bessa rangefinder. (Small subset from that and a Mamiya C330 at Big Sur, Oct. 2010 ). What you've done with the ND filter to enable the long exposure is superb. It is indeed exceedingly difficult to convey the grandeur of the cypress or redwood trees around Big Sur ... unless maybe with a swing-lens pano camera used vertically, or something odd like that. I really must get back to contributing to these weekly threads. I have a large backlog of processing, scanning, and organizing to do, and not enough time to do it in! --Dave

This sounds like a possible way to get more use out of the battery Kludge that I built for my semi-working, quasi-reliable example of a Yashica Electro. I use a PX28, but I think that may literally be four button cells with a wrapper around them anyway. Meanwhile it appears that your Minox lens does not fall too short of the legendary Yashica one, but in a much more compact and light package for those days when one doesn't need f/1.7. Hmmmmm... --Dave

Wow. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, bordering on naïve, but it never even occurred to me to steal the work of a tourism photographer by snapping a mobile phone picture of his picture that's for sale for $10, instead of buying it. I don't know whether the tourist is within his rights under copyright law to snap a photo of that photo (since it's his own likeness), but in a way I don't really care; even if it's technically legal, it's extremely poor form. As an aside: I've never bought such a photo either, because they're usually very cheesy, but that's a different issue and no justification for stealing the work! The most recent one I declined to buy was at the battleship Missouri in Pearl Harbor. There they photograph tourists in front of a green screen and then superimpose the boat behind them in post. I thought that was quite silly (beneath the dignity of the historic setting), plus I looked like Hell in my picture, since it was a warm, humid day and I had already been lugging around medium-format kit for hours. --Dave

There are a number of things funny about that top plate. Were people not meant to make pictures November through February? At what nursery can I buy a bright tree? Would the exposure for an individual by the window be different to that for a group? And finally, what a flagrant case of hemispherism! Oughtn't they have made that exposure table panel with the Northern Hemisphere advice printed on one side and Southern on the other, with the panel reversible by the user? ;) --Dave

I understand conceptually, Rick. I had to consult a map and figure out that you're at about the 41st parallel (south). If I've done this right, in Northern Hemisphere terms that's similar to somewhere between New York City and Boston in USA, or around Oporto or somewhere between Rome and Naples, in Europe. I've lived near New York and Boston, and the light there can get a bit low and harsh in the dead of winter, though not polar-like low. I shall have to sample that NZ light some year to see how it compares, given as you say the different terrain and climate despite the similar latitude. --Dave

Rick, meaning no disparagement, to me those do look a bit flat (although I suppose some foreshortening is expected with a 105mm) and harsh (high-ish contrast, not a lot of midtones). I'm inclined directly toward putting that down to the camera since this is a combination of film, dev, and scan that you frequently use to good effect, and you've tackled worse lighting situations before. If all that reasoning is correct, then indeed I would agree with you that the Ross Xpres lens is not all it's touted to be. Composition-wise I like what you've done, and you've clearly got some impressive trees to work with down there. --Dave

All the below are with Pentax MX + SMC Pentax 50/2 lens, Ilford FP4+ through Rodinal, Epson V700 scans. These are from a few weeks ago, the first test roll with a new-to-me camera. The lens is one that I got a few years ago as a body cap on a Pentax ME. When I first received it, I gave it a quick test on digital and found it awful compared to my Takumar 50/1.4 lens. Upon trying it again, I see it may actually be not so bad... --Dave Have a Dog Gone Good Day by Argenticien, on Flickr Nuts and Bolts by Argenticien, on Flickr Tea Tins at Waterbean Coffee by Argenticien, on Flickr

Now I have photos to hand. One from the Super and one of it. --Dave Nice bikes, offensive helmets by Argenticien, on Flickr IMGP5613_50 by Argenticien, on Flickr

I have a Super Ikonta C (531/2), the 6x9 coupled rangefinder model. It's a really nice, if slow and contemplative, compact medium format travel camera. I'd recommend it if you can be sure you're getting a serviceable one. Mine came to me in good nick other than a lot of haze(? -- or other old schlock) between lens elements, which was easily cleaned out; and very minor bellows pin-holes that were easily fixed with black paint. The albada finder is only slightly dim, so quite usable. I second Robert Marvin's assessment that it is mildly difficult with spectacles, which bump into it and tend to tilt the rear half forward, which makes the lines less visible. At least on my camera, the lens (Tessar 105/3.5) is very good, in fact amazingly good if you consider that it's 80 years old. This camera and its complicated coupled rangefinder must have been considered superb technology when new in '37 (the year mine was built, per a serial number lookup). --Dave

I could not see them either at work, but can at home/on mobile. Rick's personal site flibweb.nl is (and hence the pictures are) blocked by my firm's site-filtering. Robin, perhaps you're experiencing similar. Anyway, Rick, those are quite good pictures from a zombie camera. I'm impressed with the repair job. --Dave

Excellent "weekend" (et seq.) everyone. Bill, those are great tones in your first 1974 picture. (Well, both, really.) --Dave

I try not to mine my library of old photos too often for these weekend threads, but I thought I would pull out a seaside picture in memory of Tony Lockerbie. It's a seascape very different to what he typically photographed (crags rather than sandy strand), but it's probably my least-bad seascape picture so I'm going with it. From 5th October 2010. Apologies if I've posted this in the forum already, perhaps around that time. --Dave Bixby Creek Bridge From South by Argenticien, on Flickr Mamiya C330 + Mamiya-Sekor 80/2.8, Efke R25 film, probably developed in Ilfosol 3(?).

I worry anytime a thread starts with simply someone's name, as I know our little corner of photo.net trends considerably higher than average on the age scale. Sad news and Tony will be missed, even from 15,000 km away. He was a brilliant contributor here. Clearly Tony was not the type to restore his CMCs for life as shelf-queens; his photos of sea and sand were a beautiful testament to his having got out and about to shoot with them. --Dave

Greg has it. You must be logged in to see full-size images, I've concluded. What's interesting is that there's no tickbox option on the login screen for "Stay logged in" as so many other sites have. Strictly speaking from an information security standpoint, that "stay logged in" thing is dangerous, especially for sites like e.g. Facebook, where someone who steals your stayed-logged-in device could widely post things that might permanently ruin your reputation. But I'd think it should be my choice whether to stay logged in or not. Most sites seem to encourage it actually, presumably because it improves their click-tracking of you, the better to sell you more washing powder or whatever the goal of life is... By the way, nice photos with that modest zoom, Rick. I'm Nikonless, but maybe I need to seek one of those lenses and an Adaptall thingie for M42, Pentax K, or Minolta SR... --Dave

I have had a problem with my S2, with the back that does have the pinch mechanism: If I am careless in seating the insert after loading film, it will appear to be fully seated but is not quite. That leaves in what you have called a "popped out" situation from the start. After a few frames, everything jams up. This happened to me just a few times when I've loaded film in a hurry. I've learned to slow that down, seat the insert very resolutely, and listen for the "clack" of the pinch knobs popping outward. I concur with Rick, if you can't readily solve this, replace your back with the newer kind. Be patient on eBay; you'll see backs listed for USD 150, which is ridiculous; walk away. With a little haunting of auctions, you can find them for less, sometimes as a bundle of 2 or 3 of them, which often leads to a better price per unit. Do be prepared to potentially replace the felt light seals. I had to do that on my most recently acquired back. --Dave

<p>By the way, very late epilogue, now I've got the roll of film out of this camera months later: The problem is <em>exactly</em> what Gus showed in the picture above (light trap flopping about). Thank you Gus! I don't know why it suddenly started doing that, as I had not recently attempted any cleaning, adjustment, or other manhandling of anything near there. I shall have to figure out a way to get it to stay in its intended path!<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>I don't mean to dodge the question, but how much 220 have you got in the freezer? As far as I can tell, no more is being produced, and we are all limited to whatever dwindling residual supply of it that merchants/auction sellers have on hand. If the big Fuji needs only an easy DIY fix, good; but if it's found to require a (paid) professional repair, only to enable 220 usage, that seems not worth the cost.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>That is a fantastic idea! At least I think so ... You know your own family & friends of course, and vaguely knew in advance how this was going to be received. I know some families where there would be too much carping along the lines of "Like, WHATEVER, this is LAME! Give me back my iPhone camera!" Anyway I think you were brave even handing out the F3, the MX, and other somewhat valuable machines, let alone the M3 of course, as alluded to above.</p> <p>And congratulations. </p> <p><em>--Dave</em></p>

<p>Thanks Gus and Julio. If indeed I find that kind of problem, I'll certainly have to wonder what I did to the camera and when/how. We've been using this one for two or three years before this problem arose, and I don't recall giving it any traumatic handling. I suppose it's possible that something has gone wrong due to old age in the short time I've owned the camera, even though I would think my few years with it make little difference atop 40 years of use before it came to me. We shall see...</p> <p>Mike: Already a few months ago I got an XE-7 for a second Minolta SR/MC-mount body, after there arose competition for use of the SRT. I actually have told my fiancée that for her as a beginner the XE-7 would be easier than the SRT102, as it has a bit more automation including an auto-exposure mode. But she's not interested in it, having somewhat developed a workflow with the match-needle process of the SRT, via a steep learning curve after coming from using only an iPhone and maybe before that a digi P&S! I suppose she wants to master the SRT way before or instead of learning something different (even if the <em>different</em> is also <em>easier</em>). Therefore I'm forced to take a hit for the team and use the XE-7 faux-Leica myself. :P Now I'll have to devise a further strategy if this SRT becomes unreliable and I can't fix it.<br> <em>--Dave</em></p>