firass_al_jundi1

<p>I haven't had problems so far when it comes to traveling. However, you can buy an "X-ray" safe film bag. It's basically lined with lead on the inside. You can always ask for a hand-inspection for your film and it should be safe. Haven't any problems let.<br>

<br />BUt that being said, a lot of modern X-ray machines are safe on the film. But it's up to you if you want to risk it.</p>

 

<p>Hi Brian,<br>

<br />I have a RB67 and a 500CM. I got the 67 instead of the 500EL which I got because the motor kept jamming. The 67 is a gorgeous camera, but it really is big. Short of carrying a tripod for it, I didn't like using it. It was a strain. I like to travel, and that camera is in no way shape or form going to be easy. I found a good deal on a 500CM and I took the jump. I've never shot with a Zeiss lens before, German not Japanese, and let me tell you, the difference is unbelievable. Zeiss glass has a smoothness I have not found on my Mamiya lenses.<br>

I ended up keeping the Mamiya, mostly because I couldn't find a good resale price for it, and in case I decide to do any macro work. The bellows on my RB67 let me focus down to 0.2 meters, and I'm sure that's going to be important at some point.<br>

But I'd like to restate this fact, while Mamiya makes really good lenses, I found my Zeiss lenses to be out of this world. I noticed the difference from pictures on my computer screen, from very quick scans. While some argue that the 6x7 format reduced the need to crop so you're not enlarging as much as you would from the Hassie, I found that the difference is noticeable. </p>

<p>When it's like <a href="http://www.davehillphoto.com/">this</a>.</p>

<p>If you think that's photography, then tell me where you live, and leave your door open so I can take your gear. You don't deserve to take pictures.<br>

I'm not saying I'm against what he's doing. I think a lot of his work is nice, but that is not photography. I would call it photo illustration, and that's being too nice to it. Just to get an idea of how much manipulation goes into his work, look at his "Behind the scenes" videos. That is NOT photography.<br>

Now, a lot of people get offended when you tell them what they're doing isn't photography, which I don't understand. There's a time and place for everything. What David Hill does is gorgeous, for it's purpose. It's for advertising, it's supposed to look that surreal. Now imagine you had that in a news journal as a picture for an article. <br>

It wouldn't work.</p>

<p>When it's like <a href="http://www.davehillphoto.com/">this</a>.</p>

<p>If you think that's photography, then tell me where you live, and leave your door open so I can take your gear. You don't deserve to take pictures.<br>

I'm not saying I'm against what he's doing. I think a lot of his work is nice, but that is not photography. I would call it photo illustration, and that's being too nice to it. </p>

<p>I recently shot a roll of 35mm Portra 400 and 120 400H. I say that I prefer the Kodak as the colours had a lot more pop to them. Even though they were processed and scanned at the lab, so they SHOULD have the same variables, I like the Portra results more. I found the skin tones more appealing on the Portra as well.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Larry. I'll ask her if that works. Since we're out of the USA, shipping times might be an issue. </p>

<p>Ok, I have a weird request. </p>

<p>Anyone know of a good way to transfer a digital file to slide film? <br>

One of my students is working on a project where she has to project images and the projects that are available give horrible quality. And try as much as she can, she can't get the same colours as on the monitor on the original file. I suggested using an optical projector, like the Kodak Transvue, and using actual slides instead of digital files, reason being she can at least get the colours she wants and project them on a wall.<br>

Unfortunately, I have no idea how to get the file off the computer to slide film, other than having to take a picture of a print out using slide film. Which isn't a problem since I'll be helping her out with that and all, but I was wondering if anyone knows of a way. <br>

Any help would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>I have no problem with the low light work. I have a problem with companies just showing off who has a bigger weiner. I say the low light is fantastic, but I wish now they would just work on a better quality of sensor... I know for a fact I would need the high ISO for sure. Now can companies please work on better quality pictures? And make things cheaper? And available for the consumer as well?</p>

<p>I had my M2 recenlty CLA'd in NYC in a place in Nippon. They did a fantastic job of it. I had my shutter speeds below 60 all being inaccurate. I could "hear" them being off. The shutter dial was also loose, so whenever I'd fire a picture, the actual vibration of the camera would change the shutter speed. I had a Nippon Kogaku (old Nikkor) lens that came with the lens, and that had a lot of dirty and haze in it. They did a complete overhaul for mine for around 400$. I found their service to be very concise, honest, and timely. I highly recommend them. </p>

<p>I had my M2 recenlty CLA'd in NYC in a place in Nippon. They did a fantastic job of it. I had my shutter speeds below 60 all being inaccurate. I could "hear" them being off. The shutter dial was also loose, so whenever I'd fire a picture, the actual vibration of the camera would change the shutter speed. I had a Nippon Kogaku (old Nikkor) lens that came with the lens, and that had a lot of dirty and haze in it. They did a complete overhaul for mine for around 400$. I found their service to be very concise, honest, and timely. I highly recommend them. </p>

<p>As mentioned, the "C" means the lens is coated. Careful with it, as the coating back in the day was soft and the lens can get scratched easily. Also, I recommend you to send the lens in for servicing. A lot of lenses from the 50's/60's will have haze and fog in them, due to the evaporation of the lubricant used (certain brands used to use whale blubber as lube, which has a horrible effect on lenses after years of not being used). <br>

And they are actually pretty decent lenses, even wide open. They're no M glass, but they're pretty good, much better than lenses these days I say.</p>

<p>Nippon in NYC did a good job on my M2. About three weeks. The camera had to be CLA'd. Mostly shutter speeds won't accurate. Then they cleaned my Nippon Kugaku 5 cm 2.0 (old Nikon), and had it rethreaded so I can close focus shorter than 3 ft. Took around 450$.</p>

<p>Elliot, if you don't have the money for it, save the Leica for later. Get a cheap good quality SLR.<br>

I had a Yashica FX-3 with a 50mm f/1.7 and it was amazing. I took some of the best shots with that rig. Even after I got a Nikon FM2 and a Leica M2, I still haven't taken a shot as good as the ones I used to take with my FX-3. <br>

Frankly, I would get a cheap alternative SLR for school. If you're doing photography, any good program will have you use SLR's and medium format cameras. So you need the money for both those cameras. Save up for your Leica.<br>

If you have the cash to spend, then by all means go for it. But you need to know it won't make you a better photographer. The better option is to save up, and go for something more student based because you'll have more money for supplies, AND BEER.<br>

A good student camera should be basic, cheap, and well-built. The Yashica FX-3 is a GREAT choice. So is the Pentax Spotmatic/K-1000. Nikon is also a great choice because they have the same mount on their film and digital cameras. I have two AI lenses that were made for film that I can use on my dSLR. Its not the most practical combo, but it works, and it helps out a lot when I'm shooting in a studio environment. <br>

As for your question: I have a Leica R6 and an M2. I prefer the M2 because the R6 is HUGE and heavy. The R4 is slightly smaller. Than being said though, they're extremely well built, and pretty quiet compared to other cameras. Its fantastic non the less.<br>

The M2 is a stripped down version of the M3. It has fewer frame lines and a non-rewinding film counter. Both cameras don't have a light meter, which is a MUST for a student at first. You can always buy an external meter so its not a major issue. The M6 has a built-in meter and has great quality build. Really choose between those three models. Try to avoid the M4/5 because one is expensive, and the other doesn't have the same build quality. <br>

Best of luck and let us know what you decide on.</p>

<p>Aperture blade number is very important for bokeh. The more blades, the rounder your diaphragm, the nicer the bokeh. In fact, if you look at Leica M's you realize they have an insane number, 9+ in some cases, which is very high for a lens, and which also makes it harder to make and raises the price, since the manufacturing process involves carefully and precisely cutting the blades in irregular shapes compared to a lens with a small number of blades, like 6. <br>

I have a Nikkor 50/1.2, and one of the blades doesn't close fully like the rest when stopped down, and I noticed that it gives a soft focus near the focusing plane when stopped down. Thats how much aperture blades affect bokeh. So if thats what you're looking for, then I recommend you stick with the 1st version.</p>

<p>Whatever you do, avoid Sigma. Its a shame you stick a Sigma on a Leica frankly.</p>

<p>Hi James,</p>

<p>I've been in love with the Leica system since I first touched one in college. Last summer I managed to get my hands on an M2 with the MR4 light meter in an online auction site (not eBay FYI). And it is a beauty. I come from a line of Yashicas (FX-3) Nikons (FM2/D90) and even a Leica SLR (R6), all of which have seen at least 2 rolls a week for the past 4 years or so. Hands down, my fave to use is the M2.</p>

<p>However, that being said, it is VERY expensive. Especially the lenses. I got a deal on a 35mm f/2.0 4V for 1000USD online. Second hand, but in impeccable shape. </p>

<p>A rangefinder WILL change the way you see photographs. The fact that you can see everything that is coming and going out of your frame, and you can SEE the EXACT moment the picture is taken because there is no black-out, changes the game completely.</p>

<p>There are other alternatives however. The reason I use a Leica is because I love the authentic feel of the brass and the weight of the body. Its the PERFECT mechanical companion to ANYONE. The body balances out when you have it around your neck in a way you'd think it would float. But that never lets me forget the first rangefinder I used, the Yashica Electro GSN. The beauty of this camera is that its aperture priority. All you have to do is set the aperture, and the camera figures out exposures for you. It has a CdS chip that is pretty accurate, even when shooting in front of the sun or back lit and such. The glass quality is pretty decent, and when you stop it down, its gorgeous. And because its electronic, its actually quieter than my M2. Sometimes its so quiet I don't think it took the picture because I don't hear the click the shutter, which, btw, is a leaf shutter in the lens, as opposed to a curtain in the camera body. </p>

<p>The only down side is that this camera won't work with anything higher than 1000 ISO because of the electronics. I can get around that by setting it to flash mode. At flash mode it shoots at 1/60, and I just adjust my film and aperture to that. In theory, you can get a full 4 stop range with the aperture only, so you can really use any film you like. And I got mine for dirt cheap, only 12USD. </p>

<p>The GSN needs a 5.6V mercury battery that isn't made anymore, but you can get around because the camera can take up to 6V. What I did was get 4 1.5V button battery, tape them together and pop them in with lots of foil so the contact is made. And it works fantastically. I even bought my girlfriend one of them because they are such a fun camera to use. </p>

<p>Stay within budget. I know what budget means for a student, and spending it on film and development/scanning is worth much more than the camera. Especially if you have a deadline.</p><div></div>

<p>Hello everyone. Thanks for the suggestions. It was the weekend here so I'm doing my research now.<br>

I got in contact with Freestyle and unfortunately they only ship by air freight, which means we can't get a lot of developers since they're banned from air shipping. I'm trying to see if there is a sea freight option we can get or not.<br>

For the record the college is in Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. <br>

The students use RC Multigrade Ilford paper and usually print using Ilford developer. <br>

I'm going to write a list of options so the department head can choose from that.</p>

<p>Thank you for all your help.</p>

<p>Hello all,</p>

<p>I spent an hour or so looking on this forum but I couldn't find a proper answer to my question. If there is a thread posted that can answer me then I apologize and a link to it would be great.<br>

<br />The question: What is the most economical chemical combo to use? Its ok if its reusable developer or such, as long as it saves us money. The other major problem we have is that there is only ONE place that stocks chemicals and they use Ilford. Any other chemicals purchased have to be ordered from abroad and shipped, which is one of the reasons why we buy locally (we had an incident where the shipment was delayed and the chemicals arrived late).<br>

We use Ilford chemicals, Ilfosol 3, Ilfostop, and Rapid Fixer. We're having budget issues to the degree where the dark room is threatened to be closed down. <br>

Right now there is a temporary solution to extend the fixer life, and thats just reusing it for a week. We usually have around 30 students developing 1-3 rolls a week. One of our instructors has used this method before, and it involves pre-mixing the fixer with water (1+4) dilution and testing it at the end of every week to see if its still ok to use. It sees to work fine.<br>

The use of replenisher has been talked about, and I'm still trying to find a good one to use. Any suggestions would be grateful.<br>

The students use tank developers and they're working fine, so no plans on changing those.<br>

Any suggestions would be GREATLY appreciated. Thank you.</p>

I'm quite appalled at the responses I read here.

 

Why do photographers get aggressive and crude when someone asks a question like this?

 

I really see no reason why most of you were berating his question. You should all be ashamed of yourself.

 

Someone is trying to figure out why everyone likes Leicas, why they have an appeal to the crowd even with the price that they hold.

 

James, as to answering your question: According to photography folklore, Oskar Barnack invented the 35mm film camera. One day he

was out walking, and he wondered if there was an easy camera to use that would take photos without having to carry huge equipment.

Even TLRs and SpeedGraphics are bulky to use, not to mention a SpeedGraphics only has two shots before you have to change the

film.

 

He found the answer in cine film. He figured out that if it can be used in movie cameras, then it can be adapted to still photography, so

he took the 135mm film from movie cameras and adapted it into a small hand-held light-proof box that we call the 35mm camera.

 

Oskar Barnack was working for Leitz, and he called his camera, Leitz Camera, or Leica...

 

A Leica is nothing short that mechanical perfection. Every working part sways to a synchronized waltz that top dancers can't achieve.

There is nothing in the real world that has more precision than a Leica. NOTHING. Not to mention Leica glass, which in on itself, makes

real life so much richer through its ability to capture tones that no other lens can. Leica glass absorbs as little light as possible, which

means you have a higher dynamic range per image than with any other lens. You should try this out, I know I did once. Get a Leica and

another full frame camera, be it an SLR or rangefinder. Doesn't matter which brand. Hell, get a top-end brand like a Zeiss or Rollie, or

even a Nikon or Canon. Get some generic length, say, 50mm, with a max aperture of 1.8 or 1.4, whatever is available. Take a picture of

the same scene when its fully open, one when its mid-way, say f/11, and one when its fully closed, which is usually f/16 on a Nikon.

Then compare the prints. You can read online about the 50mms, both Canon and Nikon make top-class high-end versions of them, and

they give incredible results. Then look at the Leica results. It's an entire new ball-game. Leica lenses capture every single miniscule

photon of light, and capture it in such a way that it will really blow you away. Precision ground glass is not cheap to make, and Leica

doesn't waste an expense. And the results are clear.

 

Try a Bokeh test as well, and you'll be blown away as well. Leica lenses, the M series, have their aperture blades set in a way, that

closing them down is such a beautiful sight to see. Try to find a 35 or a 50 mm, and just look at the aperture blades and how they close,

then compare them to any other lens you can find. You'll notice a difference, and that is also a characteristic of Leica.

 

All that being said is nice, but my personal reasons for loving Leica so much, is simple.

 

Reliability. And my reliability, I mean the ability to take pictures under any condition, be it rain, snow, heat, desert, low-light, harsh-light,

humid and wet. I'm primarily a street photographer, and I'm into journalism as well. While I have a mechanical SLR with a 50mm 1.7 that

only needs batteries for the light meter, I know for a fact that there is a huge possibility it could let me down. Be it a shutter jamming, or

the film advance mechanism firing the shutter instead of cocking it (a problem I am having right now in fact), or any one of 100 other

issues that arrive on the spot. I know for a fact that a Leica will remain faithful, will remain true. I know for a fact that a Leica will actually

want me to take MORE pictures. What's the point of a tool that doesn't make you feel like using it? A Leica can withstand abuse, so

traveling won't be an issue. I don't have to walk around with my arm around it covering it from every person who bumps into me in a

busy Calcutta street. It can handle the abuse. Leica is an example of mechanical perfection, a return to mechanics, to how things

SHOULD be instead of the digital contrived mess that we have today.

 

More importantly, to me a Leica is the ultimate test. Its a fully mechanical camera, that gives you the most beautiful results any lens

can offer. If your photography doesn't improve from using a Leica, and I'm not talking image quality wise, I'm talking about capture wise,

whether you take more precise PJ shots or you manage to get that "decisive moment", whether it improves the way you see the world

around you, things that are important to a street photographer, then the problem is with you not being a good photographer. Its sort of a

way to not give yourself excuses anymore. Its no longer a problem with the camera, but with you. And this is true. Yes, a photographer

can make pictures out of any camera, but each camera has its limits, and for what I do, the Leica has no limits. Its scary, yet at the

same time exciting to me, because it'll tell me if all those hours I spent behind a viewfinder trying to improve my craft are achieving

something or not.

 

A Leica is not just a camera, its an extension of your body. Once you can achieve that, then you are using cameras the proper way.

Sorry the above was shot at 3200.

I shot 3200 at 3200, and it was fantastic. Loved the results.

 

Used Ilfosol 1:9.

 

Tried it at 12500... Came out under-developed. The negs were too thin. However, the

grain when scanned wasn't that bad. Just missing shadows and a bit of details.

 

http://fizzj.deviantart.com/art/Untitled-Film-Shot-2-40847647

http://fizzj.deviantart.com/art/Untitled-Film-Shot-1-40809665

There is no such thing as correct exposure.

 

Tell your teacher to go back to school..

 

=P

 

No just kidding.

 

Umm... Exposure is open for interpretation, to put it in simple words.

 

As in, what you see as correct exposure, I might find under-exposed, and vice versa.

 

The light metre gives you a reading that is set to standard that was put in my Ansel Adams XX years ago.

 

If you take a white piece of paper and you expose with the light metre, the reading that you get will give you a GRAY piece of paper.

 

That is because the light metre in cameras is set to give you a reading of what is known as middle gray, or 18% gray.

 

THAT is "normal" exposure. It least, in the sense of listening to the light metre.

 

Look up books by Ansel Adams or Google the "zone system" and see what you find.

 

Its a VERY important factor of taking pictures, high/low-key pictures make a big difference in the moment you are trying to capture.

 

As to what your uncle said, I can't seem to get my head around it. I think I'm misunderstanding.

1. The F-16 is one of the most stable fighter planes out there. More stable than their

stealth cousins. Then again, its not a stealth plane, and can be flown completely manually

without computer input. 30 years in the service, and its being upgraded with better

avionics.

 

2. The stealth fighters you talk about, are pretty aerodynamic, but the reason for this

"instability" is the reliability on the computers on board. The F-117 can fly well, the B2

needs the computer or it will fall out of the sky. The Raptor and the F-22 are the latest

additions, and even with their stealth, they're very manuverable and fast. But again, they

depend on computers.

 

This is because you can't see outside you without the avionics in the plane.

 

Off-topic, and I'm sorry.

 

3. Lens designers always go for the lens that always gives them MORE PROFIT. Most

companies now rarely give a damn about optics. If they did, we'd be seeing dSLRs with 50

mm primes at f/1.4/1.7/2.0 like in the old days of fully mechanical TTL cameras. Long

gone are the days of quality optics.

 

4. CA and other forms of distortion is mostly the result of the electronic sensors on the

camera. I stress on MOSTLY. While you can get some on colour film, it is inherently a

bigger issue with sensors. Thats because you cannot turn physic light into an electric

charge without compromise. But alas, we are in the age of digital, and everything you

learnt about film is going to be thrown away in a few years time.

 

Interesting essay by Erwin Puts, he states that photography is dead, due to the use of

digital cameras...

 

5. I have the perfect lens. Its my Yashinon 50mm f/1.7. Great optics, fantastic balance

between contrast and sharpness. And really fast.

 

=D

Don't recommend reusing Ilfosol...

 

I find it great, and love the results it gives up to 3200 ISO. I tried 12500 once, didn't work

out.

 

They were all push processed 400 ISO.

 

And it worked wonders for my 120 film. 100 and 400 ISO.

Thanks guys...

 

Ed: I tried said technique using PS, but it didn't give me anything worth using. I just added

a gray layer, and a white layer later, and then I tried a copy of the actual image.

 

They all gave me horrible results. I'll try to post the file up sometime and I'd be grateful if

someone can do anything to them.

 

Bill: I use Vuescan, and it didn't help a lot.

 

Keith: Thanks for walking me through the process. I'll definitely try it out when I can. As

for the metring, I was trying to capture the image very quickly, that I forgot that I metred

for the light behind the subject. The rest of the roll was well exposed/developed.

 

Cheers guys.