ed_farmer

Well . . . that's not really a fair comparison . . . Making a large print in a darkroom not at all set up for the purpose v. making an inkjet print? I have made 16x20 and 20x24 inch prints in a wet darkroom. Using the right enlarger/lens combo and the right size trays, it's not that much harder than making 8x10s and I didn't have to deal with the large trays unless I was making large prints. Sure, making prints on a 24" inkjet printer is easy but maintaining and paying for that printer are not so simple. There's a minimum amount of printing that you need to do to keep the system running. Otherwise, maintenance will eat up any savings over the use of a service.

That depends on what we are actually comparing . . . If you're shooting film then, yes, the camera is just a mechanical device to hold the lens AND the film in proper alignment during the exposure. When we are talking about digital, the camera replaces the film as an important component in the production of the image. Today's lenses are clearly superior (with a few possible exceptions) but the older lenses, when used with film, were more than sufficient for the resolution available. Digital sensors have lens requirements that differ from film. Newer lens designs take these changes into account. This may, or may not, make them any better for film use.

I wasn't sure what you were talking about so I clicked to look at your profile . . . Sure enough, your name is displayed twice . . . I really like your family and wedding work displayed though . . . Thank you for drawing my attention!

Just my two cents . . . If you are doing product work get the monolights. The modeling lights save you time by letting you see reflections and shadows before you shoot. The power will allow for quicker recycling and the power cords, while you have to work around them, will allow you to just turn on the power and not worry about changing batteries. As noted, the modern version of hot lights, LED panels, should be considered. They use little power, are larger sources, infinitely adjustable and stay cool. On the other hand, modifiers, if you use them, are a little more difficult to use.

Genesis . . . Did anybody else watch Preacher?

I did this many years ago . . . around 1990 . . . We used the Kodak TMax reversal kit . . . This included a chemical second exposure. I believe that the first and second developers were the same. The second development is to completion so I don't think that the developer matters much. The resulting slides were beautiful when projected. In fact, they were much better looking that the prints that I produced from the same sessions.

It sounds like the battery drain occurs with and without the grip, which eliminates the grip and it's connector from the equation. There is, I believe, a second battery (not user replaceable) in the body to maintain settings while there is no battery in the camera. This battery is charged by the primary battery when there is one in the camera. There may be a short in this secondary battery that causes it to quickly drain the primary. Of course, there are many other places that a short could occur . . .

I think that you are here . . .

Do you at least remember the ASA designation? This would narrow it down . . .

Going back to the OP's question . . . You say "the camera refuses to function" . . . In what way? It is, I suppose, possible that the camera senses that the wrong film is in the back OR that it thinks there is no film in the back. It is also possible that this particular back has a pressure plate that is too tight to wind film with backing paper OR that the back or camera is damaged in some other way. There's really not a lot of information to go on here. It's not true that no pressure plate adjustment is needed. It really depends on the camera. The same is true of the film spacing issue. Adding thickness is going to INCREASE the distance that the film is moved. This means that overlapping frames should not be a problem when using 120 film in a 220. I suppose that it is possible, but doubtful, that the film could run out before the last frame. 35mm film doesn't suffer this problem, in most cases, because the measurement of film movement is done by a gear turned in the sprocket holes.

Yet . . . You took MY comment to mean that it was THE only choice, not MY only choice . . . I DID go on the explain my reasoning: That it is far easier to make a white wall work like a black wall than the other way around. I have worked in both and like the simplicity of working in a white room where fill lighting is very simple and there's only a need to add/control key lighting. In a black room, every light must be more carefully controlled. If you are working with professionals, its pretty easy to control every light. A professional model will keep to their mark and their turns to keep the light where you need it. Working with children, pets and even adults, this isn't always so simple.

Yes . . . We just had most of the interior of our house painted. The "grey" that is about three quarters of the wall surface looks like three different colors depending on the lighting in the area. The upstairs hall has a slight purple cast, others areas look blue and most of it looks like the grey that we wanted.

But, Mike . . . If the idea is to show "photographs that have changed the world" the vast majority ARE going to be older pictures. Images shot more recently have had less to time to have influence and the impact of photography has been shaken by video and shorter news cycles.

Wait . . . Some of those are videos and almost none actually show streets! Is there any chance that, with the limited attention these forums get, we actually discuss content instead of classification? I remember the vast majority of the images in both of these videos and still found myself tearing up while watching. But, the photos do not change the world. They provide impetus for actions that change the world.

I just double checked a few videos and other sources. I don't see any additional glass in the polaroid back for the 500cm? The film to flange distance should be exactly the same. That's the whole idea . . .

Why do you want to set such a low price? Maybe there's a reason that these sites don't allow $1 pricing? Are you only shooting $1 quality? I've done same and the truth is that, at the time, few parents were willing to pay anything for pictures. I wasn't offering digital downloads, it wasn't really a thing at the time but I don't think that the turn out would be any better.

White . . . It's really the only choice . . . You can always use drapes and flags to subtract the reflected light but it's much harder to throw more light when you have black walls. You have to be careful with grey and make sure there's no color tint. Not all "grey" paint is created equal.

I don't know why you would see grain in a printing paper but I'm haven't used either of the papers that you have and I have never made lot of contact prints. But, that won't stop me from having a little input! First, I would guess that the printing box that you have was not last used to make "fine prints". The 60W bulb results in printing times that are too short to fine tune. This was probably being used to rapidly mass produce either many prints from the same few negatives or to make test prints from a large batch of negatives. I would recommend finding a lower wattage bulb and getting printing times into the 15-30 second range. This is particularly true since the timer that you are using doesn't do a great job of giving repeatable results at short intervals and can only be set for full second. To look into the grain issue . . . I suppose it's possible that the diffuser in your box isn't smooth enough. Try the same exposure times with an unexposed, fixed, piece of film and see if the "grain" that you see is actually coming from the rice paper diffuser.

A few prints or professional scans will answer the question. The blotches the same from image to image? Do you have any newer negatives that you could scan? While you have negatives that have sat around for some time, the scanner has also sat from what you said. Make sure that the glass bed on the scanner is clean that the negatives are flat when scanned.

I've been hanging around here, through several user ids, for over 20 years. Why would a moderator here EVER call out a beginner for asking a question about film? The site still maintains a film and processing related forums and MANY of the users here are long time and new film users. Manual film cameras are still widely discussed and scanned film images are regularly posted. Even as a moderator, if you have nothing to add to the conversation, just don't post anything.

I don't have an 850 but I have grips on ALL of my bodies. Shooting weddings requires shooting a lot of verticals, at least the way that I do it . . . I see a lot of photographers who never seem to turn the camera. I also have very large hands and the extension on the bottom of the camera makes them easier to handle.

We see the histogram but what changes are you making using the histogram? You're not, as I see it, showing us anything . . .

Yeah . . . The OP doesn't appear to have been back since posting this . . . Nice . . . I have dealt with KEH for 20 years or so and NEVER had a problem. I have no idea how they could be more dangerous than eBay. But, you know . . . Consider the source. KEH and other used sites have D70, D90 and many other older models available for under $100. The first question asked was the most important though. Are they looking for DSLRs? P&S? View cameras? What?

Because both the buyer and the seller must be members for a PayPal payment to complete, both have agreed to PayPal terms which include dispute resolution.

There are no whites and barely any blacks. Yes, this might require some dodging of the face but my guess is that a higher contrast printing filter and proper exposure will do the job. Remember, shorter printing times will not produce stronger blacks and burning the background will not produce stronger whites.