ed_lutz

Hi Lucas, The manual is pretty poor on this so I grabbed my OM-4 and tried it. Mine seems to act like yours does, it saves spot meter readings in auto mode but in manual mode the memory function doesn't work. I'd guess then that this is normal! :cool: Super nice cameras, enjoy!

I'm thinking this is a flash coverage issue. Looking at the specs on the TLA200 I see it covers from 28 - 90mm, and that's referring to coverage on a 35mm camera. Your shooting with a 45-85mm zoom on a 6x4.5 camera. That lens on that film size should give you an angle of view roughly equivalent to a 28-53mm lens on a 35mm camera. Should work, but your question about the flash units controls has me wondering where you have the flash set. I've never used a TLA200 but there is a good chance that the zoom control will work even when not on a Contax camera. You might be able to see this as you switch the selector. As Jochen said, flash units usually reshape their reflectors when you change the zoom settings. If you look at the flash lens as you change the setting switch you may be able to see movement inside the flash telling you that it is adjusting. You should be able to hear something happening too. That's a pretty low power flash and if not set wide enough I'd expect sharp vignetting. I've also noticed over the years that lower powered flash units tend to be a bit optimistic in their coverage claims. You may find that you need to have the flash set wider than you'd think would be needed.

<p>Ray, thank you for your calm, considered, response. It made me go back and reread the entire thread to see what you may have missed.</p> <p>I couldn’t find anything.</p> <p>Seems it was me. Overall upon rereading the whole thing, I have to say this thread is more pro film than digital, and not nearly as confrontational as my mind perceived it the first time through. Being the thoughtful introspective sort that I am I find this very interesting. The only real negative comments I could find were, as you mentioned, from Rodeo. I can only guess that he caught me in a bit of a mood and set me off.</p> <p>So a big apology to all, this wasn’t really the thread for me to vent in.</p> <p>My question at the end of my post however stands. Probably a discussion for a different thread, but I really do wonder what it is about photography that sets it apart from the other pictorial art forms and causes the divisive attitude I’ve seen in many other places.</p>

<p>Timely comment John...<br> I just finished refurbishing a nice old Carl Zeiss Jenna 80mm f2.8 in an Exakta mount. I don't know what kind of lubes the East Germans had available back then but so far every old Zeiss Jena lens I've acquired has been very tight and hard to focus. The lube gums up and gets hard. This 80mm was like it had been epoxied, it wouldn't turn at all no matter how hard I tried.<br> I put it in a coffee can and submerged it in white gas (Colman fuel, I think just naphtha) for a couple of days. That got it loosened up enough to take it apart and give it a good cleaning, but like an idiot I forgot to first remove the front name ring. The plastic is fine, but all the lettering was removed. A little time with some white hobby paint and a small brush and it will be as it should be.<br> Lovely lens now, I'm looking forward to putting it through its paces on my Varex.</p>

<p>This film vs digital stuff drives me nuts…<br> <br /> First off, full disclosure. I shoot mostly film when it matters. Pretty much exclusively. I’ve been shooting since I was a kid, most of the pictures of me from back in elementary school have me wearing a Kodak Starflash around my neck, and it was a new camera back then a long time ago. This means I’m pretty well set in my ways, plus that I have enough experience to make rational decisions about the ways I want to pursue. I’ve also spent some time making money with a camera. Weddings, portraiture, sports (mostly motor sports), selling landscape prints, etc. I had a nice computer career going though and never wanted to drop that to pursue photography full time, preferring to keep it a serious hobby.<br> <br /> That’s all just to let you know where I come from.<br> <br /> Like I said, I shoot film. However, I don’t mind people shooting digital. Most of my photographer friends used to shoot film but now prefer digital. A couple who are fine art photographers with plenty of large and medium format film experience have said that they miss some of the qualities of those formats, but they really just like the convenience of digital and are willing to put up with its limitations in exchange for not having to deal with films different limitations. That’s cool, they produce lovely photographs with their DSLR’s. Really lovely in fact, and from an artistic sense I consider them both to be better photographers than myself, and I try to learn from them whenever I can.<br> <br /> I personally prefer film for a number of reasons, reasons which really don’t matter at all as far as this discussion is concerned. What does matter is the pompous attitude that I hear from so many who want to proclaim that digital is “better”. Hmm… better… big word that. Really big in fact. Better, with no qualifiers, pretty much means just that. Better in all ways, no matter what, it’s just BETTER!<br> <br /> We’re talking art here people.<br> <br /> Who are any of us to proclaim to a fellow artist that our way is better, and they are less of an artist, and are wrong, because of the medium they choose to work in? Should Rembrandt have been told he was wrong, because pencils allowed higher resolution? I know a few painters and I’ve never heard a whiff of this kind of attitude from them. They each work in whatever medium they like and enjoy the work of fellow artists that choose to work in different mediums. I don’t think they’d ever dream of telling a fellow artist that they are wrong to choose the medium they use.<br> <br /> I don’t understand. What is it about photography that causes so many of its practitioners to need to run down the methods used by their fellow photographers? And what has caused so many to feel that all that matters in photography is cold hard resolution?<br> <br /> Marketing I’m sure plays a part. The camera manufacturers have touted pretty much nothing but resolution since digital cameras hit the stores, it’s the only way they can keep selling new cameras year after year.<br> <br /> Maybe its fear of being wrong? Or a blind attachment to new technology? I don’t know but whenever I read something with the “if it isn’t digital it’s wrong” attitude it just comes across as ignorant of what photography is, where it came from, and what it can be.<br> <br /> Shoot what and how, and in whatever medium and format you want. Create your art in your way, and do yourself a favor. Quit with the quasi religious proselytizing. It got old a long time ago.</p>

<p>A couple from my T-90 shot back in the mid 80's.</p> <p>But first, the story.</p> <p>I had this friend, who's girlfriend fancied herself a writer. She knew someone who put her in touch with someone, who told her she could write an article for a Hobie Cat sailing magazine. She asked me to take the pictures...</p> <p>We lived in the Los Angeles area, and the regatta she was going to write about was up at Lake Quinault, in Washington State. Bit of a drive. We left L.A. and drove straight through to Hood River Oregon where she wanted to interview some board sailors for another article she wanted to write. I shot pictures for that too. From Hood River we went on up to Lake Quinault and spent a few days "working". All this was on our dime. Gas, food, lodging, all of it.<br> Upon getting back home she never wrote anything, but the Hobie magazine took my pictures, and found one of the sailors who had sailed at the regatta to write something up. My shots were used on the contents page and a 2 page color spread with the article.<br> <br />Total pay, $64.00. I decided freelance magazine work wasn't going to make me rich.</p> <p>So anyhow, these are a couple of the shots I took in Hood River, OR. Wind surfers on the Columbia River. Somewhere around here I have some sailing pictures too, If I can find them I'll post some up.</p> <p>Both these were with my T-90 shooting Fuji transparency film. Both I think with my 400mm f4.5 S.S.C., although looking at the first one it could have been the Tamron 80-200mm f2.8 SP.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7061/27429794736_646ff3bcb3_c.jpg" alt="" width="616" height="800" /></p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7151/27464158785_5ef7b9d7a5_c.jpg" alt="" width="577" height="800" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Very nice shot Bill!</p>

<p>Thanks for your nice comments Ed, much appreciated.</p> <p>I always like train shots, I guess cause I really like trains. Here in Colorado we have a few nice excursion railroads like the Durango and Silverton line. I've ridden it a few times and have shot some pictures, none of which come to mind as sharable... Its always a challenge to get the lighting correct. All that deep deep flat black. Its something I want to work on more.</p>

<p>Got some more from the Reno Air Races</p> <p>The Thunderbird's are always exciting. And loud... they are always loud...</p> <p>Considering how low and close these guys were, I'm pretty sure I shot these with my Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8. With the T-90 of course, and on Fuji transparency film.<br /> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1605/24945712863_c8a5de7c38_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="541" /></p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1515/25453816752_64d6d583f2_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="519" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>Rick and Jim, I can confirm that the internal reflections of both lenses are effectively identical.</p> <p>Michael, I'm thinking I agree with you. I like how the SSC looks and for whatever reason how it feels so I'll probably keep it and sell the chrome nose.</p> <p>Mark, once I do make up my mind for sure I'll drop you a PM.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I am currently shooting a comparison Dave, but was just curious about any technical differences between the two. I've shot with each of these in the past and haven't noticed any big differences. Maybe shooting both on a single roll, thus eliminating any development issues something will show up. That and time, I cant really think of any time I've used both in a short period of time. I've really never paid any attention to looking for any difference between these.<br> Jim, thanks for your thoughts on the coatings, that's something I was wondering about, if the chrome nose was maybe just SC. I'm curious to see how each renders color (the test roll is Ektar 100, in my T-90)<br> One thing I have noticed already. I cant pick a real reason, but I just seem to like the SSC more. Both lenses function flawlessly with wonderful focus action but for whatever reason I'm just liking the SSC version more than the chrome nose. Its not something I've noticed before but using the two back to back its a pretty strong feeling... I just cant decide why.</p>

<p>I've ended up with two 55mm f1.2 FD lenses. As I really don't need both I'm thinking of selling one to help fund the purchase of the 300mm f4 I want.<br> One lens is a S.S.C., and the other is a chrome nose breech mount with no coating reference on the front ring. Both are in fantastic condition. Is there any functional reason to keep one over the other?</p> <p>Thanks and here's the picture of both,</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7158/27416855441_0654bee4af_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="530" /></p>

<p>Nice Towhee Bill! It's good to see someone else enjoying the 400 4.5, its such a wonderful lens.</p>

<p>Agfa Memo on Pan F</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1463/24835016639_2b282fd6ac_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="491" /></p>

<p>First up, from Rocky Mountain National Park. Shot with my Franka Solida II on Delta 100</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1453/25175802466_e3db3466c5_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="797" /></p> <p>Another from the same roll at a local park. Franka Solida II and Delta 100.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1637/24906459510_efa42ecc76_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="800" /></p> <p>And the last, shot in Denver with my 35mm Agfa Memo from the late 30's. Shot on Ilford Pan F.<br> <img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1529/24907092030_a2fcb8724d_c.jpg" alt="" width="509" height="800" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>I like this idea. I have a small dedicated film freezer but the problem is keeping everything somewhat neat and properly stacked. Something like these boxes will help a great deal and in the end give me more usable space. I too generally buy more than I'm going to use anytime soon, and have 35mm, 120, 4x5, plus Super 8 to store. It all gets a bit out of hand at times. These at least will control the 120.</p>

<p>John, after posting my last message I went back and scanned the thread again. I'd missed your comment about Spectra having the Agfa reversal film. Its not cheap, but I found some examples on YouTube and it looks pretty nice. Just wanted you to know that my wife isn't going to like you when I order a couple reels of this stuff... :)</p>

<p>Yes, your right Glen, it probably will but bucket processing ends up pretty rough no matter what. I recommend stand developing because we really don't know with that camera what the shutter speed is going to be. Whatever its supposed to be, its probably something else. The camera is too old to be sure. Stand developing takes much of the exposure issue out of the equation. Within limits of course, it should come out OK. If you agitate the film much during a stand development process then it becomes a regular non stand developing cycle and you need the accuracy we just wont have here. Movie cameras are incredibly fickle little things, and old ones tend to be slow, jumpy, and have wonky meters so either stand developing or perhaps something like Diafine can be helpful. I've not actually tried Diafine yet but in general you can develop Kodaks TriX as a negative in whatever standard b&w chemicals you want so I'm thinking Diafine should work too. My next reel will be done this way as I'm thinking it should help control the grain a bit.<br> And no, Fuji is now sadly out of the Super8 business. Its sad, their film was wonderful. Far as I know there are no color reversal stocks available anymore unless someone does a short run of custom cutting something. I think a shop in Europe has done that in the past but what I remember was priced way out of my range. Whats nice though is that the current Kodak color negative stocks are amazingly forgiving, have huge amounts of exposure latitude, and lovely natural colors plus they develop nicely in standard C-41 chemistry (with the addition of a easy remjet removal step). The only downside is that you cant run them through a projector and have to have them scanned. The upside of this though is that once scanned you can import the movie into a standard digital editor like Premier Pro or Vegas and edit to your hearts content. No splicing tape required. The downside of the whole thing however is the cost. 3 minutes of shooting time for $34.95, (for 50 ISO color) plus developing and scanning... </p>

<p>Thanks Alex! I have quite a few from that weekend, I just have to find them and work a bit on my scanning skills. Some others that I scanned just don't look like I think they should... in fact they look pretty bad. I'll work on some when I get a chance and get some more posted.</p> <p>Thank you too Ashley! Lovely shots there, I especially like the stairwell and the birdhouses. Wonderful colors!</p>

<p>Voigtlander Vito B. Delta 100 in Rodinal</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1584/24835586339_5458f91e32_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="587" /></p>

<p>I'm in.</p> <p>Lets go to Reno. The 1990 Reno Air Races to be exact.</p> <p>First up, Lefty Gardner in the P-38, "White Lightning" Shot on Fuji transparency film with my T-90 and 400mm f4.5 S.S.C.<br /> Lefty is gone now but he was one of the greats of the airshow world.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1674/25060775764_411e179f68_b.jpg" alt="" width="692" height="1024" /></p> <p>Next is the a Lockheed T-33, "The Red Knight". Something about this plane really caught my attention that day. The way it looked, and was flown, it was absolutely elegant. It was a long time back, but I can still remember it quite vividly. The pilot is the late Rick Brickert who was killed at Reno in a different plane in 1993. This plane is now being flown, still under the Red Knight name, by a different pilot.<br> <br /> Same film, camera, and lens as above.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1608/25598607541_f5c22db458_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="672" /></p> <p>Last one for now, a lovely P-40 on the flight line. Shot with the T-90 on Fuji transparency film, but I really don't know for sure about the lens anymore. I'm thinking this was too close for the 400mm so it would have been the Tamron 80-200mm F2.8 SP. A killer lens that I still have and would recommend to anyone wanting something in that range.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1689/24941912994_df588c763e_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="634" /></p> <p> </p>

<p>If your adventuresome this isn't all that hard. It would help if you have experience developing black and white film?<br /> Pick up a Super 8 cartridge of Tri X. B&H is generally the cheapest place to get it. If you already have a 3 or 4 reel Paterson tank then your good to go. Shoot the roll (does the camera even operate?). You have to break open the Super 8 cartridge in the dark, unspool the film, and stuff it loosely in the Paterson tank. Don't forget the center column to keep the tank light tight. Stand develop it in Rodinal. It will work, it will be rough and grainy but it will work. It will also develop as a negative. Check your local Craigslist or other sources for someone who is converting home movies to DVD. Expect to pay around 12 to 15 cents a foot for your 50 ft reel. The end result will have uneven development and will be grainy but you will have a movie. If you want better quality then you need an actual movie film developing tank. I got mine off Ebay out of Russia. Look for Lomo tanks. The Rodinal stand developing makes the film grainier than usual, but its not bad. This method will get you started. If you want, once you get comfortable with it, you can start shooting the Kodak Vision emulsions and develop them in normal C-41 chemistry.<br /> This link will take you to a scan of some Tri X I shot and stand developed in Rodinal.<br /> <br /> <p>If you want any more detail drop me a note, I'll be happy to help if I can.</p>

<p>Ohh ohh, a days available!<br /> Shot recently along the Big Thompson River here in Loveland, CO. Alpa 4B with a (I think) Exakta mount Steinheil Munchen 35mm f2.8. Delta 100 in Rodinal.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1677/25110125121_c7b60faa97_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="499" /></p>

<p>Very nice Bill, I like that one a lot!</p>

<p>Thanks Bill, I'll try to remember to post again next month. I don't use my FD gear all that much anymore, got a bit caught up in older film gear, but I've plenty of shots from years of T90 usage.<br> Still one of my favorite cameras.... really need to get it out again soon.</p>