ed_lutz

<p>Thanks guys. I first heard about the Celtics from a post Andy made in another thread talking about how sharp his new 28mm is. Looking at KEH I find Celtics going for next to nothing. I'm also trying hard to find a reason not to pay almost $200 for a KEH EX condition (meaning its esentialy perfect) black SRT 101. I know its way more than a SRT should cost but damn it looks nice. The biggest thing against it is actually the fact that my first SLR was a SRT-101 and it wasnt black. I sorta want to replace it so I guess I'll try to stay on target and go for chrome.</p>

<p>Quick question for the Minolta SRT folk. I'm considering getting a small SRT system together and I've run across some MC mount lenses refered to as "Celtic". Are they good, bad, what are they?<br>

Thanks for the info,<br>

Ed</p>

<p>Classic is of course different for everybody and all the above mentioned cameras could fit, but for me, 1st would be the Argus C3. It was the first 35mm camera I ever used and was also the first camera I used that had a decent lens, and that I could change settings on. Its what I learned the basics, and some less than basics on. Its also a camera that allowed many Americans to have a good durable camera that worked well for an affordable price. Mine was a hand me down from my parents and I have a second one that belonged to my grandfather. It was by far the most advanced camera he ever had and like everything he owned was kept in perfect condition. <br>

2nd would probably be the SRT-101 which was the first SLR I used. My dad bought it to replace that Argus he gave me. Unfortunatly he passed the SRT on to my sister who after a few years sold it. I'm considering buying into a SRT system sometime soon...</p>

<p>I'll second (3rd, 4th?) one for the 400 4.5. Its one of my favorite lenses. Plenty sharp and fast enough for most situations.</p>

<p>What the heck, I guess I'll jump in...<br>

I share the OPs views I think on manipulated photographs. To me though there is such a thing as a non manipulated shot. I have a bunch of them stored in files. They are the transparency I've shot over the years and they are exactly as I shot them. Those I print are usually not changed in any way, I rarely ask for a burn or dodge I strive to get it in the camera.<br>

However, there are times of course that film just wont do that as it doesn't have the latitude to mimic exactly what I see, or I blew the shot to some degree and something needs to be tweaked to set it right. Now, as long as any changes are to make the picture what my eyes saw I don't think (to me) its over manipulated. Once though manipulation moves toward making the shot "unnatural" then its over manipulated. And yes, Ansel Adams certainly was an early adopter of manipulation.<br>

Now understand that I don't necessarily dislike (over) manipulated pictures, I just recognize a difference and like to know what was done to create a shot. I personally like to know because I want to learn, curiosity ya know? The whole digital side to this is still pretty new to me and I still shoot film almost exclusively. Digital is for me only for experimentation, playing with lighting, goofing around. I've been a film shooter for...eh, well a heck of a long time, and old habits don't slip away very quickly. I learned to try and get it right in the camera since if I didn't I had to trust someone else to get it right in the darkroom. I dont shoot something figuring I can fix it later in PS, although the idea is intriguing.<br>

So when I view photos I sometimes see something that would have been very hard to do in the camera and thus want to know how it was done. Now don't take this wrong but I value the skill to get it right in the camera and so don't just assume that a shot was fixed later. While I see nothing wrong with fixing it later, I strive to get it right in the camera and want to learn how others do the same, thus, to get back to the point, is why I would like to know how much a shot was manipulated during post processing.</p>

<p>Yeah, twist harder. Really, something about the RB mount allows it to get well and truly stuck, bound tight. The problem I think is that the locking ring is too small to allow a really good grip to turn it. I had one the other day that I thought I'd have to somehow cut off but in the end I won. Just be sure your turning the lens locking ring the right direction! ;) I try to remember when I'm capping the back of a lens to only turn the locking ring "just enough" to hold the cap on.</p>

<p>Jeff, I've been wanting a matched Tamron 2x converter to use with my 500 f8 reflex. Is there a model number on it? I really dont know what I'm looking for and want to be sure I get the right one.<br>

Thanks,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>John, I've had both the Canon 500 reflex and the aforementioned Tamron SP 500 reflex. Back when I had them both I ran some comparison shots. All were shot with the same T-90 body, from the same tripod, same scene etc. and the Tamron was hands down sharper than the Canon. This was my first experience with the Tamron SP line and to say the least I was impressed. The Canon is gone, the Tamron sits in a bag waiting to be used.<br>

It waits a lot though, not because its a problem lens but just because there really aren't that many times when a 500mm is the right lens. Its just too long. I remember wanting a big tele real bad back then but unless your shooting the odd thing that really needs it, it just doesn't get used. I'd second the suggestions for something in the 300mm range although I'll have to defer to others suggestions on which particular lens to get as I don't have a 300 myself. I would suggest a couple of zooms to handle the range your really more likely to use and then after you find your photographic muse decide what you really need. If then you really think a 500 is what you need then consider the fixed f8, which can be a hassle, and the funky bokeh, and then if you still want one hold out for the Tamron SP version. Not only is it sharper but its also cheaper, smaller, and lighter.</p>

<p>So many options, so many options...<br>

Michael, your comment about problems from selling an asset thats been working well are, in my experience, right on the money. Thats what has me worried. This Coolscan V is a great little scanner and I'm worried about letting it go. Silly prices for them used though. I bought mine in '07 for about $550.. They sell for plenty more than that on Ebay all the time. Weird, except that new they've almost doubled in price. I think I'm going to sit on this for a bit and look at older flatbeds. If I can grab an older model at a really good price then I might just do that. Like some of you said, we don't really print that many shots, so mostly I want to view my work online. My local pro lab will scan for printing at a pretty good price so I'd have to scan a boatload of negatives to actually ever pay for the scanner. Thanks for the comments guys, it helped a lot with this decision!</p>

<p>It used to be my F1 which I liked becouse its basic, sturdy as a tank, and takes great pictures. I recently picked up a Canonet though which is really cool. 40m 1.7 lens, plenty sharp, and so very simple. Could be the newness factor but right now its number 1 on the fun scale. For the serious stuff...well I hadly do any serious stuff anymore but when I did and I had to be sure I got the shots then I'd take my T-90s.</p>

<p>David, your idea has merit. Another route I was considering is to just let the local custom lab do scans for me. They will process a 120 roll of C41 with proof scans for about $8.00. Thats really not bad and those scans are all I need for computer display. My thought has been to gradually get to where I have a "darkroom" again so I can post my shots but I'm not sure it makes much sense financially. Without scans the film processing alone is $2.00 so I guess it comes down to how much I end up shooting 120.</p>

<p>I guess I just need my thoughts verified before jumping…<br>

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><br>

First the background info. I’m a long time photographer, I shoot mostly film with the digital being just the quick snapshots and experimental stuff. Any serious shooting is all film. I’ve spent most of the time with 35mm but just recently picked up a nice RB67 system, mainly for use shooting landscapes. I’m not making any money from my shooting and that’s fine, I don’t try to, it’s just a serious hobby.<br>

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><br>

So, a little while back I bought a Nikon Coolscan V ED film scanner, which works great for 35mm. Now though I’m interested in also scanning my medium format work and am looking at a V750 Pro (cant afford a dedicated medium format film scanner so flatbed will have to do). It looks like the V750 will handle the 35mm and medium format well enough for what I want but I want to hear the thoughts of those who have one. I’m not looking for this scanner to give me poster size results; the biggest I’d be blowing anything up would probably be 11x14. I would be scanning for web display and to allow minimum post processing for 8x10 or 11x14 printing, anything larger would go to my local custom lab for printing from the original negative or transparency. Oh, what I didn’t mention above is that to get the Epson scanner, the Nikon will have to be sold, thus my concern about the Epson’s ability to scan 35mm in addition to medium format. I don’t want to sell the Nikon to get the Epson and then be disappointed with the results. From the reports I’ve read it looks like the V750 is really a nice scanner, suitable for all that I’d be doing with it, but whats the word from those who have one?<br>

<!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><br>

Thanks a lot,</p>

 

<p>I see the difference with two of my "systems". I've been a long time FD user with a rack of lenses and at this point have pretty much all I want. However, at the current Ebay prices for some really good glass (135mm f2.8, looking really clean for $39.95 for example) I sometimes will grab something just becouse its so cheap! My other main 35mm camera is a Nikon F4S. Lenses for that can of course be used on almost all the Nikons from way back to well into the D series. Those lenses, wether on the bay or from KEH etc. cost quite a bit more. Not just the autofocus either but older Nikon manual focus lenses seem harder to find and command a higher price.</p>

<p>Dave, my local camera repair guy mentioned this same problem to me when I told him about using my Tamron 80-210 SP on my T-90. Said the too stiff aderture lever spring was very common and often caused 3rd party lenses to not work on Canon FD bodies. However, I've never had any problems with that Tamron on any of my bodies (F1, (2) T-90s, A1) and its the only 3rd party FD mount lens I have.</p>

<p>Reading this and other threads on much the same subject an idea for a new product hit me. My wife likes those scented candles, vanilla, sage, pine forest, you know...favorite stinks. I figure a line of darkroom chemistry odor candles would sell. You just put it on a shelf next to the computer, light it up, start Photoshop, and transform yourself back to those blissful days of yesterday... I figue "old fixer" and "too strong stop bath" should be really popular!<br>

I miss the darkroom and need lots of help with the new digital side. It is really the same thing though, dodge and burn, get the exposures right. My color work tends to stay pretty much as I shot it just as in the old days as I never had a color darkroom. I was lucky enough to live near a number of excellent labs and they took care of the color needs. Now I find the concepts of color management to be the hardest thing to figure out, but again I have a pretty good lab nearby. Time is the biggest problem though, I just dont seem to have as much of it available.</p>

<p>My first "serious" camera was a C3, handed down from my father when he moved to a SRT101. The best thing about cameras like that is they make you pay attention. Even with an old F1 you can just set the shutter and match that needle without paying any attention to what aperature your using. An old C3 or like camera, with no meter, no automation, just a shutter and a lens really, is a great teaching tool and a pretty good thing for us all to go back to once in a while. My new "C3" is a Mamiya RB67. No meter, just a shutter and aperature so I have to think about what I want and choose acordingly.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>I love that F1 Dirk! As much as I like the nice clean, like new cameras its good to see an old war horse still plugging along. Looks kind of nice with the contrasting prism housing too.</p>

<p>That 220 Velvia didnt last long.... :(</p>

<p>For me it varies a lot. Some of my best are shot just spur of the moment. Driving along I see a nice shot and stop and get it. Others, like one I'm chasing now, can take days or weeks looking for the best vantage point, waiting for the weather to be just right, etc. I think I finally found the vantage point, now I need to wait for weather and clouds to be just right. Could take weeks more. A lot depends on what your subject matter is. If your into "table top" photography, shooting still lifes, then I'd expect to get the shot relativly quickly. Landscapes (what I'm chasing now) can take quite a bit longer, or happen "just now". Back when I tried to make money shooting motorsports every shot was fast but lots of shots..huge amounts of film, were pretty much wasted as the images just didnt stack up.<br>

Percentage wise I dont know of anyone working outside of a studio who can really claim a high precentage of keepers. Maybe a good wedding photographer as many of their shots can be setup in a studio like atmosphere but for the rest of us, we need to shoot a lot. If you have a digital camera this isnt a bad thing as it doesnt cost anything to take a bad one, you dont have to pay to process it. However its pretty easy to machine gun everywhere you go and not really think about what your doing and thats the secret. Take it slow and think about what your doing, dont let the camera take over. I started shooting digital a few years back and after a while relized I had fallen into the trap of not thinking any more and that I wasnt taking as many good pictures. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever taken a really good digital picture. I recently purchased a Mamiya RB67 with the intent to slow down, and so far I'm loving it.</p>

<p>OK, so you can remove a photo in an after post edit, but you cant put one back in...learn something new every night! So, here's mine!</p>

<p>Here's mine...</p>

<p>I would sugest a Gossen Luna Pro. Make sure you get a later model like a SBC (not an F) that takes regular 9V batteries. Nice meters but kind of big, but then so is the camera so what the heck. I just picked one up from KEH. $84 I think, rated E and the sucker looks brand new. Pretty much like that Canonet you sold me...lovely camera, loaded with Portra VC at the moment just waiting for the sun to come up!</p>

<p>Your sick Mark..its a wonderful disease though isnt it! :)<br>

Just purchased a QL17 GIII last night. Cant wait for it to arrive! Been looking at A1s too. I have a nice one but I'm thinking of getting one for my daughter. She's 16 and just getting into photography so no better time to infect her with CAS!</p>

<p>This is going to sound weird but... Did this T90 come to you after being resealed? New foam? Specifically a new mirror bumper? I have found reference to this same flashing arrow symbol starting after a too thick piece of foam was installed as a mirror buffer. My thought is that when you press the shutter and the mirror raises, it cant go high enough to signal the camera that it is out of the way and thus the shutter wont fire. Check that mirror buffer, and look for anything else that might be blocking the mirror from raising all the way. I have a couple of good (excellent really) T90s here so if you need any close up pictures to compare to let me know. Wonderful cameras when all is well. The meters are amazing and I've never used a camera that fits me better from an ergonomic standpoint.</p>

<p>Does anyone have expierence with cleaning the barrel of a lens, particularly a Mamiya RB67 lens? I recently purchased an RB67 kit with multible cameras and lenses. A couple of the lenses have glue residue on the outside where the previous owner had some duct tape. I'm thinking alcohol, or perhaps lighter fluid to clean this off but I dont want to damage the lens' finish. Wadda ya all think?</p>