lilserenity

In the future you might want to check out The Darkroom UK (http://www.the-darkroom.co.uk/) for E6 processing. They do mounted 35mm 36exp slides for £5.45 iirc -- it's freepost to them and that price includes return postage. Their turnaround time is usually next day, so if you send it on a Monday and it gets there on a Tuesday, you'll likely get them back on Wednesday.

I've been happy with their E6 processing for 35mm and 120.

Not as keen on their b+w processing but I tend to do that myself and I am picky on that but E6 wise they're great in my book.

FWIW, I sent off an old Fuji processing voucher about the same time as you and I've not had mine back yet. Does seem rather a long time. In the future as much as I advocate supporting local shops (although Boots is not local kind of local) -- you might be better off buying from www.7dayshop.com - getting your slide film cheap that way and processing via The Darkroom.

When you get them back though, I hope you're pleased with them :)

1. Another one here :)

2. I tend to get prints always of my 120 shots, but for 35mm I just get them mounted.

For 120 at the moment I tend to get a CD with the process too as I have no facility to scan them, that way I can see a bit more detail and choose which frames I want to have printed larger (up to 10x10) The 35mm slides I scan on my LS30 Coolscan scanner and then I have a decent TIFF file as well as an opportunity to get prints. I tend to put small 6x4/7x5 and 5x5's into an album and hang larger prints or give them out as gifts.

I also use a 35mm projector for get togethers, it's fun :)

I hope to get a new scanner when I have the money to handle 120 and 35mm.

3. It depends on the slide but generally I have not amended my exposure level anything more than I usually would for the film, e.g. Velvia 50 I have always overexposed between a 1/3 to 2/3rds a stop anyway (ISO 40/32) but it does scan a bit better when overexposed by 2/3rds a stop.

When it comes to Provia, Kodak E100VS and Astia I have stuck with box speed and have been satisfied with the results on screen. My main interest of course is getting good prints and well exposed slides for projection first though. :)

Not so much you have a nice camera thing (it has happened) but I quite often get "Can we see them now?" -- which on an EOS 3 doesn't work too well (it's a 35mm film SLR) and also because I am loathed to using flash on anything at parties/late night celebrations I'm most likely using a high speed black and white film like Delta 3200 and Neopan 1600. The amount of people who are still posing after I have taken the picture and moved the camera from my eyes is amusing :) "Have you taken it yet?" "Yeah just did" "Oh, but what about the flash" "There is no flash. Fast film and fast lens" (in simple terms) "Oh. *confused look*" :)

There again I was out with my Mamiya C330 TLR the other week and a kid with his mum came down the path and over the gate where I was admiring the view, he said "Wow cool camera!" - I suppose most people don't see TLRs at all these days with compact digitals and SLRs being the most common thing to see :)

Not at all,

At the moment I can buy 120 format film about 1/4 mile from my front door, anything Kodak, Fuji or Ilford they almost always have in stock.

Development is a bit tricker, I shoot a lot of 35mm b&w and develop that at home but 120 I'm not yet equipped for but will be soon. As for colour, I do have to send that off to a lab but it's not too bad in terms of economics as with a MF camera you are not very likely to be shooting the thing like a machine gun, it's a much more considered, slower process in general so those 10/12/15 frames will be well spent in many cases.

I picked up a Mamiya C330F with an 80mm lens, a 55mm lens and a Cokin A adapter just for the TLR for a paltry £150 with 12 month warranty. The results have blown me away!

Go for it and enjoy it!

I use an Olympus XA and for the most part the rangefinder is OK, I have taken plenty of sharp images at f/2.8 on my copy at least.

It is by far the smallest camera I own and despite it's size, in the right hands it can pull off some cracking shots. Also, it has my preferred focal length of 35mm which is a great aspect.

I would agree with Steve above, try the XA and see how you get on. If you can't get on with it, then consider something else but there is very little not to like about the XA. The only downside is the RF patch can sometimes be a little difficult to spot in bright light but otherwise I am dead happy with mine and it compliments my EOS 3, Mamiya C330 and Trip 35 very nicely. (I'm an all film gal but I still think digital rocks for most, I just prefer film.)

The R3a actually goes as wide as 40mm which isn't that wide in an age of super-wide lenses being so in-vogue with crop DSLR users.

35mm was my preferred and still is my preferred aspect, so I had a dialemma, Bessa R2a or R3a. In the end I went for the R3a because I resolved that the situations where I used 35mm were landscapes and 40mm wasn't too far off but I could use an external finder which for landscapes would be fine (less paralax problems than close-ups.) It also means for 75-90mm lenses the R3a is better for accurate focussing at faster apertures due to the longer effective base-length; which is important the wider the aperture and/or longer the focal length (it essentially is the accuracy at which you can 'fine-tine' the brigh spot's position that you use to line up over the scene when focussing.)

So far I only have the R3a and a 40mm Nokton f/1.4 MC lens. Cost me about £600 over here but I am very very pleased. I have never held a Leica but it's the perfect addition to my EOS 3 and Mamiya C330. I now have all bases covered. It's sturdy enough and doesn't feel flimsy to me, and it's working fine.

The best bit is the 1:1 finder which is life sized basically so you can keep your other eye open to see what's entering the scene.

I can't recommend this camera enough. I think Leicas are great having only handled one and they are very nice cameras, but I also now have a very nice camera that when walking will save me toting around a 3lb EOS 3 with 35mm lens!

One final note, I do use manual focus lens on my EOS 3 (keenly the Super Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f/2) - but focussing at wide apertures is a lot easier on a rangefinder.

I almost went with an OM2n but the small lenses and the fact that I did want a rangefinder swung it for me in the end. Plus, the Voigtlander M lenses (VM) are excellent in most respects and represent a significant saving on some Leica M lenses.

Whatever you choose, I hope you enjoy your choice and the photographs that come out of it :)

Vicky

Personal recommendation and explanation of the EOS system mainly.

I could have quite easily have gone with either Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, Minolta (as they were) etc. but after a recommendation on the EOS 5 (the A2/A2E in the US) and loving it when I got it, I had no reason to change. I have stuck with Canon for SLRs, as my EOS 5 broke last Christmas and whilst I was gutted, it did spur me on to get an EOS 3 which is a profoundly excellent camera to work with, if a bit heavy. I'll stick with the EOS 3 until it dies, and I'll probably get hold of another EOS 3 for backup. The 1v is too heavy for my needs and does nothing that I find compelling to improve what I do with the 3. This is the same reason as I have absolutely no reasons to look at something like a Nikon F100, it won't make a difference.

I have other cameras (Olympus XA, Trip 35 and Mamiya C330 TLR system and soon a Voigtlander Bessa R3a) so I'm not alergic to other brands, I just use what I like in that respect. To me my Canon equipped with a telephoto e.g. 70-200 f/4L is excellent kit to work with and great for portraiture. Going to another system wouldn't make me think "Oh my goodness my photos are at least five times better!" -- they would be as good I am sure of that as they are now.

So really it's not about I thought it was best, it was a case of I was told it was good, I agreed but not to the detriment of other systems and built up a small system that would be a bit silly to change.

There is some fantastic information, thank you so much for your responses. I will try to answer you each in turn at lunch time but whilst I can, I have reuploaded the PDF, sorry it was corrupt. Not sure why? Anyway, hopefully this will now work:

http://www.sunshinesista.plus.com/sunny16chart.pdf

Once again many many thanks, quickly though I would be interested in your index card John, that would be super kind of you to share that with me. I am aware of Fred Parker's page and I have read it numerous times and it's been invaluable in helping me understand many of the basic principles before now and indeed in informing me making my table up.

I've done a similar thing, with a table for ISO 100/125/160, ISO 200/320 and ISO 320/400. Mine's been set up to only do shutter speeds between 1sec-1/500th as that's what my C330 can handle, as well as bulb.

Thanks again and I shall reply properly in a few hours,

Vicky

Hiya,

I've done plenty of search and reading so I sincerely hope I don't dredge up what's already been answered here.

In fact much of what I have read helped me to get this far.

Background: experienced enough photographer with both manual and auto-focus on 35mm format (mostly with a Canon

EOS 3 and Olympus XA) and a big black and white fiend. The next step was to venture into medium format. To that

end I bought a Mamiya C330F with an 80mm lens which is a great bit of kit that I can't wait to get out with. It's

loaded up with some FP4+ and ready to go.

I understand the sunny f/16 rule well enough (and compensation for different light source etc.) and I don't have

a separate light meter so I'll rely on the old rule as it were. The thing is sometimes I will want to shoot at

f/5.6 or f/2.8 even on a slightly overcast day, rather than what the rule says (which I have simplified to)

Shutter speed = ISO rating e.g. 1/125th

Sunny - f/16

Slightly Overcast - f/11

Overcast - f/8

Heavily Overcast - f/5.6

Sunsets - f/4

So to shoot at f/2.8 during a slightly overcast day at 1/125th of a second would be heavily overexposed so I did

what I thought was right and made a spreadsheet which to me seems correct. What I want to know is: is it, am I

roughly on the right track?

The spreadsheet is here as a PDF:

http://www.sunshinesista.plus.com/sunny16chart.pdf

According to what I have roughly calculated, say I put some FP4+ in (so sunny day would be shot at f/16 with

1/125th shutter speed) but what if I want to shoot a sunset at f/11? According to my spreadsheet I have

calculated the shutter speed for a sunset at f/11 to be 1/15th sec? Inevitably there might be a little

discrepancy but I have some give with the b+w print film's latitude.

Another example, say I have FP4+ again, but want to shoot a portrait at f/4 on an overcast day, my chart says my

shutter speed (assuming a base of f/16 - 1/125th) should be 1/500th sec shutter speed.

Am I on the right track and will my ropey spreadsheet help me? I do like to use the aperture value to good

creative effect you see, and of course sometimes I will want to shoot a sunset at an aperture other than f/4 too!

I hope I'm making some sense here and hopefully I haven't made a hash of my spreadsheet. I found a good little

cut out exposure calculator too which I plan on using to start with but if what I have done is on the right

lines, I should soon remember things easily enough!

Many many thanks,

Vicky

Oyvind, wonderful to read your insightful and intelligent comment.

I agree immensely with what you have said here.

As a serious response though.

I think one of the biggest reasons I have stuck with film, and wll continue to do so is because I love the process. I love black and white. And sure my ISO 3200 prints are grainy, and sure my 35mm negs don't always look pin sharp at 20x16. But -- I do love the process, I love developing my films, even sometimes making handmade prints when I get the chance (I usually scan or send off for large enlargements, space constraints.)

And I just love the aesthetic out of the box that I get from the black and white films I use.

So as a film user I accept that the mainstream and majority have benefited from digital photography, and its brought many more to the fold than before. But film is still relevant for those who it is relevant to. I'm not kicking the bucket either as the stereotype goes, I'm 25 and a computer professional so it's nice to do something else.

I do derive a great deal of pleasure walking with my camera composing and relishing the thought of developing my work at a later date. That works for me, but not for others.

It's personal, just like many an amateur/keen photographers work is - it's personal and I think we're all the better for having choice rather than dictation.

What happens in the future? I don't know, all I do know is, I look forward to every frame I fire come what may!

Peace x

As a direct consequence of this exact forum post I have sold every bit of film kit and have gone digital because film is history. It was said here, so it must be true. After all, this is a very objective subject.

:-)

(In case your sarcasm radar is on low or been absent, I'm being sarcastic. Just pointing out opinion abounds but really, we'll probably all go home thinking the same as we did before, maybe a bit more enlightened, but mostly thinking the same way as we did before...)

Peace x

Steve makes a good point and I'm saying this as one of those film maniacs, or is it just maniac. Hard to remember sometimes :-)

But for many things digital lends itself to the workflow, weddings, press, world media -- those must really thrive on the digital ecosystem. That's not to say you can't make a few pennies at weddings with a film based camera, but if you're professional and you need to be able to deliver results yesterday, hands down -- no competition, digital works better for all the reasons Steve describes.

For other things such as landscapes, personal reportage, fine art, dare I say potentially amateur/advanced amateur use -- you can justify each system for yourself on what you want, there isn't an outright objective answer to which is better, because there is much subjectivity in this area. There isn't any pressure to get the results from anyone else but yourself, professional photographers need their work to be delivered thick and fast.

I must admit the thing I am so chuffed about more than anything is the fact photography even exists! There again, I'm not a professional photographer and just do bits on the side as well as my own work.

*offers olive branch* ^^;

No worries Guy :) In that case I would recommend saving for a Bessa R4a or maybe an R2a (if 35mm is ok in terms of frame lines.) It's a very good option and they are very well made. The R2a will be my next camera, saving up for one now. Then I'll save for a lens...

Robert White is probably your best bet in the UK: http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/product.asp?P_ID=925&PT_ID=290&P=Voigtlander-Bessa-R2A-rangefinder-body

As for the Leica CL option, that's a good suggestion, and the Minolta CLE (basically an updated Leica CL, some describe as an orphaned Leica) also M mount compatible with Av metering. Probably the most 'technically' advanced Leica until the M7. (I'm saying that with the fear of god hanging over me as I'm sure I'm wrong according to some othodox!!)

What about an Olympus XA? Devil's advocate here, definitely not 60s and definitely not the classic rangefinder

look, but very capable and well made. (Ok perhaps not quite as solid as an M3, or my EOS 3 which I have used as a

mallet for knocking in tent pegs before now....)

It's a fully coupled rangefinder and very small, ideal for the pocket. Aperture Priority ATL metering if you like

things fairly automated too. The nicest bit is the 35mm f/2.8 F.Zuiko lens which is good wide open and becomes

very sharp at f/5.6 and beyond.

Also usually comes with a flash unit which is detachable.

It's a great little camera which I love (even more than my Olympus Trip 35) as it's a fully fledged fixed lens

rangefinder, dead simple to use, a natural 35mm wide angle aspect that I prefer greatly over 28mm for portraiture

and low light work so for me it's a winner. The only downside is that it's ISO/ASA range is 25-800, 1600 would be

good.

There are also XA1, XA2, XA3 and XA4 variants. The XA1 is the most basic and I wouldn't bother. The XA2 is

virtually the same but is not fully coupled (a big point for me and low light work) and has a 35mm f/3.5 lens

instead but is apparently sharper still. The XA3 is like the XA2 I think but has DX capability (auto-sets the

ISO) and the XA4 is macro capable, not fully coupled but does have a 28mm f/3.5 lens but is pretty hard to find

and expensive.

A good example of an Olympus XA may only cost you between £30-50. It doesn't have the classic Leica M3 look

whatsoever but I am always very pleased with the results.

Yes I do from time to time, I develop in my bathroom but print over at a friend's darkroom who is kind enough to let me loose :-)

Sometimes I will process digitally as well as I have a Nikon Coolscan and I'll print from there after some cropping etc. in Photoshop and then make the print.

That said the traditional darkroom process is something I very much enjoy so that's a major reason I have stayed with film, especially as I am a huge black and white enthusiast. I too will be buried with my EOS 3 given half a chance :-)

FWIW, I have the 70-200 f/4L (non IS) on my Canon EOS 3 which is by no means an inconspicuous camera -- size and a mirror slap that puts a rifle to shame (!) -- and it is a fantastic lens. Perfect for having with you all day if not necessary always on the camera.

The f4/L is also I think the least expensive L lens out there but for portraits it's a gem, smooth gorgeous bokeh for portraiture and very easy to work with due to its lightweight.

IMHO, I would get the 70-200 f4/L over the 70-200 f/2.8 and with what you've saved invest in a couple of decent primes for your street work if you haven't got them already. I find the 35mm aspect very good but some people swear by 50mm! That said, on a APS-C sensor you'd need something like the 20mm or 24mm to get close to the approximate 35mm FF aspect.

Personally I use a manual focus 35mm f/2 super multi-coated takumar Pentax lens on my EOS 3. It's mounted on an M42 adapter but it's a joy to work with so this is another idea, as even though USM is amazingly quiet, manual focus is more so!

Good luck in whatever you decide is right for you :-)

Basically I'm a very kean and well acquainted shall we say walker, I walk on the downs virtually every weekend and am quite used to carrying heavy backpacks. As such carrying the 70-200mm isn't going to be posing me any problems. I've decided on taking HP5+ for the vast majority of shots, as well as a couple of rolls of Velvia and some Neopan 1600 as well.

As for whether 10 rolls is enough, the jury will be out on that until I finish it but on an average walk of about 12-15 miles I rarely use up an entire roll, and at most I'll only be walking 16 1/2miles. Usually I shoot about 20-25 frames in the distance I usually walk.

My camera kit is going to be the EOS 3,70-200mm f/4L and Super M.C. Takumar 35mm f/2, the film and that's about it. If I have room I'll take the Olympus Trip 35 I have which is a natty little sharp thing just in case.

I do have varied interests in the natural landscape from wildlife but more keanly insects (butterflies, dragonflies etc.) but also the human interaction on the landscape, and the natural landscape as a panorama, so I think I have probably covered my bases as best as I can with the kit I have. It will all be back securely and well as it usually is.

I'll definitely be sure to let you know of the results :) I can't wait!

Thanks again,

Vicky

Hiya,

Wow the responses here are fantastic. Thank you so much. Sorry for my delayed replies, I have had a couple of very hectic days at work but I shall read up on the new comments and reply now,

Thanks,

Vicky

Thank you ever so much for the wonderful responses. It's been very interesting reading them.

I agree that it seems rather 'rash' to try something I never have done for my trip but felt it was worth throwing out a couple of wildcards to see what people think.

I'm interested in the new emulsions people have mentioned, I have from time to time shot with Delta 100 and had good results (I'm on Flickr if you want to see more of what I get up to ) -- but I have never tried either the new TMax 400 emulsion, or indeed the Fuji Acros films. I think what I need to do today is pop into my local store and see if he has these two, and get out there and shoot more or less the same subjects and do a comparison with the main body of my work which is mostly Tri-X and HP5.

As for Delta 3200, I have used it, mostly for gigs and I do like it, grain is quite an important quality to me and for me, again my Flickr profile has some of that work.

I will only be carrying the one body but I may also slip in my Olympus Trip 35, it has a tack sharp 40mm Zuiko on it and it's fab for 'snaps', I most often use it for street photography, particularly on the tube (London Underground).

So I think I have narrowed it down to Tri-X, HP5+, Acros (100 or 400) and new emulsion TMax (100 or 400) - I was never overly struck on the older TMax and a recent review in Black & White Photogtraphy seems to confirm that it's a good choice,

Many thanks for yout thoughts, I now have plenty to think about. I will definitely be sure to keep you updated on the final choice and of course, the results.

Vicky