eric_s7

<p> Ron Andrews:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>....I have suggested in other threads that a great way to store color images (digital and analog) for future generations is to copy them onto Ektachrome film. The advantage of this method is that a bunch of slides can sit in a box for 100 years with minimal degradation. Now that these materials are being discontinued, the best convenient method is to make high quality prints. .....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why make prints instead of copying onto Fuji's E6 films? I am sure they are almost as good as Ektachrome, given that they are the same type of film, and are developed with the same chemicals. </p>

<p>Sorry for the late response. I had not visited this forum for a while. I am wondering is it only me that noticed this. The prints and slides from the IS series cameras look sharp, but somehow have low color vibrancy. I used to think that the pictures from them are superb, but after having used primes on the OM series and the 35RC, I think the IS series cannot hold a candle to these cameras. The pictures' low color saturation is noticeable even in the scans on this thread, but is very prominent when you compare the actual slides.</p>

<p>Hi everyone, from your responses it seems that my unit had indeed been damaged by the repairman. He insisted that this behavior was normal, and I don't think it is possible to seek redress from him. It is my misfortune that this happened. Thanks again for your responses.</p>

<p>Hello forum members, I need some advice from you on whether my German made Rollei 35 had been serviced improperly.When the camera returned from repairs I noticed that it worked in strange ways. I found that after releasing the shutter, the lens tube could still be rotated anti-clockwise (with the lens facing me) even if I do not pull the film winding lever. It cannot, however, be retracted, and winding still had to be done to get it retracted into the camera body. This was not the way that my Singapore made Rollei 35 (Tessar) behaved. On this unit it is not possible to both rotate and retract the lens tube if film winding is not done after pressing the shutter releasing button. Does anyone know whether the German Rollei 35 behaved differently from the Singapore one, or that it had indeed been serviced in an improper way? Thanks in advance for your input.</p>

<p>Mr Burke, no worries, I am well aware that your PS remark was a facetious one. I did have a good chuckle (really) before reading your next post. Do keep up with the humor. </p>

<p>Hi Mr(?) Burke, many thanks for offering to find the old issues of magazines. I will be very grateful to you for that. </p>

 

<p>Is anyone able to find links to magazine reviews of the IS-1, IS-2 or IS-3? I had acquired an IS-1 only several years ago. I had missed out on them but I would now like to know how they fared according to the experts and reviewers back in their days. </p>

<p>Hi David, I didn't know that "clicks" are there to mark whole values. I guess I must give it a try soon.</p>

<p>Thanks for the input, Stefan and John.<br>

Stefan, I didn't know that it is possible to turn the aperture ring to somewhere between between full stops. Unlike lenses on other cameras such as Pentax, Canon FD or Rollei 35, there are no "click-stops" at intermediate positions on the Zuiko ones. Can you actually release the shutter when the aperture had not clicked onto its position? Yes, I know that there is not much impact from half a stop's difference, but I believe there must be certain situation where some people would insist on a spot on exposure, or otherwise, why would other camera makers provide such capability on their cameras?<br>

John, suppose the of the dash in the viewfinder is less than a stop from the center, how do you bring it to the center? Turning the aperture or shutter one complete stop brings the dash slightly to the left or right from the center.</p>

<p>I have a used OM-3 which I bought some time ago. I downloaded its manual (for both the original and the Ti versions) to learn to use its advanced functions, but unfortunately it is not very helpful in certain areas, so I would like to seek help from you OM experts here. I noticed that the camera has the exposure compensation function which is actuated through the ISO dial, like many other cameras. From my observation turning the dial only affects the reading in the viewfinder, and the actual compensation has to be done by manually adjusting the shutter-speed or aperture controls. The problem is, how can compensations of less than one complete stop be done on this camera, as both the shutter and aperture controls do not allow partial adjustments. I would like to believe that if the function is available on the ISO/ expensation compensation dial, there must be a way to actually use it. Otherwise the exposure compensation dial would be nothing more than a dummy dial. The instruction manual is silent on this. Does anyone know something about this? Many thanks in advance for any useful information that you provide.</p>

<p>I once had one defective unit with a Xenar lens. The focusing ring of the lens was loose. It would turn endlessly in either direction, with nothing stopping it from turning beyond a certain degree. When I turned it counter clockwise, it kept turning endlessly until the whole front element came off the lens tube. Two tiny screws fell out as the front element came off. I guess these screws were there to limit the focusing rings rotation.The focusing ring with the front lens element could be screwed back onto the lens tube, but it would just keep rotating until it became like a tightened screw, and it was impossible to know at which point an object would be in focus. Seeing how the lens was not constructed in such a way that it comes into proper focusing range when being put together again, I dared not send it to a repairman to be re-assembled -- I returned it to the seller. I was dismayed, and somewhat lost confidence in these cameras. However, the lure of their tiny size and beauty was so strong I could not resist getting two other units.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2418058">D F</a> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where's the RAGE?! Where's the ANGER?! The clenched fists waving & heaving in the air?! If I was in New York I'd organize a demonstration in front of Kodak corporate headquarters......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Kodak must have had even greater rage and anger towards those *@&$##!!***$@ photographers who deserted film for the #@$%!!#%&!**** crap called digital cameras for quite a while before pulling the plug on Kodachrome. I think I can feel Kodak's pain. Each time I tried to encourage people to shoot film the conversation would always touch my nerve and I would be close to losing my temper. Even if Kodachrome was not discontinued recently it would still have met the same fate at a later stage. Let us direct the anger towards our "friends" (idiots) who had dumped film. </p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=696354">Les Sarile</a> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does that mean you don't anymore or you never shot color negatives?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do shoot negatives from time to time. What I meant to say was that I would choose Gold on those occasions when I shoot negatives. What I said about the characteristics of Gold is of course subjective. </p>

<p>If I were to shoot color negative I would choose Kodak Gold 100/200 anytime. Looks warmer and has more pleasing colors to my eyes.</p>

<p>You can do your part to keep E-6 film alive by shooting as much of them as possible. Tell your friends to do that as well. </p>

<p>At least Ektachrome, Velvia or Provia are still transparency film, imperfect as they are. You would be wise to support them lest they get discontinued as well.<br>

I too had wished that I had the opportunity to shoot Kodachrome in the last year, but as Chris mentioned, prices were ridiculously high. Let those detestable hoarders be damned. I think many of them are stuck with unsold stock indeed. I hope they have suffered a financial setback from it. </p>

<p>Yes, they do use digital equipment for printing. Those huge-sized machines, which are equipped with a small monitor, keyboard and mouse are especially bad. When film strips are fed into the machine, they are actually scanned into jpeg files before being printed. The prints that I got from them had filenames with "jpg" extension printed on the back.I once had the opportunity to see the printing being done before me. When I noticed that they had missed out one frame from the printing, they promised to do that for me right away. To my horror, they told me that the negatives were not needed anymore, as the pictures were stored inside the machine. When the picture was retrieved, I could see how the worker adjusted it for brightness, saturation, contrast etc in just same way that you would do on your computer. Needless to say, I had stopped going back to that lab again. I believe those smaller and less sophisticated printing machines of other labs are of the digital type as well, although the output is more acceptable. I believe labs that do prints with traditional enlargers just do not exist anymore. Very sad indeed. </p>

<p>Alan Klein:</p>

<blockquote>What is an illuminated slide viewer or a telescopic type viewer? Rather then get hung up on the process, maybe you can change the viewing result you want. What is your ultimate objective in showing the pictures? It's not clear to me. Alan

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>You may find some details about these viewers here:<br>

http://www.amazon.com/Pana-Vue-Automatic-Slide-viewer/dp/B00009UTWA<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Pana-vue-Slide-Viewer-Viewing-Transparencies/dp/B0002GRLL8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1293708641&sr=1-5">http://www.amazon.com/Pana-vue-Slide-Viewer-Viewing-Transparencies/dp/B0002GRLL8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1293708641&sr=1-5</a><br>

Viewing slides on such viewers gives me the pleasure that I do not get from other forms of output or viewing methods. That is the main reason of me shooting slides or trying to create them from negatives.</p>

<p><br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>Hi everyone, I really appreciate your input. <br /> It looks like I will not be making the slides after all. All your suggestions are viable, but they will be too much hassle for a novice like me. I had initially thought that it would be a simple process of just attaching a slide-duplicator to my SLR, and snap away the film that I mount onto it. It's really a pity that Vericolor Slide Film is no more. Dealing with motion picture film or ECN-2 interpositive film will be daunting to me, I think. What I wanted was to view the slides on an illuminated slide viewer or a telescopic type viewer, so scanning for digital projecting does not serve my purpose. Photographing prints from negs, I believe, is similar to the process of copying documents, which is not as easy as snapping film on a slide-duplicator. This does look to be the most viable option for me though, and perhaps I may seriously consider it someday. <br /> Thanks again, everyone, for your suggestions, they have been really helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks for the response Ron. I guess sending my negatives to the specialist labs hundreds or thousand of kilometers from me is out of the question. What about exposing the images onto slide film and have the film cross-processed? How will the output turn out to be?</p>

<p>I have always liked transparencies, but I also shoot negative film. I am thinking of having some of the images exposed on negatives copied onto transparencies by using a slide-duplicator. Could anyone tell me what are the films currently available that can be used for the purpose? It would be good if I could do that on a film that is developed with the C41 process, as there are more labs doing C41 than those doing E6. I believe there used to be a film called Kodak Vericolor which was just such a film, but I just couldn't find it anywhere now. Are there any other film like that? Suppose such films had been extinct now, would it be possible to expose the negative images onto slide film and then have it cross-processed in C41 to produce positive images? I would like to have real, usable images from the process, not the crappy type normally associated with Lomography. Many thanks in advance for your expert advice.</p>

<p>There is some information in this website: <br>

http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~rwesson/esif/om-sif/is-series/is-series.htm<br>

May I know why did you choose an APS format camera? IMO getting a 135 format IS-2000 /IS-2 as well would be a good idea.</p>

 

<p>The four thirds platform is Leica's only hope to have a presence in the DSLR market. They will not be able to take on Canikon with a digital R10 should there ever be one. Who would spend money on an R body when Canon or Nikon can offer something better in terms of noise control or dynamic range, at say half the price. Of course the 4/3 system doesn't compare to Canikon either, but at least it saves Leica from R&D costs, and selling re-branded Panny or Oly is so much easier than maintaining its own line of product. I strongly believe that if Leica were to offer a re-badged E-3 at a sensible price, say $1k more than Oly's own E-3, it would take the market by storm. </p>

<p>I am looking for a small pocketable film camera with a sharp lens. There are three cameras which I am interested in, and I would like to have the one with the sharpest lens /best IQ, but of course cost has to be reasonable too. Could anyone tell me which one of these three should be the one to get - 1) Olympus Mju II /Stylus Epic; 2) Olympus XA; 3) Yashica T5 /T4 Super? Many thanks in advance for your input.</p>

Hi everyone, many thanks for your responses.