AJG

In many ways, digital is "better" than film. It is certainly faster to get to an end result, and newer, better lenses do make sharper images in a technical sense. But for some of us, the craft of film photography and our old mechanical cameras are simply more fun than spray and pray digital photography. The analogy I have made with many of my students is with the evolution of print making technology. The fact that a steel engraving can make a more detailed image than most woodblock prints doesn't mean that a good artist might not choose a woodblock because that is how they see the image they want to make in their mind's eye. So a new technology like digital may wipe out commercial uses for film for the most part, but it doesn't mean that film must totally disappear. For the work that I do for myself, I prefer my old Zeiss Contax cameras and their (by now) ancient lenses. For my commercial work I use DSLRs and modern lenses that objectively have higher image quality and the images are available quickly for a client to use. Would I go back to shooting film for commercial clients now? Only if I wanted to drastically increase my overhead, charges and waiting times for clients to get finished images, so no.

As CdS meter cells age they become less sensitive to light which paradoxically leads to underexposure since CdS cells resist current flow as more light strikes them. Battery voltage is important, of course, but you may also be dealing with ancient CdS cells that probably can't easily be replaced at this point.

As a former projectionist in the late 1980's, I can vouch for the poor color of most older release prints that we showed. The big problem was typically that the yellow dye layer had faded and the resulting image was usually heavily magenta. Old Technicolor prints held up surprisingly well, but the usual run of Kodak and Agfa print stock didn't. In some ways this isn't surprising since these prints had been exposed many times to 2000-3000 watt xenon arc projection bulbs and the considerable heat that they generated. I also wouldn't be surprised if the warehouses that they were stored in weren't temperature and humidity controlled--our prints used to come from warehouses via Greyhound bus from places 3-5 hours away, and we always had to clean these prints since they were usually filthy and frequently had poor splices in them that would cause the film to break during the show.

If only your friend could create the contents of some of that packaging! I had a Kodak Tray and Tank Thermometer at one point. As I recall it was reasonably accurate.

It's hard to say--I'm not familiar with this paper so I don't know how it ages. I would give it to someone, explaining that it might not be in good condition after all that time and encouraging them to cut a small piece from one sheet to test a known negative to ascertain its usefulness.

Shift lenses have never been cheap, and I suspect that they would be even more difficult to design for digital cameras. For most photographers shooting a number of images and putting them together in Photoshop or other programs is probably a higher quality solution and will certainly cost less. Having done a lot of this with 4x5 when I only shot film, I know that lenses with a lot of covering power were always pricey. Using a shift lens effectively really requires a good tripod for best results, so it isn't just another single purpose lens that you would have to take with you but a decent tripod as well. I can't see a viable market here although I could certainly be wrong.

Among Kodak's many questionable decisions was selling off its processing business in the early 1990's. What had been a decent amateur develop/print service for color neg deteriorated and Kodachrome processing likewise became less reliable in terms of quality and timing. I switched to mostly Fuji (Astia and Provia slide film, along with NPS color neg) since my custom labs couldn't do Kodachrome and did a great job with the Fuji films. It's too bad that their accountants weren't acquainted with the concept of customer acquisition cost--as a working pro I went through a lot of film in those days, so that was thousands of $$ that Kodak no longer got.

The shutter on the Bessaflex is probably the same one that you have on your R3 M. The camera will be a bit noisier as it has an instant return mirror. Stop down metering can be a bit of a pain but this camera should have a reasonably modern silicon cell meter and take readily available batteries if you do decide to use the meter. It is undoubtedly the newest camera that you can buy that accepts your lenses without adapters. If in good shape, it is probably a better bet than a 50+ year old Pentax Spotmatic or other camera from that era.

These lenses should work on almost any M 42 body, including Pentax Spotmatics and other quality brands. One of these bodies will probably set you back a lot less than the cost of a repair of your Praktica, and might well be more fun to use. I owned a Praktica L decades ago which I bought for a second body for a trip to Greece because that was what I could afford at the time, but my main body (a Yashica TL Electro X) was much better built and never needed repair over the 7 or 8 years that I owned it. The Praktica crapped out under warrantee and I got rid of it not too long after that.

That adapter won't give you rangefinder coupling--it should physically mount the lenses so that they can focus on infinity but anything closer you will have to estimate. For $24.95 that is about all you can expect. In bright light with fast film, hyperfocal distance settings should work well enough so that this won't be that big of an issue with wide angle or normal lenses. These lenses will have DOF scales on them so it won't be hard to figure out the range of sharpness.

QG answered the PC question perfectly, although many pros have said for years that PC stood for poor connection. As for the manual, I would try a quick google search. It is probably available somewhere for free or very little for a pdf download that you could print out if you want. BeBu Lamar mentioned a sync voltage of 12 volts, which might be a bit high for an electronic camera like your Canon. This is another reason to avoid PC cords for synchronizing the flash with your camera. When Novatron strobes were first on the market, sync connections in mechanical cameras could work with high voltage since that wouldn't harm the cameras. With electronically controlled cameras, high sync voltage can severely damage the electronics so manufacturers introduced lower voltage connections to eliminate this problem. I'm a little surprised that the current owners of Novatron can't be bothered to scan old manuals and make them available as many other companies have done--not a great way to build brand loyalty.

I haven't used Novatron strobes, but I have been working with studio strobes for the last 30+ years. You should get a radio transmitter/receiver set, taking care that the radio receiver has the appropriate connection for your power pack. Some older strobes use a 1/4" headphone plug for this but I don't know what Novatron uses. PC cords can work, but it is yet another thing to trip over in your studio and they are frequently unreliable. Your camera may not have a PC terminal either, necessitating an adapter. If you haven't already, look for a user manual on the web--these strobes were quite common so the manual should be out there. You will also need a strobe meter if you don't already have one. Sekonic meters have worked very well for me for the last 30 years. A used Sekonic L 718 can usually be found for around $100 and mine has worked well for 25+years with battery replacement being the only thing I've ever needed to do for it. You should also check out Light: Science and Magic in any of its many editions for practical guidance on lighting. Good luck!

Glad to hear that things are working for you, though I'm not surprised that HC 110 is giving you good results.

Unfortunately, aspect ratios are what they are. You either crop to fit the paper or leave borders to retain the original image contents. Otherwise you are depending on some sort of algorithm to change things for you, which, as you have seen, doesn't work very well most of the time.

We still have our 2005 S 80 and like it a lot.