glen_h

Sagrada Familia. Church that looks like a castle. D700 with 24-120 lens.

Maui, HI

Maluaka Beach, Maui, with GoPro Hero2

Sound Transit Link light rail University of Washington station

Cid Campeador's grave in Burgos cathedral

Space Shuttle Full Fuselage Trainer, Museum of Flight, Seattle

Montserrat

Walgreens had 4x6 inch prints for $0.29, quantity 75+. Right now, there is a discount code for 50% off everything photo. I have seen sales down to $0.10 each. That is from an actual store, and there is same-day pickup. There are also mail order places, where you can get a good price, including shipping.

Kodak films have a 4 digit number, and it isn't so hard to find a table of common ones. There are some Ilford films with poor latent image keeping. The markings go away after a while.

Some time ago when the lead bag inside my carry-on bag went through the X-ray, they asked to take the bag out, and run it through separately. But didn't ask to open the bag. It seems that the current models can see through lead bags. As always, it is a dynamic range question, and they now have enough to do it. Well, even more, it used to be 20keV was common, and lead bags do pretty well with that. Many now, though, do both 20keV and 70keV, which allows them to differentiate materials. But also, 70keV goes through lead well enough to image through it.

High Speed Ektachrome in Canon VI

Sound Transit's Link light rail.

Space Needle with a 500mm lens.

Catedral de Burgos, opened in 1260.

Strangest bar in the universe.

One film I use has silver ink on black paper. More than the ink color, I sometimes don't recognize the 1 as a 1. With all the dots and lines that come before the first 1, it isn't so easy to see. And some cameras have a green window.

I was recently in Europe, with some rolls of film, but more important, two packs of Instax Wide. As usual, no problem with TSA, but I wasn't sure about Europe. At CDG in France, they were nice about it when asked, and used the usual swab test. Going out from Barcelona, they pointed to where it said safe to ISO 1600 on the machine. I pointed to where it said "No X-ray" on the Instax box, and so they did the swab test. I had originally thought about not bringing Instax and buying some there, but brought two pack that might be 10 years old. (There are at least four years old, from when I got them, already old.) So then in Fatima, PT, I found a tiny photography store, and asked about Instax film. First they pointed to some rolls of Kodak 35mm film, maybe about 10. I said, no Fuji. Then they found the two boxes of Instax wide, expired in only 2019. So I bought one. I ended up only using the orignal two packs, which worked fine, and so brought back the 2019 packs. I don't know how sensitive Instax film is in ISO terms.

There used to be a paper, I believe from 3M, but I might have forgotten, that is silver halide based and develops with heat. It was commonly used for microfilm viewers, but also Tektronix made a printer for its 401x series of graphics terminals that used it. The Tektronix 4610 printer has a single line CRT that scans as the paper moves by, and then through the heat developer.

Ilford makes some arguments based on the shape of the characteristic curve. The usual ISO rating depends on the usual shape of the curve. The question you are supposed to ask, is how it compares to Delta 400 at 1000. This might be TMax 3200 instead of Delta 3200, as I have had both. It is taken lit only by a full moon, though stars are visible. It is in an FT3 at 1s and f/3.5, as I didn't have a cable release to take longer exposures without camera motion. It is developed with the push to 25000 time, but I suspect that 3200 is closer to right. Stars are visible in the sky.

According to my not very scientific calculations, it should be good to about 80 years past date. I have some that I bought not so many years ago on eBay. But yes, it is pretty expensive now. Though I find rolls of FX120 not so hard to find for a good price.

USB-C negotiates the voltage and current between the charger and device. That should be enough to avoid a converter in many cases, that wouldn't otherwise need one.

They have plenty of bits, so that isn't the problem. At some point, there is the diffraction limit that you can't escape with tiny optics. Shutterfly recommends 8 MP for the really huge prints, but 3MP is enough for even up to 20x30 inch: https://support.shutterfly.com/s/article/Photo-Resolution-Tips-1 There are minimum where it won't even try that are somewhat smaller than those values.