ken_kuzenski1

<p>I love the 50mm and 85mm f/1.8. Gorgeous images. Both are incredible bargains IMO.</p>

 

<div></div>

<p>Kelly--MANY thanks for posting the sample scans. Very helpful! </p>

<p>Kevin, a good start would be processing your own film. It's remarkably easy, as you probably remember from years ago. It'll save you a bunch of money and give you more control over your negatives. As far as doing your own printing, I gave away my enlargers several years ago--I develop my negs, scan them, and send the scans off for prints--a printing setup is a lot more involved and I just didn't want to bother with it any more. There are a LOT of good enlargers out there, used, for very little money--wait, look at the online ads, and don't rush, and you'll find a good one for next to nothing. </p>

<p>Maybe I'm just easily satisfied; I've got a V500, and I've got some 16x20 prints on my walls at work from 120 negatives, that look very good to me. When I want a good print, as opposed to low-res scans for the web or my snapshot album, I usally use Vuescan instead of the Epson scanning software. But I've been satisfied with the V500.</p>

<p>B&H, Adorama, KEH--all are absolutely reliable and honest. All three have websites (though KEH's is slow today.) I never buy extended warranties, myself, but that's your choice. </p>

<p>Jun, shoot a few rolls and see if you can tell anything from the negatives. I got the 150mm non-T* some years ago, also very cheap, and it's a long story but I managed to ruin the coating on the rear element, in a big ugly spot around 8mm around. It was VERY ugly and I felt terrible about doing that to a lens. But I've been using that lens for years and I've never been able to tell that the rear element is damaged. So maybe you'll be able to see the effects of the damage, and maybe you won't--try it and see! Good luck! --ken</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Agnes, with regard to KEH and bargain grade gear: Unless they've changed their policy, you can send anything back to KEH for any reason, within 30 days. So you're not at much risk ordering from KEH. Most of my used gear that came from a store (rather than a person) came from KEH in "bargain" grade, and I've never been dissatisfied with any of it. Be sure to give the camera a good test when it first arrives--shoot slide film, test the shutter speeds, look for light leaks, etc. Good luck, and have fun with that new TLR! </p>

<p>Gregory said: "So you're saying "flat on the glass" is good enough for proofs, but you use spacers when you want an in-focus image?" Ken replies: Yes, that's pretty much what I do, except that I also scan flat on the glass for simple snapshots that are going on the web or in my digital album--1000 or 1500 pixels wide. And I admit I have not tested this, either--when I want a print, I usually take the extra effort to put the film in a holder, thinking I'll get better results. But I've never tested it and I really should. ---Ken</p>

<p>I do this all the time when I'm scanning proofs with a V500--want to see the frame numbers and such. I use some simple cardboard guides for location and lay the negs flat on the glass. I just scanned some 6x6 negs and wanted the frame borders to show for the final prints, and used the MF neg holder from my old Epson 2450, which has a little more space around the image. It holds the negs up at the space (more or less) above the glass that the scanner expects, but lets me get the frame borders in. </p>

<p>You do NOT have to use the (incredibly bad) neg holders that come with the V500. Though I must say, if I had known how bad they were, I wouldn't have bought the V500 in the first place. :-/</p>

<p>Agnes, for that $500 you mentioned, you could pick from a great many medium-format cameras. The advice above is excellent in its way, but let me add one slightly different opinion: You MIGHT consider getting an inexpensive Yashica TLR as a starter camera in medium format. When I first wanted to try medium format, I bought a cheap Yashica TLR on a big auction site. I had a world of fun with it, and when I finally bought a MF SLR, I sold that Yashica for more than I paid for it in the first place. (And since then I've bought another Yashica TLR just for the fun of it.)</p>

<p>Anyway, the Yashica C or D -- or even the A model -- isn't as good a camera as a Rollei, but it WILL give you very good images at medium apertures, on HUGE 6x6 negatives, and will let you see if you like medium format at a very comfortable entry price. And if you love using a TLR (I certainly do), you can always start shopping for a Rollei. Just MHO--good luck, and have fun!</p>

<div></div>

<p>The T-max developer I use has development times on it, and I check every time, just to be sure. (My memory isn't what it used to be. Also, my memory isn't what it used to be.) I *do* miss, though, those cute little "Sunny 16" guides that were printed on the film boxes, illustrating bright sunshine, partly cloudy, etc. :-) </p>

<p>Kian, I am in the same position as you are, my friend! I have had a D70 since it first came out, and I also often do photography for friends (theatre and dance, not pageants, but similar), and I also love my 50mm and 85mm F/1.8 lenses on the D70! :-) And like you, I think I can not put off upgrading my camera any longer. I'm planning to buy a D90 this winter--more resolution, and I understand the low-light performance is better, also.</p>

<p>We have a lot in common, Kian! :-)<br>

--Ken</p>

 

<p>I thank you, Lex. Very helpful! BTW, I am horizontal as often as I can manage it while still working full-time. I'm eagerly hoping to be horizontal MUCH more often when I finally retire. Perhaps I will be able to retain your consulting services at that time. :-) Thanks!</p>

<p>For years, when I've processed B&W, I've used "Kodafix rapid hardening fixer." I still shoot a bit of TMX and TMY in 120 these days, now and then, not very often, but it sure is fun when I do it. :-) My Friendly Local Camera Store no longer carries the hardening Kodafix liquid I'm used to, though. Looking at my alternatives, I see that B&H sells a liquid mix from Ph.Formulary that sounds good--and it says "not a hardening fixer but most modern films don't need it"-or something along those lines. (B&H actually does sell the Kodafix I'm used to , but I'm considering other options now, since the world is changing so rapidly.)</p>

<p>TMX and TMY: Do I need a hardening fixer? Will I be happy with the P.F. fixer concentrate? TIA! --Ken ken.kuzenski@duke.edu direct if you prefer</p>

 

<p>I sometimes take photos with my ancient 500c/m without metering--"sunny 16" actually works pretty well in a lot of situations--but it it is a photo I want, I always meter, and when I do, I'm often surprised at how off my initial guess was. I use an ambient handheld (a Weston that's older than my camera) and sometimes I carry a Nikon AF 35mm camera I'm not using for anything else these days; it's internal spotmetering is quite accurate, and it lets me keep using the 35mm for something. :-) </p>

<p>Dennis, "glacial" refers to purity and strength, I believe. (My last chemistry class was LONG ago.) I just buy stop bath at the camera store, myself, but when I'm out of stop bath, I use one third standard "white vinegar" (which is IIRC 4% acetic acid) and two thirds water. :-) Smart people will have better answers, but that's my Larry-Moe-and-Curlyesque method. :-) And it seems to work fine.</p>

 

<p>If you're making prints that are as big as you can get with the D40, and the only thing missing is more resolution, then a higher-resolution camera might be what you need.<br>

But more resolution alone will NOT make you a better photographer, and (except for print size limited by your camera's resolution) a newer camera is exceedingly unlikely to make ANY visible difference in your photos.<br>

Remember that Ansel Adams and Cecil Beaton and Edward Weston did some stunningly beautiful work with very primitive uncoated lenses. It's the EYE and the work and the vision that makes a photographer, not the camera. Just MHO.</p>

<p>Gloria, Devon is very correct, though I do not completely agree with his advice. :-) He is absolutely right that the camera is a very small part of any given photo. I've got two friends with D40's and they seem like nice enough cameras--if the price is good, you'll have a world of fun with one. The disadvantage might be that they require lenses that have motors in them. The D70 that Devon mentioned--that might be a good choice: they're widely available used at very reasonable prices, and they use any Nikon AF lenses you have or pick up. The D70's 6mp resolution will let you get 8x10 prints with a bit of care, and it's great for web photos and small prints. (I've got a D70 though I'm planning to get a D90 soon.)<br>

The best advice is something Devon also hinted at: get ANY camera and start photographing that baby! With digital you can shoot and shoot and shoot--so DO it. :-) Read photography magazines and books, go to exhibits, and shoot LOTS yourself. You'll have a great time, and you'll get photos that you will treasure all your life. :-) One specific bit of advice: If you get a camera that can use one, get a fast normal prime lens. On my D70, my very old 50mm F/1.8 F (under $100 brand new) is (with the smaller sensor) the equivalent of a 75mm F/1.8--a PERFECT portrait lens. Big aperture lets you blur backgrounds--very nice for baby photos! HAVE FUN! --Ken</p>

Somewhere in central Mississippi about a dozen years ago.<div></div>

<p>Many years ago I met a man who was a "packaging engineer" for a large manufacturer of household appliances and products. One of the things he told me was that for every given product, it was expected that a given number would be damaged in transit and would have to be replaced. And that number of returned, damaged products was determined by the finance people, based on the cost of the item and the cost of dealing with the damaged units, and so on. The number of returned items was the most efficient balance between the cost of returns and the cost of the packaging and shipping. And once that number of returned items was determined, it was his department's job to design packaging that would meet that number.<br>

He said they could easily design packaging that would guarantee virtually 100% damage-free shipping, but it would be expensive to make the packaging, to pack the items, and more expensive to ship them. So they were always looking for the "sweet spot"--the balance between no returns and too many returns--where the company's profits were maximized. <br>

I thought it was interesting enough that I've remembered it all these years. <shrug></p>