brian_carter2

With the announced sept 30 ship date I am surprised there have not yet been any reviews of this product.

If the product is solid and great, you'd think they'd want it in the hands of reviewers to generate more confirmed interest.

I suspect the prices of used 9000's will soon rebound from their current dip.

<p>Thank you, Roman. I won't look to 100F as a solution.<br>

I have obtained more RVP 50. And we are expecting sun over the next few days. It is a nice alternative to early snow.<br>

I did miss the end of a nice lot of Velvia 100 on ebay that I had hoped to snag.</p>

<p>Just had a nice conversation with Mike at AGX. Barring any feedback to the contrary, I'll be sending my film up there.</p>

<p>Fyi, it sounds like he does a lot of sheet film.</p>

<p>I have about 25 rolls of 120 E-6 film that I need processed. I am in Michigan and am considering AGX and Phoenix Imaging - mainly due to proximity and generally positive posts.<br>

Any recent experiences, good or bad? Any other lab recs? I much prefer having a local lab, but that is not an option.<br>

Though my experiences have shown that once you're a few hundred miles away, the proximity does not mean much. It isn't like driving over for a sit-down meeting about a processing problem is practical. And once a lab does screw up your film badly, are you really going to ship it back so they can look at it? Especially if the lab denies that there could have even been a problem. That was my one and only experience with R&R Custom Color Lab in Spokane.. NEVER again! If it had been only one roll, it would be one thing. But it was multiple rolls and they never noticed it. You'd think chunks of missing emulsion would be noticed in even a quick cursory inspection of 6x7 transparencies (which are very easy to inspect). I am now wary.<br>

I read one post in the forum here that reported dust/dirt on film from Phoenix, but a followup reported things are now clean.<br>

One or two of the rolls are 220. I understand dip and dunk machines sometimes have trouble with those long rolls due to mid-roll holder issues. So specific 220 experience would also be helpful.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

Thanks for the replies! I ordered some Velvia 50 from B&H... I had "settled" for some a month ago, and more recently thought it was also out of stock. I much prefer the better reciprocity of the 100, and the extra stop.

There is a side of me that wants to stock up on thousands of dollars in film (not to mention more medium format gear!)... I'm sure you can all relate. But my freezer is not that large. And I do tend to be pretty miserly with my 120 exposures... The other rub, I really want to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 someday. It's sad that the opportunity to do so is slipping away.. But also, my ability to lug heavy gear for miles and miles also seems to be slipping away.

I've never tried the 100F.. I've looked at a few threads but am still uncertain how happy I'd be substituting it.

I spent six hours hiking a stream yesterday with fall colors, watching salmon, and shooting velvia 50. So all is not lost ;)

<p>I have been caught flat footed for Fall colors... Velvia 100 and 50 in 120 format seem to be in short supply.</p>

<p>Anyone know of a source, and what's up with the shortage?</p>

<p>Why does it feel like I am always crawling through wet bush, wondering if it'll knock my lens cap off?<br>

And when I use a leash with a tripod, I need to wind it around the camera strap so it doesn't bounce around in the breeze and shake my shot.</p>

<p>So, my problem has been solved, in a way. Adorama is out of neopan 100 in 120. So I no longer need worry about placing an order that will sit in a UPS truck over the weekend ;)</p>

<p>Beware of complications in processing 220 film vs. 120. I actually started a thread here asking about possible 220 complications, but nobody mentioned that particular gotcha... We were mostly focused on the camera aspects.<br>

Unfortunately, a lab severely damaged a bunch of 220 transparencies in their dip and dunk process. The photos were irreplaceable, a summer of sailing to Alaska. The lab is in denial about it. And, somehow, they did not notice any of the damage before sending the film back to me (about 40 rolls), though it was fairly obvious on the 6x7 (all were transparencies). I have been unwilling to risk shipping the film back to them. It isn't like they can really fix anything, though some of the film does need a re-wash.<br>

The film was scratched, and in some spots emulsion was chipped off. Most of the damage was mid-roll. I suspect it happened in their over-crowded drying chamber, as 120 film with weights on the bottom blew into the 220 rolls, with the weights striking the 220 mid-roll. With some drying chambers, if you open the door with the fan on, the film blows all over. And in an overcrowded chamber, normal motion may be enough to cause contact. Or it might have happened in their dip and dunk, as the 220 hangs in a carrier/hanger which is positioned mid-roll (though the scratches were more consistent with the former than the latter). There were also some chemistry spots, and the film was fairly dirty in the sleeves.<br>

I understand that there are sometimes equipment failures or accidents in processing. But I feel these were really amateurish mistakes that should not have happened. And that they did not notice any of the issues is just inexcusable.<br>

I've been going to start a followup thread about this experience.. it was horrible. Dealing with the badly damaged aftermath has been a total downer. Capturing those photos took a great deal of effort. Now the normal joy of looking at, and scanning, those great transparencies is now dread. It made me want to sell my film gear and go digital. So those transparencies are mostly sitting there, because the salvage process is no fun at all.</p>

<p>So... only send your film out in small batches, and closely inspect the results. Most of my film damage might have been avoided if not for the drying chamber being overcrowded. Don't trust a lab to break your order up into small batches. Don't expect a lab that does acceptable 120 work will do good 220 work. Send test rolls that are unimportant (though my film might have been trashed even with good test roll results). And with 220, dip and dunk may not be the best method because of the way the film is supported mid roll, rather than on the end. </p>

<p>I just had a *very* frustrating experience trying to order from Adorama. First, the website was incredibly slow, taking minutes to load the shopping cart, cart going empty, etc. I tried, and tried. A quick internet search revealed that is a common problem. Is it 1999? Of course I would have ordered from B&H, except they (and freestyle) don't have neopan 100 in 120 right now. After much wasted time, I got to checkout. Then the Verified by Visa stuff failed to work after numerous attempts. I *hate* verified by visa. Why should I have to deal with that as a customer? Especially as a returning customer, with many years of history. Eventually I gave up and phoned my order in...<br>

I am in Seattle. I wanted to order last week, but knew my order would sit in a UPS truck over the long holiday weekend. So I waited until this morning... Imagine my surprise when I was told my order would not ship today because Fuji film is kept at the store, and needed to be transferred over. Because of that, it cannot be shipped same day. So that means my 3 day UPS would result in my film spending the weekend at UPS (the three days is bad enough).<br>

In the comments above, I read that the film at the store is not refrigerated.. So there is some question in my mind how it is stored. Not having fuji film available for same-day shipment seems like a bad business decision. It does not meet my needs. It should be noted on the product pages that it isn't actually in stock for same day shipment. Now I question what items on the Adorama site are actually "in stock". I wasted a huge amount of time because of that.<br>

At least at Glazer's, I can take the film out of the fridge myself.</p>

<p>Everything else aside for a moment, I find it very repugnant that the police chose to confront and interview him at his place of work.<br>

If they were going to make an arrest, warrant in hand, that would be different. In that situation, expediency would trump decorum. But for mere questioning, in a situation where the police know a crime probably has not been committed, that is tantamount to harassment.<br>

However.. If he did surreptitiously photograph a woman smoking a cigarette, and then refused to delete her image when she asked; that is rude and creepy (and it reads like it wasn't an isolated incident). I respect people's prerogative to not be photographed - even if they are in public, under constant video surveillance.<br>

The law says he is not required to delete her photo. Just as the police were not required to interview him at his place of work. It almost seems that the police were trying to give him the message that what is strictly "legal" is not always a nice or acceptable thing to do? Golden Rule, and all that.</p>

<p>I think I have read all the posts on sleeves, and am about to purchase a roll (probably 1000') of locking side flap sleeve for 120 film (and soon, 35mm). I don't see many vendors or products (in roll form) to choose from. In fact, I don't see anything but Pro-Line polypropylene. Are there any other vendors I should consider? How about comparably archival transparent materials that generate less static? Is polyester better in that regard?<br>

Pro-Line offers 2mil and 3mil. A local film lab believes the 2mil generates less static. I'm not sure about that. I'm torn on which would be better. The 3mil seems to offer a bit more protection. Perhaps the 2mil would conform to the surface of the film better, and the closer fit would help keep dust out?<br>

Any general tips for reducing static when working with sleeve, and rolls of sleeve, would also be appreciated.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you for the help and ideas! I am shooting 6x7. It sounds like I'm on the right track with envelopes and boxes.<br>

It goes without saying that I would prefer to minimize my 'cost per frame'. If I was just archiving the best images, it wouldn't be such an issue. But it makes the most sense (to me) to archive each roll together. Partially because each roll represents a particular place and time. Though I suppose certain frames could be archived separately and differently, even if in the same box.<br>

I have found regular paper envelopes to be quite dusty - too dusty. I'm sure it varies by manufacturer and box. Of course it isn't something most people would notice...I suppose they could be blown out. Maybe I just need to buy better envelopes.<br>

So acid free envelopes and boxes it is.<br>

I am still ignorant on whether a metal box would provide more protection from fumes, etc, of any type (whether smoke from a fire, or whatever).. Whether a desiccant is a good idea. Etc. More reading to b e done..</p>

<p>I have a fair bit of 35mm and 120mm film (b&w, e6 and c41) that I need to "properly" store. I have searched the archives and web, but have not found a solution that fits my intended workflow. I recognize I may not be going about this the right way - tips appreciated.<br>

My immediate challenge is approximately 70 rolls of sleeved 120mm slide film. I would like to cut the sleeves and film into 2 frame segments (the largest my scanner can handle). I would like to store each roll in an envelope, and then store those envelopes in an appropriate box. I am not confident that my current side-entry sleeves are sufficiently inert for long term storage, so new sleeves might be necessary.<br>

Is there a better way? If not, I need a recommendation on envelopes that are low dust, non-acid, low out-gas, etc. And also a box. Would metal be better than fiber? Should the box have a desiccant? I would like to do the same with my 35mm, but the strips would be longer.<br>

I don't like printfile page sleeves. Sliding the film in and out of sleeves along the long axis is too prone to scratching. And binders don't seem to hold the page sleeves flat, etc.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>Your mention of 'priority mail' makes me recall some pre-vacation film shipping concerns. I was trying to decide whether to carry film with me or ship it to my destination. The USPS says they x-ray some packages. The rep I spoke with said putting 'do not xray - film' on the package would probably increase the odds of it getting x-ray'd.<br>

Both UPS and Fed-Ex said they would not xray the packages. Fed Ex suggested adding "un-processed film - do not xray" to the package.<br>

I spoke with Panda yesterday and will be visiting them soon. I will report back.</p>

<p>I'm trying to determine out which of Canon's *current* DSLR's have an MLU feature for vibration reduction (not cleaning), and how high one must go up in the model line to get the feature.</p>

<p>I'm mostly shooting medium format for landscapes/nature and trying to decide on a DSLR to augment that and for help in metering my shots. Kinda getting down to the nikon vs. canon decision and real differences. In the near future I'll go full frame but not quite yet..</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've had some trouble sorting out just which *current* models of Nikon DSLR have mirror-lock-up for vibration reduction (not cleaning). It is an important feature for me... How high must you go up in the line to get the feature?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Now that Ivey is history, are there any good e6 alternatives in Seattle (specifically 120)? Prefer dip & dunk. I've done some searches but the threads all seem to be dated.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm taking a 3 month vacation sailing and hiking in Vancouver, and hopefully Alaska. I have only ever shot 120 film in my 67. Sometimes the need to change rolls comes at a very inconvenient time (moving boat), and 220 would help.<br>

I've done a fair bit of searching on 220, trying to identify any potential issues. Most concerns I've found relate to scratches, loose rolling, light leaks. I don't see a lot of people saying 220 is a problem in the 67. I imagine it will be fine. The gotcha is I haven't tried it and likely won't get any processing done until the end of summer. I doubt I would purchase more than 50% 220 vs. 120, Just In Case. One challenge of using both is forgetting to set the film type correctly.<br>

Wondering if I've missed anything?<br>

While I have your ear.. I usually buy 120 film from Adorama... Any west coast supplier suggestions?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you, Josesph. Hmmm.. The outer rings seems snug when I try and tighten them with rubber gloved fingers.<br>

When the focus is adjusted, this entire rear optic assembly retracts into the lens. It is that entire assembly that seems slightly loose, not an individual element. And it doesn't seem to wiggle, more of in-out looseness. I would guess that something down near the base of that assembly (deeper in the lens) is the issue. As I look in with a flashlight, that element group sits on a wider plate within the lens and it is the whole assembly that has the potential issue. If I had a good internal diagram, I could understand the mechanics, which I am curious about (but sufficiently fearful of!). It would be nice to know whether this is resolved with an adjustment or inexpensive repair, etc.<br>

The seller says he has owned the lens since it was new and it takes great pics. I would like to believe him, of course, but have no way of knowing. Maybe the lens was dropped in a way that did not produce external damage, I don't know.<br>

I wish I could 'trigger' the slop while looking through the viewfinder but that would be difficult. And the 67 finder is rather dark. I guess my concern is focus shift during MLU or shutter trip.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>When I was a young lad I watched a great PBS series on photography that included processing film and making enlargements. These days, I'm sure you could find some good resources on youtube. Have fun!</p>

<p>Thanks for checking, Dennis, Is it more like a thunk or more like ball bearings/rice? I thought the ball bearings/rice noise was normal. It isn't quite as loud when the lens is stopped down and on manual.<br>

I hear the ball bearings/rice sounds from the 45, 55 and 105.. the 55 is the only one with a thunk.<br>

If I hold the lens facing up, I can feel the play on the bottom group by pushing up on the collar.</p>

<p>I recently received a late model 55mm "67" lens from ebay that was sold as like new, etc.<br>

Upon inspection I noticed the regular bearing like rattles that are common (in my limited experience) to 67 lenses (though this one may have more bearing rattle than most). But I also hear a bit of a thunk when the lens is flipped over. The thunk originates from the rear element group that moves in-out when the focus is changed. I estimate total play at around .5mm to .75mm. There does not seem to be any side to side play. There does not seem to be any free play at the front of the lens, suggesting there would be some optical impact from the motion.<br>

Obviously, I am concerned about alignment and optical quality and wondering if anyone has had experience with this. Does your 55mm make this thunk? Any looseness back there? The lens is in otherwise great condition.<br>

I did get a decent price on it but am trying to choose between the 45mm and the 55mm and don't see keeping both.<br>

I did some searches and found someone else with a similar problem:<br>

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00Evp6<br>

General questions:<br>

How serious is it? Optical impact? What typically causes it? Will it get worse?</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>