jessemerz

<p>The meter appears to be working accurately. I suspect the reason the baseplate screws are missing is because the battery door won't budge (someone stripped the coin slot), so the previous owner unscrewed the baseplate to swap out the batteries and lost all the screws in the process. It probably sounds like the camera is in poor condition from what I've been saying, but it really looks great and appears to function fine other than the isolated baseplate problem (might need new seals, etc. but nothing that couldn't be fixed).</p>

<p>Problem is I can't really run a roll of film through until I fix the baseplate problem. In order to complete the circuit I have to hold the baseplate on tightly by hand because the tape doesn't do the job (it's only still on there so the plate stays in place). Anyone have any idea where I could go to find small screws? I'd doubt the hardware store carries screws like this, maybe an electronics store? Somewhere online?</p>

<p>I recently acquired an OM-3 (with a crappy Vivitar lens, off-brand flash, camera bag and three rolls of film) for $10. I didn't know anything about the camera, but I knew it was a steal. The baseplate is missing all of the little screws and is being held on by medical tape. Other than this it is in good condition and appears to function well (I have yet to put a roll through it). I'm wondering if it would be worth fixing up a bit? And would those little screws be fairly easily replaceable?</p>

<p>I did some research into the OM-3 and found that it is fairly rare and collectible. Just out of curiosity I looked up the camera on KEH. It looks like the body alone is selling for around $600 in EX condition. Do you think I could realistically fetch that kind of money for this thing? I'd love to put it to use but I don't have the kind of money to be buying and developing film (and getting a new kit started) as I'm a poor college student.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. David, that was just what I was looking for. I'm using higher-end Epson flatbed film scanners at my university's visual arts department that seem to do a great job (and the EpsonScan Pro software seems good also). I have found that the flat tones from the scans do allow for more dynamic range tolerance, but I thought there was something wrong when I saw the raw unedited scans after hearing so many stories of film photogs not doing any post work at all ("purists"?).</p>

<p>Thanks again, take care.</p>

<p>I should specify that I am doing the scanning myself, I am just referring to the processing. That said, it sounds like the processing will not be much different between 1-hour and the pro lab. Does this sound accurate? Thanks everyone for all the useful input!</p>

<p>I'm just getting into 35mm (and film in general, only done a bit of MF in the past) and could use some processing tips. My first few rolls were pretty much just test rolls to see if my old ebay Canonet QL17 was functioning, so I just brought the film to Fred Meyer (the local supermarket) for 1-hour developing. The raw scans looked pretty ugly with no editing; they severely lacked contrast and had terrible color tints. Luckily they were passable with some serious post work in PS.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if 35mm negative scan always look this ugly (my guess is no), and if not is this the fault of the old camera, or the cheap-o 1-hour developing? Or could it be due to the fact that I bought the cheapest film I could find at the drug store (Fuji Superia X-Tra)? Would the shots come out significantly better if I brought them to the local professional lab? The only reason I ask is because I don't want to pay twice as much and wait 7 extra days for them to develop if it won't make a big difference.</p>