nathan_bonsal

<p>Are you by any chance using a rectangular lens hood? The straight edge could be lens flare across the edge of a square hood, which means that when you think you're pointed such that the light source is outside the frame, it actually isn't. Possibly, your hood is much wider angle than the lens you're using.<br>

The next time you compose, check to make sure that the lens is fully in the shadow of the hood.</p>

<p>I just bought a full box of New Portra 160 in 120 size. I will post a link in a few weeks when it's shot and processed, but I'd like to solicit your opinions on it. So far, from what I can read on it, the exposure latitude is incredible. If you've discovered any issues that I need to be aware of specific to this newer film, I would like to hear it!</p>

<p>A view camera and a Hasselblad are not redundant with one another. Neither is the 35mm redundant with either of the other two. <br>

The view camera is for maximum image quality, but the penalty is obviously set-up time. The Hasselblad is a no-compromise shooter for portraiture, product photography, etc. The 35mm can't be beat for action shots and fast-shutter shots, as well as being very portable.<br>

If you had two different 645 systems, or two 6x6 systems, those would be redundant. As it is, I'd say to ditch the 35mm film and shoot those shots digitally. Sensors are now better than 35mm film and much more convenient- but it's expensive (30k$++) to find a replacement in digital for your Hassy. <br>

If I were you, I'd keep all of the 120 and 4x5 gear and ditch the Nikon if you absolutely have to pare down. But a 35mm SLR is very useful to me, so I would personally not pare down if it isn't necessary.</p>

 

<p><em>The film division's profits did not decline 98% in the third quarter. Go back and read the 10Q report you linked in another thread. The Film, Photofinishing, and Entertainment Group (FPEG) ended the third quarter with a $2 million profit for the first nine months of the year, but third quarter profits by themselves were $15 million, meaning the third quarter reversed earlier losses.</em><br>

<em>Now let's look at third quarter earnings for the other two groups.</em><br /><em>Consumer Digital: $90 million dollar loss for the third quarter, compared to $67 million profit for same period the year before (3Q 2010)</em><br /><em>Graphics Communication: $55 million loss, compared to $35 million loss for 3Q 2010.</em><br /><em>Compare that to FPEG: $15 million profit, compared to $28 million profit for 3Q 2010.</em><br>

<em>So the Film Group made $15 million for 3Q 2011, while the other two divisions lost a combined $145 million!</em><br>

<em>For the first three quarters of 2011, all groups:</em><br /><em>Consumer Digital: $350 million loss, compared to $345 million profit for the first three quarters of 2010.</em><br /><em>Graphics Communication: $171 million loss, compared to $92 million loss for the first three quarters of 2010.</em><br /><em>FPEG: $2 million profit, compared to $86 million profit for the first quarters of 2010.</em><br /><em>The Film Group made $2 million for the first three quarters of 2011. while the other two divisions lost a combined $521 million!</em><br>

It would seem that it is unreasonable to worry about the availability of film. What is likely is that Kodak would stop trying to make a profit on crappy digital cameras that are not competing well with the other manufacturers.</p>

 

<p>The Olympus XA is such an excellent film camera that it would be a genuine shame to carve it up unless the film advance or shutter is utterly hosed. It is also an exceptionally poor candidate for micro four thirds adaptation due to the fact that the lens is held together by parts of the body itself, and is not a singularly removable item. Remember that not only do you have to hold the elements the right distance from the sensor, but the right distance from each other. The XA will make that difficult.</p>

 

<p>Kodak's film business still makes money. Even if Kodak went bankrupt, they would sell the film business, not fold it. <br>

Someone will make film for a long, long time. Most likely, the Kodak lines will continue for at least 10 years. Polaroid folded because almost all of their market was eaten up by digital cameras, and the process cannot be scaled down too much before it becomes nonviable to a consumer market. <br>

Impossible has found a NEW market for polaroid process film- enthusiasts and retro hipsters who want a more physical and tangible medium. But they could never have corrected operations inside Polaroid's original market segment.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It sure looks like the camera did it. The large blob is in the same place in both frames, even though the repeating light pattern is only in the one frame. You did close the lens before removing the dark slide, right?<br>

I don't think it's a processing error. For the life of me I don't know how such a problem could happen in such a frame-line repeating pattern on process machinery on roll film. <br>

It almost looks like there was a light leak in the camera back, and the repeating pattern is winds, and the large blop is where the film sat the longest, with the leak in the same place all of the time.<br>

Was the lens-mount tight? Linhofs have that removable front mount plate with the thumbscrews, and if there's a leak there, it could make such a pattern. That's what it looks like to me. Not fogging, but exposure that's happening NOT through the lens.</p>

 

<p>I chose Bronica ETRS/ETRSi because of cost, leaf shutter and flash sync speed, availability of decent lenses, modularity of film back and viewfinder, and availability of shooting accessories like speed grip and motor-winder. <br>

I looked at the Mamiya 645af, but decided that I never needed autofocus, and wanted (sometimes) a waist-level viewfinder. In addition, I had to have a leaf shutter. Having worked with focal-plane shutters before, I new that those would be too limiting for my style of outdoor portraits, where I use ordinary dumb monolights for fill. In addition, camera shake turns mountains into wavy lines, because what you think is 1/500th of a second is actually 1/30th of a second with a moving slit window, with all of the movement and shaky possibilities that 1/30th of a second brings. Any particular part of the frame is only exposed for 1/500th of a second, but the entire image takes 1/30th of a second to occur, and that means movements of the camera distort (but don't blur) your image in the same way a shutter speed of 1/30th ordinarily should.<br>

Leaf shutters for me were a deal maker or breaker. Focal plane shutter would immediately quash any camera purchase idea for me because they mean that for my purposes, the camera MUST be on a tripod at all times.<br>

Bronica was the logical choice because Hasselblad was more expensive by a large amount, and TLRs have parallax error making macro shots difficult to compose. The other SLR systems all had limitations that the Bronica did not have. Rollei was full-featured, but so overpriced that I'd have to have taken a second job.</p>

<p>thedarkroom.com , pearsonimaging.com , northcoastphoto.com<br>

Average for develop and scan is about 8-18 bucks a roll for 120.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I was a bit late on this thread. </p>

<p>I'd pick Portra 400. It can do the indoor shots at f2.8 and the outdoor shots at f8 or f11. Wide exposure latitude.<br>

That way, if the church is poorly lit, you just know to push the rolls of indoor shots one stop. You can't rely on using a flash. And it's distracting even if they'll allow it.<br>

<strong>Above all</strong>, I'd have someone else backing me up with a digital SLR and a fast lens. And I wouldn't do it for free, not even for family. The ones you do for free or low cost (for a friend) are the LEAST easy to satisfy.<br>

One guy can't juggle a MF cam and a DSLR and you'll miss a lot of important and unrepeatable moments if you try to.<br>

Think about the time between film backs, how many you have. It's likely that at some point you will need to spool film onto those backs, unless you have 10 of them. Go to the rehearsal and see what kind of timing you're going to have. It's not much and you need to get everything. <br>

If you've never tried run-and-gun with medium format, remember to pay particular attention to level and composition- as this is the first thing you'll flub. Personally, I like the DSLR for the job, as I consider film my Take Time And Consider This Shot medium. But for those planned shots, it can be worked in- I just don't think I would rely on it. Just remember with every single shot, think level and composition before smushing that shutter release. I know it sounds like stupid advice, but you're gonna be under stress and just trying to capture moments and believe me, you'll forget.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Oh boy, do I hate rangefinders, but the Mamiya 7 gets a pass in my book. The point about brutal levels of sharpness holds for me with the 7- it is extremely sharp. Some cameras tell beautiful lies about a person, the Mamiya 7 reveals it all for the world if you focus perfectly. Great for models, lousy for real people. For landscapes, it's top notch. You won't be shooting macro or close shots with it, but it's decent for landscapes.<br>

The Pentax is a great system, though- fully fleshed out with a great stock of decent lenses, and it's adequate for landscape photography. <br>

I do tend to grab the GS-1 because of its leaf shutter, though- each of the three cameras is well-suited for a different task, but an SLR like the GS-1 fits each role with aplomb. I guess it's really going to depend on what you shoot. I find a leaf-shuttered SLR like the GS-1 to be the one-size-fits-all for the role, as it has interchangeable lenses, high synchronization speeds, no parallax errors, and convenient WYSIWYG filter use.<br>

Rocks and trees? Pentax or Mamiya. Flowers? Pentax. People? That's a tough one. The Mamiya has a high sync speed and works better with strobes, the Pentax has no parallax error. For natural light, you could go either way, but indoors, the advantage goes to Mamiya 7. <br>

Since you use Velvia a lot, I have to mention that the sharpness and high contrast of the Mamiya 7 can be a bit outrageous on Velvia 50. It has a unique look that you'll like if you like COLOR. Because color you'll get.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Kievs are interesting, in the "can I brew my own beer from grass seed" kind of way. If you're interested in the struggle, go ahead. If you just want to take photos, run away.</p>

<p>I only shoot black and white occasionally, the rest of the time on color slide film.</p>

<p>A ziploc baggie and a small piece of dry ice, 24 hours later the mites are asphyxiated. This method works even with electronics that are not cold-tolerant.<br>

Leave it at room temperature and the bag will fill with CO2 which will kill any and all insect life.</p>

<p>I have successfully processed 10 year old black and white ISO 100 film that was stored in a hot garage in New Mexico for 5 years and a garage in Pennsylvania for 5 years. I found some unprocessed rolls in with my father's darkroom equipment that he hadn't touched in years. I found pictures of myself at 5 years old, and I was 16 at the time I processed it in R76.</p>

 

<p>It's only going to cover 1/4 of the frame, just like the Mamiya- the lenses cannot cover an image circle larger than 60mm. </p>