steve_mareno1

<p>I'm betting that you purchased your film from Adorama or B & H. Over at APUG, almost w/o exception, that's the retailers that were experiencing the issue. I checked into this problem some time ago and the folks at Freestyle said that they had never run into this problem w/ their stock of T-Max. It's a Kodak film that I don't shoot (Tri-X all the way), but I feel for people that have had their shots ruined by this. Easy enough to clone out if you digitally process, a lot trickier in a darkroom.</p> <p>The only time I ran into this was w/ Ultrafine fine films, and the problem was much, much worse. I'll never buy any films from them again, nor buy film and materials from anyone but Freestyle. They're the best.</p> <p>http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00blBn</p>

<p>Wow, drones have a lifestyle now. Who knew? I don't even have a lifestyle (they cost too much), I can only afford a life.</p>

<p>Well, given the parameters of mundane and easily accessible, I'm not sure that anyone wants to see shots of my bathroom. Actually, I don't even want to see them.</p>

<p>I wouldn't trust collectiblend for accurate prices. They're just a "sampler" website, and the prices are just that. Samples. Go to eBait and look at the completed sold listings and that's about as accurate as you will find. If you look at the BIN prices it will eliminate the auctions where you might have had hot bidding, but in the end, as someone else said, it is worth what someone is willing to pay.</p> <p>I find that it's helpful to end my auctions when people are at home and not at work or at 3AM. Football season can be a problem if the ad ends on a Sunday, and generally, people have money on the first of the month, so that's a good time to run an ad. It's also important to have excellent photos and well worded copy that isn't too wordy. People are lazy and don't like to read a lot. Just the facts, mam, as officer Friday said..</p> <p>According to eBait, if yours is an M mount, it is going to generally sell for around $1400-$2000. I would go w/ a BIN price rather than an auction because I am not sure what the demand on this particular lens is. It's sort of a specialty lens. Most people, like you, don't use a macro lens on a rangefinder camera.</p>

<p>Just curious....if the camera is giving you good photos, why would you send it out for an expensive service?</p> <p>I owned one like yours, and it was a nice camera, but limited because of the fixed lens. Their viewfinders tend to be a little darkish even in the best of circumstances too.</p> <p>My favorite Retina is the IA. They're much lighter and smaller than the IIIc, and all the lenses are great, from the Xenar to the superb Ektar (make sure you get an authentic Kodak lens w/ the chrome front and not the fake Schneider Ektar w/ the black front and Schenider serial numbers). The downsides are the squinty viewfinders and scale focus, but I almost never had photos that were out of focus, and even though the viewfinders are teeny tiny they're accurate. Like all the Retinas, the film advance mechanism is a weak point, but if you're careful w/ that you shouldn't expect problems.</p>

<p>Look at the negs w/ a loupe on a light box, or taped to a window. It may not be the camera but the scans. As you say, stopped down w/ a wide angle lens things should be sharp even if infinity is off a bit. It's very easy to ck this by opening the back, putting the shutter on 'B', placing some Scotch Magic tape tautly across the film rollers, putting the camera on a tripod and focused at infinity, and using a loupe or a 50mm lens as one to see if the image on the tape is sharp.</p> <p>Even better is if you have a piece of a GG that you can lay on there instead of the tape. My GS645s took very sharp photos, but the shutter gave out and KEH couldn't get parts for it anymore. I never did get used to that loud shutter. </p>

<p> I had one exactly like Rick's. It was a decent camera. Mine took sharp photos w/ very little resolution, but not too bad. I much preferred the Agfa Isola cameras when it came to tube cameras. They are very pretty w/ a stylish design. Even though they're lighter than even the Dacora, they don't feel hollow, and the Agnar triplet that's on some models is a beast! Wonderful lens.</p>

<p>You would really be pushing your luck w/ a 400mm tele lens and a maximum aperture of 5.6. You are going to lose at least a stop of light, and like others, my experience w/ teleconverters is that they degrade the image quality so much it's not worth it. Just use the best, fine grained film you can find w/ your current lens and crop the image.</p>

<p>Ian, here is a quote from Kodak on which types of film can last up to 500 years</p> <p>"Actually, only safety film (triacetate or polyester base), which carries silver images, can be used for extended life expectancy records-500 years for polyester base and 100 years for acetate"</p> <p>I got this from the article below</p> <p>http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Support/Technical_Information/Storage/Storage_Information/default.htm</p> <p>I didn't read it thoroughly, but it appears that if you want that sort of longevity you have to store it in in lead containers to keep radiation out, keep it protected from water, mold, chemical or physical damage, and keep it away from humidity and big temperature changes. That all sounds like the issue w/ something like this. How do you store it for such a long period of time and remain in control over these parameters over the course of 5 centuries?</p>

<p>It's certainly not a looker, you're right on that one. At least they solved the bellows pinhole problem in a definitive manner. The pics are sorta like the camera.<br /> I usually like oddball cameras, but this one is difficult to find affection for. You certainly dd the best you could w/ it, but that's about as good as it's gonna get it appears. Something like an Agfa Isola tube camera looks odd too, but those things take stellar photos, and are very compact w/ their snout collapsed.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why this is confusing. A work of art is singular, a series is more than one, so it would be works of art, not a work of art. </p>

<p>I agree w/ your joke analogy Sandy. Any work of art that can't stand on it's own w/o needing to know the title or have some long winded explanation tell us what we are seeing is an inferior piece. Unfortunately, you picked what is probably the most humorless forum in the history of the internet to post this on, as you are probably seeing yourself by now. I just gave up posting anything that might be considered even remotely humorous here years ago because many of the people, and this tends to be associated w/ people w/ way too much college education and little practical knowledge (joke? koan? you decide) just don't have a sense of humor, and have absolutely no sense of sarcasm or irony. There is probably a word for this, but it's unimportant. It happens a lot on other forums too, but this one is a real doozie.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, 35mm lenses are sharper than medium format lenses, which are sharper than large format lenses. You will get more resolution and less grain w/ larger format films, but that is not the be all, end all of photography.</p>

<p>There is virtually no difference in sharpness between the 1.8 and the 1.4 versions in real life situations, so I think you just got a dud. These lenses are dirt cheap, so another one shouldn't cost more than $15. I would just buy another one unless you need that extra speed. The 1.4 is a fine lens for sure, but I have some excellent shots from my 1.8 too. if you like smoother bokeh, the 1.4 is better.<br> When you get to lenses like the 55 1.2 you are paying for the 1.2 aperture, not sharpness. </p>

<p>The camera's meter reading won't change when you adjust the aperture because unless you have the lens set to M, the aperture isn't going to close down until you press the shutter button.</p> <p>If you have an FD lens on the camera, you will have to press the silver lever on the front towards the lens to meter. That will manually close the lens down to working aperture so that you can get your meter reading. Then release the lever, the aperture will open back up, and the aperture lens will shut down when you press the shutter button.</p>

<p>Right, possibly a weak battery. The camera needs a full 6 volts to work properly, and any way you can get those 6 volts to the camera will make it happy. I usually use those 1.5V button batteries because they're so cheap they're almost free. Just tape 4 of them together, place a small piece of folded up tinfoil in the top or bottom for a spacer, and there you go.</p>

<p>These photography laws are unenforceable. With today's technology, a small camera can be concealed anywhere, or someone could simply pull out their smart phone, appear to be checking their messages, and silently and inconspicuously snap a pic. No one would be the wiser. Unless the museums are willing to instigate full body pat downs and other invasive searches, as I said, this cannot be enforced.</p>

<p>The value of the old film cameras is in the great results you get w/ them, which is unrelated to what the monetary value may be.</p>

<p>I've fixed dozens of these over the years. Solvents are fine, and exactly what a pro uses when they do a CLA. The trick is to soak the lens assy in a coffee cup filled w/ 91% alcohol for several days. It will usually screw right on out if you do that w/ no trouble. BUT, if you don't know how to take things apart on these, and how to reset focus afterwards, don't get involved.</p> <p>$120 is far too much to pay for a CLA on a camera that is worth $40 tops. Simply sell the one you have and be patient. You can find one on eBay or Etsy that is working properly for about that price. You have to watch out for holes in the bellows on the models w/ the shiny bellows too.</p>

<p>It could have been something as simple as the little rangefinder arm that rides on the back of the lens hanging up a wee bit. Best to ck all the things like that before assuming that the lens is off.</p>

<p>Whoever developed your film over agitated it, hence the washed out areas directly down from the sprocket holes. I've seen this so many times it's not funny.</p>

<p>Just buy a bunch of film for your Rebel. It's capable of taking very serviceable photos, and stick the rest of the money in the bank or spend it on framing some of your shots. I once had your camera along w/ it's much maligned 35-80 kit zoom lens, and it took great photos.</p> <p>Digital cameras almost end up having their pics shown online, or stuck in a computer. When you get your film developed you can opt for some small prints, and those will allow you to pick which ones to have enlarged. Just make sure you go to the right place for developing and printing your negs, as many places don't return your negs anymore! Incredibly stupid, but there you are.</p> <p>Dwayne's Photo is a great place to send your film for processing. I never understood taking pics and not putting the keepers on the wall. That's the whole idea of photography. </p>

<p>Pull the lens off too and see if it has that green or blue stuff on the electrical contacts that connect it w/ the body. Also, ck your new batteries to make sure they're fresh, as these cameras need the full voltage to work. Jon's idea on the battery contacts is your first place to ck though.</p>

<p>They're both down market versions of the "better" (as in more expensive) cameras that both camera makers produced for amateur photographs on a budget. The lenses are 3 element but work fine if stopped down to at least F8. A little more money then or now will get you a better lens, but for the casual snapper that won't matter.</p> <p>This post reminds me of my old Retina IA's w/ Xenar lenses that produced stunning photos that were in the Leica class.</p>

<p>It certainly has been resolved in my mind. I won't buy from them ever again.</p>