starshooter

<p>Mine was a box Brownie Reflex. It took suprisingly good photos if you had broad daylight and lots of sun. I have a reciept for prints from that camera dated 7/1/1947. Two prints from two different negatives cost 25 cents plus one cent tax. Them wuz the days. I recently bought a camera just like the one I owned back in 1947 and am going to experiment to see if I can use it with 35mm film, rahter than 127.</p>

<p>Bad mouthing "old timers" shows no class at all. I know grizzled, hard-edged old time news photographers who used Speed Graphics for years who embraced autofocus the moment it was available -- light years earlier than that piece of junque you are touting. Your research is strickly from cloud-coo-coo-land.</p>

<p>Whut a camera. I want one. I've only bought one film camera since I made a New Year's rresolution not to buy any more. Thirty five cameras, six film sizes, cassettes to buy, beginning to get battery-poor, and I still don't have an Argus "brick." I do have a Ansco Viking 45 and as sweet a Canonet QL 19 as I ever want to see. Even the case looks brand new and the camera works!</p>

<p>Boy, I have good memories about Essex fixing cameras for me and doing a real fine job at a great price. I have some stuff for them to fix. I emailed them a while back about my sick Yashica LYNX 14 but never heard back. I hope they will get back into it.</p>

<p>Sounds like a worthwhile thing to do and loads of fun. Have a ball.</p>

<p>If I had to guess I would suggest the longer the client waited the more unhappy they got. If you're gonna shoot photos for clients you have to do it and get them out immediately and there are NO excuses. That's for amateurs. I could say the photos are not particularly to my taste but that does not mean anything because I am not the client. I have some of my photos hanging in an art gallery and half the stuff in the gallery is not to my taste but it doesn't have anything to do with my particular preferences, does it?.<br>

I am old fashioned and do not think there's 650 good photos in any wedding, including Princess Di's.</p>

<p>Carson is right. Of course the old fashioned way is to see if you can get some "ink" (publicity) in the local media and in specialty magazines-- for instance cooking publications -- and so on. See if there is a photography club or two in your neck of the woods that you can join and talk "shop" with other photogs. Are there photography classes at local colleges? Sometimes instructors are knowledgeble in many areas of photography. Years ago I taught "Beginning freelance photography" and I think I helped a lot of folks get pointed in the right direction. A REALLY old fashioned way to network with other shooters is to find a real, gosh-durned old time camera store where like-minded photogs hang out. Some have bulletin boards to let you know what photo events are happening. Of course real camera stores are as hard to find as DeSoto cars, but there are still some around. You might even start your own camera club. Good luck.</p>

<p>Gimme the controls of a Nikon F and a film adapter pack. They are now making Hollywood movies on digital media and then backing them up with film 'cause digital is will-o-the-wisp and won't be usable very long.<br>

Digital is very handy but so was Polaroid. How long did THAT last?</p>

<p>This is a nation based on law. Can I come into your bedroom and take photos? It's a free country, ain't it? Can I follow your kid around and take pictures of him/her 24 hours a day? (Cue in the Freedom Bells ringing.) I worked for the world's biggest news gathering orgnization and 11 different newspapers, taking photos. I've taken hundreds of photos the establishment would rather had never been taken. But I ain't stoopid, I know there are rules. This is not a nation of anarchy, sorry.</p>

<p>I have a suspicion that there are a lot of folks with too much time on their hands, hence this stuff. I have shot portraits with very long lenses. I thought they were interesting but almost nobody else agreed with me. I have a terrible idea -- why not just shoot some photos with impossible long lenses and see if they "fly" in the marketplace or wherever your photos go?Actually, a 500mm "mirror" lens makes a great "mug" shot.<br>

Or how about a 19mm Vivitar? If you get a good one they are awesome and there are environmental portraits, you know.</p>

<p>I was just going to say I don't know what year the camera was made but I presume it used flash bulbs. I have an old Exacta that has three flash sync cord sockets. Some of my shirttailed relatives from the Eastern commie zone of Germany trying to do us westerners in, no doubt.</p>

<p>I am absolutely rabid about people retaining their rights to photos/images in this ripoff world. But I think maybe you are beating a dead horse here. I'm amazed the show "did the right thing" in so short a time and believe you are way ahead of the game.</p>

<p>If you want my humbug opinion people should give thanks that KEH bothers and live with the downsides. I have 40 film cameras in my living room. They are so cheap these days it is not funny. In the early 1990s I paid more than $500 for Nikon's "entry level professional" camera body, the N70. Recently I bought one for twenty bucks and got a classic AI 50mm Nikkor f1.4 thrown in. This is crazy. Not many people would want to compete in this market. For some reasons, Minoltas are the cheapest. By the way, I have bought cameras, bodies and lenses, that are in such great condition I was stunned when I opened the box. And a few that barked back at me, but that's the way it goes.</p>

<p>Your work in front of an important audience, huh? Why are they important -- do they respect a photographer's art and actually pay them? Call a plumber and ask him to work for nothing. Say some "important" people will use the plumbing. This is worse than a Nigerian email scam.</p>

<p>Yeah, I truly love the way the mirror works as the shutter. Pretty wild. Fun stuff.</p>

<p>I got my grubby little hands on a 3.5 Rolleiflex in 1957 and by 1968 it had fallen apart. I wrapped my digits around a Yashicamat, used it for many years and I still have it and it still takes great photos. I used a Hassy and thought it was a fine camera but a hot house flower -- not rugged enough for field work. Needed to be kept indoors. If you want a really rugged camera get a Speed Graphic. They make them in medium format sizes. The old time news photogs knew if a crime suspect tried to bash the photog they could slam him with a Speed Graphic and only the perp would be worse for wear.</p>

<p>Hitchcock, huh? I photographed him many times. He liked to eat at Chasen's Restaurant. But as far as treating actors like cattle -- how much did he pay them? Are you going to pay fabulous sums of money to your street cows? Maybe you dudes think Cary Grant worked for udder fodder. I think some people live in a dream world and some have a travel trailer parked there.</p>

<p>The specs on the thing brag about 2590 x 1680. Some of my scans on an Epson Perfection V500 Photo scanner are 13420 by 19053. I'm making 11x14 and 16x12 prints. Epson has a website for refurbished (and cheaper) units.</p>

<p>If a person is going to be a REAL photographer, s/he has to learn to juggle a dozen razor-sharp knives while riding a tiger bareback during an earthquake in a war zone. With his/her eyes closed. You need a lot of skills and if you think you can goof off while taking photos and then save the mess you made in post processing well you would be better off flipping hamburgers somewhere. Perhaps you have heard of the "decisive moment." Well, you have to be prepared to capture that moment when it happens, not in your living room three days later.</p>

<p>Perhaps a lens cap is in order.</p>

<p>Great stuff. But does it have a knife inside the body like my Exacta?</p>

<p>It's all smoke and mirrors but the engineers left out the mirrors. Too expensive.</p>

<p>Maybe you will think ahead a little more when shooting film. You can't just press a button and see what you have got. That's not such a bad thing, I think it is too easy to get lazy shooting with a digital camera. I realized recentlly that I did not have a clue at what ISO I had my digital Nikon set at. I'd look at the photos and usually got what I wanted so I didn't worry about it. Not the biggest sin on record but film might make you approach things different. In the very old days, Northern European cameras were made in such a way that taking a photo was an event, something to be planned carefully. For instance, many makers of inexpensive cameras disdained rangefinders. You planted your feet and took a careful look at the distance or you put the camera on a tripod and used a tape measure. I kid you not. I have an old Exacta that has three ways you can set the camera NOT to fire. The maker was more worried about an accidental frame being taken than you getting a shot in a hurry.<br>

I have a couple of thousand dollars invested in an Epson inkjet printer that will make huge prints. But I must tell you that I still think film makes better prints than digital. And digital prints are inferior to "dip and dunk." But I am so old I remember when the sky was clean and s*x was dirty.<br>

I wish I had a "new" Nikon for Christmas. The green you see ain't from my tree.</p>

<p>The contract scares me and I am fearless. I personally turned down the same kind of deal a few years back. Unless the company that your are talking about is known to be very much above board I fear it will be a problem. It's too easy to "go south" with a person's images these days. My only suggestion would be to give them permission to use a limited number of your images and see how that goes.</p>

<p>Have you taken a look at Rangefinder magazine?</p>