verivorax

<p>This is encouraging (but don't show my wife!!).. but recently I've been troubled by all the nearby labs dropping all their film processing services! This puts a damper on the use (and potential expansion of) my collection.</p>

<p>I feel a little abandoned by the labs! Let's hope the kind souls who humour us and nurture our addiction to celluloid continue to keep their C-41s and E-6s warm for us!!</p>

<p>SOME Frontier machines (and only at some locations) will have a set of MF masks (645, 6x6, 6x7), a manual carrier, and a larger mirror-diffuser (expensive part!!) for the laser. The rather small Black's I worked at in the late 90s received one of these kits and I made some nice prints right off negatives or positives. <br>

This was on one of the original late 90s Frontier machines with paper-switching, not the hybrid SFA (older optical design with a new laser front-end) from early 2003. However, the user workstations on both were virtually identical and I bet you'll find someone with the full set of parts for MF printing. Worth a try!</p>

<p>I agree there is absolutely a "look" exhibited by film. Rick and Russ above nailed the B&W debate, but for colour I've often used the argument that the film's layers result in a slightly more three-dimensional appearance.. Can anyone quantify this somehow?<br>

Sometimes the "look" of film is a result of the lens used in front of said film. Uncoated lenses give an image a different (old fashioned?) quality than what is familiar to the modern photographer (or everyone, since modern hyper-processed imagery is everywhere). I personally love that look.. inherent in both the film and the lens. It's what keeps me shooting vintage cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Great shots! I'm glad you were able to resurrect the Walzflex - I have the same camera, which served me well for several years. I love how it handles mono, colour work was fine but a little muted (some say "dreamy").</p>

<p>Beautiful work! I have much scanning still to do from film shot last year, and it's all disorganized.. This is Provia 100F I think, shot with my 2.8D.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/3630552501_46c288c0d4.jpg?v=0" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p>I also use the Sekonic L-398, and while I got it for Film school and it's only a decade old.. when paired with my Rollei or old Bronica, it looks as vintage as they are! </p>

<p>I also got tons of old 4x5 holders when I bought by Busch Pressman D, as well as a "vintage" dark-cloth. And some weird ISCO Cine projector lenses found at a closed-down theatre. I guess these don't get much use..</p>

<p>I've also just turned 29, but have been using vintage/film cameras for about a decade.. I started with a Walzflex TLR (cost me something like $50), but got some experience shooting a Bronica SQ-A and a bunch of $$$ 16mm gear in film school. I keep purchasing more cameras, and now have a very clean and useable Busch Pressman D, a Bronica EC (focal plane with some big Nikkors), and my main box, a Rollei 2.8D. There are about 15 more cameras which never get used.. maybe this summer I'll make it a point to shoot everything at least once.<br>

I think it's definitely the contrast between the plastic-throw-away 80s and 90s experience which draws many of us towards an older and more concrete way of doing things. The first 120 neg I saw blew my mind and I had to make more and more.. It's really a post-modern backlash against all the consumer garbage that's thrown at us. I wore a bowler hat for no reason in the early 2000s. I still wear old wingtips and bellbottoms if I can find/make them. They all go great with a vintage camera.</p>

<p>A fine-looking moving image usually relies heavily on artificial lighting, very carefully set up to give even light over a range of angles and movements.. this eliminates the chance to capture a really spontaneous moment.<br>

A whole bunch of still digital images bunched together into a video always looks like hard-edged video.. not like film (say IMAX), which is the pinnacle of moving images, not some prosumer device.</p>

<p>I second the Rollei.. You may be limited in focal length, but you'll have a nice big sharp negative. Spend $700 more and get the Mutar for more focal length... If you're shooting from a sitting position, you might want to consider a prism finder as well. You could shoot a TLR upside down like they tell you to in the Rollei book.. ;)<br>

My vote for LOUDEST is a focal-plane shuttered Bronica.. I have an EC, and the shutter is thundrous (matches the feel of it in your hand) - and I only presume the older ones are as loud if not moreso. I've also heard the Pentax 6x7 stuff is noisy.</p>

<p>Evan: I like your characterization of the 2.8D's image.. definitely in the "dreamy" category - something about the saturation and contrast. <br>

I suppose it's something to do with the lens-coating technology of the day. I have a Walzflex 3.5 of similar age, and it exhibits more of that dreaminess (but none of the Rollei sharpness and tactaile joy).<br>

I would love to have another Rollei to compare it to, but there are other collections which deserve attention (and money).</p>

<p>I believe most Rollei 2.8s can be modded for 220. I'm not sure about a diopter, but you could retrofit something or have something made (worth it for such a nice camera! :D). In that case, you can run with any 2.8C or later (assuming you're particular to the Planar, including the Xenotar would widen your selection). Some are biased towards the 10-blade iris on the C.. I have a D/Xenotar and I love it.<br>

You should be able to find something easily within your range. Then you'll have extra for a full set of Rolleinaars (otherwise they have a poor close-focus ability), a Rolleifix, and any other fun accessories you might need/want.<br>

Good luck in your search! I had quite a few hits in the buy/sell on photo.net, but they all came days after I completed an *bay auction! d'oh!</p>

<p>Nice shots of Toronto!</p>

<p>I had a similar experience when I bought a Rollei 2.8D on *bay last year.. It was supposed to be in perfect working order, with all parts, but the primary focussing magnifier was totally missing. I had to spend $150 on a new hood, and had to retrofit it myself.. live and learn, I guess.</p>

<p>I had one of these when I was 10.. a gift from an Uncle (some gift!). I shot with it, but it was inadvertantly left behind somewhere in the Smithsonian complex. hey, I was 10. </p>

<p>I would love to have one in my collection alongside the 4-lens "action camera" and little collapsible 110 camera from the 80s.</p>

 

<p>I like the "through the viewfinder" idea, but the first image looks like a contact print to me. If you get a 6x6 camera which may not hold the film entirely flat, you could get edges like this.. OR, get something really cheap and rough the gate up yourself. The older and less coated the lens, the more flare and loss of contrast you'll see - so go as old as possible! Good luck!</p>

<p>It's about the tactile experience.. and the ability to see the kind of mechanical- and resultant image quality which was available thirty-fifty-eighty-or more years ago. A waist-level finder or a dark-cloth over your head imparts a certain joy that can't be replicated.</p>

<p>Maybe it's also an excuse to blame old or sketchy gear for a poor image once in a while.. ;)</p>

<p>Fuji ships their mini-lab paper and test strips with gel-like freezer packs.. maybe some mfrs do the same for big quantities of pro film being sold to retail (and pro) shops.</p>

<p>It'd be around $750-800CAD.. based off what I paid for my less-than-pristine 2.8D. There's still a great market for these beasts.</p>

<p>The biggest-name stuff will always command a good price. I'm wondering about the value of obscure stuff like old Zenza kits and their Nikkor lenses.. I can't see the demand for these being nearly as high as a few select pieces which seem to draw the attention of collectors and users.</p>

<p>I've reverse-loaded my Bronica a couple times.. once, the first time I used it, and then the first time after a long time of not using it. I've also doubled-up or skipped a bunch of frames on my Walzflex (shutter and winder are independent, and the counter is dubious, and the detent on the wind is bad, but technique should compensate for that) You can always forgive yourself.. harder to do with the minilab employee who runs your B&W through the C-41 and wipes it clean.<br>

Although Bob's answer may not have been worded in the most sensitive way, his idea is good. Get a junker roll of 120 and load/run it through with the back open (if this is possible on the Pentax). You'll get used to it quickly.<br>

good luck and keep shooting!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>New 120 film gives me great hope for my luddism..</p>

<p>I also feel like slapping the Henry's employee who mocked my Rolleiflex purchase and told me all film would be discontinued.</p>

<p>Slapping, or worse!</p>

I built one of these, but could never find the sodium carbonate for that final wash..

 

so it remains in storage, unused, but a fine light-trap indeed.

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/photos/lfdevelop.html

I just got an old Rollei and loved travelling and shooting with it. Look for expired film deals to get quantity for cheap. As others have said.. the more users of MF, the more film and processing will be available!

Even a cheap camera is worth repairing if you'll enjoy shooting with it.

 

The other option is source out another of the same camera, and hold on to the broken one for parts. Or amass a collection of just that one model of Rolleiflex.

 

There are collectors who want things in less than pristine condition.. there are some things that I'll hoard, regardless of operational status or cosmetic condition.

Wrap the stands in a carpet remnant, tape the hell out of it and send that on the big belt. If you need to, do two of these wraps, even putting carpet between each stand if you're concerned about them banging around too much. You'll have to pay overage if you have any further check luggage, but it'll likely be safe.

 

Ideas other than carpet.. some articulated mattress foam (nipple foam), or an old sleeping bag.

Peggy's cove is great at sun-up/down. It's usually pretty busy with tourists, but if you wait around, there'll be quieter moments. A good view is from the Swissair memorial nearby (just west, near the "whaleback" restaurant and similarly named rock protrusion).

 

If you're into graveyards, some of the small churches have some nice cemeteries - think salt-melted gravestones for texture.

 

In Halifax itself is Point Pleasant Park, which has greenery and some 18th century (?) fortifications. A non-native beetle and hurricane juan took out a lot of trees, but I'm sure it's still nice.