jaydann_walker

<p>I should never, ever, ever post first drafts. On rethinking the above, my amended version follows. It was not meant to offend yet more, but I fear it has done exactly that.<br> What I really meant to say is the following. <br> If I have offended the OP and others on this forum in any way, I offer the OP and you all my apology. My Sagittarian black sense of humor does get me into trouble at times. I also sometimes type faster than I think. </p> <p>The costumer/customer remark was sincerely meant. Along with the suggestion offered entirely in good faith, that most who employ a photographer will really prefer to be called clients. "Customers" is too close to "consumers" for my liking, and in a personal service such as photography, "client" seems the most respectful term.</p> <p>Michael Mowery has, as always, offered by far the best suggestions.</p> <p>Now let us be truthful to this OP as well as polite, and try to appease the malcontents by saying in the nicest possible way, that there is really no good advice we can give her about how to succeed in business in NYC. Michael has in fact covered it all very well and far more succinctly than I am able to do. If we eliminate the well-meant but basically sugar-coated suggestions, the truth is that she is competing with thousands, even tens of thousands of other photographers, amateurs and professionals, and no amount of well-meant fussing over customers, costumers and clients, pavement pounding, emailing, personal visits, drinks and lunches will produce fast and easy results in a heavily oversaturated business market.</p> <p>I hope she has the mental endurance and the physical stamina to hang in and persevere in the hope of some day perhaps securing a small place in a very big pond. This may seem harsh, but it is real world advice. If she is in the business of photography and not committed to staying in NYC for other reasons, she can look sideways and consider relocating to a better market. I would. If she is otherwise employed and photography is a part-time venture, she will have to persevere and work diligently and try everything she can to improve her market share. From her post it did seem that she already has some photo work. If this is so then she has done very well.</p> <p>Enough said. I have written more than enough about this and I will be silent from now on. My very best regards to the OP and to you all,</p> <p>JDW</p> <p> </p>

<p>If I have offended the OP in any way, I offer her my apology. My Sagittarian black sense of humor does get me into trouble at times.</p> <p>The costumer/customer remark was sincerely meant. Along with the suggestion offered entirely in good faith, that many if not most customers would really prefer to be called clients. "Customers" is too close to "consumers" for my liking, and in offering a personal service such as photography, "clients" seems to me the most respectful term.</p> <p>Michael Mowery has, as always, offered by far the best suggestions.</p> <p>An old saying on pots calling kettles black comes to mind in all this. At times there is entirely too much of this on APUG, and I am as guilty as the rest in doing this. I will take heed of this in future, as I hope some of you others also will.</p> <p>My very best regards to all,</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>May I venture some less consumerist, more personal, slightly lateral thinking here?</p> <p>With all due respect to most camera manufacturers who are forever striving to give us the best possible quality in new photo gear, the use of such terms as "ecosystem" in their marketing and advertising are, to me, merely cynical sales ploys and need to be regarded and responded to as such.</p> <p>The camera manufacturers also need to be reminded of this, bearing in mind that in our modern age, the web is our best friend if used properly. Emails to customer relations centers produce a scripted response and the original is quickly deleted. Yet a carefully thought out and worded faxed letter sent directly to Nikon's CEO in Japan produced a direct response from a senior executive in two days, two international phone calls to discuss relevant points, and a followup email some weeks later to confirm that my considered suggestion to one of their systems had in fact been implemented.</p> <p>As for the rest, the term "ecosystem" is so often used, and so indiscriminately, that some of us who have been around for a while may well reflect on Nazi Reichmarshall Goering's oft-quoted remark that hearing the term "art" mostly made him want to reach for his revolver.</p> <p>Can we not forget the business buzzword "ecosystem" and look within for a more personal and relevant meaning? This will have little or nothing to do with lens mounts, with all due all respect to those posters who go on about this as if they seek to legitimise what seems to me to be a sort of pro capitalist rant.</p> <p>What is YOUR personal application of "ecosystem" and how have you gone about this, or intend to do so? To me, this is far more important than the slick consumerism intent of this term.</p> <p>My own photographic 'ecosystem' has been to to revisit and re-evaluate all my shooting and processing processes of the past five decades, and then make many minor (and a few major) adjustments to deal with 21st century realities.</p> <p>Since 2006, my year of 'practice' retirement (followed by full-on retirement in 2012) I have progressively downsized my traditional film and dakroom practices and shifted over to new modes of film processing. Consequently I use less and spend much less for better results. </p> <p>I nowadays use much less film and increasingly moved to 120 roll film B&W emulsions. I also research and plan my shoots to get what I want with as few exposures as I can get away with. I still maintain my trad darkroom, but I print more infrequently and very carefully. I no longer process E6 at home and when I do an occasional C41 session, I carefully rebottle the used chemicals and recycle them to a local chemical disposal site.</p> <p>My move to digital took place in 2009 after I had determined that DSLR image quality had reached a level of quality that I was satisfied with in colors and resolution. My beloved Nikkormats and Contax G1s were mostly relegated to shelves at home - I still use them but more sparingly than before) and replaced with, first, a Nikon D90 kit, then a D700. I still use the latter and my partner has taken to my D90 which is used almost every weekend.</p> <p>After nearly half a century of shooting almost everything in sight, I now approach all my shoots with the utmost care, ensuring that I make as many essential notes as I possibly can before setting off with my two small camera kits (digital and film) to record cultural and architectural sites in Southeast Asia. For my purposes, the internet is a wonderful medium if used in the right ways, and I now research my travels and plan my journeys to photo sites with Google Maps and other useful and reliable web sites.</p> <p>I have recycled much darkroom and camera gear I no longer use, either sold or donated to friends who will make good use of it.</p> <p>All common sense stuff. Digital photography has freed me from the limitations of film and paper print photography and above all from tyranny of profit obsessed manufacturers who chop and change products at will, seemingly to satisfy executive level MBAs who think more of the profit sheet and their fat annual bonuses than they do of their clients. Black and white photography (so much less chemically intrusive to the ecology) has become more important but I now approach all my shoots with more care and buy my stocks with global concerns in mind rather than by sheer volume discount. (Like most everyone else of my vintage I am also well aware that the big discounts era of the '60s and'70s in photo supplies is now long vanished.)</p> <p>All this in my usual long-winded way to say that applying a little critical thinking in our photography, as we should in everything else we do, can go a long way to improve conditions in every aspects of our lives as well as globally.</p> <p>My thoughts, offered with respect and the utmost concern for our fast-deteriorating planet.</p> <p>JDW</p> <p> </p>

<p>Move out of New York and set up elsewhere, preferably in a smaller regional city. This will fast track your business start up plans and you will preserve your sanity.</p> <p>I am not being facile or silly in saying this. I tried this when I moved to Sydney, Australia, many years ago when the going was much better for photographers starting up. In retrospect, relocating to Sydney, Canada, would have been a better business decision for me. In New York you will face a massive uphill battle in front of you. In time you may succeed and I truly hope you do, but by then you may be too old to want to carry camera gear to weddings. Seriously, you must be prepared for a long and often difficult uphill struggle to establish yourself in the business. The local competition is keen, often very aggressive, and way ahead of you. </p> <p>Notwithstanding my less than positive comments, please accept my best wishes for your future success in the nuptials trade. I recommend, however, that you refer to your clients (a much better term, as it denotes a measure of respect and not a consumerist attitude) as "customers" and not "costumers" which is an entirely different term, but may open up possibly another good photo business opportunity for you. </p> <p>Food for thought only, respectfully offered. </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Good advice overall here. Buy a small bag. Put only what you need in it. Resist the urge to carry two bags.</p> <p>A well-meaning but basically thoughtless friend insised she HAD to have all her lenses, batteries, filters etc etc etc with her at all time, and went everywhere with a huge backpack loaded with everything she had in gear. We weighed this sack once - 27 kilograms. Earlier this year while on a trek, she turned too quickly, the bag shifted, she fell down an incline and broke her leg. Two weeks in hospital and fairly major surgery fixed her up, at a hideous cost. She still limps, but will eventually recover to 80%-85% walking capacity.</p> <p>All due to that damn bag. </p> <p>Don't let this happen to you!</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Many Rollei TLRs have a "back cranking" feature (the exact term for this escapes me, and just now I do not have access to any of my Rolleiflex books, so my perhaps inexact term will have to make do for now) by which you shoot your first scene, back crank to recock the shutter, and shoot the second scene. This may not suit what you want to do, however - you did say you intended to shoot an entire roll of first images, rewind the film on a spool, reload, and shoot an entire roll of second images.</p> <p>A lot of good advice in this thread, however, keep in mind you will inflict a lot of hassle on yourself, possibly for very little by way of satisfying results. The slightest misalignment between the two images may well derail your creativity and mind's eye view of your intended final product. Do it with great care.</p> <p>The suggestion to use Photoshop or another PP program is the easiest. I would go this way.</p> <p>For inspiration, you can look up Jerry Uelsmann, who was one of the photo at images of the '60s and '70s when it was all done by hand (usually in the darkroom) and not as easy as we can achieve it nowadays. You can Google him by name or try these links:- </p> <p><cite >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<strong>Jerry</strong>_<strong>Uelsmann</strong></cite><br> <strong> </strong><br> <cite >www.<strong>uelsmann</strong>.net/works.php</cite></p> <p><cite >www.digitalphotopro.com/profiles/<strong>jerry</strong>-<strong>uelsmann</strong>-the-alchemist/</cite></p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Good new indeed, David, a welcome change from the "DD" (Darkroom Disaster) stories we too often hear.</p> <p>Tech Pan seems to be a particularly long lasting film, if given proper care (freezing, proper unfreezing, good development). I have two 100-foot cans and about 20 individual rolls of it left, all frozen. These days I shoot very little slow B&W film, but the time will soon come for me to bite the bullet and decide what to do with all this old stock. Ebay is an option, but I find I'm feeling a strong urge to relive the past a little and shoot some or all of it on special projects (notably colonial architecture in Asia), as I did earlier this year with my very large stock of 1980s Kodak Panatomic-X. </p> <p>Unlike you I have no Technidol left, however, being one of those very few of us who still have darkrooms and measuring scales, I can easily and quickly conjure up a batch of POTA developer. The same processing times apply with POTA as for Technicol, so it's an easy conversion.</p> <p>Judging by Ebay sales of expired films I see OL now, many of us probably have old stocks of films. Using it (or moving it on to those who will), seems to me the ideal way to "finalise" our links to our past shooting years in a appropriate way. Sort of closing a door to our younger years as photographers. More of us should do it. </p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Arriving at a wedding with your photo gear in a rucksack will surely impress the bride and do wonders for your business image - but likely not in a way you will care for.</p> <p>In the business of photography image is all-important. Buy the best carry bag or hard case you can afford. Go for a brand name and top design and quality. It will last you a lifetime. To me, rucksacks or shoulder bags holler "amateur! amateur!" and will fail to impress.</p> <p>Brands do matter. I don't shoot weddings, but a close friend who has specialised in 'nuptials' for the past 40 years has all his gear systematically stored in three Haliburtons he bought in the 1980s. They are as good today as they were when new.</p> <p>Make sure your bag or case has a good lock. Keep it securely locked and the key safely in your pocket or entrust it to your assistant. One of the main duties of your assistant (every successful and well-organised wedding photographer I have met or seen at work has a well-trained assistant) should be to keep a careful eye on your equipment.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>To me all this has a whiff of which way do you unroll your toilet paper in the bathroom. But okay, let's play. <br /><br />Monogamist or polygamist/polyamorist...hm. We are human, so why be bored? And why limit oneself?<br /><br />This said, every polygamist I have ever known has ended up divorced, usually in old age when one needs the love and comfort of a long term partner. The same may well apply to 'cameragamists'. Flitting from one system to another enriches camera manufacturers and makes you a little darling of the camera shops (also poor), but generally not such a good photographer. Too much time wasted fiddling with gear. Hence the apt term, gearhead. <br /><br />nlimited - or polygamist. Yes, I know, I'm talking in circles again. Is my mate Bill reading this?<br /><br />Now on to cameras and lenses. <br /><br />Monogamist in 35mm, a '70s Nikkormat with a 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/2.8/3.5, one lens hood, one filter, and keep all this nicely minimal, one roll of film. A classic kit. Its digital avatar, for me, is a Nikon D700 with a 28mm f/2.8 D, UV filter, and lens hood. <br /><br />Polygamist is taking every Nikkor lens I own. Being at the age now where I can barely lift the camera bag with all those darn lenses, I prefer not to. <br /><br />As an aside, is a zoom lens acceptable? Is it playing fair? The jury's out on this point. I tend to think yes. If I need the versatility I would opt for one, but I would still find the point difficult to defend. A One Size Fits All option. <br /><br />Medium format, the sky's the limit, within reason. Good MF gear is cheap nowadays. For me, a Fuji GA645i/wi/zi or GS645S/W. A folder of some sort, ideally Voigtlander or Zeiss. A Rolleiflex, lens hood, UV filter, and grip, also one roll of B&W or color negative film. With the last two the Sweet Sixteen Rule ensures they are the ideal minimalist kit, with the high thrill of chance added by no metering. Add to this list Bronicas, Mamiyas, Plaubels etc etc, also Hasselblads for those who can afford them. <br /><br />Large format is out for me because of age and travel restrictions. A 4x5with the usual bag of toys that go with it, a tripod, and a dozen film holders does not a minimalist kit make. That Cambo Wide is a gorgeous animal, but for me, dragging such a brick with me on one of my overseas jaunts would overload my already minimal baggage allowance. I'm not that much a masochist. <br /><br />Of all the previous posters, Rick Schuster comes closest to my viewpoint. But to quote the French (in bad translation), to each their gout. <br /><br />It's all such good fun though, isn't it? <br /><br />JDW</p>

<p>Bill may be trying to seem profound. That, or maybe he has ingested something that had unexpected results on his brain. Too much coffee, maybe.</p> <p>A third possibility is that this post is click bait. Could it be that Bill wanted to rile us (would he do this?), and if so he has succeeded. Even I have nibbled at the bait. Our usual malcontents appear to be enjoying a field day.</p> <p>I respectfully suggest to the OP that he would do well to acquaint himself with the philosophical writing of Georges Monbiot, especially his interesting theories relating to Westerners who have too much time on their hands and not enough productive things to do.</p> <p>I did enjoy the photo of the cat, though. A pleasant snap, I think. Overlooking the overly blue tone and other mitmatched colors. Post production needed. But a nice cat.</p> <p>All this said, now for my morning coffee...</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Two common sense options apply here, and you can opt for either or both.</p> <p>One, clean the finder mount VERY carefully with a non-corrosive liquid (I would start with lighter fluid and if this doesn't do the job, nail polish remover followed by lighter fluid to remove the polish). Do it with a Q-tip and err on the side of Less Is Best.</p> <p>Two, take the camera to your closest repair shop and let an expert do it.</p> <p>Personally I would opt for the second. Well intentioned ignorance and an urge for false economy has caused no end of camera damage in the past. I say this as one who has done both, so I know.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>Rodeo Joe, can you buy F2s and F3s for the price of a Nikkormat? Tell me where, I will buy a dozen...</p> <p>In Australia my FT2s cost me about $100 each a few years ago. ELs nowadays sell for somewhat higher, expecially with a lens. F2s and F3s are going for a few hundred (Aussie) dollars more, although I'm not sure if they sell or not at those prices. I agree about the 55mm Micro Nikkor. Ebay is loaded with sellers who want to offload 50mm f/2 lenses, at prices ranging from absurdly low to living in dreamland. Australian photo gear prices in general are higher than US prices, though. </p> <p>If one were to buy only one lens for a Nikkormat, I would opt for the 35mm f/2 OC or as a second choice the 28mm f/3.5. Of course this would depend on whether the would-be buyer/shooter sees images in a wide angle or "normal" viewpoint.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>I believe the EL metering and shutter speeds would be far superior to those of the FT2 and FT3, which as you say are "mechanical" cameras, or certainly the FT/FTN which are 1960s cameras. I have used FTNs but nowadays I would not trust them due to their age and wear. Even mechanical cameras can malfunction.</p> <p>This would not be a great concern with B&W or color negative films if you tend towards overexposing. For color slides, if the camera overexposes, your results will be washed out. </p> <p>The ELs let you expose very precisely,for example at 1/87 or 1/245 second. FT2s seem to operate on fixed speeds, and top speeds such as 1/1000 second may not be accurate. If you are overly fussy about exactly accurate speeds (as I am), you should go for an EL.</p> <p>With my ELs and FT2s, I check the batteries regularly for leakage, I remove the batteries when the cameras are not used for long periods of time, and I keep the cameras safely stored and clean, especially clean battery compartments. Small steps like these will keep your Nikkormats functioning for a very long time. </p> <p>With old cameras, two rules generally apply, (1) you get what you pay for and (2) a well-maintained but obviously used camera will likely give you far better results than one that appears "mint" but may operate badly due to little use and poor or no servicing.</p> <p>If I was looking to buy a Nikkormat today and intending to use it for a long time, I would look to buy in the following order: FT2/FT3, EL, FTN, FT. Personally, I wouldn't bother with the last two, they are old technology and the later models operate better. My ELs have never had any metering or shutter problems in 39 years. Another consideration is batteries for FTNs and FTs which I believe are difficult to find and some modification to the cameras may be required to use modern batteries.</p> <p>Unless you are a dedicated gearhead, FTNs and FTs are not worth the time and effort you will have to put into coddling and maintaining them. Go for a newer model.</p> <p>JDW</p>

<p>I bought two Nikkormat ELs for travel stock photography in the late '70s, the good old days when one could shoot sell even B&W images taken in Asia, mostly one and two column magazine end of article shots - in those long ago days the UK Economist and AsiaWeek in Hongkong bought many such photos for their weekly editions. I was a freelance journalist-photographer in Sydney then and my income tended to float up and down (often steadily down for long periods), so I had to save diligently and shop carefully. My dream was to own the then-legendary 35mm f/2 OC lens and I eventually was able to buy one after saving for a year. I still have both cameras and all my original (non AI) lenses. <br /><br />Nikkormats are virtually indestructible. My two ELs still function well after 39 years in my care. I've had them serviced two times. The metering remains accurate, even with slide films. The foam in one EL was replaced in 2007 when I last had it serviced. The foam in the second EL remains as new. <br /><br />A few years ago when prices for most SLRs went south I bought three FT2s for peanuts. Someone gave me an FT3 but it kept malfunctioning and after a frustrating effort at restoring it (I was pleasantly surprised at how many Nikkormat parts are available on Ebay), I gave it up as a lost cause and gifted it to a friend who got it functioning and now uses it without the meter. <br /><br />I've read criticisms about "old Nikon glass" but for my needs all my pre AI lenses I have function well and serve their purposes. To listen to some of the naysayers on this and other photo sites, the 35mm O is little better than soft drink bottle glass, but mine continues to produce crisp, sharp B&W or color images with a good range of mid tones, also my 28mm f/3.5, a cheapie but a lens I kept permanently on one of the ELs for two decades. In the 50mm range I opted for the classic f/2 HC, having never seen had the need for the f/1.4. For other lenses the 105mm is a classic and a 135mm f/3.5 I bought a few years after the cameras has always given good results, tho I never used it much, being a standard to wide angle lens photographer. <br /><br />As for batteries, I believe the ELs will shoot at 1/90 sec with a dead battery or without one. The FT2s can be used at all speeds without. Your choice of which camera will really depend on if you want to meter in the camera or not. <br /><br />Comparing ELs to FT2s, my preference tends to the ELs, which are somewhat heavier and, I think, with better metering. The Nikkormats meter largely from the center of the image and one has to be careful when you shoot general scenes such as landscapes with a mix of strong highlights and deep shadows. For years I had a Weston Master V and did comparison metering with my Nikkormat readings. Often the difference was up to two stops and a bit of guesswork (or two exposures at the different readings) was in order. Nowadays I occasionally use a 'mat for B&W work with TMax 100 or Fuji Acros 100 and I find the EL or FT2 meter readings compare almost spot-on with those from my Nikon D700, which to me is miraculous from old cameras. <br /><br />Shooting with older SLRs and lenses is, as an English saying goes, very much a "horses for courses" issue. You have to learn your camera's quirks and adjust your mental processes and your shooting style accordingly. A little less haste, fewer shots, a little thinking and planning before you shoot and composing carefully, work wonders with old Nikkormats (or any older SLR). And for me they remain a great pleasure to work with. <br /><br />JDW<br /><br /></p>

<p>David has it right. According to 'The Hasselblad Way' by H. Freytag (1975), "The A16S magazine has a still smaller film aperture to yield 16 exposures 1-5/8 x 1-5/8inches. This is intended for super slides on colo(u)r film, as the image frame is then immediately of the right size for mounting in super slide frames."</p> <p>So there you are!</p> <p>JDW</p>

Does all this not seem rather futile now? JDW, somewhere not in the USA...

<p>Andy, if truth be told there are very few "prohibitions"in photography - other than to not mix developer and fixer together or, above all, to drink them in the darkroom, whether mixed or separately. <br /><br />In fact, one should not be drinking anything at all while in the darkroom, notably alcoholic fluids. I was warned not to do this ages ago by a venered old pro, who, bless him, was a teetotaler, or "wowser" as such types are wisely known in Australia. Maybe his wowserism has more to do with his dictum than any health or safety issues. Alas, he is long gone now, so I will never find out. He also believed in using his fingers and not tongs in his processing trays, even for selenium toning. No-one commented about his black fingernails. He also smoked like a chimney, even in the darkroom, which would have been lethal, but having saying this, let us not dare to go further. <br /><br />What you are referring to, are "recommendations", almost all of which can be safely and conveniently ignored. The pre rinse your B&W films before developing controversy is a case in point. More nonsense has been spouted over this non-event than any other topic in darkroom web sites. Pre rinse if you like, don't pre rinse if you prefer. End of advice. I have always pre rinsed everything, B&W, color neg, slides, for 40+ years. My best shots pre rinsed or not have sold well. No buyer has ever queried if I pre rinsed or didn't pre rinse. A valuable lesson here, I think. <br /><br />My vote goes to Bill Bowes. If pre soaking makes you feel good, do it. If not, skip it. Your results will probably be the same whichever you do, altho this is not PC and I suspect we are not supposed to say it. <br /><br />I now cheerfully await for the first personal attack in response to my heresy. Why will be the first to vilify me? Surely one of our usual cranks will become wildly inflamed and spout off like a maddened steam engine, tally-hohoho! <br /><br />JDW</p>

<p>I bought Nikkormats when they were available new in the 1970s. At the time this was a major investment for me - I still recall the day I was able to buy, after a year of diligent saving, my Nikkor 35/2, a lovely classic lens I still use. <br /><br />My Nikkormats were ELs, which were then, I believe, Nikon's first fully electronic camera. Forty years later these are regarded as "highly suss" by collectors and users, but mine have functioned without fault, and needed only CLAs every decade or so. In the 80s and 90s when people began dumping these beautiful cameras, I acquired a third EL and two FT2s as well as Nikkor lenses from 24 to 180. <br /><br />Along came the digital age, but I still use my Nikkormats regularly, for B&W shooting. None have required more than a check up every ten years. One of my FT2s went a bit loopy in 2003 or 2004, a minor fault with the rewind, and I had it repaired in Melbourne, which cost me more than I cared to pay (OK, so I'm a miser). It has worked faultlessly since. Batteries come from China and nowadays cost about what they did back in 1977. Win-win. <br /><br />Even now, I am happy to report, these cameras can be repaired if need be. Eventually (so I am told) the ELs will give up the ghost, and then become, according to others in this post, "paper weights". So be it. <br /><br />The secret to success with these 'oldies' is, I believe, to use them carefully, not push them beyond their limits, and have them checked and serviced as needed or at least every ten years. Storing them without batteries is also the way to go. A little common sense will (likely)ensure a long camera life, but then mishaps do happen, and everything has its time. When something major goes wrong and they go, they go. C'est la vie.<br /><br />I have kept up with the times and modern advances in photography,and I now shoot digital for color. Also Nikons. My partner still uses a Nikon FG20 I have owned for many years, also for B&W but mostly color negative film, along with an elderly D90 I acquired when I finally decided digital Nikons had progressed to the stage where I was happy with the results. The FG20's E series lenses work with the D90, although they focus manually, and the camera has to be used in manual mode. Horses for courses, as a local saying goes. <br /><br />I am happy with my D700 and my next (and likely last) digital camera purchase will be - who will be the first manufacturer to produce a fully manual focusing d-camera? Whoever does, will get my custom, however much it costs me. I enjoy the control that is possible with manual focusing, and while my almost eight decades old eyes are not what they were in the 70s, I find that for much of my shooting, careful setting of distance and apertures in the f5.6-f8 range still continue to see me through. Plenty of depth of field and lovely tones. <br /><br />As to whether or not my cameras will outlast me or not, well, I do not greatly care. As long as they (and I) continue to function well and produce the desired results, all is well and good. Again, horses for courses. If my entire collection of Nikkormats were to bite the dust today, I could easily travel to Melbourne and pick up an as new F series camera (F2-F4) from a reputable secondhand dealers in the city. Or simply "bite the bullet" and make do either with my Voigtlander Perkeo 1 (MF, circa 1951 and still working almost as good as new) or my more recently purchased Fuji GA645wi (also MF, the last model made). Different formats, yes. But the results speak for themselves, and results are what matter to me. <br /><br />By way of a final comment, during a recent visit to the Big Smoke, I looked in the shop window of one of the secondhand dealers, and noted a virtually unused black Nikkormat EL with a more recent 50/1.4 on sale for A$350 - with a 12 months warranty. Surely it doesn't get much better than that.</p>

<p>An interesting point from Shun. I have four Nikon E lenses (28, 35, 50 and 100) and my partner now and then uses these on the D90, set on M, usually when out hiking or trekking, when weight of one's pack is a concern. Excellent results overall. Manual focusing is somewhat of a bother to my ageing eyes, so I stay with the D lenses for my shooting.</p> <p>The E lenses can be set manually, and if used at their sweet spot (usually f/8), are perfectly fine, with another added advantage that they are very small in size, add almost no weight to the D90, and take up little space in one's camera bag.</p> <p>As for "older electronics", what are they? To me, electronics are electronics. If they work, it's good. If not, however old or young the camera is, won't matter at all. My IBM Selectric typewriter purchased new in 1980, has pride of place on our second desk at home but is nowadays used only for addressing envelopes or completing printed forms. But it still works and does the job it is intended to do. End result, successful. Won't be replaced with a newer model with a faster keyboard and more bells and whistles, however. No more are being made.</p> <p>One would do well to resist the siren lure of rapant Consumerism with cameras and typewriters...</p> <p>JDW with camera and umbrella, out shooting in the hills behind a very wet Hobart.</p>

<p>If you can buy a Contax G1 with a 28mm Biogon for US$380, grab it! The Biogon 28 is a corker of a lens, the afficionados are lining up to buy them - here in Australia I could easily resell it for more than the camera and lens price.</p> <p>I like the G1 enough that I have stockpiled a small arsenal of them, intending to replace those that wear out or break down on me, one by one. The problem with this 'tactic' is, even 'tho I bought my first one in the late 90s and the other in 2003, G1s don't seem to wear out. The other three (I may even have four) I acquired from 2010, and they still work like new cameras. Maybe I was lucky. More likely, the G1 is just a good old work horse, and tends to go on and on forever and a day beyond. </p> <p>True, the G1 is autofocus, but it has a manual focus wheel, somewhat fiddly and when set prone to changing the distance you set it on as if powered by its own motor during shoots. I get around this issue by sellotaping the wheel to the body, which sort of works. </p> <p>The downside, I think, is the G1 was made in the mid '90s, for about two years, and was then replaced by the G2, which is (apparently) greatly improved and consequently fetches higher prices. So G1s are quite old, and if one goes bad on you, the repairs may be expensive or even nonexistent, and you will have a rather beaut looking ornament on your hands, but the Biogon 28 can be sold at a good price, and you will then recover most of if not all your original investment. </p> <p>On the other hand, set at f/8, the Biogon can deal with almost anything you aim it at. It resolves color most beautifully, and my B&W images from it seem to have the light literally wrapping itself around the subjects, a visual effect I find particularly charming. Enlargements up to 8x10" are easily made in the darkroom without the least effort, something I have always found difficult to do with Nikkormats and other 35mm film cameras. </p> <p>The combo of G1, Biogon and Tri-X or HP5 is, in my experience, unbeatable for street work. </p> <p>Others have suggested SLRs, which are good cameras in their own right. But they are not rangefinders. </p> <p>As for your own list, I would avoid Zorkis and Feds, as they tend to be clunkers. Yashicas are old and most may be unreliable, 'tho the lenses are superb. The CL and CLE were good in their day, but are now ancient, even older than the G1s. Bessas are remarkably good value, I have used them and I like them. Voigtlander lenses seem to cost the earth if bought new, but almost all are well worth their prices, especially the Color Skopars. So a Bessa and a 28 or 35 could be an ideal investment for you. </p> <p>Decisions, decisions! You are lucky to have so much choice. Me I would happily part with $380 for a G1 with a Biogon 28, which suits my shooting style. Whatever you decide, be sure to enjoy the process. </p> <p>JDW. </p>

<p>Just for fun, I have recently started using my old (bought in 2010) Nikon D90 again. With a 28mm 2.8 D lens, I find it ideal for general street shooting, and for architectural detail shots when I am out and about shooting old buildings with my D700.</p> <p>Now and then I put the 24mm 2.8 D on the D90, and find it, like the 28mm, produces excellent detail. I believe this has to do with the lens being FX on a DX camera, and therefore using mostly the center of the glass, which I believe is sharpest. </p> <p>This said, the D90 will never replace my D700, but I find it has its place in my photo kit. My partner also uses a D90 and the kit 18-55 lens, which I purchased a few years ago at a mate's rate price from its original owner who was moving on to anothere DSLR brand and wanted to dump his kit. Unlike me, Significant Other shoots mostly general, day to day scenes, and pursues our cats in an endless quest for the perfect indoor and outdoor feline portrait. </p> <p>This may well be just a by the way, but in using the D700 an D90, I find I have much less post processing work to do than with my other DSLRs in the past. Which suits me. I already have two lifetimes of old negative and slide scanning yet to be done, so the less time spent on the computer, the better. </p> <p>Am I just an old dinosaur with my D90? Or are there others out there doing the same?</p> <p>I am quite curious to find out. </p> <p>JDW somewhere in Tasmania. </p>

<p>Another Pandora's box has been opened here! I would go for either the Nikon 28mm 2.8 D or 35mm 2 D. Both these lenses are able to produce quite superb results. Many are available used, see Ebay. You will have spare change left from your $600-$670, and making do with a good prime for your photography will do wonders for your self discipline and sense of composition.</p> <p>Unless you are looking for panoramas and enjoy doing a lot of post processing, I have found the Nikon 24mm isn't a good lens for landscape work, it generally includes too much and you end up with images suffering from subject overload. Distortion is manageable even with the 28 and almost nonexistent with the 35mm, unlike the 24mm and certainly the 20mm, which both distort quite grandly.</p> <p>I generally keep a 28mm 2.8D on my Nikon D700 and find I use it for most of my general shooting. My 24mm handles panoramas well with lots of cropping later in PP, and on occasion I use a 20mm in tight situations like Buddhist temples or crowded and narrow Asian markets when I want lots of detail in my images.</p> <p>My partner shoots almost entirely landscapes with an old Nikkor 50mm 2 from one of my old film Nikons or an 85mm 1.8 D.</p> <p>I have a small collection of Nikon zooms but they are almost never used. When I do reach for a zoom, often as not it's an old (1990s) 28-85 D with very battered finish but the sharpest glass I've ever seen in any zoom.</p> <p>Landscapes are (usually) very personal work. Less is - well, it's less. And better.</p> <p>The thought of spending up to $700 for any one lens is mind-boggling to me. I always buy used and carefully. My 20mm 2.8 D cost $310 and the last lens I purchased was a 180mm 2.8 ED for $360. The bargains in good lenses are out there if you put in the time and effort to find them.</p> <p>JDW at home. </p> <p>Post from Philip Greenspun noted. What a surprise (and a pleasure) to see Philip posting here again!</p>

<p>JDM, I meant to say, but forgot in my rush to type all my earlier text, many many many thanks for the effort you have put into this post. Also similar thanks to all the others who have contributed. In all ways, a lively topic, this. With much valuable information. I have learned a great deal from all the posts. One is never too old to self-apply the old dog, new tricks philosophy.</p> <p>Edward, your point is most important and I fell foul of this last year while scanning some 30-40 rolls of old B&W films. In my rush to finalise the post processing, I inadvertently changed the file numbers but didn't update the new numbers on the original negative files, the final results being I now have about 20 rolls of post processed scans, but no clue whatsoever as to where the originals are. Lots of work ahead for me. A valuable lesson learned. </p> <p>Again, thank you all. I wish more posts on photo.net were like this one.</p> <p>JDW at home. </p>

<p>Cheap lenses are abundant. Mounting them to a Nikon will be the expensive part.</p> <p>A young Tasmanian photographer did some beaut work with an old Soviet enlarging lens from the '70s. But it took his handyman dad (a friend of mine) several hours of diligent toil in his workshop to fix up a suitable mount to put it on a Nikon DSLR. I donated a camera body front cap which he (very carefully) drilled into a circular mount for the aforesaid lens. Results were truly amazing - coma, fringing, color shifts, convergence, divergence, unpredictable levels of sharpness alternating with blur. Ordinarily boring bush landscapes became like something one would expect on a faraway planet like Mars or Uranus. </p> <p>Another photographer I know used a door peephole device (per Glen's suggestion), with similar results, 'tho more panoramic. </p> <p>Possibilities are endless. As are bargains in better lenses. At a backyard sale in Hobart I visited last weekend, I picked up an almost new Nikon 18-55 DSLR kit lens with hood and an original L39C filter for $20. Passed up a Zeiss Nettar 6x6 in reasonable body condition for $50 because of torn bellows and a damaged back. The case alone I would have paid $50 for ten years ago. Times sure do change. Film cameras and lenses once costing small mints to buy are to be found everywhere for cents on the dollar now and people want to play with door peephole devices... </p> <p>JDW at home. </p>

<p>JDM's timely post and good advice has motivated me to share a few additional points learned after much effort and (too much) time spent scanning over the past decade. <br /><br />1. Get dedicated portable hard disks for your scans.This sets the scanned work apart from your regular storage and backup systems, and may prolong the usable life of all those precious archival scans. I use an electrical plug-in Western Digital 2TB portable disk with my original scans, and a computer plug-in Western Digital 2TB portable disk for work copies. I also keep work copies in folders in my desktop computer. <br /><br />2. Keep everything on the scanner turned off. ALL post processing effects (sharpening, color correcting etcetera) should be done after scanning. <br /><br />3. Carefully sort out images to be scanned before you start to scan. In 2013 we found a long lost folder of 2,000+ family pet images, mainly B&W and color negatives, many dating to the 1970s and 1980s. Two thorough culls reduced the work load down to about 700 and I am now devoting one evening each week to the scans. The end result will be an album of about 50-60 8x8 images of the best shots of our once beloved cat and dog family members. Well worth the effort, but can easily become sanity-eroding if not done with care. Music and good red wine also goes a long way to making this task bearable.<br /><br />4. Get the best scanner/s you can afford.After struggling with a (now long obsolete) Canon flatbed scanner with so-so results, when I retired in 2012 I did some research and finally opted for an old but unused demo Plustek for the 35mm, and an Epson Perfection V600 I for the 645, 6x6 and 69. The Plustek software was maddening (designed by and for perfectionist Germans) and the Epson software was not quite up to what I wanted, and I finally bought VueScan, which does everything just fine. Like Edward, I scan in TIFF, and live with huge files. Western Digital storage is cheap nowadays. You may want to do your less important images in JPEG. Entirely your choice. <br /><br />5. Plan your scanning time carefully. Set yourself a sensible scanning schedule and stay with it. Scanning is tedious, but it need not be brain cell destroying. I've found color slides to be the slowest (also the most difficult) to scan and a good evening's work for me is 2-3 yellow Kodak boxes scanned. Color negatives seem to scan well without having to shed any blood or sweat. B&W negatives can be fiddly but results are fine. I clean the originals with care, usually one or two light blasts with canned air and that's it. <br /><br />4. Don't aim for total perfection in your scans. Pick the best initially and scan at the highest level. And yes, keep those originals, or the best of them. Let common sense prevail. Chill and make the best of it. A lot of scanning is automated and you can do other enjoyable things during the scan time. <br /><br />After 50+ years in the darkroom printing I am relieved to be out in the light and finally enjoying other things while my scanners whirr away. One has only so much time and it is up to use to use it to our best advantage. <br /><br />This post is entirely too long, but as a (now retired) newspaper journalist and design architect, I'm used to lengthy and detailed writing. I am also long-winded. My thoughts, hope all this will be useful to some. <br /><br />JDW at home in Tasmania</p>