tomspielman

Are these scans or prints? How old was the film? The last time I had a roll processed at walgreens the scans were low resolution and looked pretty bad. Obviously 400 speed film is going to have more grain than 100 or 200 speed film, - which you can find on-line fairly easily. It's not so easy to find in stores outside of a well stocked photographic supply store. That said, I was pretty happy with the results I got with Ultramax 400 this Summer and Fall. You can see grain (or dye clouds) in shots that have lot of sky in them (or anything with a uniform shade). It seems especially noticeable in parts of a photo that are underexposed or out of focus. But I didn't find it objectionable as long as I got things close to to right. It's all a matter of taste though. For fixing scans, any post processing software that allows you to adjust the white balance can probably make the colors look the way they are supposed to. I asked about the age of the film since it may have been sitting in the store awhile. I do shoot a lot of expired film and one thing I've noticed is that it can look grainier.

You can also do this in Mojave so you don't have to wait until the apps won't run. :). If you go to the system report and click on "Applications" it will list all the apps. There will be a column for whether they're 64 bit or not, - which you can sort by. I'm holding out for now because I don't want to upgrade MS Office.

Very nice. It was the purchase of an Olympus OM series camera that caused me to get rid of all the Canon film gear I had collected to that point. I've had a few different OM-2n and 1n cameras. Also a 2s. Got an all black OM-1n recently after deciding that's the one is what I liked the most. Sold all the rest but I also have an XA.

Good thread. I don't do a lot of printing except the annual photo book I create for my wife every year for Mother's Day. But there's no way to know while taking the pics if or how they would end up being in displayed in that book. Cropping is inevitable but generally not too much of a problem. Occasionally I do end up not using a picture I had initially selected because I couldn't combine it with other photos on a page in a way that I liked, - and mostly that would be due to having to crop it in a way that loses too much. When I do make a larger print of an individual picture, it is sometimes a pain to have to deal with standard print sizes. I have a matte cutter and have used that to get around the problem. I've also seen people add borders or fake mattes to the image itself to pad it out to a standard print size. It's another opportunity for some creativity. Text and/our flourishes of all sorts could be included. It won't protect a photo the way a real matte would.

Unfortunately an ever larger portion of my job deals with information security. Even as a small company with relatively little of value from a hacker's perspective we are a target just because we have an Internet presence. And we get attacks on a daily basis, - sometimes an unending stream of them. All automated. The article is correct in that a home computer behind a firewall (your home router) doesn't have the same degree of exposure as many business systems do. The main thing you need to keep up to date is your browser. But the article is assuming that you're running a firewall on your home router and that it's protecting your computer. The problem is that home routers and firewalls have a whole host of vulnerabilities too. So just because you have a firewall operating on your router, doesn't mean your computer is protected. When's the last time you checked to see if there was a firmware update for your router? We all take risks just by living and you have to decide what risks are worth taking and which ones aren't. But just because something hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.

The easy thing to do would be to take your test shots on a digital camera with the ISO set at whatever film speed you intend to use. If you don't have a DLSR available, get a camera app for your phone that allows for manual settings of ISO, aperture, and shutter speed. You could probably do a little testing ahead of time by shooting a light through stained glass at night or behind some translucent material I'd also recommend a tripod, shooting the balloons while on the ground (not moving), and hoping for a calm night. If the shutter speeds are going to be slow, - and they probably will be, a remote shutter release or using the self timer to trigger the shutter might be a good idea.

My processing skills aren't sophisticated enough that I play around with development times much. So I generally shoot at box speed with a few exceptions. One is when I'm using expired film, - I may shoot it at a slower ISO depending how expired it is. Also if I'm using a filter on a camera that doesn't meter through the lens. Otherwise I shoot at box speed but I may choose an exposure different from what the built-in meter suggests based on how the subject is lit and how the camera meters.

I've only recently (in the last few years) learned very much about metering. Still have lots to learn. But I never would have bothered if it weren't for my interest in film. I also take better digital pictures as a result. Digital cameras are something I've used to help me learn. And especially for long exposures I'll often take a few samples with a digital camera to make sure that what I get on film will turn out. But there are some things that you can't really use a digital camera to help you with, - like how processing times or agitation affect what you get on a negative or even the impact of using one developer vs another. Film will have its up and downs in popularity. Hopefully it will remain popular enough to keep film and chemicals on the market.

Were cup holders standard equipment in that '65 ? ;)

I liking using film cameras but I enjoy tinkering with the cameras themselves or doing this kind of thing at least as much. Well done !

A Fujica GS645, a red filter and some 20 year old SFX 200. We'll see what happens. :)

For that tiny of a light leak to appear in the same spot in two different cameras seems really unlikely unless it's an area prone to light leaks on a Rollei 35. I'd think there'd be other examples of it out there on the net. Has anyone looked?

I use an electric roaster I got from a thrift shop that's switched on and off with a Raspberry Pi setup to regulate temperature. There's a specific algorithm used that you have to tune that I can't remember the name of off the top of my head. It learns how quickly the water is heated by the roaster and adjusts itself accordingly to keep the temp where it's supposed to be. It was a fun little project. I use a cheap aquarium pump to circulate the water. It works well but it's overkill. Sous-vides have gotten inexpensive and are good solution but honestly a small insulated drink cooler filled with water would do the job just fine. Add hot and cold water as necessary to get the temp to where it should be. Though maybe not quite as important as it is for C-41, B&W processing times often assume a certain temperature. It's around room temp but "room temp" varies significantly in my basement from season to season. So I use the water in a cooler technique with B&W chemicals.

Were these processed and scanned by the same place? Wonder if it might not be a problem with the cameras but in how the film was processed.

I don't have any personal experience with these cameras. I'm kind of tempted to say it's a light leak but if it is one, its impact is concentrated in a much smaller area than what I've seen before.

Also, it can be handled under a red safe light. Not that that has a particular benefit to me, but it might to some.

A photograph can be that. But I think it's more accurate to say that an un-altered photograph is what a camera captured on some medium over some period of time. The time interval could be short or relatively long. A simple example: This weekend I plan to shoot a roll of 20 year old Ilford SFX 200 using a red filter. I have an idea of what the photographs might look like but it won't be what I saw, - at least I hope not. I expect that there will be some resemblance to what I saw and with some luck, at least one photography will look cool.

I think that is but one way to look at photography. And it is a way that suggests limitations that don't really exist, - especially in the digital age. A photographer is using light to form an image. That image may be left more or less as is, combined with other images and/or molded into something very different.

That is a fantastic picture, but is photography limited to a single photo? I don't think so. I'm not sure I know what you mean by structure. Photography involves a means of capturing light to produce an image. It could be glass and sensors or a hole in the side of box and some film. But I contend that the process of photography starts well before the light hits the sensor or the film and continues until the photographer is satisfied with the image(s), - or gives up.

Photography as Narrative Art I'm not going argue that traditional photography provides the same kind of flexibility in achieving an end result that painting does. A photograph starts with something that exists, - at least for an instant. A painting doesn't have that limitation. But I don't think photography belongs in the small box you're trying to place it in. And the level of flexibility of photography is only increasing as we move further into the digital world. The end result may only bear the tiniest resemblance to what was in front of the camera when the shutter was clicked. Modern photographers with all the emphasis on post processing may be becoming more like painters than the photographers of decades past were.

Yes, this. It's an optional scanning feature sometimes called "ICE". Usually when I have it on by accident with B&W films, it looks a lot worse. The good news is that it's not a problem with the negatives. Just have them re-scan with ICE off.