tomspielman

“The kind of photography I did is gone. It’s old,” Frank told the Guardian in 2004. “There’s no point in it any more for me, and I get no satisfaction from trying to do it. There are too many pictures now. It’s overwhelming.” There are things I was passionate about doing as a young person that I'm not passionate about anymore. I wonder if that was part of why he felt the way he did. Certainly things have changed radically when it comes to photography, but I think those kinds of subjects and stories are still out there.

Just a caution that ICE doesn't always work on water spots either. Something that helped me which I learned from someone here: Before you take your negatives off the reel to dry, shake the reel vigorously a few times to get as much water off the film as you can. I here you when it comes to grainy skies, that's what made me look at some other developers.

Olympus OM-2S : 135mm Zuiko : Ilford XP2

Boat Rental and Inspection Shacks, Lake Harriet, Minneapolis. Olympus OM-2s, 135mm Zuiko Lens, Ilford XP2

This a relevant topic for me because I'd been looking for a B&W film/developer combination for speedier film that didn't deliver results as grainy as I was getting with 400 speed film and HC-110. A couple of weeks ago I tried XTOL and was very happy. This past week I tried a roll of XP2 and was also quite pleased. Next I'll try a less diluted batch of HC-110 to see if I can get close to what XTOL managed. HC-110 is attractive because the long shelf life makes it a very economical choice. XTOL and XP2 both looked good but are more expensive options. Also I feel that in a way XP2 isn't really a B&W film. It does have the added advantage that it's compatible with ICE.

My guess is that ICE will still have problems because all you've done is use the silver in the film in the same way it's used in traditional B&W. With C-41, the dye clouds are used for color (or shades of grey) and the silver is removed during the bleaching process. In B&W processing, the silver remains, which is what provides the image, but also what causes problems for ICE. Is there a reason you don't just process it using C-41? It's really no more difficult than B&W. The only part that's a little more challenging (but not really) is maintaining the temp of the chemicals. All you need is a cooler filled with water heated to 102 °F. You can do this by adding hot and cold water from your tap until the temp is right. Set your chemical bottles in the water bath to warm them up. You do need a decent thermometer. The one nice thing about C-41 is that you don't have to worry about dilutions or different development times with different film/developer combinations. C-41 is C-41.

It surprises me what people want for expired film but I have gotten a bunch at a garage sale for very little money so it can be done. Finding stuff like good used changing bags and reels might require some patience. Just a quick search of the craigslist adds in my area show stuff like timers, trays, and other miscellaneous darkroom stuff, along with several enlargers, but no reels or tanks. I know that they pop up now and then.

I did this once a few years ago. It took some wiggling but eventually it came out. Be careful of the strings that connect the aperture and shutter speed rings to the meter.

My first tank and reel was $5.00 set that I found on craigslist. The tank was fine but the reel had one of those awful spring clips. Had a I been less determined, using that reel might have turned me off to processing my own film completely. Eventually I got a decent Hewes reel on Ebay that worked well. When I started with medium format I purchased a two-reel Patterson tank that will let you process two 35mm rolls or a single 120 roll. So while you can find used dark room stuff cheap, it's not necessarily what you're looking for and not necessarily good.

Looks promising! I received my Fujica GS645 yesterday. I had pressed the seller a little bit more on his light tightness claims of the bellows and he said he couldn't guarantee it. I almost passed on it but he came down on the price a bit, so I went for it. As I unfolded it for the first time, it made a sound very much like bare skin pealing off a hot vinyl seat. My hopes for a light tight bellows sank. I got a flashlight and headed for a closet. At first it looked good, but further inspection showed several bad corners, - so I'll be putting in a new bellows. Disappointing, but not completely unexpected. Otherwise the camera seems to work just fine and is in good shape. It's somewhat bigger and heavier than I expected. Many reviews I read gushed over its compactness and how it can easily fit in a coat pocket. While it is compact for a medium format camera, it's not compact in any other context. ;) It needs a roomy pocket. It will fit in the inside pocket of my ski jacket so that's good. It remains to be seen whether I keep this camera long term.

I think it's difficult for you to understand precisely because you've been doing it since age 10. For somebody like my whose only been doing it a few years, the initial struggles with getting film on a reel in a changing bag just relying on my sense of touch is fresh in my mind. I've gotten good enough at it now that Lab-Box doesn't have any appeal, but it might have a few years ago. In addition to the cost of a changing bag and a regular tank/reels, you've got to find a sacrificial roll of film. In my case both 35mm and 120. So that might cost $50 or more (changing bag, patterson tank, film). Still a whole lot cheaper than lab-box, but not free.

Smartphone manufacturers are taking a different approach from interchangeable lenses. Instead they are installing multiple cameras with lenses of different focal lengths. It's not as flexible but allows for some interesting things like taking two images simultaneously with different exposure settings and different focal lengths and combining them into a single image.

The assumption that you're making is that a digital end result is the purpose rather than just the means. Some reasons what I shoot film but don't use a darkroom: A hybrid process doesn't produce results that look like an all digital one. That alone may be why some prefer the hybrid process. I have a Canon 60D (APS-C) that I use regularly but it's not hard to produce a better image on my $50 Yashica 12. Sure I can spend more money on a full frame digital or even a medium format digital camera, but I don't want to. I can always have a traditional print made down the road or even decide that I'd enjoy having a darkroom Without much effort, a negative or slide will likely outlive me. Digital images will require some attention and diligence to survive and be accessible after I'm gone. I'm taking steps to do that, but when I get too old... The most important reason I shoot and process film is that I find it more satisfying and enjoyable than simply pushing a button. I like fixing old cameras and using them. If I just want a quick picture, I'm more than happy to use a digital camera or my phone. I'm not religious about film. My wife doesn't get why I enjoy sailing so much either. It's way too much work in her mind. If your purpose is to move swiftly across a body of water, there are much quicker and convenient ways to accomplish that. But my purpose in sailing is not to move swiftly across a body of water.

Here's what will happen after the sales, - the prices will eventually go up because the volume of sales will be down. Just like what happened to film and processing.

I might be in the minority but I kind of like that picture. Not sure it was intentional but all that's sharp is one hand, a section of pipe and part of the apron that reads "Go Greek". The picture conveys the scale of the food prep operation, the hard work, and the heat. The guy is blurry because he's in motion, - working. Again, not sure that that's what the photographer was trying to achieve or if it just caught someone's eye out of the 40 pictures they had to choose from. That picture would not be typical of what you'd get if you let the camera do all the thinking.

I read the local paper regularly, - while in the break room at work. It is a popular publication in the break room and probably lots of break rooms, but I don't know how many people subscribe personally anymore. We have subscribed at times in the past but what ends up happening is that we have a lot of unread newspaper to recycle. In terms of the photography within either the print or on-line version don't have much of an opinion honestly. Generally the on-line version has a lot more photographs and I can't say I've found it lacking.

The pads are a good place to start. If a camera hasn't been used in 18 years, lubricants can get sticky. Sometimes just repeatedly firing the shutter will loosen things up.

Yes, that's what I suspect as well.

Young bearded dragon staring out the window of his new college home at the frat house next door. It probably would have sat there for hours.

I'm assuming that in this case (the OP) that the local jurisdiction gets to decide exactly what "commercial" means or maybe more accurately, what they require a permit for and what they don't. Apparently though from my phone call with the park service, taking a picture of Minnehaha Falls and trying to sell a print is not a commercial use (at least not covered by the commercial permit) but is considered a "Portrait". It makes no sense to me. The problem IMHO, is that their permit application really only covers those uses they intend to strictly regulate and not those that they will only selectively regulate.

Very nice pics Rick ! I'm on my 2nd Yashica 12 and have been happy with the quality of the pictures it produces. Like yours, the meter took a little work to resurrect but it was otherwise in excellent condition, - although I did need to re-stich the case. I agree that it's a good value since it's essentially a better built 124G without the ability to shoot 220 film which is hard to find anyway. There is one other rumored advantage to the 124G. Apparently it's got some additional baffling to reduce flare. Some people have flocked the insides of their 12s to minimize the problem but it's not been much of an issue for me. I use the little hood often, - at least when I remember to bring it. From an ergonomic standpoint TLRs are not my favorite, but I get comments from people just about every time I bring it out.

Well, what do you know? It's kind of cool looking but pretty low spec. It sounds like it prints every picture you take if there's paper loaded. Kind of in spirit with an old polaroid I guess.