tomspielman

Yeah, I'm sure what you've said is all true and if for any reason I happened to be out of vinegar I'd probably just use plain water. I'll leave it to more knowledgable people to argue over why to use a stop bath or why you don't need it. :) I think it's fairly safe to say though that it's not absolutely essential when processing film.

A couple of things I noticed taking a closer look at the top two photos: There are actually several horizontal bands across the film. The line between the top two bands is thin and razor sharp. I don't know that that would be caused by too little developer in the tank. Were these photos shot through a window? There appears to be some reflections/ghosting.

Here's an article that claims that Arista's EDU 400 film is actually behaves more like 200 ISO film: Ilford HP5+ & Arista EDU 400 Film Comparison! - JYJ Photography Of course that's not the same as having the canister and the film labeled differently. Anyway, I believe Arista EDU is a low cost re-branded film and it might not be the best choice if you're looking for consistency and a high degree of quality control.

Developing: I don't think I've ever put developer in the tank before the film even with D76 and it didn't seem to hurt anything. If you're happy with the results from the monobath then that's fine but the extra couple of steps in the normal process are relatively fool proof. The only real way to screw it up is to have bad fixer or not leave the film in the fixer long enough. The beauty of it though is that even after the film has dried you can re-fix it if something went wrong in the fixing step. And I don't want to start an argument with this statement but you will likely still get good results even if you forget the stop both or just rinse with water between the developer and fixer. Plus, accidentally leaving your film in the stop bath too long won't hurt anything. You don't have to be very precise about it. So there really isn't much more of a risk of screwing things up with the normal process. If you're worried about cost or just trying to avoid having to order/keep more photo chemicals than what you really need, - diluted white vinegar works great as a stop bath. And like I've said, some people use plain water though I'm not advocating that. Ilford's explanation of common processing errors with example negatives Opening Cassettes/Canisters: A bottle opener isn't the perfect tool for the job and some are better than others, - but they will work. It might take a few attempts. Usually if you keep at it, you can pry an end off eventually.

Link to their explanation of the Rangefinder Seemed like they were describing a typical rangefinder to me. The way it was written implies that they are targeting this camera at people who aren't used to manually focusing or rangefinders. Wealthy people who don't know much about cameras and that want something similar to a Leica without having to deal with film? I like the concept but the likely quality of the images doesn't match the price

BackBlaze is $60 per year for unlimited storage. It's not what I'd call cheap but it is peace of mind. They could go out of business tomorrow so there is always a risk. That's why I also keep a local backup. But you're right in that you have to decide what level of risk is acceptable to you. The risk of your house burning down or being carried off in a flood probably isn't that high depending on where you live. If I only shot film I could just keep the negatives somewhere else like my office. But I have lots of digital photos too that I'd really not want to lose. The biggest real risk would be what would happen to our family photos if I died. I'll confess to not having a great answer. I make a photo book of the best each year. And I'm sure my family would be able to track down some of them on my computer, but probably not all of them.

:) There's a couple of important points made in carbon_dragon's post: The first is that it is important to keep a set of backups in a second location. The second point is that even as a former UNIX admin, he doesn't consistently follow his own advice for his personal backups. And the reason he doesn't completely follow his own advice is probably because it's not convenient or it's something he has to remember to do. I understand this completely because I also used to be responsible for backups at a company and knew what I SHOULD be doing to backup up my own files. But I only did it sporadically, - until I started using a service that backs up my data to a 2nd location (the cloud) automatically. You're right, there's nothing magical about it and I also keep a backup at home. But it does take care of that important part of a backup plan that I wasn't very consistent about doing on my own. There is another thing that people should be doing that they don't often do: Periodically check to see if their backups are working. Restore some files every now and then.

You couldn't use 16mm movie film? Or this:

Isn't the T2 titanium? Not sure how much plastic is inside. If a camera is working well for you I don't know why you would want to retire it. There is a lot of plastic in many modern film cameras but some were designed to be more robust than others. And the ones that aren't that robust seem to be on the inexpensive side anyway and are usually easy to find replacements for. There are exceptions.

I think they sell a re-brand a whole lot of products they don't produce themselves. But in this case it sounds like they will be the manufacturers.

Might be slightly off topic. Kodak lands loan to bolster U.S.-produced drug supply I could see how this might turn into a nasty political discussion but I hope it doesn't. I think it's a good way to help keep at least one film company afloat and solve another problem. Hopefully it doesn't mean shutting down some film production.

I agree with all of that. Pre-Covid I used to frequently walk through an old building over lunch and in the lobby area were a few photos from the early 1900's taken shortly after the building was first constructed. They were enlarged to over 8 ft tall and as you can imagine, the quality suffered. And given the technology of the time, they probably weren't the most sharp photos to start with. So they aren't great photos. You can't really make out facial features. But I stop to look at them every time. I'm fascinated with them. One is a picture of people watching a baseball game at a field that used to be nearby. The fans were all dressed in their Sunday best. Another was a view of parade from near the top of one of the buildings. Again, people were dressed up and sitting/standing on thin ledges and steep pitches or hanging out of windows 15 or 20 stories above the street. These were men and women of all sorts, - doing something that virtually no-one today would consider remotely safe. But I wouldn't be as interested in contemporary photos. Street photos become much more interesting decades after they were taken. Also I don't think Gilden's tactics are necessary or add much, if anything. Pictures of people doing what they would be doing anyway is interesting enough to my eyes. Just my opinion. When taking pictures of my own family, I prefer the candid shots rather than having them react to a camera.

Yeah, that's why I do it this way. I have a raid set up like Ed and that gets backed up to a single large external drive via TimeMachine The raid also gets backed up by BackBlaze to the cloud. I have it run only at night. Neither the raid or the TimeMachine backup will help me if the place burns to the ground or someone breaks in and steals everything. The best part about it is that it's all automatic. I don't have to remember to do anything.

Dismay and hope found in one place.

There are ways to restore a Time Machine backup on Windows. But what I do along with my time machine backup is back up my computer to the cloud using a service like BackBlaze.

There's also a professional photographer who shoots with old digital cameras. Really I think it's always been about the photographer and knowing how to use the equipment to play to its strengths. I recently purchased an old Canon waterproof P&S that's developed something of a cult following. The reviews rave about its image quality. Personally I'm not that impressed. It's 90's era brain is easily fooled by challenging light conditions and there's no manual controls to allow you to compensate, - but it is a fun little camera. I think of it as a notch above a disposable. But in the hands of a good photographer it would take some excellent pictures. Fred Herzog apparently used one for awhile. Nevertheless the choice of equipment always involves some compromise and limitations. That doesn't mean you can't happily work within those limitations.

I'm very much aware that there are serious problems in the world. I've had a front row seat over the last few months. Many of those problems result from having too little regard for other people. If feeling that way makes me a moralist I'm quite OK with that. Personally I don't care if someone takes my picture while I'm out and about. But I prefer to go through my day without being harassed or manipulated, whether by a "street photographer" or someone else.

Certainly people in public react to what's around them including photographers. But having photographers deliberately create a reaction to get a picture IMO, is violating the spirit of the law. I would agree that in a lot of cases that it's harmless. If I hire an excellent magician to perform tricks on a street corner and want to get pictures of people reacting to them, I don't think anyone would object too much. Getting consent would still be an ethical thing to do. However, when I was in San Francisco many years ago on Fisherman's Wharf, a homeless person jumped on to the sidewalk and yelled, - right in front of a couple of tourists. A photographer snapped their picture. The couple was startled to say the least. The homeless person then smiled and made it clear he wasn't going to hurt them. And after they went on their way, the photographer gave the homeless person a little bit of money and he hid again waiting for the next group of unsuspecting people. Then I noticed a little crowd had gathered. They were also waiting for reaction of the next victims. Harmless? Maybe. But I'm not sure the couple was even aware that their picture was taken and I don't think that's the kind of thing the law was meant to protect. Again, I think the justification for the law is that people in public are making themselves available to be seen. They aren't consenting to be models to be posed by photographers.

To me it is related to consent and the right to photograph people in public spaces. In my opinion, something implicit in the legality of take pictures of people in public spaces is that you're just capturing what is there for everyone to see anyway. You're not interfering. The author used the word genuine. I wouldn't have expressed it that way but to be fair to him his objections go beyond that. I agree with you that there is a lot of manipulation that can happen before and after the shutter is pressed to make the photo much different (or less genuine) than what was really in front of the camera.

Did Gilden get releases from the people he jumped out at? He well may have, I don't know. The argument for it being legal to publish photographs of random people in public places is that they are already making themselves available for all to see in whatever state they are in. Though I agree that such photos can be exploitive while still being legal. In Gilden's case, he is sometimes using members of the public like models. He is posing them. His subjects are reacting to him. To me that's different. That's using the street like a studio. In my mind that requires consent. Again, I'm not saying that photographers shouldn't ask for permission in other cases. I'll acknowledge that it quickly gets grey. If I wait for someone to walk in front of a particular sign before pressing the shutter button, I'm also posing them to a certain degree, but I'm not changing what would have happened anyway. I'm not interfering with them. Street photography is not something I actively engage in very often. And I have asked for permission when taking pictures of individuals doing something unusual. But I tend to avoid pictures like that. I'll photograph crowds or take pictures of what people have created/left behind rather than the people themselves. There are exceptions. I wish this one would have turned out better. This was Minneapolis on the morning after a number of buildings had been set on fire during the recent protests and riots. There was smokey haze in the air and the film I had in the camera was a little slow for the conditions. Anyway, these people were working. I was not going to stop them from doing their jobs in order to get permission to take pictures. Also they're not readily identifiable except for maybe one National Guardsman. And while there were plenty of pictures taken by thousands of people, I felt it was important for me to capture what it was like at this time in my immediate area, - even if it's only my kids and grandkids that ever see these pictures. As far as long lenses go, I think they have their place in street photography as long as you're not using them to hide the fact that you're taking pictures. The problem with a short lens is that it can require you to get in the way to get the shot you want, which also has its ethical problems. I think I took the photo above with a 135mm lens

That happed to me when I accidentally processed B&W film in C41. I guess when there is no dye and you bleach away all the silver, there isn't really anything left. :) The developer must have really been in bad shape if you got nothing at all. When testing cameras I'll often use expired film and/or aging chemicals. I've gone well past the recommended 6 months and 8 rolls with a single batch of C41. I've used dark-ish developer but nothing nearly as opaque as coffee. I'm sure in my case some of the resulting images have been somewhat degraded with the old chemicals but nothing so bad that I threw the whole lot out. But I do use collapsible bottles and store them "full" out of the light.

I have two things to try. The first is to operate the switch, - turn it back and forth among the positions many times. Sometimes the contacts get dirty and don't work correctly. The 2nd thing to try is more of a diagnostic. The OM-2 has an interesting feature. It works in "Auto" mode when it's turned off, but only to a certain extent. The slowest the shutter will go when turned off is 1/30. The reason it works this way is so that you can get that quick shot off if needed. Of course if the film isn't advanced you'll still be out of luck. Anyway, if you set the switch to manual and fire the shutter in a darkish room, does it fire really slowly like it would in auto mode? Or does it fire at around 1/30? Either way it sounds like the switch isn't working right. If you've ever had the top off of an OM-2 you'll see that there are number of contacts on the switch that press down on a circular pattern of corresponding copper traces. Those contacts could easily be bent and both the contacts and the traces can get dirty. Manually cleaning them might fix your problem. I've had multiple OM-1 cameras whose meters worked only sporadically because of dirty contacts. I'm guessing and old OM-2 might have similar issues.

We have been conditioned to react differently to color images as opposed to black and white. How photographs are presented takes advantage of that. I'm pretty sure that some photos I've seen on the net were de-colorized in order to emphasize their historical nature. I wish I could point out specific examples but I can't. Color photography was pretty dominant by the 60's. So when I see a non-newspaper photo from the 80's displayed in B&W on some Internet article about the past I get suspicious. Colorizing B&W photos has the opposite effect. It makes them look more contemporary. I appreciate the colorization efforts even though I believe the original B&W photos are also priceless as they are.