tomspielman

The appeal of Caffenol to newbies I'll leave the tray processing aside for the moment. Back when I first started developing film, - maybe it was 3 or 4 years ago, I was also very intrigued by caffenol. I think a lot of people on this forum have been processing film since long before digital was a thing. And even if that's not true, most of you are concerned about getting high quality results. Film processing has been around a long time and there are a wide variety of commercial developers still around to suit most everyone's needs. You also probably shoot more than just the occasional roll so mixing up a liter or gallon of developer is not a big deal. Someone new to film and film processing looks at it differently. All of them know that if they want high quality, idiot proof results, a digital camera is readily available for them to use. Using a film camera at all to the newbie entails some risk. They've probably started with commercial processing so they know that their camera at least works. But they probably aren't as experienced with film and film cameras as all of you. For me the risk was part of the fun of film. And processing film makes me feel a bit like a mad scientist. Using Caffenol only enhances that feeling. So while I don't think telling people to start with D76 is bad advice, I think starting with Caffenol is just fine. It's 3 ingredients, - 4 if you include water. If you can measure and mix things, you will get images from Caffenol. You can also mix at room temperature which is not true of D76, not with the typical instructions anyway. Using Caffenol for the first time is far easier than making chocolate chip cookies. Another plus with Caffenol is that you can mix as much or as little as you need. I was happy with results I got but I've since moved on. I don't want to spend as much time mixing and would prefer less grain.

I've shot lots of expired film, some a good 10 years older than what you have but haven't processed any expired slide film. I've also processed old film that had been in sitting in cameras for decades. The film that's been sitting in cameras hasn't turned out as well. As Glen mentioned a lot depends on how it was stored. If you found your film in an attic, I would forget it. The heat will have ruined it. If you found it in a box in a closet where the temperatures would have been moderated, then the chances of it producing decent (if not perfect) images improves. Generally I've had good experience with color negative and B&W 35 mm film. I did have one roll of 120 B&W film turn out bad that was from the 90's. The pictures were taken in August but it looked like I was shooting in a snow storm, there were these little white specs everywhere. Some have speculated that 120 is more prone to damage because it's not inside a metal canister like 35mm is. Every day low levels of various types of radiation slowly degrade the film, - at least that's what I've been told. The canisters offer some protection. Again, that's what I've heard. I wouldn't bet my life on the science. :) The general rule when shooting color negative film is to subtract one stop from box speed for every decade past expiration. So if you had 10 year old 400 speed film, you'd shoot it at 200. But I've shot expired film at box speed and it seemed OK. With slide film, I'd defer to what Glen said. I've shot a couple of rolls of expired slide film but it's still sitting in my fridge waiting to be processed. I've been meaning to try processing E6 at home but don't want to fork over money for chemicals just for two rolls of expired film. If you do process/scan your own film, one thing I've noticed is that new film is nice and flat when compared to older stuff. The old film has a more pronounced curl to it that can make scanning more of a challenge depending on the kinds of mounts you use. My one caution is to treat all expired film with unknown history as suspect and just shoot it for fun and the learning experience. Though I've had generally good results, I've also had some bad. Normally I used expired film for testing old cameras. Last Summer we took an impromptu trip to a cabin. I wanted to take my medium format camera and shoot some B&W but had nothing in the fridge except some expired stuff. So I grabbed that and ended up with some bad results on what would have otherwise been fun pictures of the kids.

I've gotten several things from goodwill auctions as well, but the word has gotten out because often times the prices will be a much as eBay and it can be hard to know what the actual condition of the item is. And if it's not local the shipping/handling is expensive and often slow. So I used to filter just for the local Goodwill but they'd gotten in the habit of selling cameras in lots rather than individually. The prices could be pretty good but you'd end up with10 cameras even if you only wanted one of them. I'm actively trying to keep my camera collection very limited so that just doesn't work.

I have a Hewes stainless steel 35mm reel that I used before I started working with 120, then I got a Patterson tank. Now I use the Patterson for both, just because it's usually within easy reach. At first I had trouble getting 120 started and I ended up modifying one of the reels so I could slide a credit card through the outermost spirals near the grippy balls. This gave the 120 some support across its span while feeding into the reel. Once I got it started, I pulled the card out. Now I don't use the card anymore but I still have occasional trouble and I believe it's because the balls sometimes stick. So as long as I make sure the balls can move freely, things seem to go well.

Living in Minnesota we try to take a tropical family vacation every few winters. In 2013 it was Belize. In 2015 it was Hawaii. And in 2018 it was Dominican Republic. We did some diving and/or snorkeling on all of those trips and I got some digital underwater cameras to take along, - A Nikon AW110 and a reputable Chinese knockoff of the GoPro. During the trip in 2018 they both had some issues. The housing on the GoPro knockoff had some stress cracks around the hinges and it flooded on a dive. The camera was shot. The Nikon has a known problem that develops over time with the screen. Corrosion on the hdmi port leads the camera to think there's monitor connected so the screen goes blank. There are some temporary fixes but the problem always comes back. Last year I got an old Nikonos film camera and reading up on them I discovered that people who frequently use them for diving will likely experience a flooded camera at some point. A Nikonos can often survive it if flushed with fresh water right away. My takeaway is that frequently used underwater cameras have a limited lifespan. :) I think GoPro has taken the right approach with their newer cameras. The cameras themselves are now pretty waterproof but they also have the "Super Suit" which can be used for added protection or greater depth. Anyway, a GoPro is great for action video, I don't think from an ergonomic standpoint it makes a great still camera, but I haven't looked at one in awhile.

Kind of surprised this thread isn't completely dead, but it's a good thing since I have a bit of an update. I ran across a Canon WP-1 on eBay being sold for parts. Owner said the camera might work perfectly, he just hadn't tested it. Only other thing he said was "Film door is a little finicky." So I took a chance and bought it. Turns out "a little finicky" meant completely broken, as in the latch is busted. I"m sure there's a term that I'm missing but the door features two large plastic teeth or hooks and the latch has these jaws they slide into. One jaw was completely snapped off and the other was hanging by a thread. But the broken piece of the jaw was still lodged in the latch mechanism. Not knowing what else to do I tried some Krazy glue. Other than my fingers, my experience with successfully bonding two things together with it hasn't been great. Usually if you don't get the plastic pieces aligned properly right away, the plastic gets deformed and it doesn't turn out. But the broken piece had a pretty substantial surface to bond with and I got lucky. The 2nd jaw that was still partially attached and was easy to glue. So far it's been holding up. By this time I've given up on getting my daughter to switch to a cheap P&S from a disposable. So this is more for me. But I'm leaving it out where she'll see it to see if she comments. I'm was looking for a camera I can bring out on my sailboat and go swimming with me if I'm so inclined. I have an old Nikonos that works great but it's a brick. I'm afraid that if I dropped it on the boat it might go right through. :) And if it landed in the water instead of inside the boat it would be gone. The Canon floats. And it floats with the lens facing up at an angle. So with the self timer you might get some interesting waterbug's eye view pictures of things nearby, - or the sky.

She has a digital camera. She just thinks disposable film cameras are fun. I started the thread 6 months ago and that hasn't changed. She's not interested in a regular film camera so I've let it go...

Yes, I just use an Igloo cooler meant to hold a six-pack. I fill it about half way with water out of the tap that feels like it's about right and then add warm or cold water until it's around 68 °F. If it's winter I'll make it a few degrees warmer and in the Summer maybe a degree or two colder because the chemicals will have to sit in the water bath for awhile to reach the right temp. Because I live in a cold climate, ground water is always fairly cool even if it's 100 °F outside. If your tap water isn't, then you'll have to add ice as AJG suggested. Another alternate is to shorten the development time. You can find timings based on higher temps.

One of the nearby gas stations that was burned in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd. The sign seems a little out of place.

Still images go all the way back to cave drawings, - some dating back to around 13,000 BC. It's kind of like asking if people would still use knives and bows if the machine gun had come first. Regardless, my answer is yes. And it's not just about nostalgia. Knives and bows work better than a machine gun for some purposes. Similarly, I don't know that you'd want Harry Potter style moving images on top of the Sistine Chapel. It would be more than a little distracting and probably really creepy. A still image conveys something that a moving one does not, - and the reverse is true too of course. The desire to be able to stop or freeze a video/movie to look at a single frame so you can really see what's there has existed as long as moving images have.

FWIW I've learned a lot of valuable things on this site over the last few years and have enjoyed the time I've spent on it.

Bike room in our office building

Lutsen Ski Area (Lake Superior in the background)

Broomball: It's supposed to be played on ice but sometimes mother nature has other ideas.

It terms of film cameras still being serviced I don't know. Last Spring I decided that I wanted a more compact medium format camera. What I ended up with was a Fujica GS645. It's a semi-modern folder. It's still bulkier than I'd like but over the last couple of weekends I've gone skiing with it tucked into a wallet/tablet holster under my jacket. It worked pretty well.

Thanks Glen. If I were to do it, I'd probably get a few rolls of slide film with a kit just to try it out and for the experience. What would be really great would be medium format slides if I could find a projector that wasn't extremely expensive. Not likely though and I'd never use it enough to justify the cost.

This has been an educational thread for me. I shoot a lot of expired film, - most of it to test cameras I'm fixing. And though I'm not the most experienced in the world I've been doing it long enough that if something doesn't turn out I can usually determine whether it was a camera problem or an old film problem. I'm still learning though. I've yet to process any slide film. I have a couple of rolls that I got with some other expired film. I shot one roll and it's been sitting in the fridge for 3 years. I had plans to buy some new slide film, shoot that, and then get some E6 chemicals. Then I'd process the expired roll. Hasn't happened. So now I'm wondering if I should just cross-process it. I don't have the camera anymore and only a vague idea of what the pictures were of. That's part of what makes film fun ! I'd still like get an old slide projector. I've got an old projector screen in great shape. So I haven't ruled out shooting some real slide film.

When considering storage, also think about what you'd do if your drive failed, your computer was stolen, there was a tornado, fire, accidental deletion, etc. I keep a set of backups locally but also in the cloud.

Absolutely true on both counts. I'm also amazed that people often don't bother to clean up whatever it is they're selling. When I'm selling old film cameras or lenses I'll show not only pictures of them, but pictures taken with them. This will date me but years ago I had an old Mac SE/30 that I had purchased for almost nothing. For fun I cleaned it up, found some cheap upgrades and used it for a bit. And when it came time to sell I installed a light weight web server on it that displayed some real time system information and let you do a few other things like post a message. When I listed it on Ebay I provided a link to the website telling people they could "try before they buy", - in other words, they'd get to see they system in use, - if only in a limited way. People could see messages that other people had posted. There was some smack talk amongst bidders and a few posts were off-color and had to be removed. I got a lot of money for that computer and more than one bidder told me how much they enjoyed the auction. ;)

I'm only familiar with iPhones so I'm not sure what other phones offer. All you need for to allow for manual focus and exposure settings is to download an app that will let you access those. The iPhone at least is limited in that sense since the cameras have fixed apertures. So you can only set shutter speed and ISO. But with the camera app I have it's not difficult. There are external wireless flash options for the iPhone that work but I would describe them as kludges. Apple last year did release official specs and protocols for creating those kinds of devices so I think better solutions will be coming soon. It's also worth mentioning that iPhones and other smartphones now often feature multiple cameras that work together to produce a single image. This is not something you get with a DSLR and in the right hands with the right software could provide some interesting results that would be more difficult to achieve with a "real" camera. This is highly dependent on software to make it all work and I think that's an area where smartphone manufacturers often excel over traditional camera makers.

Unless the high level racer happened to have very similar proportions as you he would indeed be handicapped in a race against other high level racers. ;) But he wouldn't matter in a race against anyone who was not an elite racer. The very best bikes are only going to make a very slight difference compared to an average bike. But in a bike race being a tiny fraction of a second slower can mean the difference between hanging on to the lead group or falling back. So if we had some contest pitting one pro photographer against another, and compare their photos pixel by pixel, then yes, they should use the best camera available. But that's probably not the case with this kind of photography. Who is the audience? What is the target platform? Print? Mobile Device? If the photo is intended to be consumed on a smart phone, how many people would really know the difference between a pic taken in a well lit location on an iPhone vs one taken with a DSLR? Or maybe the desired look is typical of what a smart phone produces. As for construction workers, I know many that don't buy the latest and greatest tools as they become available. Many have tools that are decades old. They are skilled with them and that's all that matters. If I hire an electrician I don't go poking through his tools to see if he's a genuine electrician or not. More than likely they were recommended by someone I trust. Now, I recognize that there are plenty of applications that a smart phone camera is poorly suited for. It's the reason I have real cameras. But for some things they work just fine.

In the end, the intended consumers of these photos are likely not professional photographers. Just a guess, but I'd say 80% to 90% of the photographs we see on a regular basis come from smartphones and are of much lower quality than what the smartphone was capable of. So the standard for what's considered a good or even excellent photo by the bulk of the photo consuming public does not require a dedicated camera. Further, a smartphone in the hands of a good photographer that knows how to work within its limitations and take advantage of its capabilities can produce fantastic results. Look at this way. I spend a lot of time on a bike and used to do triathlons on a regular basis. But if you pitted me in my prime on the best triathlon bike available against a pro riding a $199 bike from Target, who do you think would win? Not me. If you have to look at the exif info to know whether a pic has been taken on a smart phone or a full framed DSLR, then maybe that's a clue that in many instances a smart phone is more than adequate.