If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Someone else post a film thread.
"Harold Gough" wrote in message ... I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and many manual focus lenses which ceased manufacture not long after that. Strangely, with an occasional service, and with my 20 years of additional experience, the results are often superb and when they are not it is usually my fault. For the car analagy, those who drive the best e.g Rolls Royce, Bentley, are not over-concerned as to the year of the model, which they drive everywhere, and the performance and reliability are legendary. In the studio, the cameras I use are all mechanical- no battery required. Once you get familiar with such cameras, you can hear and feel that it's working properly. When I'm shooting for myself, my camera of choice is a forty year major brand mechanical camera with a wide selection of lenses. When you get familiar with a mechanical camera, you can usually hear and feel when it's not functioning properly. From a distance, you can't tell that my camera and lens is 40 years old, and from close-up, most people I've asked guess about 20 years old. Those people are generally also impressed with the weight and feel of the camera. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Someone else post a film thread.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Scott W wrote:
To really get a good analogy it is as if new cars started to get 1,000 miles/gal, but some people just loved the feel of driving an older car that gets 20/mile. Now don't get me wrong, if your camera is more for show then use then it really does not matter that you have to pay for film and processing. If on the other hand you really use your cameras then that film processing starts to get very expensive indeed. Scott How expensive are photo quality printers, paper & ink? I do all my own film processing & printing; color & B&W. I can process color film for less than $1.00 per roll. Color 8x10 prints cost me about $0.35 each. No constant, expensive, software updates. No running out to buy the latest software that's supposed to make things easier & quicker. No buying a new camera every year to get the latest & greatest features you "just can't be without". - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site: www.destarr.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Someone else post a film thread.
A couple of years ago I would have agree, but after having people sit
through 300-400 slides three or four times I realized that I did not put in nearly enough photos, ideally someone watching the show would be able to watch for as long as they might want and not see a photo repeat, I really thougth 300-400 photos would have been enough, turns out I was way under. These people who watch a 300-400 slide show program of a canoe race...is the alternative having a root canal done by a cross-eyed dentist with palsy? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everything about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frames often overlap) and, if it is, that it won't for much longer. Buit the non-overlapping results are stunning.
Quote:
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Someone else post a film thread.
Harold Gough wrote:
With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everything about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frames often overlap) and, if it is, that it won't for much longer. Buit the non-overlapping results are stunning. is that MF or 35mm? http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/horizon202/ -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Someone else post a film thread.
Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 29/09/2008 11:42 AM:
Harold Gough wrote: With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everything about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frames often overlap) and, if it is, that it won't for much longer. Buit the non-overlapping results are stunning. is that MF or 35mm? http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/horizon202/ 35 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone know where I can get colour Daguerrotype plates?
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Both. It is fixed focus (28mm) and uses the full height of the frame.
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Someone else post a film thread. | Noons | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | September 7th 08 10:01 PM |
Someone else post a film thread. | tony cooper | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | September 7th 08 10:39 AM |
Someone else post a film thread. | Pete D | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 7th 08 09:06 AM |
Someone else post a film thread. | D-Mac[_6_] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 7th 08 07:54 AM |
Someone else post a film thread. | Ken Nadvornick | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | September 7th 08 07:33 AM |