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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
Pete wrote:
Thanks for the explanation, Geoff. It's been far too long since I used them, however, I do remember that Rodinal could produce more acutance or finer grain according to its dilution - very clever chemistry. You're welcome. Digital attempts to emulate this with sharpening, but I wish I had the knowledge, energy and facilities to carry on exploring T-MAX film. Attempts is a good word. Since the whole thing is done with interpolation, (educated guessing) it's difficult. To inject a little bit of digital here, the biggest problem with digital photography is that Foven signed an exclusive license with Sigma. This stuck everyone else with a Bayer sensor array. :-( T-Max is a fine film, but it needs to be exposed and developed properly, with it's limitations kept in mind. That's why it got such bad press when it came out, everyone thought they could expose and develop it like any other film they were using. Some people (me being one) were successful with it, others were not. A very long time ago I was asked to take some monochrome photos of a band for their PR. I shot on both XP2 and T-MAX: the band preferred the XP2 and I liked the T-MAX, I never will know why. :-) Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM To help restaurants, as part of the "stimulus package", everyone must order dessert. As part of the socialized health plan, you are forbidden to eat it. :-) |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
On 2010-10-13 22:34:03 +0100, Geoffrey S. Mendelson said:
Pete wrote: Thanks for the explanation, Geoff. It's been far too long since I used them, however, I do remember that Rodinal could produce more acutance or finer grain according to its dilution - very clever chemistry. You're welcome. Digital attempts to emulate this with sharpening, but I wish I had the knowledge, energy and facilities to carry on exploring T-MAX film. Attempts is a good word. Since the whole thing is done with interpolation, (educated guessing) it's difficult. To inject a little bit of digital here, the biggest problem with digital photography is that Foven signed an exclusive license with Sigma. This stuck everyone else with a Bayer sensor array. :-( T-Max is a fine film, but it needs to be exposed and developed properly, with it's limitations kept in mind. That's why it got such bad press when it came out, everyone thought they could expose and develop it like any other film they were using. Indeed, to both points. Some people (me being one) were successful with it, others were not. A very long time ago I was asked to take some monochrome photos of a band for their PR. I shot on both XP2 and T-MAX: the band preferred the XP2 and I liked the T-MAX, I never will know why. :-) Thanks, now I finally know why: they were an excellent band, but I didn't like their music so why should they have liked my preferred film :-) -- Pete |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
shiva das wrote,on my timestamp of 15/10/2010 9:09 AM:
And yes, of course it is subjective to some extent, but D-76 is so much better, demonstrably, than Rodinal (in terms of grain size, certainly) that there's not much of an argument possible here. (Unless, of course, on is actually going for grainy prints.) Or one is using Rodinal in 1:100 dilution with low agitation. But of course, you omitted that little detail from your peroration, didn't you? Funny: I didn't. Gee, I've been using Rodinal for about 40 years. I must make "demonstratively" bad negatives. After all, "there's not much of an argument possible here". You mean you have been "ruining perfectly good film"? Tsk,tsk, you bad, bad person! Always astounding when people confuse "I don't like it" with "it is bad". Personally I have never liked D-76. However I would never accuse anyone of "ruin[ing] perfectly good film by using" it. Ah, you see: there are "users". And there are "scammers". The second class are the ones who come online and claim that this or that is "better", without ever having used any other or any experience of with other products. Ah well: it's all "demonstrable", I guess... |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
!) I have a huge range of lenses for 35mm, based on Olympus OM 2) I have virtually the full range of OM TTL flash units 3) I have two OM4 bodies, some of the best 35mm film bodies ever made 4) Only recently have I obtained the Tamron SP 400mm f4 after waiting years for it. It goes with the 300mm f 2.8, various zooms and macros (including OM bellows 80mm, 38mm & 20 mm auto bellows), OM 35mm & 24mm shift lenses and Tamron SP down to ultra-wide angle zoom and primes. 5) I have an X-Pan with all the lenses. The format is stunning. 6) Digital does nothing extra I want to do and I just can't spare the time for all that fiddling around. The exception is to sometime set up my scanner for the trannies. I have little use for prints. 7) The cost of buying an equivalent kit for digital would cost a fortune. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
Harold Gough wrote:
snip I have chosen (I'm not at all "stuck") to remain on 35mm because: !) I have a huge range of lenses for 35mm, based on Olympus OM 2) I have virtually the full range of OM TTL flash units 3) I have two OM4 bodies, some of the best 35mm film bodies ever made 4) Only recently have I obtained the Tamron SP 400mm f4 after waiting years for it. It goes with the 300mm f 2.8, various zooms and macros (including OM bellows 80mm, 38mm & 20 mm auto bellows), OM 35mm & 24mm shift lenses and Tamron SP down to ultra-wide angle zoom and primes. 5) I have an X-Pan with all the lenses. The format is stunning. 6) Digital does nothing extra I want to do and I just can't spare the time for all that fiddling around. The exception is to sometime set up my scanner for the trannies. I have little use for prints. 7) The cost of buying an equivalent kit for digital would cost a fortune. Same here. But all my bodies and lenses are for the old Canon FD system. Dick |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by Harold Gough : October 24th 10 at 03:17 PM. Reason: Typo |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
Harold Gough wrote:
snip I started with an A1, from new, but, apart from a 50mm lens and a 20mm bellows lens, I started building up a collection of Adaptall-2 lenses. They work as well on the OM systems as on the FD. I have kept my FD adapters and also any Nikon, etc., ones which came attached to subsequently-purchased used Tamron lenses, in case I got tempted by Nikon bodies. I never got into dedicated flash (no TTL metering) with Canon, using Vivitar & Sunpack, still possible to use for manual flash with any camera body. Hi Harold, I'm still using a pair of Canon A-1s and a Canon T70 that still works. Lots of Canon lenses and also a 500mm mirror, a nice Tamron 28-70 and a Vivitar Series 1 28-90. I still grieve over my dearly departed Canon T90, the last Canon using all the features later to be found on the EOS system. Coupled with the 300TL flash unit the possibilities were almost endless. Pre flash, slow sync, etc. The T90 also had several metering modes and other features that took me a while to learn. I still have the T90 but I can't get it repaired and I can't bear to throw it away. I also have a pair of 300TL flash units with off camera connecting cords, but the 300TL doesn't work with newer Canon cameras. :-( So I'm back to the basics with the Canon A-1s. I have the 5fps motor drive on one and a power winder on the other. If I want to travel lite, I'll remove the power winder and attach the Tamron 28-70 lens. Dick |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
On 10/24/2010 11:14 AM dickr2 spake thus:
I'm still using a pair of Canon A-1s and a Canon T70 that still works. Lots of Canon lenses and also a 500mm mirror, a nice Tamron 28-70 and a Vivitar Series 1 28-90. My main "user" (apart from various "shelf queens" and other less practical cameras) is my A-1, bought used years ago from eBay cheap, in nearly perfect condition. Came with a FD 35-105 zoom which is what I use the most. Also have the 50mm lens which I almost never use, a Vivitar Series 1 100mm macro tele (*great* lens!), and a Canon FD 24mm wide-angle. The 35-105 is the best mid-size zoom I've ever had (out of several), especially in the distortion department: much less barrel/pincushion distortion than my old 28-200 Tamron (Canon AE-1) or the 28-90 Vivitar (Minolta XG-M). The Tamron was the worst. -- The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring, with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags. - Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com) |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Besides me, how many folks in this NG are still using 35mm film?
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2010 11:14 AM dickr2 spake thus: I'm still using a pair of Canon A-1s and a Canon T70 that still works. Lots of Canon lenses and also a 500mm mirror, a nice Tamron 28-70 and a Vivitar Series 1 28-90. My main "user" (apart from various "shelf queens" and other less practical cameras) is my A-1, bought used years ago from eBay cheap, in nearly perfect condition. Came with a FD 35-105 zoom which is what I use the most. Also have the 50mm lens which I almost never use, a Vivitar Series 1 100mm macro tele (*great* lens!), and a Canon FD 24mm wide-angle. The 35-105 is the best mid-size zoom I've ever had (out of several), especially in the distortion department: much less barrel/pincushion distortion than my old 28-200 Tamron (Canon AE-1) or the 28-90 Vivitar (Minolta XG-M). The Tamron was the worst. Hi David, I've purchased much of my camera equipment at local camera "swap" meets. One of my A-1s was purchased from an older fellow who was a little bit shaky and needed a camera with image stabilization. The camera looked like new, but had the dreaded "shutter squeak". I found a fellow on line who specialized in Canon A series cameras and he fixed the problem. I also have the Canon 35-105, reportedly one of the best lenses Canon made, and I should use it more often. Too many cameras, too many lenses, it gets "confussing". :-) Dick |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who are these folks? | Zilla[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 3 | March 14th 08 04:27 AM |
Are you folks MAC or PC? | baker1 | Digital Photography | 242 | January 10th 06 01:35 PM |
Why some folks still shoot film .... | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 73 | April 7th 05 01:33 AM |
Where in the usa to process Foma 400-35mm Film ISO 400, 36 Exposure B&W Film | Chris | 35mm Photo Equipment | 2 | October 3rd 04 07:29 PM |
[Eye Candy] That's All Folks! | Pedro Verne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 15 | June 30th 04 11:47 AM |