|
Post by raybar on Nov 18, 2016 23:23:33 GMT -5
W is for Minolta Weathermatic Top = Weathermatic A - 110 film Bottom Left = Weathermatic Vectis - Advantix film Bottom Right = Weathermatic Dual 35 - 35mm film Various children, nieces, and nephews used these in various pools and at various beaches. It's a wonder they survived. But the kids all understood Uncle Ray's number one rule - - "Don't drop it."
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Nov 12, 2016 0:43:26 GMT -5
They don't offer any evidence that this particular camera is the oldest surviving Nikon. Even if it is, how could they know that without searching the entire planet? Articles like this should say "oldest known," rather than making a claim of "oldest" that they can't prove.
Even so, if I were a billionaire, I might bid on it.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 31, 2016 19:54:33 GMT -5
Yes, Halloween. Also Reformation Day - - Martin Luther, 95 Theses, All Saints Church, and all that. They had a sign on the door of my bank today - - "No Masks." Do they really think a masked bandit would rob them on Halloween? Maybe a scary clown. My teller was wearing a full-on Christmas Tree costume. It looked like a pointy green burka. Unfortunately, my cameras were out in the car. Since this is a camera site, here's a Canon in a Krugener costume. The lens is a Dr. R. Krugener's Doppel Anastigmat Dominar (210mm f/6.8) in a Krugener Delta shutter.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 13, 2016 17:50:50 GMT -5
Noblex is from Germany -- Kamera Werk Dresden The Horizon "Kompakt" and "Perfekt" cameras from Lomography are Russian made. I have no first-hand knowledge of them. I have no scans readily available. But here's a Flickr group dedicated to Noblex. Some of the images put my efforts to shame, I'm sorry to say. www.flickr.com/groups/noblex/pool/
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Oct 13, 2016 10:55:05 GMT -5
N is for Noblex "swinging lens" panorama camera. This is the 35mm model 135U which was discontinued several years ago. 29mm f/4.5 "Rotar T" lens. Shutter speeds from 1 to 1/500 second. Powered by 4 AAA batteries. At a 1 second exposure, it takes about 75 seconds for the lens to rotate the full 360 degrees. The actual exposure, when the lens scans the scene, takes about 30 seconds - plenty of time to make a "double selfie" where you appear at both ends of the picture.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 24, 2016 15:00:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 22, 2016 13:00:07 GMT -5
This model is totally cool and I will have to start looking for one.
"Free but you have to go get it" was a joke, of course, but the day is coming when someone will be able to do that. I have mixed feelings about whether or not artifacts from mankind's earliest visits to the moon should be brought back to earth. It would be good if some of this stuff could be shown in museums, but it would also be good if the landing sites, especially the first one, were preserved intact, at least until some really thoughtful decisions could be made.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 20, 2016 19:22:07 GMT -5
These are the most readable images. Rephotographed the negatives and pushed the contrast, brightness, and levels sliders around in Photoshop. Quickly done - not enough image to work with to justify much more time on this "found film."
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 20, 2016 16:38:02 GMT -5
OK, so the film is developed - - if anyone cares. 10 minutes in HC-110. It's not badly fogged - more than zero, but not too bad. Eight frames as expected. However, the contrast is extremely low and it is difficult to decide what I'm seeing. Several are clearly people, but beyond that I can't say anything. If I were forced to guess, I would say that the images were all underexposed quite a bit and would have produced very thin negatives even if developed promptly. I may scan one, or rephotograph it, and try to boost the contrast in Photoshop. Or not.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 17, 2016 23:04:54 GMT -5
116 film is 70mm wide. I have one Nikkor reel in that size and the film is on it. The film was tightly curled, although not as badly as some I've had. To relax it a bit I wrapped it around a cylinder that would just fit in the developing tank and let it sit for a couple days before loading it onto the reel. HC-110 is my usual developer, and also what Kodak Customer Service suggested for some 2x3 Super Panchro Press Type B that I got with a baby Speed Graphic. Expiration dates on the film boxes were 1952 - 1964. Developed in November 2010 - - 46 years later. Or 58. The film was extremely fogged and blotchy, but several images could be made out through the damage. Here's the best one - a straight copy without any Photoshopping. And here's a picture I took of some cabinet doors on an unexposed sheet of the same film.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 17, 2016 17:34:36 GMT -5
Another indication that the shop has been closed for a long time is the Agfa-Gevaert logo. They sold their consumer imaging division and stopped marketing film and cameras to the public about 2004. However, they still make film for aerial photography which is repackaged and sold by Lomography, so if you really want some Agfa film, you can still get it. Sort of. I only know this because I recently bought a Kodak No. 2-A Autographic Brownie which had film in it, tightly wound onto the take-up spool, and looking to be in excellent condition. However, the small section of the paper backing that I could see, even unrolling a little bit, just says "EXPOSED" and "FOLD HERE" - - no manufacturer's name and no film type. I knew only that the film was 116 size, and because it was on the old metal and wood type spools, I guessed was at least 50 years past its expiration date. I got the film off the spool, onto a developing reel, and into a tank, hoping that the other end of the backing was labeled. It wasn't. It just says "START." But the little paper strip is still there, and it says: GEVAERT SUPERCHROME FILM MADE IN WILLIAMSTOWN MASS. MADE IN U.S.A. Before developing this old film, which may contain nothing but fog or nothing at all, I'm trying to find Gevaert's development suggestions to use as a starting point. No luck so far, and I'll just take a guess at it before long. Research over the past few days indicates that Gevaert started making film in the U.S. around the end of World War II, having bought an old factory building in Williamstown, a small town in the north-west corner of Massachusetts, about 112 miles = 180 kilometers from Boston. Here's an ad from Popular Photography June 1944
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 15, 2016 20:10:45 GMT -5
Canon made a waist-level finder for their original F-1. It had a flip-up magnifier in it, like is found in many waist-level cameras, but mostly it just shaded the focusing screen a bit and kept dust out if you remembered to close it. I got a free used one when I asked my boss at the camera store what he wanted for it. "Get that stupid thing out of here" he said. He didn't pay much, but was generous with "junk" and on rare occasions would "forget" to bill me for something.
You're in Toronto, Mickey, right? Why don't you drive out to Stratford and check up on She Who Must Be Obeyed. Nice little house, practically on the theatre grounds. She's threatening to move back there if Trump gets elected.
Edit to add - you posted the image while I was typing. The Canon waist-level is similar, but only half or one third as tall.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 15, 2016 10:47:32 GMT -5
On a DSLR, Live View Shooting is using the camera's LCD monitor instead of the viewfinder.
You have use Live View for videos because the camera's mirror will be locked up while shooting. For still pictures you are generally better off using the viewfinder, as you noted. However, in situations where you can't get your eye to the viewfinder, but you can see the back of the camera, Live View can be useful -- camera right on the ground or being held up over your head to shoot over an obstruction for example. Also, for remote shooting, with the camera plugged into and controlled through a computer, the Live View mode is usually required.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 14, 2016 11:49:14 GMT -5
Thank you, Rachel. Reviews of Canon to Sony adapters are all mixed, with far too many "works, sort of, sometimes" type comments. I'll wait. SLRs and DSLRs with mirrors have been serving me well for a long time. No real need to change anything, but why retain mechanical parts that were required for film in digital cameras? According to www.usa.canon.com their pitiful offering of two mirrorless cameras, neither of which has a viewfinder, can both use EF and EF-S lenses. Mount Adapter EF-EOS M required. US $189 at B&H in New York. Even the worst review is good, complaining only about the price.
|
|
|
Post by raybar on Sept 13, 2016 13:53:08 GMT -5
I'm wondering when Canon will get serious about mirrorless cameras. I want a viewfinder (not just a screen on the back) and I want the ability to use all my EF lenses (probably need can adapter) so I don't have to spend a fortune on new optics.
Sony offers models up to 42 megapixels. Maybe someone makes an EF-to-Sony adapter.
|
|