Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 22, 2013 19:53:52 GMT -5
Lloydy, I just saw that we basically posted our posts at the same time. So please do not consider my post as an answer to your last post, which I couldn't read before writing mine. But anyway, I think, I can see your points ... and you mine
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 22, 2013 19:49:43 GMT -5
Lloydy, I can understand the anger about ripping off the people who had paid for the Pro level previously, but some of your critics are too hard, I think. Regarding the design, just the main page ( if you open Flickr and you are signed in ) has actually changed ( it wasn't really well designed before as well, I think ), the rest looks pretty much the same to me. The pictures become displayed on a black background, which doesn't look bad and everything works smooth on my iPad too. There might have been some adjustments to smart phones and tablets, but that's the beat of our times. Even me ... a few months ago, I said, I would never need an iPad and now, I rarely use my normal computer at all. Quality wise ... well ... frankly speaking, I don't care so much. I follow about about fifty specific groups, I am interested in ( pictures, taken with certain cameras or on certain films and formats ). Those groups will stay "clean" anyway, because I doubt, that the main stream will suddenly use TLRs or Bencini cameras and overflow the data base with that. Randy, I can imagine the nice things, coming with an own domain, but services like Flickr are also a community. I mainly use it for viewing other peoples pictures, leave a feedback here and there and get the same thing back. That's what I like. I wouldn't just want to display my pictures to the world ( they are not worthy enough anyway ). But of course, Flickr is not the only service ( I do not get any money for promoting them here anyway ), but it's large and long living. If I imagine, I would need to upload all the pictures, I have already uploaded to Flickr over the years to another community again ... oh my ... plus the contacts would be gone and who can say, if another service will not go "pro" in the meaning of charging money for their services anytime soon too. And maybe one more word about Facebook. In general, I would say, Facebook is for sharing private pictures with family and friends and services like Flickr are for publishing public pictures to the world. Strangely ( at least for me ), there seem to be a trent though, that many people obviously need to expose themselves to the rest of the world meanwhile. Sharing services like Instagram are full of pictures, I wouldn't share with the rest of the world ... but well, modern times these are
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 22, 2013 4:01:21 GMT -5
In case some people didn't notice it yet, Flickr offers one tera for free now. No BS with pay and pro-membership anymore and even my old pictures are there again ( Flickr displayed just the last I don't know how many pictures recently, if you used it for free ).
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 14, 2013 5:12:52 GMT -5
Maybe "lens discussions" would be best then ? I mean, it's mostly about the lenses, isn't it. Doesn't matter much, on which body ( even digital or film ) it will be mounted in the end. Just my thoughts. I used a lot of old lenses on my GH1, but nowadays more on film cameras again.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 6, 2013 6:45:35 GMT -5
I also noticed, that prices of expired film can develop in an "interesting" way ( mostly increasing ), but I thought, that might only happen for very popular films. The question is probably not so much if the film is expired or not, it mostly depends on the fact, if the film has been discontinued or not.
As for an example, my favorite film, the Kodak E100VS, was always around 2.500 Yen for a pack of 5rolls/120film. It has been discontinued in December last year and already a half year before, the price went UP ( not down ) to 2.850 Yen. I actually hoped for a sale, because this film had to disappear from the shelves by 2013, but nothing like that and if you try to buy such a film on an auction, you need to pay nearly the double price ( app. 5.000 Yen ) ... but that's not an exception and it was also me, who just ordered four packs of expired Kodak Portra VC, I would say still at a decent price but already more expensive than the price, this film has been sold at ( before being discontinued ).
However, what can people do if they want to use a certain film, which is not available anymore. Supply and demand are dictating the price then.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 3, 2013 11:34:46 GMT -5
Thanks, everybody !!! I feel confident, giving it a try now.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 3, 2013 9:05:21 GMT -5
Thanks Mickey !!! That sounds promising. I found another link in the internet, also telling, that freezing should be okay and actually the best way to keep film for longer periods of time: www.filmforever.org/chap8.html Did you also seal your films in special freezing bags ? I might do that ... just for safety. The lifespan of 100-125 years ( mentioned in this article ) sounds a little bit too optimistic for me, but I will not become that old anyway
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on May 3, 2013 7:30:11 GMT -5
I am certain, that there has been talked about that in several comments in different threads, but I can't exactly recall where and when ... so I hope it to be forgiven, opening an own thread for it ( again ? ). I consider myself lucky, that I had the chance for buying a few rolls of Kodak Portra 400 VC, which has been discontinued for a while. I don't want to use it immediately and I want to spare it for special occasions ( plus, it's already a little bit expired ). So, the question is: What is the best way to store film for a long time ? I remember, that I read something about "freezer", but I forgot. And if so, are there any special preparations necessary ? My wife instinctively doubted the freezer idea and assumed, that ice crystals might destroy the emulsion/chemicals. So, where are the experts ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 27, 2013 10:13:52 GMT -5
Stephen, I am not sure, if I will ever understand, what the issue about my Comet is Yes, that is what I would assume too. I just checked the pictures of my test film again. If focussing on close objects, the background became sharp ( instead of the actual object, that should be in focus - at all pictures, not only one ). My comet has a "guess focus" in feet. I am used to it from my Koroll 24s, which is basically a very similar camera, just using 120 instead of 127 film. I had never any out of focus pictures on my Koroll. Analyzing my test pictures, the first idea was "the lens needs to be adjusted" ... but the Bencini Comet is very simple constructed. There is neither a chance for adjusting the lens nor actually, that the lens can de-adjust by itself ... just by design of the camera. ( I disassembled everything a few times ) Later I checked the camera with a ground glass and the focus should be okay, what is confirming this theory. I also thought about a possible motion blur, but I am sure, that I held the camera steady and my victim for the portrait shots didn't move as well. Nothing loose inside the lens ( there is actually no inside anyway ) and the film ... mmmh ... but why is there some sharpness in the pictures then ( even not there, where it supposes to be ) ? I don't do prints, just scans. The scan of the film was done by a shop, but just now, I scanned the pictures again myself, using a different method ... but the result remains being the same. Viewing the negatives under strong magnification ... puuuh ... hard to tell anything, because there is noting really contrasty, what should be in focus. It might remain a wonder ... except I would sacrifice another roll of film ( should be a slide film then ).
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 27, 2013 7:27:06 GMT -5
Oh and regarding the Comet. I personally like Bencinis and their charm. My Koroll 24s is always loaded with some film. However, I have not been lucky with my Comet A test with ground glass showed, that the focus should be okay, but on the test film EVERY picture was out of focus somehow. I still do not have any explanation for that and I am scared of waisting another role of film. 127 film is still available BTW ... as color slide and as B/W film. Looking forward to your pictures here as well.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 27, 2013 7:17:18 GMT -5
Respooling it from 35 mm film would be the best way then. I did it a few times ( also just with a light-proof bag ). It's easy. The tricky part comes, if you don't develop films by yourself ( as I also do not do so ). Then, you need a refillable canister for 35 mm film ... otherwise, the lab usually does not accept the film ... and you also like to have your bolta-film spool back, I guess.
Looking forward to seeing your results !!! Mine have been quite different. The Museflex produced quite acceptable picture, while it was barely recognizable, what was on the shots out of my Hobix Junior. Both also Tougodo cameras from the 50s.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2013 6:41:38 GMT -5
Hahaha ... thank you The uniform in Tokyo ... although my shoes do not really fit BTW, Hans ... sometimes I think, all vintage german cameras are in Japan. Amazing, if you look at the 2nd hand camera shops.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 24, 2013 0:32:35 GMT -5
I finally had the chance to take a first test roll with this camera ( Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 520 ) and I am surprised and pleased with the results. Here one of the pictures, showing just me, because I prefer, not posting pictures of other people in public if avoidable. Zeiss Ikon Ikonta 520 by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Inserted was an a little bit expired Fuji Provia 100F. I think, this picture looks pretty good and not "vintage" at all - as somebody ( or me ? ) would have expected from a prewar camera out of a junk box. The picture also shows, why I prefer medium format cameras. Such a depth of field on a full body shot would have required a much larger distance to the object if using a lens with the same focal length on a smaller format camera ... but that isn't possible nearly anywhere in a narrow city like Tokyo.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 23, 2013 20:59:34 GMT -5
Thank you Truls and no worries I also see your point with the public toilet ... hahaha ... but I wouldn't carry all these cameras with me all the time anyway. I think, it's somehow predictable, what expect us on some walk or day trip, while the hotel can be some kind of base. I wouldn't carry my TLR if I go with my wife for dinner for example, but I might take it with me, if visiting an old historical town or just going to the beach for taking a beautiful sunset picture. It's about having some variety based on the smallest weight and space ... and it must be a simple to use gear too, because my wife's patience of waiting for my photographs is quite limited The digital P&S is practically almighty ( incl. zoom, flash, HDR, video, etc. ) and consuming less space and weight for that. My Bencini is super light and there are not many settings on it. It's a pure daylight camera though, but fun to use. Wouldn't take every picture with it, but some and 24 pics on a 120 roll film is a fair enough, I think. I noticed, that there are some situations, where a digital camera is better ( video, HDR, handheld shots in low light, high speed shooting, flash, zoom - does not require heavy and bulky lenses for that or just if I want to take pictures for the records without any artistic intention, etc. ) BUT there are also limits IMHO, when I personally need and want a film camera. One reason is the format. I can't afford a digital medium format camera, but I want the DOF and less distortion in narrow spaces and wide-angle shots. Another is my personal believe, that picture of human beings should not be taken on digital People may laugh about me and call me old-fashioned, but a digital camera is simply too cruel to skin and merciless in contrasts and details. Of course, Photoshop is the solution for everything and turns everybody into whatever he likes to be as daily proven on magazine covers, but I neither like this look nor do have the time to retouch hundreds of holiday pictures. So my personal solution is some kind of almighty P&S like my Casio and I always have some film camera with me for the special moments in life, which are worth being captured in the way, a photograph should look like to me. I have to confess, that I am an old fashioned man in that and if I look at the hundreds pictures, appearing on my Facebook wall every day, they are all crap. Distorted faces, picture noise ... and everything sacrificed to the gods of convenience ... plus a pinch of Instagram, covering the actually bad picture with some vintage look. And the effort is not a huge one. Its also just one click on a TLR or other film camera and the money ? Okay, how many chances for taking pictures with good friends do we have ? I haven't even had the chance for taking a picture together with my wife this year. Same as for traveling. How often do we have the chance to travel to special places and how much does it cost, comparing to the development of a few films ? And really, ladies and gentlemen, these are just thoughts and a description of my own workflow. Everybody has to find its own and that's why this thread is actually interesting. I always found it extremely difficult to solve the "holiday bag problem", because I don't want to see myself traveling with an additional luggage of ten aluminum suitcases
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2013 18:27:31 GMT -5
No worries Bob, I understood you well ... as I also just wanted to explain my personal workflow. I think, it's just about that, not moral superiority. I tried both ( and still use both ), digital and film ... and you too, I guess. We both came to different conclusions and that's all. None of us is right or wrong - we just can be that for ourselves.
|
|