mark (04/02/83)
#R:tekid:-99400:zinfandel:10200003:000:32 zinfandel!mark Mar 26 10:28:00 1983
gino@voder.UUCP (Gino Bloch) (09/11/84)
<fogged negative> Re: problems with local labs printing 5245 (sp?) Kodacolor film is sort of prefogged with a dye that compensates for a problem with another dye in the negative; the various mail-order movie films don't have that, and the local labs aren't equipped for that problem. -- Gene E. Bloch (...!nsc!voder!gino)
jacob@hpfclo.UUCP (jacob) (09/12/84)
I've been using these films (through Seattle Film Works) for a few years now. I'm quite happy with development prices, and with the slides. My complaint is the negatives. If you just take them to an inexpensive we-send-it-to-Kodak place for reprints, the colors that come out are lousy. The prints are usually brownish, sometimes greenish. I haven't tried to send the negatives to Seattle Film Works for reprints, because they cost much more (as far as I remember, the latest pricing is something like 35 cents per print, $5 minimum, + shipping?) Granted, it's still cheaper than prints from slides. Once I got my reprints order back with a note that their lab (wherever King Soopers, of Colorado sends their stuff) is not equipped to handle the process for which the negatives are meant. Any comments on that??? Jacob Gore inhp4!hpfcla!jacob
rjn@hpfcmp.UUCP (rjn) (01/14/85)
re: FD35-105 on Canon A-1
I have this same combo (as well as an FD50/1.4, FD50macro, FD70-120,
RF500 [mirror] and 2x extender). The 35-105 is the lens I leave on the
camera most of the time. The 500(!) is the next most used. My
girlfriend also has an A-1 and 35-105. I use her 24mm for the wider
shots.
Advantages:
* Excellent "snapshot" lens, covers most casual situations.
* Matches coverage of typical flash units - I use a 199A and a 533G,
and its nice not to have to fool around with wide or tele adaptors
as I zoom.
* Acceptable image quality - it takes better pictures than I do. I
have never found a 3rd-party lens that met this requirement,
especially zooms. Non-Canon lenses tend to be dark and/or out of
focus in the corners. Most also still use the old breech-lock ring
mount.
* Two-ring - you can zoom without upsetting the focus.
* Size - it fits [mounted] in most camera bags. My girlfriend keeps
her's in a small "holster" type bag.
Disadvantages:
* Front element rotates as you focus. This makes the use of a
polarizing filter a nuisance. You also can't use a "cutaway" lens
hood.
* Front element is 72mm. Filters are therefore expensive.
* Two ring - focusing-while-zooming takes practice.
* A low end of 28mm focal length would have been more useful.
Trusting that this is useful...
Bob Niland
Hewlett-Packard
Ft. Collins. CO
[hplabs!]hpfcla!rjndarryl@ISM780.UUCP (03/02/85)
> The Olympus was discarded because it didn't >even have manual, some other one (Canon? it's been a couple of years) >was too hard to run in non-auto mode. Please be careful here. The Olympus OM-[1-4] ALL have a manual mode which is quite pleasant to use. The OM-10 has some add on gizmo to gain a manual mode. I have an OM-1 and an OM-2n, and I use the auto mode on the 2n infrequently. It's nice to have when you need it, but I prefer using manual because it makes me think more about the photo I'm about to take. Sometimes after doing this routine, I decide the camera can do it for me better, and then I am happy to let it do its thing. --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl The views expressed above are my opinions only.
darryl@ISM780.UUCP (03/02/85)
In regards to the possibilty of eating your batteries because the shutter is open in an attempt to expose the inside of the lens cap: I'm not sure about the OM-4, but the OM-2 won't shoot more than 1/30 sec. when it is turned off. Also, the longest exposure I have been able to get in auto mode is about 15 min. I don't see how your batteries can be eaten by doing this once or twice. --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl The views expressed above are my opinions only.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/05/85)
> Please be careful here. The Olympus OM-[1-4] ALL have a manual mode which > is quite pleasant to use. The OM-10 has some add on gizmo to gain a > manual mode. The salesman wsa trying to sell me an OM-10. The gizmo was a pain.
johnm@python.UUCP (04/29/85)
> Re: Mailorder equipment > > Both my friend and I have had excellent results with B&H Photo. I have also had good results with B&H. Since I am close to NYC, I usually drive in and get what I want in person, so I can't comment on their mail order service, but I have found them to be very well stocked and they always sell at the price in the current Popular/Modern Photo ad. My stuff has always been in factory sealed cartons, no problems. It is, of course, not the right sort of place if you don't know what you want and want a friendly/knowledgeable salesman to guide you. -- John Montgomery Bell Communications Research ...{ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!bellcore!python!johnm
jib@prism.UUCP (06/25/85)
/* Written 10:30 pm Jun 16, 1985 by jer@peora in prism:net.rec.photo */ > I have a question about this off-the-film metering... how does it work? > Don't different films reflect different amounts of light, and in different > colors? E.g., of the films I regularly use, one is a dark buff color, one > is a very light blue, and one is a sickly pink. Wouldnt the kind of film > you use thus have an effect on the metering? > > Now, don't misunderstand; I'm not saying "I don't believe it will work," > apparently it does... I'm just curious how! /* End of text from prism:net.rec.photo */ I've had an OM2 and an OM4 -- both with OTF metering for several years. Apparently the average reflectance of most films is about the same. By the way, at fast shutter speeds (> 1/60), the light is really measured off a constant pattern on the back of the focal plane shutter. Worth noting, however, is that Polaroid's instant transparency films are much darker in color than standard film and DO NOT work in OTF mode. And unfortunately, the amount that metering is off will vary depending on the shutter speed (which determines how much of the film versus shutter curtain the meter acutally reads). On the OM-4 I use spot mode for this film because the spot mode does not read off the film. With flash, I have to put the flash on manual or "non-OTF automatic" with Polaroid films.
brucet@hpgrla.UUCP (brucet) (07/30/85)
I have had an OM-4 for about a year now and have had only one problem with it. The cap for the LED on the front of the case below the shutter release came unscrewed. I just screwed it back on. Not using the zone system myself I can't comment on its usefulness but it looks promising. I shoot only color but the spot meter is great. I find myself not needing to bracket exposures or compensate for back lighting and hope I was close. I also have the motor drive 2 and the T45 flash. This is a great combination for all the different types of shooting I do. The flash is especially nice because it recycles almost instantly when used with the TTL metering mode. Bruce Thompson Hewlett-Packard Greeley, Colorado
schooler@inmet.UUCP (09/22/85)
I too am interested in older cameras, in fact I collect them!
(The following is a somewhat random discussion of some of my
stranger equipment, so people not interested should take note.)
I collect only 35mm equipment, thus ensuring that my film-size
will not become obselete soon, a fate that befalls many collectors.
I'm currently interested in 35mm range-finders, mainly Canon, but
also Nikon and Leica.
Apparently the period around 1960 was the heyday of "super-speed"
lenses. It was felt that having the fastest lenses around
increased sales of a firm's cameras, somewhat regardless of image
quality. The fastest 35mm lens ever made was the Canon 50mm f/0.95.
This is a monster of a lens, as you can imagine. It came out in
1961 and only fits the Canon 7 and 7s models. (Even though these
used the standard Leica screwmount, the 0.95 lens mounted on an
external bayonet.) The Canon 7 models were not particularly petite
either, so the combination is quite eye-catching.
Using the lens is quite an experience. The lens is so large that it
cuts off a whole corner of the viewfinder. The depth-of-field wide
open is miniscule, of course, and the optical quality isn't great,
particularly in the corners. The lens improves considerably when
stopped down :-). Canon also made an f/1.2 lens, which was also not
exceptionally good optically, and an f/1.4 which was very good indeed.
Meanwhile, the other manufacturers also had their monsters: Nikon had
a 50mm f/1.1, and Leica still has an f/1.0, though only in M-mount (for
the rangefinder models). The Canon and Nikon lenses are currently
quite expensive and sought-after collector's items. (I only have the
Canon, alas!) Some of Canon's other fast lenses: 35mm f/1.5 (1958),
85mm f/1.5 (1952!), and a 135mm f/2.5 (1959) which mounted on a reflex
housing, which turned your rangefinder camera into a single-lens reflex
in a somewhat inconvenient manner.
Why don't we have as wide or wider lenses on our SLR's today? The fastest
lens is a 50mm f/1.2, offered by practically everybody. I believe that
the answer is "back-focus", or the distance from the film plane to the
lens mount. This distance is shorter in rangefinder cameras than
single-lens reflexes, because of the mirror clearance necessary in the
latter design. The shorter back-focus apparently increases a designer's
flexibility considerably, especially with shorter lenses.
-- Richard Schooler
Intermetrics, Inc.
{ihnp4,ima}!inmet!schoolerrjn@hpfcla.UUCP (12/24/85)
re: Theft scam: "Not that there is much I can do about it now..." .. not entirely true; you can continue to warn others. Thanks for the posting. You could also contact your local paper, the Denver papers, the major photo mags, local/Denver TV and of course the police. I have a standing policy of never purchasing anything in response to a telephone solictation (this also shortens such calls dramatically). I will now add to that a policy of never providing information either. On a related topic: Was the equipment insured? Homeowner's or separate policy? With which carrier? Have you settled to your satisfaction? Regards, Hewlett-Packard Bob Niland 3404 East Harmony Road [ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn Fort Collins CO 80525
notes@sysvis (01/03/86)
In article <816@sfmag.UUCP> howard@sfmag.UUCP (H.M.Moskovitz) writes: >>> Which is better: Fujichrome, Ektachrome, or Agfachrome slide film? >>> Assume ASA of 200 or 400. >> favor in color balance. In that area, Kodak still tends to favor >> blues, Fuji likes greens and yellows, Agfa tends toward warm reds > Please be more specific in such statements. "Ektachrome" ( which > I admit is what the original poster asked about ) favors blue. > "Kodak" on the other hand makes many films and, I, for one, would > be lost but for the warm reds of Kodachrome. [Mike] I am very interested in buying some ASA 200-400 Kodachrome, Mike. Where do you normally find it? (-: By the way, (red != magenta). More important than color balance, in some cases, is image life of the film. I seem to remember that Fuji/Ekta process chromes are mostly 10 yr films (before SEVERE image fading occurs), Agfachrome ~= 4 years, and Kodachrome ~= 100 years (all archived properly). Comments anyone?
wjh@bonnie.UUCP (Bill Hery) (01/07/86)
> More important than color balance, in some cases, is image life of the > film. I seem to remember that Fuji/Ekta process chromes are mostly 10 yr > films (before SEVERE image fading occurs), Agfachrome ~= 4 years, and > Kodachrome ~= 100 years (all archived properly). Comments anyone? I used to use Agfa in the late 60's to the mid '70s, and I haven't noticed any deterioration in my old slides. I haven't gone back to specifially look for it, but I think I would have noticed anything major (as I have often seen on older Kodacolor prints from some processing labs). BTW, I used to use the Agfa because it had more acurate blacks and reds than the Kodachrome 64 of that era. When Honeywell bought out Agfa's US operations, the qulity of the processing went way down and I switched back to Big Yellow. I haven't tried Agfa again. Does anone kwno if Honeywell/Agfa got their act together again? I still don't like K-64 red (with Kodak processing).
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (01/09/86)
> More important than color balance, in some cases, is image life of the > film. I seem to remember that Fuji/Ekta process chromes are mostly 10 yr > films (before SEVERE image fading occurs), Agfachrome ~= 4 years, and > Kodachrome ~= 100 years (all archived properly). Comments anyone? This was true way back in the dark ages. Kodak now claims that the life of Ektachrome equals the life of Kodachrome back in the '50s, i.e., 40 years or so, again with careful storage. As for the current life of Kodachrome, I disremember the source I saw, but it was on the order of 100 years or so. Remember, almost NONE of us have archival storage! They specify not only temp and humidity ranges that are acceptable, but also require cycling between these extremes at regular intervals, as well as specifying standards of air purity and maximum amounts of exposure to light. -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc.