Although, based on some quick reading last night, yes, CT scanners can mess with film.
I realized my mistake while walking to the gate.
Lesson learned.
Womp, womp.
Although, based on some quick reading last night, yes, CT scanners can mess with film.
I realized my mistake while walking to the gate.
Lesson learned.
Womp, womp.
David S. Wallens said:Thanks and I’ll check the seals, although odd that it only happened with these two rolls and only the last frames on the roll.
The film is respooled movie film: Reformed Day Shots.
I’ve heard that some films are susceptible to light leaks via the leader. Not sure if that’s the case here.
Will report back on this as I’m wondering what’s up as well.
I bought respooled Ektachrome during a trip to Dallas and my lab noted by the end there was some manufacturing issues with the roll, I need to check it again, but the 35th and 36th exposure had some oddness to it, so it can happen.
I've been shooting a lot with my old film gear thanks to inspiration from this thread.
Contax N1, 24-85mm. Kodak Portra B&W 400 (C41), 22 years expired. I overexposed by 1 stop since the film was so old and the exposures look pretty close. Hard to read considering the age. It's grainy and a little flat but I'm pleased. First image below was the first on the roll and showed a little light leaks.
Contax G1 rangefinder, 35mm lens. Most of these are wide open at f2. Portra 400, 22 years expired. Shot at +1/2, processed normally.
Contax G1 rangefinder, 35mm lens. Most of these are wide open at f2. This is some 24 year expired slide film...the negative films seem to survive time but the three rolls of E100s I shot were basically garbage. Here's some salvage shots. Some of them were only presentable by taking all the saturation out, hence the grayscale. It's a bummer because I have at least 6 more rolls of this ancient stuff.
In reply to Mezzanine :
These look terrific. Are they fuzzy? Yeah. Do they have personality? A ton.
I have a Canon QL17 GIII , but the advance is broken. The shop said it would be cheaper to just replace the camera. Would like to get a rangefinder as I enjoy the form factor of my X-Pro3 and X100V.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
The shop is likely right...Since it's a fixed lens, it's not like you can invest in glass and swap bodies in and out as they break. eBay shows $150 should go a long way for one of these. Have you tried your hand at diy camera repair? Sounds like you've got nothing to lose on the old Canonet.
I just bought this old Ricoh and I'm eagerly awaiting its arrival from Japan. I've rediscovered the joy of taking photographs that I have never been able to access with a digital camera. The anticipation and delayed gratification of film is more important to me and my process than I ever would have guessed, and it turns out image quality is a little lower on the priority list these days. Anyway, this old thing is an odd duck: the Auto Half is a half frame camera that uses a clockwork spring to advance the film. You'll need to wind it up two or three times over the course of a roll of film, but it'll shoot as fast as you can cycle the shutter release. It's tiny and basic in function, and the model I ordered has the special fast lens (f1.7). Looking forward to trying it out as a pocket camera.
My daughter's Ektar H35 produced such gorgeous images with a plastic lens that it's helping me get over my age-old snobbery for no less than Zeiss glass.
In reply to Mezzanine :
Haven’t tried repairing it, so it sits as a display item. It is an attractive camera.
I agree, it’s very much about the experience. I have found that film is forcing me to slow down and make every shot count. I’m digging it.
Why a rangefinder? Back to the experience. Not sure if it’s worth resurrecting the Fed here in my office. And maybe the “right” one is somewhere in house as we have dozens of vintage cameras.
Got my roll of flic film aurora 800 developed and yeah I need to get more of this heh
aw614 said:
Was there much natural light in this room with the Minis? I'm assuming it's mixed light sources but it seems to have handled it nicely.
Yeah, love the photos from the BMW visit.
Mezzanine said:Was there much natural light in this room with the Minis? I'm assuming it's mixed light sources but it seems to have handled it nicely.
On the wiki page, this photo shows the amount of natural light, it wasn't bad, I was using a Voigtlander 21mm F4 which wasn't too hard to hand hold. I don't remember the shutter speeds I used though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_CCA_Foundation#/media/File:Fall_2019_Exhibit_at_the_BMW_CCA_Foundation_Museum.jpg
I bet every local FB Marketplace contains that same deal.
Stopped by our local used/vintage camera shop while in Orlando yesterday. (Free plug for Kiwi Camera Service.)
The owner and I chatted about “what’s next” for me. Again discussed medium format. Big thing for me would be the speed of making photos as I’d need the loupe/my glasses to focus. I’m not opposed to that, but it does slow down the process.
We discussed rangefinders, too, as I love my X-Pro3 and X100V, so he again showed some cameras.
I really like the feel and look of the Yashica. Light, positive controls, looks the business.
Then he hands over this: his own Leica M6.
Felt magical.
Perfectly weighted. Bright viewfinder. Super easy to focus.
Built to be handed down.
In theory, it’ll always be worth what you pay for it.
It’s basically the Porsche 911 of Cameras, isn’t it?
This is his personal Leica, and he only has a new one in stock but, still, an educational (and likely) visit.
In reply to David S. Wallens :
I had a Leica CL for a little while, the joint Minolta compact rangefinder. It was used and had issues but I sold it for about the amount I paid.
I'd like to try one of their digitals but the price is way out of the ballpark. Manual focusing on the Fuji X100 just isn't the same.
Glad to hear you got out of it okay.
I already went down the rabbit hole of Leica digitals and realized that I’d be happier sticking with my Fujis.
But a film camera....
In reply to David S. Wallens :
If you're willing to deal with the ergonomic compromises, the screwmount Leicas can be had for relatively cheap. They're quite a bit smaller than the M-mount bodies, so you can carry them in a pocket if you're so inclined. Pretty good vintage lens selections available, too. I've got, umm, several.
This IIIg gets the most use.
This was an antique store find, a IIIc with sharkskin Vulcanite. Everything you see came with it, including the original bill of sale from Germany in 1946 (probably a GI purchase on occupation duty).
There are more. And lenses. And external viewfinders. I realize now I may have something of a problem....
I've followed some of the photography threads here, but hadn't been following this thread until today.
My Minolta X700 needed repair in about 2001 when I bought my first digital, and it's somewhere in it's camera bag, along with three lenses and some other accessories.
However, I'm visiting family and this came up in the conversation. "I guess I'm going to throw it away."
I'll need to have some servicing done, but I think I'm going to be back at it. My first career goal was photography, I shot a lot of race horse pictures for my dad's paintings, and had a few pictures of horses in training published in one of the harness racing journals.
You guys are going to make me dig out my XD-11
Got my roll back of 1981 expiration Kodak Panatomic X. The roll came with a Mamiya 645 1000s that I got on offerup back in 2022, unknown storage condition. With two rolls of 1982 expiration date Kodak Plus X.
Got some interesting results, seems like the lab had a tough time scanning it to clean up the artifacts on the film, but did some minor adjustments in GIMP to get a better image.
Wish my roll wasn't so messed up because I kind of like the results
In reply to Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) :
That Canon A-1 is very choice.
In reply to aw614 :
For 42+ year old film, the results look great! The 1000s was my first medium format camera and I miss it at times.
Pick up some fresh rolls and get out and shoot some more.
In reply to 02Pilot :
I’m thinking/wondering that I might prefer a camera with a build-in light meter, but I do hear you on the early Leicas.
In reply to aw614 :
Yeah, these look way cool. Love the first shot of the Crown.
You'll need to log in to post.
