Have we talked about film cameras lately?

Yeah, if any of those newcomer color film stocks actually get to market and stick around, I'll be happily surprised.  That Russian outfit doesn't really seem reliable enough, Ferrania is coughs and starts, don't know about Adox's effort but they've got the track record to pull it off.  When I get through my box of black and white film I'm probably moving to bulk loading Ilford FP4 and HP5.  But that will take a couple of years at the rate I'm shooting these days (actually worse, I haven't shot much since the Challenge).  Not sure what the solution for color film shooting is.  Hope it becomes less costly at some point which I doubt ever happens...

In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :

http://m.adoxphoto.com/color-mission/ This is Adox color project. Basically they had worked on making a new one company they worked with went tits up. So they sold off the cold stored stock to raise funds to start doing their own color stock.

I know some people are bulk rolling Vision3 or the E100 equivalent stocks and home developing.

Personally I am just going through a project of testing a few different black and white films to try to settle on a couple to do the majority of my shooting with. Trying to settle on a couple lower speed films (probably Fomapan 100 for budget and Acros ii because of the low reciprocity failure) and a couple faster ones (possibly TMax400 and something more budget).

Foma 400 pushed in Clayton F76 is kind of my usual for high speed B&W film.  It's not exactly "low grain".  I'm kind of wanting to work on semi-stand with Rodinal if I can reach the same effective speed and get smoother images.

The problem with motion picture film is the remjet and all of the issues that stuff can cause during development.  It sounds like a mess.  I know you can wash that stuff off but I'm not extremely interested in doing that.  If Cinestill sold 100' rolls of their 800T for a non-crazy price, that might be a great way to go, but I don't think they do that.

In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :

Honestly having talked to some people who work with Vision3 stocks, I get the impression it isn't as bad as it sounds. But there is always Ektachrome available for bulk loading and that is just standard E6 (no remjet).

Pretty sure Ilford HP5 is still available.  Honestly, I'd say price is the least of my concerns regarding film photography and printing.  So many good papers are gone with Kodak and others completely exiting the photo paper market.  Pretty much just leaves a diminishing few papers by Ilford.

I'd rather they jacked the prices to a level where they can keep producing the product rather than drop it altogether, which is the alternative.

So, funny thing.  I was going through some old stuff and happened upon a couple of rolls of exposed, but unprocessed B&W film.  On a whim, I processed them last night.  One was Plus X, the other was bulk loaded by a friend of mine near the end of the last millennium.  I had incorrectly assumed/recalled that it was Tri X.  Wrong.  It was TMX.  Fortunately, Tri-X and TMX are optimally developed for virtually identical times in D-76 1:1.

Negatives look amazingly good, given that they were exposed about 25 years ago and have been sitting around in a box since then.  I have pics of our SR-71 Blackbird, and the blizzard of 1996!  Enjoyable. 

In reply to 1988RedT2 :

I know that somewhere in my office you'll find exposed film that was never developed. Likewise, I bet it was shot during the last millennium. 

In reply to pres589 (djronnebaum) :

I started shooting the Kodak Vision (motion picture film) and haven't looked back. 

My Rolleicord camera with bonus cat.

Just realized that I never shared my two latest film cameras, A Kodak Tourist and a Kodak Duaflex II. Nothing fancy, but they were Christmas gifts from my parents.

Both take 620mm film, which is pretty much just 120mm but on a different spool.

Thankfully, The Film Photography Project sells respooled 120mm film.

In reply to Sarah Young :

I'm as much a fan of the Rolleicord as the next guy, but that cat steals the shot, and he knows it!

In reply to Colin Wood :

You really only need a 620 spool for the take-up side (don't throw away your 620 spools, BTW). 120 will feed fine in most cameras if you just trim the plastic edges down so they're more or less flush with the film/backing paper.

Those old Kodak cameras can be a lot of fun. I've got a few - they don't see much use, but every now and again they're entertaining, and the photos have a certain pleasant softness that you don't see from more advanced lenses.

So I am wanting upgrade my rangefinder setup. My head says a Canon rangefinder either the P or L1 or L2 because of the much larger selection of lens and the fact that they have viewfinders for different focal lengths. But my heart kind of wants a Kiev ii. It also has a large effective base length.

Finally shot the last of my first B&W roll in the Bronica ETRS.  Put it in the can last night and processed it this afternoon.  It's still washing, but I pulled a couple frames off the reel and the negatives looks nice and sharp and properly exposed. 

I'll make a contact sheet tomorrow night and print a couple of the bestest frames.

Well this happened. I only intended to buy this freshly CLA'd Kiev iia but the seller of the Kiev iia also had a Lomo LCA available so I said why not. Then I walked into the local camera shop and they had this 1938 Contax ii in great shape with a Zeiss 50mm f2.8 tessar and zeiss yellow filter for $200 and there was no way I couldn't buy it. The rangefinder is pretty dim compared to the Kiev so I probably won't use it much until I can get it CLA'd

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Those are some nice acquisitions, especially the Contax!

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I never went down the Contax/Kiev route, but they are interesting cameras. I almost bought a Nikon S2 (?) years ago, but didn't for whatever reason.

Had I seen your earlier post about the Canon rangefinders prior to just now, I would have offered whatever information you might want on the various different models. I've got an L1, a VI-L, and a P, plus most of the parallax-adjusting viewfinders, and a bunch of lenses. They are absolutely great, robust cameras - I've probably traveled with them more than any others. If you still have questions, let me know.

Growing up my mom had a late 70s/early 80s Leica. On one of our trips (probably 1987) she left it on the airplane seat and even though we returned, it was gone and never to be found again. 

She promptly went to a camera store and picked up a Minolta Maxxum. Probably not nearly as good as her beloved Leica but the Minolta took most of our childhood pictures, thousands probably. 

I just happened to find it a while ago. The leather case disintegrating, and the flash gone. The camera works and takes pictures, but they come out blurry. 

I know its probably worthless, but for sentimental reasons, I'd like to get it going again. Any clue of where to send it to have it looked at? Maybe its the AF lens? Hopefully it can be brought back to life and I can bring it to her.

There's always Phototronic, on the north side of Topeka.  The guy there has always been good to work with when I brought him stuff;

https://phototronic.biz/

I would call ahead and talk to him about it, then mail him the camera if he agrees that he'd like to work on it, and then call again after a week or two and talk to him about it again.  He kind of wants you to make sure he's doing what you want, if that makes sense, from the times I worked with him.

The Maxim 7000 is supposed to be a good camera from that era and I think there's a decent selection of A mount glass for it out there.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I kind of ended up going the Contax route. I got the Kiev and immediately loved it. I am trying not to end up a camera collector with a bunch of different system so I think I am going to go with Contax mount rangefinders rather then screw mount.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

Makes sense. I think what sent me down the Leica screwmount path was that I started with a FED-2 and it just sort of snowballed from there. One benefit to the Leica system is a much greater selection of lenses, but that's also proved an expensive temptation, so perhaps you're better off. Contax lenses seem to be cheaper as well.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I have a Zorki 4 but the slow shutter speeds no longer work and as you say Contax lens tend to be cheaper. Also there is no will it work, won't it work with Soviet lens and non-Soviet rangefinders with the Soviet lens on the Contax side.

My plan is to get the Voigtlander 21mm, a 35mm focal length (I'll probably grab a cheap Jupiter 12 to start then later upgrade to a Nikon or Zeiss), replace the Jupiter 8 with either Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.5 or F2.0 or Jupiter 8m, a Helios 103 and a Jupiter 9 85mm f2. The copy of the Jupiter 8 I have has an uber easy to move apeture ring and I keep accidentally moving it when focusing.

The downsides to me with the Contax setup is that there are there are not a lot of options for 28mm focal lengths and they are really expensive, the setup is a bit bigger especially cause there is no equivalent to the Leica Elmar collaspible (the Tessar I have collaspes a bit but not to the same amount as the Elmar) and the options for anything with multiple framelines is limited (Nikon S3, S4 and SP but they only work with Contax mount lens 35mm or shorter or Bessa R2C which is expensive and gives up the long effective base length of the Contax). I will say I am amazed that Contax rangefinders didn't outsell the Leica ii/iii. I mean they seem so much more advanced. No seperate viewfinder and rangefinder. No weird bottom loading. Bayonet mount vs screw mount. Shutters that are not as likely to be damaged by the sun. I am guessing the Contax was lot more expensive then the Leica at the time.

In reply to 93EXCivic :

I don't know what the price differential was, but my limited understanding is that the Leica bodies were more reliable than the complicated Contax, at least before the war. The post-war was more difficult for Contax because the original Zeiss factory was in the Soviet Zone, and the Western arm had to retool. They also went into SLRs earlier and stronger than Leica, which never really committed.

The thing about Leica bottom-loaders is that, once you've gotten used to the quirks, they're really easy to work with, and as you note, very compact. With a collapsible lens, they're really small. Most of the time I don't even use the rangefinder - just set for 3m/10ft (or swing it to infinity as needed), f/5.6 or 8, 1/125, and frame with an auxiliary viewfinder - so the two tiny windows are a non-issue. And it fits in my pocket almost as easily as a Rollei 35.

I think I figured out my film camera situation. 

Lately I have been shooting–a lot–with my Fujis. I love the analog feel even though they’re digital. Fujifilm, where have you been?

So, I was thinking, if I have room in my Fuji bag for a film camera or two, I’d have them right there and be more likely to use them.

I think I just convinced myself to buy a new camera bag. 

From the trailer of the new Wes Anderson film, a rebadged Kiev 4 (pretty sure). But I notice something wrong with this picture.