Film and digital.

[Jack Williams]

Well no, there's no brightness or focus on this converter, but that would indeed be good. I thought of dismantling it and putting in a smaller bulb, but now the "Blase Photo" which came with it on the software disk has crashed. So be it. I removed it from the computer, thinking that if I then reinstalled it we'd be back in action. No such luck!
Anyway there is this one available in Kiwi. Dunno if I can get the fatter slides in their slide carrier, but I thought I can carve out the half frame carrier (I'm never going to need that!) to fit in the fat slides, even if a bit of sticky tape holds them. They'll be centred focus-wize.
Never a dull moment, but this something to get my teeth into.
http://www.mightyape.co.nz/product/Veho ... /18464082/
Strangely, I saw those Kodak instamatic cameras at the local supermarket recently!
Looking at that illustration, it does look as if they have a half frame tray, but they mention 110mm film.
Just Googled it. The half frame looking tray is for Insamatic film, which I guess is in fact half frame.
Anyway, like vinyl records, film is making a comeback. Not dumb, the Moderns!

[crfriend]

Well no, there's no brightness or focus on this converter, but that would indeed be good.

"Game over", then. If the slides aren't in precisely the focus plane for the sensor then there's no way that thing should have ever been brought to market (save to the "great unwashed").

[... T]hey mention 110mm film. Is that the format used by the Hasselblad, Rollieflex etc?

Nay, that's a marketing thing that Kodak did with the Instamatic. The film therein, whilst billed as "110" is actually very close to 35mm stock (and may, in fact be). I recall the film cassettes fairly well and used them until I got my first proper 35mm camera. The optics on the Instamatic were close to junk.

I think that the medium-format bits from Hasselblad and Rolliflex are 120mm bits. Sweet stuff; I've shot some of that in the past, but it's an expensive format to work with, not to mention the cameras involved.

[Kilted_John]

120 film is for medium format cameras. 220 film is as well. 120 film happens to be cheaper than 35mm film, but, you're stuck with getting a maximum of 16 shots (6x4.5cm image size).

A good film scanner is not going to be cheap. Even the old Nikon LS-2000 Super Coolscan scanners from the '90s are fetching ~$500 or more.

Ektachrome was never really a great film. More recent versions are better, but the stuff from the '60s-the late '80s wasn't that great. Fujichrome was a lot better, but had/has a greenish cast that some people don't like. I usually use either Velvia 50 or Provia 400X. Unfortunately, Provia 400X disappears very soon. Most of the time, I'm shooting either Kodak Ektar 100, Portra 160, or Fujicolor Pro 400H. I always rate the ISO 2/3 a stop over, if it's color print film, or 2/3 a stop under for transparency film. B&W, usually the rated speed.

Of the two film shots posted, the Fujichrome looks better. The only problem, of course, is the fact that the scanner seems to be out of focus. Hopefully the photolab has better luck with their Coolscan 5000 (which is probably what they're using, unless it's a 9000, which has the ability to scan 120/220 film).

One benefit of Ektachrome and Fujichrome, as well as the other E-6 process films, is that they can be processed at home. It's not much harder to do than processing B&W film. Temperatures have to be a bit more controlled, but, same steps.

Re: Kodachrome, it can still be shot and processed. It can be processed as a B&W film, which provides interesting colors. There have been a couple people on the APUG forum that have been able to recreate the K-14 chemicals and were able to get good results. It's not something they are willing to do for other people, though. Guess it's a lot of work.

APUG = Analog Photography User's Group = http://www.apug.org - I'm John_Nikon_F over there. Site is very large with over 30,000 members. Those of you who still shoot analog ought to consider joining.

-J

[Jack Williams]

Thanks for that info John. Found this shot of a friend from the same Fugi film which is much better focused. I cropped a couple of vehicals out of it.

Found the site, and also the Facebook page.Cheekily biffed up this shot there, as I'm more used to Facebook.
These ones at the Blues Club picnic seem to have better fucus:

[pleated]

Well no, there's no brightness or focus on this converter, but that would indeed be good.

"Game over", then. If the slides aren't in precisely the focus plane for the sensor then there's no way that thing should have ever been brought to market (save to the "great unwashed").

[... T]hey mention 110mm film. Is that the format used by the Hasselblad, Rollieflex etc?

Nay, that's a marketing thing that Kodak did with the Instamatic. The film therein, whilst billed as "110" is actually very close to 35mm stock (and may, in fact be). I recall the film cassettes fairly well and used them until I got my first proper 35mm camera. The optics on the Instamatic were close to junk.

I think that the medium-format bits from Hasselblad and Rolliflex are 120mm bits. Sweet stuff; I've shot some of that in the past, but it's an expensive format to work with, not to mention the cameras involved.

There were two different sizes of "Instamatic" film cartridges. In the sixties there was the "126" - this was based on 35mm and the image frame was square, just over an inch. Later, 70's and 80's, there was the "110" "Pocket Instamatic" using 16mm film.

[pleated]

Just had a look for more information. The 110 frame was 13mm X 17mm. The 126 was 26.5 X 26.5mm.

There were two earlier "110" and "126" formats a hundred years ago. These were roll film. The 110 was for 5 X 4 inch and the 126 was 4.25 X 6.5 inch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_forma ... lm_formats

[skirted_in_SF]

Did those old Kodak film number have any logic?
I know my first camera, that I got when I was still in single digits agewise, and purchased for a couple of bucks and some Nestle Quik tops, used 127 roll film. My next camera, that I used in high school and college (through the mid-'70s), was a 126 cartridge camera. Then I graduated to a Fujica 35mm camera.

[Jack Williams]

New slide converter has been shipped I'm told.
Also, completed the current film this week: Some sameish shots of the Spring trees, and a few at Lynn's place at Piha, and also on the beach. 50mm lens, f8 @ 100th. Be an interesting comparison with the digital ones again.
Not sure what's on the earlier part of this film, but could be at WOMAD after that one with the blues picnic on it. Took a couple of shots of the blackbirds on it too, showing both chickies. 135mm lens.

[Sarongman]

My first camera was won in a colouring competition (the BP logo) about 1959, and was a 127 Kodak brownie in roughly the shape of a classic Pears soap cake. I had that until, at 18 I bought an Exa SLR (Russian) with bayonet mounted 50mm lens. I bought a 200mm telephoto and a 35mm wide angle. No light meter meant that I had to calculate the exposure and, nearly always got it right.10 years later I went Nikon had a pair of Nikon bodies, an S1A and an F3 which interchanged the lenses. The light meters were a real luxury. It's now 9 years since I went digital with SWMBO buying an early Panasonic Lumix, which is still functioning perfectly as an upmarket point and shoot. I have stuck with the brand and, maybe will get the new G6 if I don't go all out and get a Nikon again- this time, a D4.
While I have some nostalgia for the film camera, I really have fallen in love with the all singing & dancing high end digitals and don't see myself resurrecting the film bodies---possibly I should put them up on Gumtree or eBay. However I'll never willingly part with the family heirloom cameras which are a Thornton Pickard full plate with roller shutter up to a blindingly fast quarter of a second and it's Voigtlander lens. Also a Quarter plate Century and a much earlier Stanley without shutter, just a lens cap and whose plate size is a mystery.

[Jack Williams]

My friend Lawrence Aberhart is a glass plate photographer.
His images have huge depth.
Depth is what I notice with my 35mm ones too, even though not the huge long exposures of Lawrence's.

[Kilted_John]

Here's one of the cameras I use for my analog photography...



Also have an F5, an F2AS, and an old F... Got Fuji Velvia in the F2AS, Fuji Provia 400X in the F5, ADOX CHS 25 B&W in the F, and Ektar 100 in the F3.

Digital is handled by a Nikon D200 with 18-70 zoom...

-J

[Jack Williams]

A photo of my Leica with 90mm lens on.

[Jack Williams]

Got this new slide converter today. Very acceptable colour from the Fuji slides.
Sending it back however because of the smudge near the left-hand side of the screen. Never a dull moment.

[Sarongman]

Jack, if you can find the October issue if Australian Photography + digital, you will find an article on panoramic photographer, Mark Gray, who uses Fuji velvia in his Linhof panoramic camera and a very high end digital for standard format. I think you will find it interesting, as it backs up your assertions as to depth in film.

[Jack Williams]

I've just ordered this new camera. It will be interesting to see how the image compares with the Leica..