Other collecting activities?

From: Tony Duell <ard_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sun Apr 18 17:37:43 2004

>
> >That's smaller than the _film_ size I want to use. Seriously, I have a
> >few 5*4" sheet film cameras. Perhaps that's why I don't think digital
> >cameras have even marginally useable resolution.
>
> I don't suppose you happen to know about the availability of
> materials for a camera that expects to shoot to glass slides? I'll

I am not sure if plates (that's what we call them in the UK) are still
made. However, sheet film certainly is, and you can back it with a piece
of _flat_ glass or similar. I think there used to be proper converters to
load sheet film into plate cameras.

> admit I've never really researched it for the simple fact I don't
> really expect to be able to use that 3D camera.

You'd be suprised. I don't think there's _any_ film-type camera that
can't be used somehow, even if not as the manufacturer intended (e.g. by
loading sheet film in a darkroom for each shot rather than using a size
of roll film that's not been made for decades).

>
> I'm not worried about having to do my own developing, I used to do a
> lot of that. Though I don't have any place to do it at the moment if
> it has to be done in a well ventilated location.

Becasue film is panchromatic you can't really use a safelight, you have
to work in total darkness (at least for most common materials). It's
therefore best to load the film into a light-tight tank and pour the
chemicals in the light. THis means that having good ventilation in the
darkroom is not that important.

>
> > > Kodak 3.1-Megapixel model we have with the Kodak photo printer
> > > actually produces results that are about as good as film based!
> >
> >Kodak cammeas had better have improved since the ones I've worked on,
> >then. I can't think of a single Kodak -- including the Retina and Retina
> >Reflex -- that's well built.
>
> The build quality is my chief concern about the camera. It feels
> like cheap junk, and I pray that it lasts till we're ready to replace

Which with the rate that new digital cameras come out over here only has
to be until the end of next week ;-)
 
> it! I also don't like the unresponsiveness of it, it isn't good for

This is a common moan...

> I'm not about to claim that *ANY* digital camera can produce as good
> of results as a good 35mm camera. The choice between digital and
> film really depends on several factors, with the use of the picture

Agreed. I am quite happy to accept that digital cameras have their uses
(press work, when you have to send a picture across the world in seconds,
is an obvious one). They're just not what _I_ want for my photography.

> camera is likely the best choice. If you're doing portrait or art
> photography, film wins hands down, and preferably the medium or large
> format film.

Ditto for architecture (my main non-scientific photographic interest) and
scientific work.

>
> Another factor is cost, for a parent with a young child a digital
> camera is great because you can afford to shoot tons of photos. In

NO!. Many times I've read letters and articles in photographic magazines
that point out that because you can take dozens of pictures with a
digital camera and not worry about the cost, then delete the duds later,
you don't bother to think about each picture, you don't bother to compose
it properly, look for the best viewpoint, and so on. The result is that
_all_ your pictures are poor. There's also no real incentive to learn to
do things properly if you can just delete the misexposed (etc) shots. You
don't have to learn to get the exposure right first time.

Conversely, when you use large format film (which is more expensive per
shot, of course), you spend a long time setting up the camera for each
picture (for those who've never used such a camera, not only do you have
the normal focusisg, aperture and shutter speed controls, you also have
the 'movements' where you can swing and shift the film holder and lens to
correct for having to tilt the camera (say you're photograpging a tower
and have to tilt the camera upwards to get it all in the frame, the tower
will appaer to lean in the photograph), to increase the effective depth
of field, and so o), you get virtually 100% good photographs once you've
learnt to use said camera correctly.

> I repaired the 50mm lens for my Nikon in the late 80's when I was
> sitting on a ship in the middle of the Persian Gulf. While I can

I prefer to do this on stable land :-)

> work on things like that, I prefer not to. For one thing my hands
> really aren't steady enough any more.

Each to his own, I suppose...

However, don't believe the commonly-stated idea that you can't work on
your own camera. They're _not_ that complicated -- certainly if you can
assemble an ASR33, or do a complete disk drive alignment, or something
like that, you'll not find most cameras any worse.

-tony
Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 17:37:43 BST