Discussion in '"Boat Anchor" & Classic Equipment' started by W1GUH, Sep 16, 2014.
I have a prm-10 which I just love. Best GDO ever made.
Cream of Tartar paste is okay for cleaning aluminum too.
Thanks, I'll give it a go! Makes you wonder what it does to your stomach, huh?
The main thing I'm interested in is, not so much cleaning (my homebrew aluminum panels are nearly new, therefore essentially clean), but erasing the almost inevitable micro-scratches, fingerprints and other stuff that end up as blemishes on homebrew front panels and cabinets. That, apparently, was one of the things you could achieve with the "household lye" treatment, not just getting a satin finish. After which, you would spray it with lacquer (modern equivalent: Krylon).
I've never tried doing things that way and it seems rather fussy to me -- as Jim says, perhaps just not worth it. But I getting ready to label a front panel (for the first time) with a modern dry-transfer process. (1) I'd like to start with an immaculate surface. (2) I'd like to protect the results from fingernails or other impacts that could damage the resulting labels.
This is really just for a couple of "museum-quality" HB projects I've been working on. Once it's done, I can get the perfectionism out of my system. (On the whole, I don't believe in labeling HB panels.)
'WSY - your comments exactly mirror the results of the comparisons I've done, and thanks for adding all the advantages of digital - particularly about low light situations. The very first thing I noticed when I got my first digital, a 2M Canon S330 in '02 was that the resolution blew away 35mm film. It matched what I'd done with a Rollie, and was a heck of a lot easier! Not to mention automatic AS...er ISO selection, scene tweaking, AF, and a whole crapload of other advantages. Thanks again!
But...the Pentax, with the way it's built and mass makes a wonderful defensive weapon, if, Gopod forbid, I'd ever need something like that!
I've made a 2' x 4' blow up mosaic of the Flatiron building from a Pentax negative - now I gotta take the same shot with the DSLR and do the same thing. The Pentax looks very good. Pity that blow-ups of that size are pretty much prohibitively expensive. But 8x10 and 11x14, even 16x20 are not all that expensive if I want to got that route.
'EY - as for chemicals they're still out there and affordable. Just recently got some Dektol, stop bath and fixer from Adorama and it doesn't "feel" like that will go away anytime soon. MF 120 film runs about eight bucks for the film and about 8 bucks to get developed at Duggal. That's for color. I've still got all my darkroom stuff, but it's unclear if I'll ever set it up - scanning and photoshopping is just too convenient and can do so much more than "real" printing that there's very little incentive to do that. C-41 processing stuff is also conveniently and affordably available. There's a kit good for a few rolls (forget the details) that's allegedly easy to use that runs about $25 and B&H has that.
The film that's available is good! Maybe better than Vericolor or Ektacrhrome. I've shot with 'em all...Ektar, Porta from Kodak and Provia and Velvia from Fuji. All are what the web says they are. But havn't shot nearly enough to settle on one or two. Ektar is extremely sharp and Portra has a wonderful soft look for portraits. And both Fujis, slide film, have the trademark color saturation that Fuji's famous for.
Final thought is this...
Digital photography makes it easy to get some amazing shots and is essentially free. But when I flatter myself and consider what happens to all my digital shots when I've moved on, well, what happens is the disks they're on will get trashed, or at least wiped clean in a format. But the files of my negatives and slides....well...that might attract some attention. Plus, should I get a really, really really lucky shot of some ephemeral phenomenon, it's much easier to prove that the shot hasn't been altered when you've got the physical film as evidence.
I always preferred Minolta 35mm cameras to Pentax although I do have a Pentax. My wife, when we got married, had a Zeiss-Ikon 35mm camera that took excellent photographs even though it was not an SLR.
I also have a 4X5 view camera, with closeup bellows, that takes EXCELLENT photographs that can be enlarged to some pretty good sizes. I used to have a pre-World War II German Kodak that also used cut film. That camera also took excellent photographs. My middle daughter always loved that camera, so I gave it to her several years ago.
There has been a darkroom in my house since 1968. But, I just don't use it any more. I do have several enlargers including one for 35mm, a color enlarger than can handle up to 6X9 cm film, and a large format enlarger that can handle up to 5X7 inch film. These days, I store radios, manuals, and so forth, in the darkroom. The last B&W printing that I have done was a number of years ago when my middle daughter took some B&W photographs and then sent the negatives to me for printing including doing some in sepia.
When Panatomic-X, 32 A.S.A. film was still available, I used that film for like 99-percent of my B&W photographs. Some local photographers discovered that if you "shot" Panatomic-X at A.S.A. 400, and then developed it in Accufine for around 10-times the normal time, the film had some fantastic gray scales and super-fine details. After Kodak discontinued the film, the next best thing was Agfa A.S.A. 50.
I still have some 4X5 cut film. But, it is so old that I hesitate to even think of trying to use it.
Glen - (sarcastic) could I ask you to please not mention view cameras again? <-- totally good-natured and kiddin' around
I really don't need any encourgement at all, or even a reminder of how much I'd LOVE to shoot with one. [big smile]
Yea, for 35mm I've always been a Canon person, and the A-1 I got (ironically just before I went digital so I didn't use it very long) is just out of this world. But...it now collects dust. Even a digital point and shoot beats it for image "goodness." I had a Yashica TL-Electo for a while It was really good and I just learned that "It is almost an identical clone to the Pentax Spotmatic II, ...", so I guess I DID shoot with a Pentax for a while? Link to quote. I do remember that the original Spotmatic got raves when it came out.
One thing I forgot to mention about the films I mentioned previously is that they are very, very good at push-processing. When I have 100 film pushed to 400 I have yet to notice any degradation. There's gotta be some, but the images are just as usable as when processed at 100. That's very handy when I've got 100 film in a low light situation. They can even be pull-processed at 50. Pity you can't specify processing frame-by-frame!
BTW - one of the BIG benefits of getting that '67 is that it finally motivated me to read Ansel Adams. Wow! Not only did Mr. Adams really, really know photography, but he was a very, very talented writer. The books are a great compendium of technical data about photography, but just reading them one learns of compositional techniques almost by osmosis. Made a significant difference in how I look through the viewfinder, and they're a great read.
I hadn't had the view camera "out" of its case for at least a year. There has been some rust on one of the tubes. That will have to be removed before I put the camera back in its case!
My eldest daughter, when she was a student at SMU (Southern Methodist University), had her major as advertising art (commercial art). She already had several clients for which she was providing advertisements. One client wanted her to do a number of color brochures and provided 4X5 color film. Rebecca, by accident, put the wrong lens on the camera. The one that she chose was strictly for B&W film and was not color corrected. The photographs had an aura around the product and she just knew that she was going to have to replace the film, at her cost, and redo the entire project. However, the client was absolutely pleased with how the photos turned out and gave her a bonus on top of her regular fee!
Good for her! Funny how other eyes can see beauty where the artist only sees junk!
BTW....oh, thanks a lot for the temptation. I'll write you from the poorhouse after I hock everything for a camera like that! [big grin]
You could get some great ham porn of your collection with that.
I paid, for the 4X5 camera, something like $50.00 at a used camera / consignment shop owned by a guy named "Buzzy". His son, who was somewhat mentally challenged, managed the store but "Buzzy" was almost always there to set prices, etc. Of course, I needed a developing tank for 4X5 film and "Buzzy" sold me one, with like 12 film holders, for $10.00.
When I went looking for an enlarger for 4X5 film, "Buzzy" had one that needed restoring for $75.00 and one that had been restored for $1500.00. Both could handle film up to 5X7 inches. A couple coats of paint, and some holes in the bellows repaired, and I had a very good large format enlarger for $75.00.
"Buzzy" had a photography studio and did a lot of weddings. He was fairly large, approaching 300-pounds. Then, he got cancer. With all the treatments, he dropped down to about 120-pounds, basically a skeleton the last time I saw him. He died a few weeks later and the store was closed.
Of course, I had to construct a cabinet for the camera. The extension rods unscrew so the actual camera compresses very small. However, I made a portable cabinet that also holds all the film packs as well as a number of flash units.
My eldest daughter had a "full ride" to SMU, for her art talents, and "tested out" from all Math, English, and Science classes. However, the school did not reduce the number of hours to graduate. So, Rebecca took all sorts of courses to acquire the hours. She took several photography courses and in one of those classes 4X5 cut film was the medium. SMU had a number of Press-Graphic cameras for the students to use. However, there were not enough for every student to have a large format camera all the time. So, I went looking for a suitable camera and found one in "Buzzy's" shop. That way, she didn't have to wait for a school camera. Also, since we had a darkroom, she could develop the film at home and didn't have to spend time in the college darkroom.
Great story and great score, Glen!