Donald Qualls
Subscriber
What are your radio interests?
I'm active on local 2m repeaters and an afternoon rag chew net, and interested in QRP DX (but don't have an antenna that would make it work, nor the Morse skill to go with it).
What are your radio interests?
Hi,
My dentist is an underwater sportsman and does spearfishing. I showed him my Minolta QT and his response was, "Why would you mess with that when any cheap cellphone would take better pictures?" I said "For the same reason some people would spend 40 or 50 thousand on a boat to fish when the market sells a wide range of fresh fish for a few dollars a pound." No response!
Terry
Donald,.
I've enjoyed your posts. However, my Rollei 16 only needs single side perfs, and my Edixa doesn't even need them, as it uses a takle-ip spool, while the Rollei 16 does not. What are your radio interests?
Terry
w4aon
Why go underwater to get the fish? Most buy fish at the store. He is crazier than us...
And most of those guys don't even eat what they spear.
Still, there's more information in a 35mm frame (on quality film, with a good lens, shot from a tripod) than in a cell phone image, at least from a couple years ago. Megapixel count isn't everything; many of those "50 megapixel!!" cell phones are interpolating from a quarter that physical sensel count, or not worse.
Why write with a fountain pen when a word processor will do a better job every single time?
Well, as it happens, I use fountain pens, and have a couple from the 1940s, even 1930s, in working condition (but the one I carry every day is a modern one that cost me about $2). Kind of the same idea as shooting with old film cameras -- they're repairable, and they do a certain job in a way I find more comfortable (I hate ball points, too much pressure required to make them write properly).
I don't shoot 16mm much any more -- I've gotten addicted to big negatives. However, even at lower resolution than my cell phone camera, I'd rather have negatives and prints to start from, regardless where the images wind up. Just more comfortable (I will admit, I'm starting to get old; turned 60 a few months ago).
Ah, big beautiful negatives. I finally have a couple of serviceable Kodak Tourist cameras, one of the top lensed model, the Anastar, and one of the bottom model with a 100mm f8.8 triplet. I call that one my ‘bare bones’ 6x9 and have loaded it first. Modified the feed chamber to take 120 but left the takeup unchanged since I have plenty of 620 spools and do my own developing anyway.Well, as it happens, I use fountain pens, and have a couple from the 1940s, even 1930s, in working condition (but the one I carry every day is a modern one that cost me about $2). Kind of the same idea as shooting with old film cameras -- they're repairable, and they do a certain job in a way I find more comfortable (I hate ball points, too much pressure required to make them write properly).
I don't shoot 16mm much any more -- I've gotten addicted to big negatives. However, even at lower resolution than my cell phone camera, I'd rather have negatives and prints to start from, regardless where the images wind up. Just more comfortable (I will admit, I'm starting to get old; turned 60 a few months ago).
Actually the HP5 is HP5 PLUS. I don't know if you were into 16mm still at the time, but when that film came out in 16mm single perf negative, I was very excited to have a state of the art 400 ISO film without having to split 35mm. Thing is, at the same time I just got into Large Format, so I never shot all 100 feet of it. Maybe 50 feet still left in that roll.
I have 100 ft of 16mm Tri-X but I found it has a remjet backing, one more step in developing but all the information found so far makes it seem fairly simple.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: ![]() |