[stevebrot]

You should have had no difficulty finding one,

It didn't...the process took about 10 minutes. I could not afford one back in the late 70s, but now I can.

You mention the Vivitar 253 as having a high trigger voltage - did you mean the 283?

Typo...I corrected.


Steve

[aslyfox]

my latest acquisitions have arrived, all " experienced " lenses

SMC Pentax-D FA 50mm F2.8 Macro with hood and caps from Keh.com [ my third macro lens ]

SMC Pentax-DA 40mm 2.8 XS from a forum member [ replacing one I sold to a forum member along with a K 01 ]

SMC Pentax-M 50mm F1.7 from ebay [ my first " M " lens ]

and of course, I used the SMU as a scale

all seem to be like new to me

[monochrome]

I paid 45 pounds for this one. Not very cheap but still at the lower range for what they are going for. Glass is clear and it moves smoothly and it came with a rear adaptall cap which is pretty rare. It does give you a scare though when you check out the glass because it looks like there is a giant air bubble right in the middle of the rear element. It is the center point of the transparent rear cap...)

I seriously like that lens. Only Tamron Adaptall-2 I hung on to the last time I cleaned house.

[monochrome]

I had a delivery several months ago that went like that. It was actually scanned (either the item or the truck) at my local post office, but surfaced later the same day across the river in Portland and then later that evening in Troutdale (east of Portland) and eventually in Eugene, 120 miles to the south where it languished for a week or so. Eventually, it shuffled back and found its way to my front porch two weeks after the original "second day" delivery target.

With any luck your lens has not been liberated to a ditch somewhere deep in the hinterlands of the Midwest.


Steve

And as you predicted a guy driving one of the old Jeeps just brought it to my door.. I point out the Jeep because around here Supervisors and Asst. Postmasters drive them. I checked the Scan log and the delivery is the only scan the last three days.

Pictures follow.

[disconnekt]

Got two K&F Nano-X MRC circular polarizers from B&H to put on my SMC Pentax 55mm 1.8 & Ricoh XR Rikenon 35mm f2.8 (V1), so I wouldn't have to keep switching back & forth the Vü cpl I have between them lol

And ordered a 100' bulk roll of Ultrafine Extreme 100 & 6 rolls of the Ultrafine Xtreme 400 to do some night photography with.

[Benz3ne]

Got two K&F Nano-X MRC circular polarizers from B&H to put on my SMC Pentax 55mm 1.8 & Ricoh XR Rikenon 35mm f2.8 (V1), so I wouldn't have to keep switching back & forth the Vü cpl I have between them lol

And ordered a 100' bulk roll of Ultrafine Extreme 100 & 6 rolls of the Ultrafine Xtreme 400 to do some night photography with.

And where might I find examples of your film photography?

[dwalt]

I just got home from a trip to pick up an M42 kit I found I found on Craig's list.
I'm fairly excited as everything is in better condition than I expected.

You can tell me if I did well:

Super-Takumar 105mm 2.8
Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 - 8 element version
Super-Multi-Coated Macro Takumar 50mm 4
Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 28mm 3.5
Super-Takumar 200mm 4
Tamron Adaptall-2 28-200mm 171A with P/U M42 adapter

Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP
Honeywell Spotmatic

Everything is extremely clean. All original caps and cases. I don't know how the previous owner kept the leather cases looking so good.
The Spotmatics are clean and sound good. The mirrors don't stick...
Total cost $200 plus 1/2 tank of gas.


I'll know more when I get a chance to run some film through them.

[WPRESTO]

Comments on two lenses:
1) the 50mm f4 macro is a little gem.
2) When reverse mounted, the 28mm f3.5 is said to be excellent for deep macro work.

[disconnekt]

And where might I find examples of your film photography?

My old binder thats has the 35mm film sleeve holders 😆
Dont have a scanner or a computer right now to do any sort of scanning, dont have that much money for either right now due to money being tight for a while

[dwalt]

Comments on two lenses:
1) the 50mm f4 macro is a little gem.
2) When reverse mounted, the 28mm f3.5 is said to be excellent for deep macro work.

Thanks,
I believe the previous owner said the 50mm f4 macro was his favorite of the bunch.

[Benz3ne]

My old binder thats has the 35mm film sleeve holders 😆
Dont have a scanner or a computer right now to do any sort of scanning, dont have that much money for either right now due to money being tight for a while

What about using a dslr to photo your negatives? Not an ideal solution but might be a nice budget option?

[steamloco76]

After a twenty three day USPS shipping debacle, the DA*300/4 I bought from a PF member finally arrived yesterday. Quick testing gives this well “experienced “ lens a big thumbs up. Compared to my much loved F* 300/4.5 the DA*300 is sharper wide open and the AF is quiet and faster, the two of three reasons I wanted a copy of the newer lens. Reason three? Weather and dust resistance.

[3by2]

What about using a dslr to photo your negatives? Not an ideal solution but might be a nice budget option?

Yes indeed. If you have a macro lens, you can build something cheaply and easily or if you have a projector adapt it. I did the same thing and got some good advice from members on here.

[WPRESTO]

What about using a dslr to photo your negatives? Not an ideal solution but might be a nice budget option?

I have a a very large collection of chromes and color negatives from the Film Era, without counting, almost certainly in excess of 100,000 of each. Three options 1) commercial scanning; 2) desktop scanner (I purchased one, about $110); 3) DSLR with slide/negative device (have the complete system = K1, Pentax bellows with copy adapter; 50mm f2.8 macro). I have tried the first two and find the following. The desktop unit is pretty good and very convenient IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OR VERY FEW SLIDES TO DIGITIZE, and you want the digitized image right now. But, no matter how much I try to clean a chrome beforehand, there are dust spots all over the digitized image. It takes a long, tedious time to get rid of them, half an hour or more of PP to get rid of the dust spots and get the color and contrast where I want it. To do 1000 chromes, 500 hours or more at the computer. Sending off to a commercial outfit,, 1,000 chromes digitzed for 22-25 cents each, returned with reasonable color and contrast (PP tweaking required) and almost completely clean of dust spots. WAY EASIER, WAY LESS PP TIME. I have not tried the K1 + bellows etc. because it is certain the PP time afterward would be the same as with the little desktop converter, with doubtful gain in IQ.

Something I have found. The emulsion of chromes has a texture that doesn't show when projected on a screen, isn't seen when examining a chrome with a magnifier on a light table, but it is picked up when a chrome is scanned and digitized. It shows particularly in very dark areas of a scan. It can be suppressed by keeping dark areas of the digitized image very dark, or by using a noise removal program but at the cost of IQ.


SO: I would strongly recommend commercial digitizing over do-it-yourself IF you have a very large number of Film Era material you want to digitize. If you have only a handful of images to do, an inexpensive desktop scanner is going to provide IQ pretty much indistinguishable from using a DSLR + bellows-etc and will be much easier to use*. But, expect to spend a lot of time doing PP on every digitized scan you do yourself.

*A problem copying a chrome with a bellows-etc. known about and discussed way back in the film era when that process was the only way to crop a chrome, is getting uniform illumination and correct color. There's a tendency for such a rig to have have a central hot-spot with very strong vignetting. Getting uniform illumination to the corners was difficult. Topcon made a slide copying rig based in part on a big enlarger made by Beseler, one of the Topcon "family." There was a light source that had multi-dial color adjustments, special high-resolution lenses optimized for 1:1 or larger repro ratios, and of course a special Kodak color copy film.

[richard0170]

I have a a very large collection of chromes and color negatives from the Film Era, without counting, almost certainly in excess of 100,000 of each. Three options 1) commercial scanning; 2) desktop scanner (I purchased one, about $110); 3) DSLR with slide/negative device (have the complete system = K1, Pentax bellows with copy adapter; 50mm f2.8 macro). I have tried the first two and find the following. The desktop unit is pretty good and very convenient IF YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OR VERY FEW SLIDES TO DIGITIZE, and you want the digitized image right now. But, no matter how much I try to clean a chrome beforehand, there are dust spots all over the digitized image. It takes a long, tedious time to get rid of them, half an hour or more of PP to get rid of the dust spots and get the color and contrast where I want it. To do 1000 chromes, 500 hours or more at the computer. Sending off to a commercial outfit,, 1,000 chromes digitzed for 22-25 cents each, returned with reasonable color and contrast (PP tweaking required) and almost completely clean of dust spots. WAY EASIER, WAY LESS PP TIME. I have not tried the K1 + bellows etc. because it is certain the PP time afterward would be the same as with the little desktop converter, with doubtful gain in IQ.

Something I have found. The emulsion of chromes has a texture that doesn't show when projected on a screen, isn't seen when examining a chrome with a magnifier on a light table, but it is picked up when a chrome is scanned and digitized. It shows particularly in very dark areas of a scan. It can be suppressed by keeping dark areas of the digitized image very dark, or by using a noise removal program but at the cost of IQ.


SO: I would strongly recommend commercial digitizing over do-it-yourself IF you a very large number of Film Era material you want to digitize. If you have only a handful of images to do, an inexpensive desktop scanner is going to provide IQ pretty much indistinguishable from using a DSLR + bellows-etc and will be much easier to use*. But, expect to spend a lot of time doing PP on every digitized scan you do yourself.

*A problem copying a chrome with a bellows-etc. known about and discussed way back in the film era when that process was the only way to crop a chrome, is getting uniform illumination and correct color. There's a tendency for such a rig to have have a central hot-spot with very strong vignetting. Getting uniform illumination to the corners was difficult. Topcon made a slide copying rig based in part on a big enlarger made by Beseler, one of the Topcon "family." There was a light source that had multi-dial color adjustments, special high-resolution lenses optimized for 1:1 or larger repro ratios, and of course a special Kodak color copy film.

Co-incidentally I have been trying to copy some old slides his morning using my K3 and HD DA 35mm Ltd mounted on a tripod and using a LED light box underneath the slides. Results have been somewhat mixed to say the least. A few are fine, more look blurry even though I have seen them projected and know them to be sharp. Some the colours are all wrong and no amount of fiddling with WB makes it much better. (These are OK converted to B&W though). Others have a horrible ring from the light source in the picture. There just is no consistency. If I could get some good consistent results it would be worth buying a copy stand, but until I manage to get the lighting right it is not worth the bother.
In the past I have tried an Ozeck Zoom slide copier with my Nikon D610 - results were horrible, even though when I used to copy slides with it on my Minolta X700 there were no problems except a boost in contrast. I have tried also one of those filter mounted copiers, which was pretty good for B&W negatives but crap for slides.
I will just have to go back to these subjects and take them all over again! Oh dear, how sad, never mind.