[pathdoc]

Schaefer's book also covers now-nonexistent films. The coolest-sounding of all is Kodak's "Panatomic-X"; sounds like just the sort of thing to shoot through a thoriated Takumar lens as part of a B-grade sci-fi film plot!

"These are pictures of Godzilla that we captured on Panatomic-X film with a radioactive camera from Japan. It was the only way to get clear images."

[UncleVanya]

Schaefer's book also covers now-nonexistent films. The coolest-sounding of all is Kodak's "Panatomic-X"; sounds like just the sort of thing to shoot through a thoriated Takumar lens as part of a B-grade sci-fi film plot!

"These are pictures of Godzilla that we captured on Panatomic-X film with a radioactive camera from Japan. It was the only way to get clear images."

Panatomic-X was a great film. I shot it quite a bit when I was young.

[goatsNdonkey]

I have a pocket-sized laminated folder with two exposure planning dials on it, called the Harris Memory Meter III, that's a good guide to manual exposure settings. I've tried it at times when I went manual and meterless, and it works pretty well. Bracket some of the more questionable lighting situations, and you just about can't go wrong. Mine was printed in the mid-1980s, but they still turn up on ebay from time to time.

[stevebrot]

he coolest-sounding of all is Kodak's "Panatomic-X"

Panatomic-X was a great film. I shot it quite a bit when I was young.

Panatomic-X (abbreviated FX-32) was a great film. It was a sad day when it was phased out in favor of TMax 100. It was slow at ASA/ISO 32, but very rewarding. It was my mainstay for several years in the 1980s, shot at EI 64 and processed in Edwal FG7 diluted 1+15. FG7 provided the speed boost with little or no increase in grain and at that dilution acted as a semi-compensating developer. The resulting negatives had very fine grain, held detail well in the shadows and had beautiful tonality. I still have a small stash in the freezer, but sadly, FG7 has gone the way of the Dodo meaning I will likely use highly dilute HC-110, semi-stand at when I finally get around to shooting it.

Sorry for persisting so far off topic, but here is an example:


Panatomic-X, EI 64, Edwal FG7 1+15, 10' @ 70F, scanned on Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, Ricoh XR7, Tamron 28/2.5 (02B)

I don't remember for sure, but I believe I may also have been using a yellow filter.


Steve

[pathdoc]

So the first pics are back (I should be able to put digital images up in the next couple of days) and I have to say, they seem to have worked out well. The lens I was using for most of them advertises itself on the front retaining ring as being made by Formula 5 (by someone else for them, I suspect), and on my K-5 it distinguished itself by a tendency to haziness and lack of contrast. But it was the nearest 135 to hand that I was ready to risk by the water's edge and its lack of SMC-Tak-style aperture coupling counts for nothing when I'm running battery-free, so on it went... and oddly enough, the flaring and other unpleasant behaviour it had exhibited on digital was more or less absent on film.

I am not completely sure that ALL the shots I took were with that one lens, but I will try to find a couple that I can put up which definitely were.

Also, my S1a came back from CLA and I put a trial roll of Gold 400 through it yesterday. Given that it doesn't actually have a meter, and that I was fairly happy with the exposures the Sekonic was advising on the ST705, I am not inclined to wait for the test shots this time around - time to throw in a roll of Tmax 400 and get cracking.

Unfortunately its companion Super Tak 55/2 came back from the same CLA with the aperture blades still sticky* and what's more my SMC Tak 55/2 has developed the same issue, but fortunately the S1a is one of the late-model Red-R variants which should accept my Super Tak 50/1.4 without any issues, and the fact that the latter is visibly yellow shouldn't matter with B&W film. If anything it might help!

* I've emailed them about this and am awaiting resolution.The blades appear quick to close, slow to open, so it may not actually make much of a difference, but I still don't want to trust my pics to a lens that isn't performing per spec.

[goatsNdonkey]

In the past week, in order to get a Helios 44-2 f2 58mm lens, I also got a Zenit B camera, which is rather like the Zenit E, but is quite meterless. The camera appears to be hardly used. Demonstrators from camera stores probably develop more external wear. I think it must have spent all but a miniscule fraction of a percent of the last 35 years packed in its case (which I also now have) safely stored in a drawer or closet. It's sturdy, simple. And before putting film in it the only issue I could find was that the shutter curtain was a bit sluggish in closing on B and the slowest shutter speeds, but seemed quite snappy on the fastest three.

After a few tests of the lens on my K10D, I put some 200 iso Fujicolor in the Zenit B. I'll test it with the Helios, with my Sears m42 f2.8 135mm, with my Super Takumar f1.8 55mm, and maybe some others. If results are good, maybe THAT will be my m42 kit, unless I decide to stick an adapter in a metered Kmount film slr or a dslr. Might put my metered m42 body, a nice Vivitar XC-4, up for sale. [Not that I might one day look to add a Spottie F to the collection, of course. ]

Pathdoc, I'm looking forward to seeing those non-family sample photos from your meterless escapades!

[pathdoc]

Pathdoc, I'm looking forward to seeing those non-family sample photos from your meterless escapades!

While I won't speak for the quality of my composition or manual focusing or the lens's sharpness, the exposure I'm getting is more than satisfying for me. Yes, I know; I cut the paws off the dog at the base of the picture - but almost in the very next second he was slobbering on me and I had to take it while I could.

[redrockcoulee]

Many of our cameras have no place for batteries, and if 8 include all the pinhole cameras it is the vast majority of them. While I might not use a meter for shots with the Hasselblad or the Holgas we do for the pinhole cameras as we just don't have a good mental grip on how long the oatmeal can needs in low light loaded with paper. When out shooting with the Hasselblad I normally have a meter on my belt and will occasionally check with it but as long as it's outdoors shooting Acros I have a pretty good idea and can, if needed, shoot without a meter with me. With LF, it takes so much time to set up or to even load the holders I would feel silly not using one. There are several great apps for the smartphone or iPod for metering and timing pinhole shots.

[pathdoc]

There are several great apps for the smartphone or iPod for metering and timing pinhole shots.

I've got David Quiles's Light Meter app on my cellphone as backup for when I forget my selenium-meter Sekonic or it's too awkward or inconvenient to carry it around with me. It agrees within a half-stop with the meter on my K-5 under most circumstances, and test exposures I take using its recommended settings are generally spot on. A short while ago it was all I had to meter a shot that mattered...



...and while there was some exposure tweaking of the scanned image, that won't save you when your basic negative isn't up to scratch.

[goatsNdonkey]

Exposure of the color shots is very good, especially the tricky light of the dog picture.