[GUB]

I have - in auto focus - MZ-60 MZ-50 MZ5n sitting here untested if you want one sent down. I put some batteries in and they all make sounds but I guess they need a film in them for the shutter to fire do they?
Plenty of non autofocus bodies here if you want a proper camera.

[Kiwi645hauler]

I have - in auto focus - MZ-60 MZ-50 MZ5n sitting here untested if you want one sent down. I put some batteries in and they all make sounds but I guess they need a film in them for the shutter to fire do they?
Plenty of non autofocus bodies here if you want a proper camera.

Hiya Gub, the 5n is tempting, i was looking for them when i ended up with my MZ-50 as i bought an FA 80-320 that needed some work and the MZ-50 was included... PM Me

[GUB]

Good luck with the auctions Ross

[NZ_Ross]

Good luck with the auctions Ross

Thanks GUB, I am having a bit of a spring clean, so there will be more listed over the next few weeks.

[seventhdr]

Any of you film guys want this lot?
2003 so still current

Transit,

Yep. I'm interested in those rolls.

Regards

Chris Stone

[Kiwizinho]

Took this at lunch time today in the garden. This kind of thing is one of the reasons my D-FA 100/2.8 macro WR gets a reasonable amount of use. Taken with a Sigma P-TTL ring flash which also gets a reasonable amount of use.
I like landscapes, but macro offers opportunities even on a wet day, especially at this time of the year.

[Transit]

Transit,

Yep. I'm interested in those rolls.

Regards

Chris Stone

PM sent

[Kiwizinho]

I posted my cyanotype efforts on a social media platform, and someone wanted to buy one. That's certainly a good way to keep my wife supportive of my photographic endeavours.

Bit of irony: After analysing my photos and deciding I didn't do enough with long focal lengths to justify spending much money on them, the person who bought a cyanotype of my tui photo casually mentioned if I did any more of iconic native birds they'd be interested in buying them. I'd have to sell a lot of cyanotypes to pay for a lens, but it still puts things in a slightly different perspective if I can even partially cover costs.

[NZ_Ross]

I posted my cyanotype efforts on a social media platform, and someone wanted to buy one. That's certainly a good way to keep my wife supportive of my photographic endeavours.

Bit of irony: After analysing my photos and deciding I didn't do enough with long focal lengths to justify spending much money on them, the person who bought a cyanotype of my tui photo casually mentioned if I did any more of iconic native birds they'd be interested in buying them. I'd have to sell a lot of cyanotypes to pay for a lens, but it still puts things in a slightly different perspective if I can even partially cover costs.

Sounds like the start of a new business line to me

[Kiwizinho]

Sounds like the start of a new business line to me

I think it's interesting the perception of value when it comes to photos. With pretty much everyone with a smartphone in their pocket that can take photos, even a very good photo that would not be possible with a smartphone tends not to be rated particularly highly in terms of value. People also know that digital images can be readily reproduced.
Cyanotypes aren't particularly hard to make, but they are more variable and more time consuming than a digital print. Someone can't just go out and snap a cyanotype and upload it in an instant, as exposure time is in minutes, and preparing a good negative takes a bit of time in Photoshop.

It's interesting that a few of you here have been bitten by the vintage lens bug, but that's never really got to me. I just want a lens that will let me capture an image as efficiently as possible, and if adjusting too many parameters at once risks losing the shot, I'd rather have a modern AF lens, but when it comes to vintage reproduction processes, that's an entirely different story.
I've created paintings of quite a few of my photos, and now I've discovered cyanotypes I'm hooked. I don't have anywhere to set up a traditional darkroom, and some of the chemicals I'm a bit dubious about, but coming up with interesting ways to produce archival quality images is something that fascinates me.

[GUB]

I posted this here back in 2019. A digital process - but what I want to point out is it is a photo of the final print on Daphne paper (rice paper). Can't help thinking it might be a paper that suits your cyanotypes.

[Kiwizinho]

I posted this here back in 2019. A digital process - but what I want to point out is it is a photo of the final print on Daphne paper (rice paper). Can't help thinking it might be a paper that suits your cyanotypes.

That's a nice contrasty image that would work well as a cyanotype.

They can be made on any natural fibre that will absorb the sensitiser and allow the unexposed component to be rinsed out, so wood, linen, cotton, are all fair game, and rice paper would be too.

There's a quirk of the chemistry that is slightly problematical in that cyanotypes can gradually fade in alkaline conditions so those nice acid free papers that typically contain calcium carbonate aren't good for cyanotypes.
Acid on the other hand, tends to make papers brittle over time, although if the cyanotypes are mounted and framed, that's probably less of a problem.
When I've processed my cyanotypes, I have used watercolour paper that claims to be acid free, but I've added some white vinegar to the wash solution which should lower the pH a bit, and it also speeds up the developing and seems to result in slightly more intensity to the colour.

I'm interested to see if I can find some scrap native timber or plywood, as wood is supposed to be naturally acidic, as are formaldehyde resins used in ply/mdf, so it would presumably keep the cyanotypes more chemically stable without the prints becoming fragile over time.

[NZ_Ross]

Given that today some new phone camera's were announced, and yes there are definitely other choices and manufacturers - I continue to be impressed how fast and how far phone camera's are iterating each year.

What is clear to me is that interchangeable lens cameras are going to become increasing niche, specialist and for very specific use cases. For everything else you will use your phone camera.

[zkarj]

What is clear to me is that interchangeable lens cameras are going to become increasing niche, specialist and for very specific use cases. For everything else you will use your phone camera.

I agree 'on an infinite time scale' to borrow a phrase. We could already argue (and many do) that ILCs are niche today, but I think there are two areas where phone cameras need to make huge advancements to catch up — focal length and resolving power.

Today's announcements from 'that fruit company' pushed the "telephoto" range out to 77mm (equivalent) which suggests before long they will exceed 100mm and that's where I think a LOT of the focal length battle will have been won, despite people like me wanting ever more.

But the resolving power is the more interesting one. In my personal experience, iPhones are pretty terrible when it comes to resolving colour and detail. The photos may look punchy and amazing on smaller screens but you don't have to look too closely to see their weakness. Maybe they can overcome yet more of this with computational tricks, but they've already had to apply a lot of that to get where they are.

One niche I see remaining for some time yet is for people who want to take photos of "things you can't touch". That's a generalisation I use, but I am referring to a bird in a tree, a plane on a runway, a racer on a track, a ship in the harbour, etc. These are things you cannot "just get closer to" and require one or both of the above traits to capture.

When I make these arguments in various fora, I am often met with "but most people..." as a response, and that is hard to deny. But then I wonder... would "most people" have used cameras at all in the pre-smart phone days? I think not, in which case the addressable market for "real cameras" probably isn't a whole lot different now to what it was then. What's changed is the number of people who take photos because it is so easy.

[Kiwizinho]

For everything else you will use your phone camera.

Except for filming on your motorbike.

...although I suspect it wouldn't be too good for a DSLR either.

Maybe a GoPro?