Once you get the hang of it then it's easily repeatable.
What's Your One That Got Away?
It's the kinda thing you want to be able to do. And there's thousands of great 35mm film cams and stuff and owners are just waiting for someone to make it affordable and fun. Surely with a video showing you what you get and demonstrating how to simply do it including finished samples links. Before you even buy it. Eliminates the chore of the right chemicals, mix direction, rig parts to hold the film flat etc But I suppose there is an optimal focal length for the sensor you have.
But universal tube extensions closer focus for your lenses get any removable system going fast. Fixed lens cams work too; if clean enough sensor with enough DR. A simple rail and knob could handle critical focus adjustments. Some film cleaning solution mix and a dust blower also. Tested for shot to shot 35mm frame instant speed. No scanner wait!
One trick is to set the WB on the orange part of the developed negative film per type first. That way inversion and by curve expansion required of films compressed DR and you see that film types color palette. Less to edit. I meant a high definition film that scans well from your camera not scanner. Low grain high detail. But any color negative film will work. Shoot full digital or film witjh digital back-up. I sent that suggestion to Kodak a few years back As for grabbing the Yashica name, we could be looking at a new Cannon or Nikkon product soon as well and let's not leave out Fujeeca!
My Yashica compact was the worst camera I ever owned, and that was back when it was supposed to be a reputable company. Perhaps these new film products are pre-fogged, so you don't know if it's the Yashica camera or Yashica film that's ruined all your shots. I'm still amazed anybody wants to re-live the irritation and limitations of using roll film. Your list of assumptions are so wide of the mark I feel compelled to reply to your rant: 1 Before I owned a Yashica product, I already knew how to deal with an SLR, from being allowed to load my father's Pentax K The back was not light-tight, it fogged every film, the winding mechanism slipped, and the lens was not focused properly.
You'll guess by now that I am not a kiddie of the digital phone generation. I later enjoyed using a properly made Olympus film SLR for many years You never specified which Yashica Camera was crap. But i don't care. There honestly should be a way to permanently bury a storied name like Yashica so no one could use it again.
In general good that some film is coming back - even I wish it would be more the high quality film and not just rebranded hipster products of lower image quality. Ah, I knew I missed something. Reminder to myself: do not post anything before 8 a. Ok, youre an idiot. The film leader is narrower than the rest of the film and has sprocket holes only on one side. On a more serious note, I see no reason for the introduction of new film products. I have lots of film cameras and can't convince myself of any reason to use them Not everyone who purchases an old-great-name drives them into the ground.
Cosina isn't great by it's name, only for producing Zeiss Lenses as contract for Zeiss, and according to Zeiss Standards. After Y35, I find any subsequent announcements under this poorly resurrected brand name highly questionable. So what film did they rebrand this as? My guess it's Fujifilm's consumer ISO film and they've just rated at to make it seem more "retro". Guaranteed the hipsters in Brooklyn will eat this stuff up and then vomit out underexposed artsy photos onto instagram.
Kodak sold cameras, and also made film. But Yashica?
- From Boyhood to Manhood Life of Benjamin Franklin.
- Copernicks Rebellion;
- Street Cryptography.
- f/Egor: A Derelict Memory Lane - The Leica camera Blog.
- When Vaudeville Came to Joplin!
But they did make some very good middle-of-the-road 35mm cameras, and an extremely popular series of TLR's as well as some nice little 16mm sub-miniatures. Sadly, this company really stuck the knife into the brand with the Y35, such that they've made a once proud name a laughing stock. Your comparisons are foolish The name was subsequently sold and someone else is using it. His comparison is correct and his conclusion is the same as yours.
Why does DPReview give attention to this fake brand with very poor results? This is yet another rebranded film, likely Kodak made in China, same as Lomography Color Re-branding isn't new, of course. In the day, 3M film appeared under many names, and often under the name of the high street processing chain. This was certainly so in the UK. But this didn't create an issue as the films were less expensive than the main brands. But today, the situation is different. But there were people who actually bought it. Go figure. Remember DPR is owned by a company that doesn't want to choose side.
Hopefully unenlightened folks who might be fooled again there were a LOT the first time will read some of the comments here and not fall the game. They are here to honestly review, not pass judgement on stuff that might be even when they know it never will. The target audience are those born after film tried hard to mimic film with PS, now they can save some time and get this crap!
I am hoping to see someone re-invent the Polaroid 35mm DIY development kit with improve quality at reasonable price. Given the difference in treatment between the average Kickstarter's project and Yashica, I am inclined to believe that somebody at Dpreview had an affair with the daughter of Yashica new owner and it went wrong. I did not see anything interesting in the color or tonality of that film that makes me want to use it over digital.
Of course it is. But you know that there are people out there who simply don't get sarcasm, unless of course they look it up in the dictionary first. I dont understand why the company even bother with a failing market. While I don't live there any more, can I interest you in a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan DPR, it would be very helpful if, in the future, you could clearly identify any MF Jebsen venture in the article title.
My gosh these guys are dumber than dirt. I sprocket holes look wrong too. Couldn't they go out and buy a role of something and stick it back into their containers? Well at least it's color film while everyone else seems to do BW films. Tons of those around. On the other hand, it's color film. I'm guessing someone found an old shipping container full of 's stock and put new stickers on them. From what I saw of the Y35 and it's image quality, I'm fairly certain it's a dressed up cousin of my 4 year old's V-Tech funcam. Jebsen Group made it clear they have no business selling photography equipment, but with the fake little "film" cartridges the Y35 is probably a fun children's toy.
I'll stick with film from companies that are interested in making something worthwhile, not sneaking a few dollars out of people's wallets before they realize your scam. I'll be interested to see who signs up for another dose of hoof therapy. I have not paid my attention to Chronic Complainers but did research on film imaging and surprise, there is a lot of photographers doing film nowadays and images they produce are fabulous So, you just woke up to the fact that film is still a viable medium.
Now, have another look at the discussion at hand and you'll notice this isn't an issue about the legitimacy of film. Sure enough, it was a mistake. And so I do NOT care richdm who makes the film as long as the product is good. Hope I have explained my self adequately. Unfortunately, you can't squash an A3 print down an Ethernet cable, so it's a great shame those fabulous prints will be enjoyed by so few people The Yashica trademark belonged to Kyocera from their purchase of the Yashica company in until they sold the trademark in to a Hong Kong group.
Zeiss licenced it to Yashica, then Kyocera from to The Contax cameras that were made by Kyocera were top notch, but an early example of using a famous name to sell somethng made by somebody else. They even went so far as to give their salespeople "Contax 50 Years" banners despite the fact that Contax cameras had been out of production for many of those years. Ironically, Kyocera had nothing to hide as they were on the cutting edge, so to speak, of ceramic knives and other cool ceramic stuff.
Thank You! I guess that's what I remember. I've been looking through some old Pop Photo mags, but I haven't found any reference to it.
Articles · Lomography
There's not much for Contax on www. Maybe it's waiting for someone like you, to make an entry! I did see Kyocera and that did sound familiar , but there wasn't anything about a merger like I thought I remembered. I think Nikon had a similar design, but I don't know which was first. Thank You very much, at least I can stop looking now!
The wiki article on Yashica will give you a pretty could synopsis of the history of company, its partnership with Carl Zeiss and acquisition by Kyocera. I saw that, but I thought I remembered Yashica merging with Contax, and other than showing some of the popular models, they didn't have much about Contax at all. I suggested that some of you that actually know the Contax history, might want to add some information to wikipedia. So many companies contributed to the industry, and now they're just forgotten about. Simply turning the bellows focus knob moves the whole film plane unit including lightbox nearer or farther from the camera.
This way I can get the negative to nearly fill the frame of the digital camera. The image is focused via the macro lens on the camera. The video below shows how it goes. The dynamic range of the scene was already captured and compressed in the film. Being able to capture the entire image, including the natural edge of the 35mm frame, is a big advantage this has over some other scanning methods. Once the film is pushed in a bit though, the track holds the film straight and flat, and nothing ever touches either side of the image portion of the film.
Below is a view looking inside the bellows at the negative. The wood piece at the bottom is a spacer that holds the brass neg carrier at the proper height to line up with the center of the lens, and the areas above and to the sides of the neg are filled in with black matboard to minimize any extra light coming in. That circular opening is where the enlarger lens board would have originally been attached. But for now, the 16MP x images are plenty for me. Another idea I have is to use the dichroic lamp housing that came with the enlarger as my light source.
24 Great Vintage Cameras You Can Still Buy
This would allow me to adjust the color output of the light to possibly compensate for the orange mask of color negative film. Not sure about that, but might have to give it a try. Below are some images from a roll of film I developed a few nights ago. Those black borders are the actual frame edges captured in-camera. HCB would be proud.
These are actual photographic prints made by Talbot himself, the man who invented the calotype negative process. The six editions were sold separately, and as was apparently the custom at the time, the owner would have the editions bound together into a single book. The Elmer Andersen Library for Special Collections and Rare Books at the University of Minnesota has a bound copy of volumes 1 and 2, containing a total of 12 photographs the 24 total photographs were split into six volumes — it is believed that there are only about 15 complete copies of this book still in existence. It is clear that these two volumes were bound together into one book, although little of the binding remains intact today.
Thanks to my friend Matt Newberry arranging for us to view this, I got to sit with him and browse through these very fragile pages containing some of the first photographs ever made.
You may also like
Though the prints are severely faded, they are still sharp and show amazing detail. They are the sun-pictures themselves, and not, as some persons have imagined, engravings in imitation. More info about this negative here. I highly recommend you give it a read. Today Matt emailed me this photo below, showing Talbot and assistants contact-printing photos in the sun. Not terribly exciting photos, but it was fun shooting them and developing the film at home. I guessed at the metering using the sunny rule, and it worked well. Below is a screen shot of a detail area from the photo above, to give you some idea of the quality and resolution.
When cropped square, these images are about x pixels. I could make higher-resolution images of film by getting closer to the neg and moving it around to capture several images, then auto-stitching them in Photoshop. First I bought a small light box to act as a backlight-source. I had read that this model has a nice consistent brightness and color. Learn more after the jump! I wanted one for the sake of novelty.
I admit it. It seemed so cool to have a TLR Camera. Here is a review on the Rolleiflex 3. I've been lucky finding cameras at garage sales, so if you ever have the chance to visit garage sales, you might find a beauty like this as well! I love a good 6x6 negative, and the Ciro-flex delivers! I found it on ebay over the summer and since then I have had a lot of fun playing around with it. I recommend it to anyone as an option for a good inexpensive TLR if you don't mind a bit of work. All you need is a printer, sticker paper and a dash of creativity :. In Volume 3 of What It Takes, I dive into the world of respooling film to bring back an old bakelite box camera that wants you to think it's a TLR.
Spoiler alert: it's not! Fancy yourself a DIY project? Our Review of the Week shows you how a few fold here and there can give you an awesome camera!