I like film...(open thread)

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Firt impression I deliver this morning :

I slowly developed my film rolls during 2 last days.
One thing is certain protective bags Domke where I put all my film impressed (and non-impressed)

perfectly maintain their integrity despite repeated passing security gates at airports.
I have no veil or other problem

I recommend these bags for those who travel and shoot film

Rg

H.

Edited September 9, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Here are these bags size L and S

I put more than 50 rolls without the cardboard packaging box and without the cartridge box

(so single roll) in one bag L.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

M8-90 MacroElmar

 

Rg

Henry

Edited September 9, 2016 by Doc Henry

[chrism]

One last Rollei Crossbird:

 

Shamrock by chrism229, on Flickr

 

Chris

[A miller]

I'd like to go there as well, but man wouldn't we have fun with the SWC?

Gary

 

oh yes, I've already had my fun with it and you would, too.  Next year if I do it again it will be with my 6x9 Linhof and a much longer focal length (e.g. 180mm).   

[chrism]

Henry,

I don't do so much travelling any more, but when I do I take film and don't want it spoiled. My understanding from reading around the photo forums, and the US and Canadian transport security agencies is this:

 

1. Never put film in your checked luggage. It will be X-rayed in the US, and may be X-rayed elsewhere. Strong doses are used to penetrate cases and the film will be damaged.

2. Film that goes with you into the cabin will have to pass through security and this can happen two ways. Officially, you can request and are entitled to have film hand-checked in the USA and in Canada, but the reality is that many agents either don't know or care, and you have to weigh whether it is worth making a fuss and asking for a supervisor. I suggest you do so if travelling with fast film (>400 ISO). Otherwise the film will pass through the same X-ray machine as your hand luggage, and this will do no harm even after several passes (I see people making many connections claim up to eight with no damage*) provided the film is </=400ISO. The slower the film, the less the sensitivity to X-rays and the less harm done. So if you can manage with 50 or 100 ISO, you can, theoretically, make 2 or 3 extra trips with the film through security before it has had the same exposure as one trip with 400ISO.

*If I have travelled with a film but not used it, I set it aside for use at home and don't give it additional exposure by taking it away again.

3. Lead-lined bags and boxes. I'm not sure of the advantage they offer, as hand-inspected film isn't going to be X-rayed and doesn't need a lead bag, and if placed in the carry-on X-ray machine the intensity of the X-rays will be increased until they penetrate the bag and show what is inside. At this point, the film in the bag has had the same dose that film in no bag would have had from a normal scan. So, no advantage at security screening. Yes, on the flight itself at high altitudes the bag will prevent cosmic radiation from getting at the film, but this is at very low dosage levels. (Did you know airline pilots have a slight increased risk of brain tumours from cosmic rays after a career of extra exposure?) I have a little plastic box with a lead core that holds four rolls of film, and I haven't used it since the 1980's!

 

One extra point just for laughs. When my Leica Ms get X-rayed they go back and forth through the scanner and then always get taken aside for swabbing. I commented on that once and was told that the X-rays had difficulty seeing through these old and heavy cameras! So while you could leave film safely in the camera, I don't do that. You will still find some agents who ask you to take a picture to prove the camera works and isn't filled with explosives, though this is rarer now but once was routine (just as you always had to turn on a laptop and no longer get asked to do this). I can take the picture but have difficulty showing it to the agent on the LCD that isn't there. It's easier to open the camera and let them see daylight through it.

 

Chris

[colonel]

Just to contrast some of the more grainy photos I have posted recently, I also do sharp and detailed with film

 

 

 

Leica M6 TTL, Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 VM, Kodak Gold 200

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2. Film that goes with you into the cabin will have to pass through security and this can happen two ways. Officially, you can request and are entitled to have film hand-checked in the USA and in Canada, but the reality is that many agents either don't know or care, and you have to weigh whether it is worth making a fuss and asking for a supervisor. I suggest you do so if travelling with fast film (>400 ISO). Otherwise the film will pass through the same X-ray machine as your hand luggage, and this will do no harm even after several passes (I see people making many connections claim up to eight with no damage*) provided the film is </=400ISO. The slower the film, the less the sensitivity to X-rays and the less harm done. So if you can manage with 50 or 100 ISO, you can, theoretically, make 2 or 3 extra trips with the film through security before it has had the same exposure as one trip with 400ISO.

Security people tell me anything under ISO 3200 won't be effected - seemed to be ok for me

 

3. Lead-lined bags and boxes.

Paranoid tin hat stuff

 

One extra point just for laughs. When my Leica Ms get X-rayed they go back and forth through the scanner and then always get taken aside for swabbing. I commented on that once and was told that the X-rays had difficulty seeing through these old and heavy cameras! So while you could leave film safely in the camera, I don't do that. You will still find some agents who ask you to take a picture to prove the camera works and isn't filled with explosives, though this is rarer now but once was routine (just as you always had to turn on a laptop and no longer get asked to do this). I can take the picture but have difficulty showing it to the agent on the LCD that isn't there. It's easier to open the camera and let them see daylight through it.

I did hear of people who have had film cameras inspected closely as the youngish security people hadn't experience of these devices. I wouldn't worry about this

[Doc Henry]

Just to contrast some of the more grainy photos I have posted recently, I also do sharp and detailed with film

 

 

 

Leica M6 TTL, Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 VM, Kodak Gold 200

It's a very nice picture Harold with vivid color

Your scan is also good

Thanks for posting

Rg

Henry

[philipus]

An excellent shot. And great to see you back (again thanks for your help over at APUG). 

 

I haven't been around in a while, I thought that I had to use my M6 for any image posted here, and I've been almost exclusively using my new-to-me Nikon FM2 but here is a shot of the recent Italian Heritage Parade here in West Virginia. I was taking pictures of the parade and there were these two cute kids next to me and when I swung the camera around to her, she stared me down. It's a classic expression and the best shot of the whole parade.
 

 

Nikon FM2

Tri-X400@200

Developer: Barry Thornton's Two bath developer@5min

Pakon Scanned

 

I like this one, Harold. I like that she looks down so that only the mural looks at us. And very fine details and colour on an excellent scan, too.

 

 

Just to contrast some of the more grainy photos I have posted recently, I also do sharp and detailed with film

 

 

 

Leica M6 TTL, Voigtlander 35mm f1.7 VM, Kodak Gold 200

[Doc Henry]

Chris thank you for the additional information
I would add that let in checked luggage on the plane is not recommended

checked-in baggage scans have a higher intensity (as told me a security guard)
cabin under bag protection is better. Better outside the scan showing that they are films,

they accept and let out scans.
During my last mission I had taken the Portra 400 I have no problem
and I had a bag protection that a friend had lent me.

Best

Henry

 

Kodak TMax100

D76 pure 6 mn30

Philip I make a mistake in my last post , it's not diluted 1:1 but pure.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Hoi An bamboo

VN

 

MP-50 LA

 

Best

Henry

Edited September 9, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Doc Henry]

Kodak TMax

MP-50 Summilux Asph

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Edge of Hoi An river

 

Best

Henry

[philipus]

This is a list of good advice, Chris.

 

I've heard the same thing, that they increase the intensity to see through lead-lined bags. I normally don't ask for hand checking but I always pay attention to the x-ray equipment they use. In February, as I was leaving Lanzarote, I noticed that the machine my camera bag was about to be put through was different from the other ones at the security check. It had a much larger conveyor belt and opening, presumably to fit suitcases, and also lacked the normal safety sticker which was present on the other machines. So I quickly asked to have the bag put through another more normal-looking x-ray. I'm pretty sure the large machine would have fried my film.

 

I can attest to the zero effect of having film go through several x-ray machines. My bag is x-rayed every day going into the office by security and I often have my TTL in it. Our security uses the same hand luggage x-rays as at airports. Often any given film in my camera will go through that machine many times as I arrive in the morning and also when I return after lunch over the course of several days. I have never, so far, seen any effect at all on my photos. Possibly the photos may even have become a bit sharper as a result 

 

philip

 

Henry,

I don't do so much travelling any more, but when I do I take film and don't want it spoiled. My understanding from reading around the photo forums, and the US and Canadian transport security agencies is this:

 

1. Never put film in your checked luggage. It will be X-rayed in the US, and may be X-rayed elsewhere. Strong doses are used to penetrate cases and the film will be damaged.

2. Film that goes with you into the cabin will have to pass through security and this can happen two ways. Officially, you can request and are entitled to have film hand-checked in the USA and in Canada, but the reality is that many agents either don't know or care, and you have to weigh whether it is worth making a fuss and asking for a supervisor. I suggest you do so if travelling with fast film (>400 ISO). Otherwise the film will pass through the same X-ray machine as your hand luggage, and this will do no harm even after several passes (I see people making many connections claim up to eight with no damage*) provided the film is </=400ISO. The slower the film, the less the sensitivity to X-rays and the less harm done. So if you can manage with 50 or 100 ISO, you can, theoretically, make 2 or 3 extra trips with the film through security before it has had the same exposure as one trip with 400ISO.

*If I have travelled with a film but not used it, I set it aside for use at home and don't give it additional exposure by taking it away again.

3. Lead-lined bags and boxes. I'm not sure of the advantage they offer, as hand-inspected film isn't going to be X-rayed and doesn't need a lead bag, and if placed in the carry-on X-ray machine the intensity of the X-rays will be increased until they penetrate the bag and show what is inside. At this point, the film in the bag has had the same dose that film in no bag would have had from a normal scan. So, no advantage at security screening. Yes, on the flight itself at high altitudes the bag will prevent cosmic radiation from getting at the film, but this is at very low dosage levels. (Did you know airline pilots have a slight increased risk of brain tumours from cosmic rays after a career of extra exposure?) I have a little plastic box with a lead core that holds four rolls of film, and I haven't used it since the 1980's!

 

One extra point just for laughs. When my Leica Ms get X-rayed they go back and forth through the scanner and then always get taken aside for swabbing. I commented on that once and was told that the X-rays had difficulty seeing through these old and heavy cameras! So while you could leave film safely in the camera, I don't do that. You will still find some agents who ask you to take a picture to prove the camera works and isn't filled with explosives, though this is rarer now but once was routine (just as you always had to turn on a laptop and no longer get asked to do this). I can take the picture but have difficulty showing it to the agent on the LCD that isn't there. It's easier to open the camera and let them see daylight through it.

 

Chris

[Doc Henry]

It's noon !

sandwich hour with french bread made by a french baker

It's really delicious

 

Hoi An

 

Kodak TMax

MP-50 LA

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Best

Henry

 

[chrism]

Thanks, Gary.  Yeah, I joke that after this experience (which I will drag you through ) I no longer need to visit Iceland (except that I do...)

Pippa, who goes to see her elderly parents several times a year, has discovered that she can fly to the UK from Halifax, NS via IcelandAir again (they used to do the route, but stopped some years ago). They will even give you a two night stopover in Reykjavik with accommodation included in the ticket and it's still cheaper than Air Canada. She is drawing up plans for me, and I'm having difficulty resisting (although the price I pay will be a couple of weeks duty as a male nurse when we get to the UK). But if I do it, and take one camera, it probably won't be the SWC. I'm still finding it a bit hit and miss as to whether the picture I thought I was taking ends up on the film. There is a perspective mismatch between the viewfinder and the negative that I haven't quite come to terms with yet. The only rule I have made for myself so far is that if the photograph is meant to depict something in particular in the frame, get right up close to it. Then get a bit closer still. The ground glass back would probably help, but that isn't how I want to use this camera. I see enough ground glass in large format. I'll give it a couple more films and if I still find myself too stupid to click with it I shall sell it.

 

Chris

 

Chris

[philipus]

Back to the Bay of Kotor in Montenegro for a while. 

 

Flickr

TTL 90 E-M Agfa Vista 200 (EI 50)

[chrism]

Philip,

Agfa Vista 200 at EI50? I tried using Fuji Superia 400 at 200 as I heard it increased saturation, but eventually found it didn't do much beyond making it harder to scan. Was this old film or is there some special reason? I ask as I've just acquired twenty rolls and haven't used it yet.

 

Chris

[A miller]

Pippa, who goes to see her elderly parents several times a year, has discovered that she can fly to the UK from Halifax, NS via IcelandAir again (they used to do the route, but stopped some years ago). They will even give you a two night stopover in Reykjavik with accommodation included in the ticket and it's still cheaper than Air Canada. She is drawing up plans for me, and I'm having difficulty resisting (although the price I pay will be a couple of weeks duty as a male nurse when we get to the UK). But if I do it, and take one camera, it probably won't be the SWC. I'm still finding it a bit hit and miss as to whether the picture I thought I was taking ends up on the film. There is a perspective mismatch between the viewfinder and the negative that I haven't quite come to terms with yet. The only rule I have made for myself so far is that if the photograph is meant to depict something in particular in the frame, get right up close to it. Then get a bit closer still. The ground glass back would probably help, but that isn't how I want to use this camera. I see enough ground glass in large format. I'll give it a couple more films and if I still find myself too stupid to click with it I shall sell it.

 

Chris

 

Chris

You are not alone! I find the VF rarely useful for my purposes. In the 2 months of heavy use this summer, i removed the VF after about a week and kept it in the closet. You really need the ground glass - it will open up your eyes to this camera and unlock your creative vision. I use the hassy rmfx prism ( http://www.worldwidecameraexchange.co.uk/accessories/viewfinders/hasselblad-viewfinders/hasselblad-rmfx-reflex-finder.html) and the GG focus screen that is made for the camera. It is quite light and not that expensive. Before giving up on the camera, you should at least try it. I feel like i got very good results even with macro shots of flowers and wildlife, which i would not have achieved with just the viewfinder. The ground glass allows you to precisely examine the DOF and select the front and back focus points and then, using the very clear rangefinder chart on the lens, determine the aperture necessary to achieve the desired zone of focus. Without the GG, this is all just guess work, which will lead to random results with your close up shots.

[chrism]

You are not alone! I find the VF rarely useful for my purposes. In the 2 months of heavy use this summer, i removed the VF after about a week and kept it in the closet. You really need the ground glass - it will open up your eyes to this camera and unlock your creative vision. I use the hassy rmfx prism ( http://www.worldwidecameraexchange.co.uk/accessories/viewfinders/hasselblad-viewfinders/hasselblad-rmfx-reflex-finder.html) and the GG focus screen that is made for the camera. It is quite light and not that expensive. Before giving up on the camera, you should at least try it. I feel like i got very good results even with macro shots of flowers and wildlife, which i would not have achieved with just the viewfinder. The ground glass allows you to precisely examine the DOF and select the front and back focus points and then, using the very clear rangefinder chart on the lens, determine the aperture necessary to achieve the desired zone of focus. Without the GG, this is all just guess work, which will lead to random results with your close up shots.

It's not so much an issue with focus, which is easy and sharp provided you look at the DoF scale, but with perspective. What looks like a nice picture in the viewfinder has its main subject reduced to irrelevance in the negative. I know the viewfinder does a decent job at getting the framing roughly right, so I can only attribute this to the viewfinder having more barrel distortion than the Biogon (not exactly a surprise, as making lenses that don't distort isn't cheap). I may have to go along with your suggestion, but it means carrying the camera around on a tripod, and that wasn't how I really wanted to use it.

 

Chris

[chrism]

Good lord! Have you chaps visited this thread?

 

C.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[A miller]

It's not so much an issue with focus, which is easy and sharp provided you look at the DoF scale, but with perspective. What looks like a nice picture in the viewfinder has its main subject reduced to irrelevance in the negative. I know the viewfinder does a decent job at getting the framing roughly right, so I can only attribute this to the viewfinder having more barrel distortion than the Biogon (not exactly a surprise, as making lenses that don't distort isn't cheap). I may have to go along with your suggestion, but it means carrying the camera around on a tripod, and that wasn't how I really wanted to use it.

 

Chris

I hear you. I i couldnt use the GG and trippd i would most certainly sell the camera and not think twice.

Fwiw, i found this very neat and compact carbon fiber tripod (Sirui T-025X) and equally neat camera bag to fit it in along with the camera and all the trimmings (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1123603-REG).

 

Not a pure handheld Leica set up but still fairly travel-friendly.