Implements Of Construction

[farlymac]

Skitter by br1078phot, on Flickr


Limousine by br1078phot, on Flickr


Business End by br1078phot, on Flickr


Echo by br1078phot, on Flickr


How To Massage An Elephant by br1078phot, on Flickr


Houston, Tranquility Base Here... by br1078phot, on Flickr

PF

Added 9-1-12

Since no one has taken the bait, I guess I should explain these photos. My 89 year old mother told me the other day that her camera had crapped out (not her choice of words), and I told her I would send her another. I have a small collection (if you can call 46 small) of P&S cameras that I've picked up cheap along the way in various places, so there were plenty to choose from. It had to be simple to operate, and have a decent viewfinder.

I figured out which one of them would be quite adequate, and was going to send it on it's way, when I thought I had better test it first to see what kind of quality I could get out of it. It was a Minolta with a fixed focus 35mm lens, and one of those large finders like on the Canon Owl series. It was lousy. Nothing was in focus, near or far. So I rummaged some more, and rushed out with another camera to take some shots before the light went away. The most interesting place I came across in my short journey was a lot where a construction supply company parks their overflow items, waiting to be picked up by the new owners.

I took these with an Olympus Superzoom 70S on Kodak BW400CN late in the afternoon (somewhere between 4:30 and 5:30pm). I had them developed at CVS Pharmacy (I am never going back!), and scanned on a Kodak CD. I lost the first two exposures due to a light leak that mysteriously appeared on the first two frames, but nowhere else. This also happened to the roll I had taken in that morning from the other camera, and different (Kodak Ultramax 400) film. I got so many reasons why it happened, and of course, none of them being their fault. I told the gal that I found it highly conspicuous that the leaks would occur like they did, and that I wasn't saying she was lying, but that I was getting tired of all the BS I got when they mangled my films.

That said, I went home, and proceeded to run the scans through PS Elements 10 to do some cropping, and convert them to B&W, as the crew down at CVS still doesn't know how to desaturate the scans. They are a bit more contrastry than normal, due to the conversion type I used. But exposures were right on, and the (38-70mm) lens performed great.

If you want to see the complete set, they are on Flickr at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7699588@N07/sets/72157631281026938/

Now you may critique all you like.

PF

 

[farlymac]

Bump

Bump

I added some explanation.

PF

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The light leaks happened because the idiots working at the photo lab pulled out too much of the film when they taped it to the leader card. The processors for film they use in one hour labs work like this: The film's leader is pulled out of the cartridge and cut off, so the end of the film is straight. The end of the film is then taped to a plastic card with sprocket holes in the middle of it (the card holds two rolls of film at a time). Only an inch or so of film should be exposed outside the cartridge when its taped up to the card. The card is fed into the machine and the door closed over the opening. Gears pull the card through the chemicals and the film follows. Knives in the machine cut the film when the end of the roll is reached, leaving the cartridges inside the machine's door to be removed by the operator.

If the operator pulled out too much film when taping it to the leader card, you'll lose some of the first frames to light fogging.

Of course, photo labs NEVER make mistakes (that the *******s will admit to), so they lied and tried to make it look like your fault.

I worked in a one hour lab for a few yrs while in college back in the late 90s. I know from experience what happened to your film.

 

[farlymac]

Chris, this was the same place that pulled half the roll out while loading it in the machine, and didn't bother to say anything to me. I found out after I got home, and went back the next day to complain, and didn't get much satisfaction other than a free roll of film.

I know how the loading process works, and how one can screw it up, so they can't tell me it's my problem and get away with it. My last trip back to the store will be to let the manager know I'm done with them. Now I'll have to waste gas and time driving eight miles out of my way to the so called 'pro' lab, for not much better service. If it wasn't for all the money I have tied up in film gear, it's almost enough to make me go totally digital.

PF

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I hear you. I sent my last batch of color film to Chicago for processing, because there is not a single pro lab left in the state of Indiana. I shot 40 rolls of E-6 120 film on my trip to New Mexico last summer, and we don't have any E-6 labs at all in Fort Wayne, and the one in Indianapolis uses roller transport machines while charging pro lab prices. The place I sent it to used dip-n-dunk equipment.

I shoot BW film all the time, a couple hundred rolls a year, but I am shooting digital for color now. The Canon 5DmkII is actually very nice.

 

[farlymac]

The one thing that is holding me back from upgrading my digital camera is the cost of having to upgrade my computer system along with it. I can't keep up with all the advances in computer technology, because I can't afford a new system every year or two. But then, I don't have to make a living at doing photography, so I try to stretch out the replacement times are far as possible.

It's funny though. If I would have taken all the money I've spent on film photography the last two years, I could have put together a decent digital kit and workstation. But that would have meant not doing any film photography for two years. Man cannot live by pixels alone.

PF