DX is not a problem for IR. I've shot HIE in both an F601 and an F90 without any fogging damage at all.
There are Nikon bodies with manual wind available in the $20-40 range, although you rightly point out that buying a camera for a declining film may not make sense.
__________________
Jim MacKenzie - Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
DX is not a problem for IR. I've shot HIE in both an F601 and an F90 without any fogging damage at all.
There are Nikon bodies with manual wind available in the $20-40 range, although you rightly point out that buying a camera for a declining film may not make sense.
Ah, but there are other positive reasons to purchase manual wind camera bodies, since they will last much longer than electric wind. All cameras with built-in motors will eventually fail, and parts will no longer be available. We can still use manual-wind cameras from the 1920's and 1930's just fine. I have a Leica III from the 1930's that winds just as good as new.
So Kodak, now aware of people doing this now have a heap of emails/letters asking for HIE to be produced again and they have no real idea of how many of them are people who really want HIE ...
They could simply guess "hmmm, lets guess at %90 aren't true" - More likely their 'guess' will just conform to the sales/market research data they have already ...
Besides the point ... I'd actually like to use it ... in 120 that is
The discontinuation of is HIE "fait accompli". While there is no perfrect replacement for this product I think it makes the most sense to simply explore and use the remaining alternatives in the marketplace.
__________________
Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..
The discontinuation of is HIE "fait accompli". While there is no perfrect replacement for this product I think it makes the most sense to simply explore and use the remaining alternatives in the marketplace.
I have some Ilford SFX 200 and a red filter here waiting to be trucked out to the beach
Ah, but there are other positive reasons to purchase manual wind camera bodies, since they will last much longer than electric wind. All cameras with built-in motors will eventually fail, and parts will no longer be available. We can still use manual-wind cameras from the 1920's and 1930's just fine. I have a Leica III from the 1930's that winds just as good as new.
You're considering the exception rather than the rule. Most manual wind cameras after the early 70s do not have anywhere near the mechanical robustness in their film transport mechanisms as Leica rangefinders.
Do not forget that Leica IIIs have robust resale values and their parts are scavenged. That is not necessarily true for other marques and makes.
I prefer manual focus/winding cameras and that's what I use. But if I were basing my decision solely on fiscal sense and long-term "survivability" of my choice it simply makes more sense to buy several auto-wind cameras (whose values have, generally, fallen far more precipitously) and carefully store them. Most electrical motors, servos, and integrated circuits can last a very long time if they are not suspected to wear, dust, or other environmental factors. On the other hand, most lubricants used in mechanical cameras will simply dry out and require servicing after about 30 years.
__________________
Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I have some Ilford SFX 200 and a red filter here waiting to be trucked out to the beach
I suppose it depends on the red filter but in my experience SFX will not do the "wood effect" i.e. white grass and leaves without the SFX filter or a red filter which is way beyond the wratten 25 for normal B&W unlike HIE. On the other hand with a normal red filter it does gives an enhanced black sky and water and asks that question: Is that brilliant sunlight or moonlight?.
It still looks other-wordly on most sunshine shots. A beach minus foliage may well be the place to go. If the next day is dull( normal in the U.K.) you have the added advantage of a film that behaves perfectly normally.
Many thanks to those of you who have emailed into Kodak to save HIE-135.
Many of you have put forward your negative opinions regarding this effort. If you disapprove, that is your choice, but why try to influence others to be negative towards it? Why resign yourselves to allow something to become obsolete when a simple email might have some influence?
Too many forums are host to too many people with too many negative opinions and I am very disappointed that this forum is one of them. I had higher expectations when I read that Ilford had brought back their SFX200 IR film after a similar campaign from APUG. The majority of people who have responded so negatively to this cause have ruined this group for me.
Maybe if some of you regulars who agree with my views here would let those nay sayers know how you feel, this might be a better group. I do not care to associate myself with them.
James, there is one big difference. Ilford actually listen to their customers. Kodak do the odd survey every now and then, but it appears they are mostly conducted purely for publicity purposes.
__________________
-----------My Flickr-----------
The Earth has music for those who listen
✯
James, there is one big difference. Ilford actually listen to their customers. Kodak do the odd survey every now and then, but it appears they are mostly conducted purely for publicity purposes.
Frankly, I find that this posting is a gross understatement of reality.
Steve
__________________
Hobby! I don't need not stinkin' hobby, I got obsessions: photography, skiing, off-roading and cordless bungie jumping!
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to you financial well being!
Linear Mode
