I watched Leicina at youtube and I did not more smooth , rounded , three dimensional face than it. Its like a balloon filled with full pressure and ready to explode. I learned that it is possible to take single shots with it , why ? Because Leica feeled its feasible. Small scans are ok for me. And it is possible to make your Eisenstein like movie with it. I hope nothing goes wrong and I could invest in it. I have a Rollei 35S and it doesnt mean I will not use it but unable to take whatever I see and want to see later and investing 15 dollars per roll , making me nervous.
while it is possible to use a 8mm camera to make stills it is probably
less time consuming to buy a thousand feet of movie film ( 5222 ) and just
use that ... in a half frame ..
can you get 8mm movie film processed in turkey ?
there aren't many places left that process the b/w film. whenever i shot it
on my bolex i was shipping it to switzerland via fujilabs.
its about 1/4 the frame size of 110
enlarging, well you need an enlarger that can accept
a recessed lensboard a 12.5 mm lens ( "normal" ) internegative and print
or use a longer lens and enlarge a handful of frames onto a sheet of paper or film (
then print or enlarge those frames ( they will be the size of a 35mm frame ) ...
even with the leica, each step degrades the image..
silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
artwork often times sold for charity
PM me for details
I ran across this info on the net about Kodak's 2010 year performance and their Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group performance. They look like their doing better then the year before, so it's not all Doom and Gloom although 4th quarter was off.
On the basis of U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), the company reported a full-year 2010 loss from continuing operations of $58 million, or $0.22 per share, reflecting a $174 million improvement as compared with a loss of $232 million, or $0.87 per share in the year-ago period. The company’s digital businesses delivered $301 million in earnings from operations for the year, a $308 million improvement from 2009.
For the fourth quarter of 2010, the company reported revenues of $1.927 billion, a 25% decrease from the year-ago quarter. Revenue from the company’s core growth businesses increased by 23%, while overall digital revenue totaled $1.488 billion, a 25% decrease from $1.991 billion in the prior-year quarter. This revenue decline largely reflects the timing of intellectual property licensing revenues as well as industry-related pricing pressures in Prepress Solutions and Digital Capture & Devices, partially offset by the revenue increase in the company’s core growth businesses. Revenue from the company’s traditional business decreased 25% to $439 million for the fourth quarter.
Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group full-year 2010 sales were $1.767 billion, a 22% decline from the prior year. Full-year 2010 earnings from operations for the segment were $62 million, compared with $159 million in the prior year. Fourth-quarter sales were $439 million, a 25% decline from the year-ago quarter. Fourth-quarter loss from operations for the segment was $3 million, compared with earnings on the same basis of $53 million in the year-ago period. This decrease in earnings was primarily driven by industry-related declines in volumes and increased raw material costs, partially offset by cost reductions across the segment.
I can find developer tank from Russia. People hang the developed film to a bathroom apparatus and wait to be dried. I am not remembering now who said that but best methodwas the German Soldiers method to open the roll on to towel and wait the water slips from 1 centimeters.
I sent a pm to you.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Yes, but where are the pictures? Mom doesn't get to sit with Joe at the kitchen table any more and look at the latest pictures from the grandkid's soccer game last Saturday. Trying to look at those pictures on the back of the camera or on the phone just doesn't do it. (The teenagers just put them on facebook straight from the phone anyway - they don't even want the P&S camera any longer.)
Now, think of yourself as Joe Consumer (or mom) who already has a digital camera that's "good enough" (often as part of their cell phones). What incentive is there to try film when I already have what I need and is predictable?
MY mother gave up on pictures years ago when she figured out she had to use some computerized-thing at Wally-World to get pictures from the new camera she bought. My Mother-in-law received a nice Canon P&S digital as a gift a few years back and I've never seen a picture from the thing. She's got boxes of film pictures going back to before my wife was a baby that she still hauls out, but ZERO pictures in the last 6 or 7 years.
That's my point. Somewhere, an opportunity is being missed.
Are the cameras being sold to people who use them once and never go back to them
From my limited market sample of 24 parents on a kid soccer team (not counting myself), ranging from one avid photo enthusiast to several "phone to facebook" picture takers and mostly digital P&S owners, the P&S owners are mostly disappointed with their inability to conveniently get a quality photograph from their digital unit that they can show to someone. They don't see digital as easier - they see it as a pain. I know, because they always ask me where I get film for my cameras because they don't know where to get film any longer for their cameras.
The one photo enthusiast lady bought a high quality inkjet, so she's all set.
Last edited by kb3lms; 03-04-2011 at 10:15 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Referring to the 24 soccer parents above, I can't even get these folks (who buy and try to use those $40 digital things) to answer an email about tomorrow's game. How many pictures do you think they really print off of their computer?
Panasonic new camera costs 40 dollars and offer couple of ten thousands picture that you can print at home.
In the "not-so-old" days, you (as a soccer mom) dumped your roll(s) of film off at the 1-hour processor in the supermarket when you went in for your groceries (probably on the way home from the game) and you picked up your pictures on the way out the door an hour later. You looked at them when you got home. (and good picture or bad picture - it still used up a picture's worth of paper which brought Kodak, Fuji, Konica, etc. $$$)
I guess what I am saying is that in this "new, wonderful age" we don't have what we had 15 years ago. There is an opportunity being missed somewhere.
My parents recently ditched their expensive Canon digital because they never printed them and now go out and shoot their old PS Minolta and get them developed at a local store and printed. It's funny how the digital cameras actually create more of a hassle. It used to be, take pictures, drop roll off, pick up prints. Now it's download, sort, print (if you feel inclined), which I find actually takes MORE time than not.
I agree, if they ran ad campaigns aimed at reminding people what is was like to once hold a picture, there's a decent chance people would start digging out their old gear for both nostalgia and practically reasons. My $.02
the missed opportunity is a class on how to use a basic point and shoot camera
( film or that other thing ) most people have no clue how to even use "fill flash" ...