Recent content by mustanir

You are right. It uses IR focussing, so while the mechanism is kinda like a rangefinder, it isn't a rangefinder. Still an awesome and easy-to-use little camera though :)

I got pretty good mileage out of cheap Yashica Minster rangefinders. I am currently enjoying the use of a Nikon L35AF. It's a rangefinder, fully automatic (including autofocus), takes AA batteries and can likely be picked up for less than £30 no problem.

Can't really help on your other questions (I don't make notes, I don't rush to scan anything - I just wait till the film feels dry to touch, I don't use LR) but I know Ilford do (or did?) this. I've had them print a couple of my photos and the results and service were nothing short of fantastic.

Any amateur film photographer whose photos you have seen anywhere online is probably using a somewhat hybrid workflow, even if it is just to scan their prints. In fact, almost anyone who has prints from colour film has been subjected to hydbrid workflow. The computer age is here and a rare few...

I'd never heard of her before, but I really like what I saw.

A different perspective: the quality of image achievable by either medium is irrelevant. In my opinion, there is not, and hasn't been anything wrong with digital for a long time. Average people like me with average scanning capability cannot match the average digital camera image for image...

My advice would be to spend that little bit more and go for a cotton one, I did just that and I would never go back to using a cheap synthetic one if I can help it. They are just so much more comfortable and you won't have problems with getting warm (and potentially sweaty) in there!

I would say that unless there is a specific reason why you want another square format camera or don't want an RB, then an RB would seem like the more logical choice given what you say?

As someone who has been using an RB67 for several years now, I find myself frequently deliberating over moving to a different system/format. My main reasons for this are: a) the size and weight of the thing means that while I can and do travel with it, it is not exactly the easiest camera to do...

I once saw someone doing a model shoot with similar gear on one of the islands in the middle of Regent Street. Seemed like a pretty good idea.

I just want to compare experiences with anyone else who travels with camera gear. For the past few years now I have generally taken my RB67 with me when going abroad, both short and long haul. Up until recently I never had trouble with it, I just stuffed it into my hand luggage. It got through...

When I used to use the Tetenal 1l kit, the chemicals lasted ages. Yes, they say you can only use them for 12 rolls or 6 months or something but I ended up getting much, much more out of them. They did go very murky and gunky but still seemed to work fine. The only reason I stopped...

If it helps, back when I used to develop my own colour C41 (using a Tetenal kit) I got away with using a water bath for temperature regulation. It was easy and the results just fine.

Photos that originated on film were being digitally edited before digital cameras ever really took off, but since digital cameras weren't a big thing there was no need to differentiate between "digital" and "analogue" photography. The photos in this post could be oil paintings for all I care...

Used to have a 6C (left-handed version) and it was a great - though very heavy - camera. It's the only 6x6 viewfinder I've ever used and it was amazing. In the end I sold it out of lack of use, it was a bit heavy and impractical for me when I could also use a 6x6 TLR. Looking back though, I...