Sexy Black Lady

[Rob C]

My underused, too quickly pensioned Nikon F3.

The strap graced the cameras through the range up to the F4s and back down to this F3.

The finder presents a much more impressive size of viewable image (100%)  than does the D700; the split wedge focussing is far more accurate for me with my manual focus lenses, and the entire shooting match is far smaller and lighter than the digital counterpart.

As Walter might say, babies and bathwater...

;-(

Rob C

[WalterEG]

Rob,

Baby and bathwater, indeed.

I was never a Nikon 35mm owner or fan, but were I to ever venture down the 35mm film path again the F3 would be my weapon of choice.

All you'd need is a roll of film, a small tank, changing bag, some chemistry and a clothes peg and you get that scanner of yours revving up with glee.

[RSL]

I understand what Rob's feeling. I've always regretted selling my M4. And Walter's right, all it would take is a dark bag, tank, bottles, funnels, thermometer, and chemicals and I could use the M4 and scan the results. Might even add the kind of film roll-your-own I used to use with hundred foot rolls and empty cassettes.

But then I compare dark bag, tank, bottles, funnels, thermometer, and chemicals, and the accompanying jobs of cleaning the tank and mixing chemicals, with a CF card, card reader, and Photoshop, and I realize that even though my heart aches when I see an M4, I made the right decision.

On my walls I have gelatin-silver prints from the old days and B&W digital prints made with my Epson 3880 in "advanced B&W photo" mode and if there's any difference it's that the digital prints are better than the gelatin-silver prints.

[WalterEG]

On my walls I have gelatin-silver prints from the old days and B&W digital prints made with my Epson 3880 in "advanced B&W photo" mode and if there's any difference it's that the digital prints are better than the gelatin-silver prints.

I hear you Russ, and understand your observation.  Particularly if the prints are framed and behind glass.  But there is a lustrous metallic radiance to a silver bromide print that has a charm all its own.  I crave doing that again but, despite having all the gear, I have not afforded myself the luxury of a print darkroom just yet.  So, I shoot film, I scan negs and I print with an Epson.  The outcome from a hybrid work-flow is none too shabby, I have to say.

I suppose I should add that such might not be the case for me if the negs were 35mm, but with 4x5s the results are lush and delicious.

What a great pursuit photography is in that it provides so many options and choices for everyone and every taste?

W

[Ken Bennett]

I feel the same way when I pick up my New F-1 that's been sitting in the locker for more than 12 years. What a great camera -- the viewfinder is huge and bright, focus is easy and fast, and it's two thirds the size of my 5D Mark II. Then I sigh, think about film processing, and put it back on the shelf.

That said, I'm of a mind to stick some C41 b+w into my Xpan and shoot some panos with it. I'll just get the film processed at Costco and not worry too much about it.

[Rob C]

Hi guys,

Yes, the chemistry is a problem, especially for me here on my personal St Helena: can't get anything locally, and since I come from a professional background where there was always stock to hand, or I wanted to know what the hell I had been doing all day, I just can't get my head around the totally non-professional way I'd have to work now. It's like my wife used to say about cooking: with the kitchen in a mess, I won't even start.

But, worse than all of that, is the washing-water problem, which is really two-fold: it's scarce and expensive; it's full of salts that I failed to keep out the few times I did try to process here years back... a non-starter, really. Should I manage to sell the apartment at some stage, then a return to Britain will see a new old 'blad 500 Series, of that I'm pretty sure. Having said which, that would mean a fortune on a dedicated scanner or, alternatively, copies via the lightbox and the Micro Nikkor, which sort of defeats the point, and on and so bloody on. I suppose the wheel goes round and round and eventually stops, the arrow pointing at a digital camera much as I already have.

Funny thing, lunchtime cooking tv: the show that's on at the restaurant each day features a cookie called Mariló Montero, her husband (I guess), another guy who seems to be devoid of rôle and a second girl who looks like a sister to the first.

Most of the time the show is devoid of any titillation whatsoever - not even the taste buds get tempted – but today, for some reason, Mariló was wearing a delightfully cut outfit that promised much in the close-up shots. I believe the director thought the same thing. In the end, we were both frustrated: the overhead camera shots of plates bearing fish-shaped pastry, with the lady bending generously above them, were absolutely ruined by the intrusion of the top of her head into the frame. Bet he didn’t think of that! Maybe we both need to get out more, or do our eating elsewhere where they show Wheel of Fortune shows instead. Those also entail lots of bending down over the wheel. But the contestants don’t inspire one to look beyond one’s plate. Which becomes a circular predicament, in the end, which is partly why I eat at home most weekends. Then, I just watch Aljazeera, or F1 if it’s on.

;-(

Rob C

[Rob C]

I feel the same way when I pick up my New F-1 that's been sitting in the locker for more than 12 years. What a great camera -- the viewfinder is huge and bright, focus is easy and fast, and it's two thirds the size of my 5D Mark II. Then I sigh, think about film processing, and put it back on the shelf.

That said, I'm of a mind to stick some C41 b+w into my Xpan and shoot some panos with it. I'll just get the film processed at Costco and not worry too much about it.

You know, there's always 35mm transparency film (I think!) and had it been Kodachrome, I'd have settled for that for outdoor stuff, not that Ektachrome E100S didn't scan well too, on skin subjects at least. The b/whites from both were pretty damned good. Both, sadly, are no more. The only Fuji I ever used was Velvia 50 and that was useless on people - unless you happened to be Edward Curtis reincarnate, that is...

Rob C

[RSL]

You're right, Walter, the prints I'm talking about are behind glass, and, yes, there's a quality that a naked gel-silver print has that a naked digital print doesn't have. On the other hand, my gel-silver stuff is on semi-gloss paper and all my digital prints are on matte. It's hard to make a valid comparison when the prints are naked. I probably need to do some digital printing on semi-matte.

I hear you about the 4x5, and I sometimes miss my old 4x5 too, but then I remember loading film holders in complete darkness, loading exposed sheets into the slots in the holder that's going into the tank, in complete darkness, working to get the agitation just right so I don't leave streaks on the negatives, etc., and I stop missing my 4x5. The largest prints I have on my walls are 17 x 22, and as near as I can tell, in that range my D800 is as good as my 4x5 was. Maybe if I made wall-sized prints the 4x5 stuff would beat the D800, though I have to confess I doubt it.

Yes! I can't think of anything that beats the fascination of photography. I keep thinking about Garry Winogrand's statement: "Photography is not about the thing photographed. It is about how that thing looks photographed." Sort of keeps you going out with a camera.

And Rob, yeah, forgot about the water. My problem wasn't so much water quality as water temperature, especially in Korea in the darkroom three of us threw together by partitioning off the corner of a barracks. The water was coming from a damaged F-84 tiptank on a sawhorse outside the wall, and it was whatever temperature the weather brought us.

[Ken Bennett]

I shot approximately two gazillion rolls of XP1 and XP2 through my Bronica system, getting the film processed at a local pro lab and making the prints in my own darkroom, or the AP bureau darkroom. Nice film, good long tonal range, and I was able to make decent prints from it even though I was hardly a master printer.

I did find when I switched to scanning that the Kodak version (T400CN?) scanned much better. Not sure what's available out there anymore.

I don't miss shooting film at all. What I miss is the beautiful simplicity and manufacturing quality of the cameras and lenses. They just feel so good in the hand, like an extension of my brain.

Edit: Attached a photo of the old beast. Not in the same sort of pristine condition as your F3.

[Kirk Gittings]

Where is the "like" button?

[AFairley]

Yeah, I have an F3HP sitting on the ledge above my desk, it is an exquisite object.  But when I compare the Kodachromes I shot with it -- which completely knocked my socks off at the time -- with the files I get out of the D800e, no way would I ever go back.  I sure did love shooting with it at the time, though.

[nemo295]

I have Nikon FM and FM2 bodies collecting dust in my closet. My D800E blows away any 35mm film camera I've ever used.

However, I still use all of my old Nikon glass. Mounted on my Sony NEX-7 with an adapter they still produce great results.

[Rob C]

I shot approximately two gazillion rolls of XP1 and XP2 through my Bronica system, getting the film processed at a local pro lab and making the prints in my own darkroom, or the AP bureau darkroom. Nice film, good long tonal range, and I was able to make decent prints from it even though I was hardly a master printer.

I did find when I switched to scanning that the Kodak version (T400CN?) scanned much better. Not sure what's available out there anymore.

I don't miss shooting film at all. What I miss is the beautiful simplicity and manufacturing quality of the cameras and lenses. They just feel so good in the hand, like an extension of my brain. Edit: Attached a photo of the old beast. Not in the same sort of pristine condition as your F3.

And that’s the thing: film cameras were so easy to use and didn’t get in your way too much. I’ve configured my digital ones to resemble manual ones as much as possible and, that way, they don’t interfere in the process. Of course, if you shoot any camera long enough, you learn to ignore its presence beyond the use you need to make of it. However, digital weight still can’t be disguised.

But construction and feel are something else.

I still have the F3 – obviously – but it wasn’t really my favourite, that role being played by the F and F2 Photomic, both of which were better built, in my estimation, and needed no battery. I’m not sure why I bought the Photomic version - possibly because it was in stock – but I can’t remember using the meter more than once when I’d forgotten to pack the Weston. I didn’t do well with it that day, but never forgot a real meter again!

I had both the FM and FM2 for a single reason: faster flash synch. for the times I needed it, which, thankfully, was rarely. Those two M versions were fairly inferior bodies to the F and F2 and they felt like it. Of them all, I remember the F4s as being the best one except for a single, fatal flaw: that self-loading system was a pig, and I can’t count the number of times it embarrassed me. Apart from that, it was wonderful, but it ended up as a choice between a red face or a calm mind, so I went chronologically backwards and bought the F3 which I had originally leapfrogged.

Pristine condition? Yes, I bought it more or less as the business was coming to its natural commercial end, only I hadn’t realised that. That hollow laughter you hear behind you is always there when I say I’m now a happy amateur.

;-)

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

I still have one of those, nearly unused F3, as well as an F6. I would expect Nikon to release a Digital F3 any time now. The success of the Olympus OM-D and Fuji Xy must have been perceived as a validation that the old UI had it right.

Anyway, the F3 and F6 are the only 2 film bodies I still own (leaving aside the 4x5 camera). They are the 2 master pieces in Nikon's film history in my view (The F100 comes close, but mine had the sticky rubber issue that end up making the experience very unpleasant).

Cheers,
Bernard

[Rob C]

I still have one of those, nearly unused F3, as well as an F6. I would expect Nikon to release a Digital F3 any time now. The success of the Olympus OM-D and Fuji Xy must have been perceived as a validation that the old UI had it right.

Anyway, the F3 and F6 are the only 2 film bodies I still own (leaving aside the 4x5 camera). They are the 2 master pieces in Nikon's film history in my view (The F100 comes close, but mine had the sticky rubber issue that end up making the experience very unpleasant).Cheers,
Bernard

Sounds like you became a disillusioned member of the mile high club...

Some years ago my wife and I were the only passengers on a flight from Palma to Glasgow, the first empty-leg flight of a new tourist season on the Aviaco aircraft contracted by a tour operator for whom I shot brochure material. I suggested we retreat to the rear and join the club too, but she told me to sit still and not be so silly. Oh well. A miss is as good as a mile, I guess.

Rob C