lukevaliant wrote:
cool and cold!!
Yes it is. Our mild winters of the past few years have caught up to us.
Good question. Two points of view. I have a beautiful fully operational Kodak Retina IIc camera built in 1954, that is a joy to look at and use. I ran some film through it and sent it off to a lab that charged me a somewhat steep price to develop and digitize the photos which I then retrieved online. I was very disappointed with the results. Thinking, okay even though I see no fungus or haze in the lens maybe the image quality is still affected by its 70 year old lens. So I repeated the process with my Hasselblad 500CM, also in immaculate condition, and most likely a superior lens. Again, spending more than I'd like to but with a different lab, the results were also disappointing. So point one, did I enjoy the experience of shooting with all manual controls and film again? I did. Point two, was I happy with the cost, and the results from having to digitize the film into a usable image? No I was not. I do not have the time, energy or equipment to have the film simply developed and work on the negatives myself. I think therefore I'm just going to be happy admiring these classic cameras on my shelf.
lamiaceae wrote:
I can see why. How long have you been married?
Or better yet, How long WERE you married?
The Hassy is a beautiful camera. I ran a roll of film through it just a couple months ago.
Alafoto wrote:
Some of my favorites, with the exception of the ubiquitous Minolta. I really lust for a Retina IIIc.
I went with the IIc because it was so much smaller without the built in meter.
Thanks Jim. All operational too.