Great discussion. This goes back to the days of B&W film and how it made grays from reflected wavelengths of light with respect to both light intensity and color. Orthochromatic films are sensitive to blue but insensitive to red, whereas panchromatic films are sensitive into the red region. Color filters are used with these films to absorb certain parts of the color spectrum before the light hit the film in order to alter the spectrum hitting the film resulting in contrast changes in the negative. Most commonly used are yellow filters that absorb blue. Green, orange and red also produce dramatic results with film.

Digital is different in that all colors are recorded on the sensor. So ideally, you would not want specific parts of the spectrum absorbed before recording the image. Instead you would want it recorded in RAW, then alter the contrast in PP when converting to a monochrome image. With this you can now take one image but produce the effects in PP that at one time took different exposures each with a different filter to do.

ND filters and Circular Polarizers are different in that, for the most part, they absorb evenly across the spectrum and produce dramatic effects to the image before the light hits the sensor that often cannot be achieved in PP.

I have had problems with multiple types of dirty contacts and my local technician sold me a fiberglass pen for removing oxidation and it works great for a good dry cleaning. Deoxit is also a great wet contact cleaner. I keep the brush in my gear bag.

The Library of Congress has a complete archive section that does this. They study the degradation of media extensively. This goes much further than just physical degradation. For instance, we keep documentation for projects as required for long periods of time. Back in the 90s these documents started being created in Microsoft Office. However, current Office versions only support back four revisions, so older files will not open on newer versions. In order to keep them usable, they have to be opened and re-saved in the latest version that will support it, and this process repeated until the files get to the latest version. This has only recently come to light. So who out there still has a machine with Office 2000 on it to open those old Word 95 docs?

As for physical media, it does change, but files do not. They are all 0s and 1s, so backup regularly, and if you are really concerned make sure to do a magnetic AND optical backups. If you ever got a tape (audio or video etc) too close to your amplifier and then tried to use it after you know what happens. Same thing with hard drives. Less likely because of shielding, but very possible. And forget flash drives...nice for temporary and frequent back-ups in a firebox, but if you drop one it's toast. Also, remember encryption. If you aren't the only one with access to your backup, make sure you control who is.

For CDs and DVDs we know that commercial ones last longer because the pits are pressed into the plastic and then the reflective layer is added. The degradation of the reflective layer causes them to be unreadable...however I haven't found a study that shows pit degradation at the same rate. For ones you burn, the pits are put in the dye layer...since they are not physically pressed, the dye itself changes shape over time making them unreadable.

We do know that properly stored physical audio recordings last longer than any other type of physical media. Now take those recordings and make them on metal discs instead...we've sent those on vehicles leaving the solar system.

You should find out what you will be using in terms of developer to make sure that what you choose will provide the results you want from that developer. Some films pair with some developers better than others. That being said, for standard grain films the Ilfords are great and will be around. For T grains I still love the Tmax films a bit over the Deltas. I'm going to try some of the Rollei IR film but I haven't yet. Avoid Chinese films unless you want the old school effects...the bases are thin and tend to roll and they have a 1950s mixture that is pretty grainy and can be a bit splotchy.

I never went wrong with Tri-X when I was learning 20+ years ago. Ever.

Things have changed a lot since I was shooting HS indoor events (in high school) with my Minolta X-700 and Tri-X. The only way I could ever do it was with my Metz 45CL-5. It's amazing what can be done now with high ISO and digital. I never dreampt of being able to shoot at 1/320 or 1/500 back in those days inside. Knowing the shot you wanted before you took it really was the only way to be able to get anything at 1/60 back then...but with the big flash they were crisp and contrasty if you could open up enough. For larger venues I knew guys who would utilize built in strobe systems, but I only saw that at larger college venues. You may want to try some old school shooting at a lower ISO and slower shutter speed and see what you can get with the improved resolution.

Yes, sorry, K-01

Could you take come pictures of the Rollei and the Autocord?

My wife has been after me for a long time to get her a new digital camera. The last one I bought her was a 14MP Kodak P&S in 2008. So I hunted for something updated that would really produce great results..CMOS sensor, various lenses etc. After careful review of features and price I purchased her a Pentax K-1 for Christmas. She loves it. I'm not used to it yet. I know I'm old school film and manual focus, but I haven't been able to get the automatic features of this camera to work the way I interpret that they should work from how the manual describes them. Focus seems to be sloppy in either mode, the totally auto mode always wants to do faces and in low light it doesn't want to focus or shoot at all. However, we put it on a tripod to take some face shots in natural light and they were totally amazing. Incredible. So I was wondering if anyone else had experience with this new beast and if so if you could pass along your tips to give me some other things to look at.

I do have to say the image quality itself is amazing and the camera is light and feels great in your hands.

I shoot primarily with my Pentax 645NII but with the older 645 lenses from my first one. I started with a 1965 Minolta Autocord and some of those photos are the best I've ever made. I think which camera format you choose depends a lot on what you are shooting, whether you are going to hold the camera and how large (resolution) you want the final print to be. 6x6 is so versatile as was mentioned before, but in 120 you get 3 (or 4) more shots per roll at 6x4.5. 6x7 is often considered the "ideal format" because it basically scales up to most paper sizes with minimal cropping, but now you are down a few shots per roll of 120 from the 6x6 and the cameras are heavier and automatic options are scarce. As far as scanning goes, I haven't purchased one yet. I have my favorite lab do it for me as their machine produces great results but I don't know what it is.

Love it...upgraded!

I use a Manfrotto (Bogen) 488RC4 on an 055XPROB for my Pentax 645 (heavy, film) with larger, heavy lenses with great success...but you have to know your center of gravity on the setup...I'm not sure if that lens has its own mount or not, but for longer ones that really helps stabilize.

I've worn glasses since I was 5 years old and started photography when I was 10. I've always worn my glasses to shoot which is especially important for shooting sports on sidelines...one eye in the viewfinder the other on the action to make sure you don't get hammered! I have found that with manual focus 35mm SLRs (I used a Minolta X-700 forever) that once I got used to it there wasn't an issue, but that when you wear glasses it moves the lens of your eye further from the focusing screen image thus you cannot see the entire frame in the viewfinder at one time. I quickly learned to compensate for it and actually had to think back a bit to remember that for this post. I always loved shooting with my Minolta Autocord because of the waist level finder...never had an issue with glasses and always had amazing focus with the Maxwell screen and magnifier combination. When I moved to a Pentax 645 with adjustable diopter I still had to use my glasses because the diopter alone would not adjust for my vision, but it would adjust perfectly for use with my glasses.

I've been shooting film since the mid 80's. I recently purchased a new Pentax K-01 for my wife and it is amazing, though nowhere near a D800. I think that both film and digital have their place depending on your requirements and desires. I have not found a digital sensor that has the dynamic range that Ansel Adams achieved with film in a single shot, but most subjects don't really require that anyway. I also think that digital has an appeal in that it has a much faster learning curve. Shooting RAW and then manipulating them shows you instantly on the screen what your results are. For film one must really study all aspects of light and understand filtration and exposure in far greater detail to achieve similar looking results. If I had to recommend a way to go, I would tell anyone to study how film and exposure work and then apply those techniques using a digital camera for fast learning. The real question here is how to create in an image what the mind sees...

I've used a number of them and what you choose really depends on what you will be using it for. My first was my great-grandmothers Weston Master II. Great meter, but the selenium cells go bad over time thus leading you to CdS meters. I love the Gossen DigiFlash. Small, compact, with a digital reading and analog computer...also does flash, but does not trigger. Same as the DigiSix but with the flash capability. Does both reflected and incident.

However, if you are really looking for Ansel Adams type zone work, go for a spotmeter. I have a Pentax digital Spotmeter and it's great. You can put filters on it to compensate for those being used on the camera (for film of course..) and it has an analog computer as well.

Some manufacturers make their own replacement screens. Remember that most screens these days are made of plastic, not glass, so don't touch them with your fingers or the oils will ruin them. You can also get ones from BrightScreen and from Bill Maxwell. I have a Maxwell screen in my old 6x6 Minolta Autocord and wouldn't trade it for the world. I also had Bill modify a new Pentax screen for my 645NII and it is incredible.