Cibarchrome -- it's all in the bleach which you could purchase by the gallon at B&H.
I still have a Beseler-Minolta but haven't used it in 10+ years, I purchased a second set of Xenon flash tubes etc. The processor was a Durst Printo. All the above were purchased for a song at the dawning of the digital era when the NYC labs were changing over.
First camera was a Diana 120, in 1970.
Later :
Photophone Hot Shot (110), 1982
Zenit TTL, 1984.
Minolta automatic, 1987.
Canon automatic, 1996.
Zenit 12 XP, 1999.
So I can claim some experience in composing a shot, exposure, and so on.
Zenit was the world's most sold SLR brand, lenses were improved versions of Zeiss, with better glass and harder coatings.
If you are curious, go look them up.
The reality is that most film cameras are out of production, and are seeing reduced use, most people are content with digital.
I last bought film in 2009.
Later :
Photophone Hot Shot (110), 1982
Zenit TTL, 1984.
Minolta automatic, 1987.
Canon automatic, 1996.
Zenit 12 XP, 1999.
So I can claim some experience in composing a shot, exposure, and so on.
Zenit was the world's most sold SLR brand, lenses were improved versions of Zeiss, with better glass and harder coatings.
If you are curious, go look them up.
The reality is that most film cameras are out of production, and are seeing reduced use, most people are content with digital.
I last bought film in 2009.
I look back at my old pics when, along with most people, an 'instamatic' camera was all I had (or could afford).
The old photos are all 'soft' focus or grainy, due to fixed focus & small aperture, which is a shame.
I suppose they do their job of preserving memories.
I have a full size bridge camera bought a few years ago but rarely use it.
I always find it a paradox that when I had the enthusiasm of youth, quality equipment was beyond the pocket.
Now I am older and can afford reasonable equipment I don't seem to find the time or inclination to make full use of the possibilities.
I hope in a few years when retirement comes I will re-find my mojo.
The old photos are all 'soft' focus or grainy, due to fixed focus & small aperture, which is a shame.
I suppose they do their job of preserving memories.
I have a full size bridge camera bought a few years ago but rarely use it.
I always find it a paradox that when I had the enthusiasm of youth, quality equipment was beyond the pocket.
Now I am older and can afford reasonable equipment I don't seem to find the time or inclination to make full use of the possibilities.
I hope in a few years when retirement comes I will re-find my mojo.
Then that is the one my best friend had. We were the yearbook photogs. We got to learn on the school’s dime.
We sometimes took 3-5 rolls a day.
It was very satisfying seeing pictures the editor gave us heck for, esprilly one that got cut in half and then put back together
dave
We sometimes took 3-5 rolls a day.
It was very satisfying seeing pictures the editor gave us heck for, esprilly one that got cut in half and then put back together
dave
My first new camera was a Zenit, bought in London circa 1981. I managed to take many awful photos with it truly embarrassing. The Zenit was just OK for a cheap SLR. I had much better luck with used Pentax and Nikon gear for about the same price. The Zenit was nothing to write home about.
Sad the way things worked out. All the technology has resulted in society becoming more stupid.
When I was shooting professionally in the 80s, I met a young lady who was awed by my work. During the course of our conversation, she said something that gave me an indication of the public's perception of photography. She said I'm very good at "snapping" pictures. That got me thinking and it has stuck with me ever since.
An amateur "snaps" pictures, a professional "creates".
That's a huge difference. No advertising agency is going to pay me thousands of dollars unless they are confident that I can deliver.
Take this photo for example. The subject matter is Inflight Service for Singapore Airlines (SIA).
It looks easy but it's a rather complicated and risky assignment.
Since it's impossible to shoot inside an aircraft, "Mock-ups" were delivered to my studio.
These are the real panels from Boeing.
The first day was spent setting it up and establishing the lighting.
Second day was the actual shoot.
Day 3 was teardown.
The advertising agency was billed 3 days of my time. Otherwise, find somebody else.
During the shoot, I blazed through about 25 rolls of 35mm 36 exp of Ektachrome Professional 64 (EPR64) in less than 30 minutes
I didn't have much of a choice because once the kid acts up, that's it.
My client, the art director and myself were well aware of that potential problem.
After the film were developed, the Art Director was very happy with the results.
On the technical side, lighting was all done with Studio Flash Generators, not continuous lights.
To those that are into photography, making flash lighting look natural is very difficult.
With this shot, it's impossible to tell it was lit with studio flash. It looks natural.
To call this a snapshot is actually very insulting to a professional photographer.
More like the tech is causing less learning for the lazy or already stupid while it helps amplify the smart & eager
dave
Getting this right is critical, I only ever really got much experience with that
dave
Michael:
If it had not been flash, with its daylight color, the window light would have been bluish(with film balanced for incandescent bulbs).
With 'tungsten' film a lightbox would have had to be placed outside the window. Your solution was better, but your actors had to be able to ignore
the rapid and extended flashes. Kudos to them, especially the kid.
If it had not been flash, with its daylight color, the window light would have been bluish(with film balanced for incandescent bulbs).
With 'tungsten' film a lightbox would have had to be placed outside the window. Your solution was better, but your actors had to be able to ignore
the rapid and extended flashes. Kudos to them, especially the kid.
I worked as a family portrait photographer for numerous companies in the 90's
Expressly Portraits, Picture People, Montgomery Wards, Stanford Meyers.
Every studio full of different equipment and lights, some processed and did darkroom on site.
Such a experience watching things change, every year.
Over the last few years, the rate of change is extreme with equipment.
I remember trying to take pony pictures and doing manual focus back in the 90's
My first Canon had a half shutter click to auto focus.
Seemed like a crime at the time.
Now it is just normal.
Back when I was a kid, we could focus and had to load a thing called " Film"
Expressly Portraits, Picture People, Montgomery Wards, Stanford Meyers.
Every studio full of different equipment and lights, some processed and did darkroom on site.
Such a experience watching things change, every year.
Over the last few years, the rate of change is extreme with equipment.
I remember trying to take pony pictures and doing manual focus back in the 90's
My first Canon had a half shutter click to auto focus.
Seemed like a crime at the time.
Now it is just normal.
Back when I was a kid, we could focus and had to load a thing called " Film"
All professional photographers use flash in my time. Only people filming tv commercials use tungsten.
It's easier to shoot with tungsten lights because you can see what you're shooting.
The problem is it's hot and not very powerful.
A 1,000W tungsten light loses out to a 1,000W power pack.
Another advantage of using flash is it freezes the shot. No chance of having a blur shot due to movement.
In this shoot, the models are fine. The flash lights are not aimed directly into their eyes.
Whereas in a fashion shoot, the model may have 3 lights in front. One key, one side fill and one front fill.
It's not healthy for the eyes in the long run.
Though the inflight shot is technically very good, I was not entirely satisfied. The "wife" in the middle is not good looking enough.
I can't do much about that because the models were selected by the advertising agency.
Maybe they didn't want her to outshine the air stewardess who is from the airline.
One thing we overlooked was the rings. This is supposed to be a family.
The wedding rings on the "husband" and "wife" are on the wrong fingers.
My art director missed that and I failed to pick it up during the shoot.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You're absolute correct. Lighting is everything. Get it right and the shot looks great. Get it wrong and it looks ordinary.
The photograph below is a good example of using lighting effectively.
Singapore Airlines needed a shot for "Deepavali", the Hindu celebration of the Festival of Lights.
I was assigned to shoot an air stewardess in a Hindu temple which means on location.
During the shoot, I had no issues with the air stewardess. She was gorgeous and very professional.
The problem is that there was no magic in the shot. My polaroids came out pretty ordinary.
I needed some "magic".
After thinking for a while, I decided to switch off my flashes and use the modelling lamps only.
My art director was a bit nervous when I did that.
Shooting with the modelling lamps gave me the golden yellow cast.
The shot was still not there though. Something else was missing.
I then smeared some vaseline on my filter to create the streak of light on the top right.
I adjusted it such that it's aiming at the air stewardess.
On the bottom left, the vasaline soften the deity located there and there's also some light streaks of light upwards.
These effects cause the air stewardess to "pop" out of the shot.
This is one of the shoots that I'm very proud of. I managed to made something out of nothing.
Zenit cameras were made by KMZ and Belomo in the former USSR, production ended about 2005.
Good lenses, camera was a little kludgy, but rugged.
A reverse snobbery exists, Canon, Leica and other cameras with Zenit or Fed lenses, Fed was a factory in Ukraine, they made copies of Leica, later improved them.
It was a side business for KMZ, they are more into tank sights, submarine periscopes, microscopes and other equipment. Factory was in a Moscow suburb.
One innovation was an air injector, which used high pressure air to force vaccine into the skin, so no syringes or needles were needed.
Very useful in an epidemic in a remote area, disposing of used syringes and needles is also an issue.
No ties to any seller.
As for SLR, I lost interest in Japanese made items after the Maxxum 7000 and its competitors.
Flimsy and unreliable, the flash on top of the prism would pop out at random...all plastic shells, and plastic lens bodies.
Zenit can be used as a weapon, heavy, die cast shell....use it at the end of its strap in self defense, the thing will still work afterwards!
Good lenses, camera was a little kludgy, but rugged.
A reverse snobbery exists, Canon, Leica and other cameras with Zenit or Fed lenses, Fed was a factory in Ukraine, they made copies of Leica, later improved them.
It was a side business for KMZ, they are more into tank sights, submarine periscopes, microscopes and other equipment. Factory was in a Moscow suburb.
One innovation was an air injector, which used high pressure air to force vaccine into the skin, so no syringes or needles were needed.
Very useful in an epidemic in a remote area, disposing of used syringes and needles is also an issue.
No ties to any seller.
As for SLR, I lost interest in Japanese made items after the Maxxum 7000 and its competitors.
Flimsy and unreliable, the flash on top of the prism would pop out at random...all plastic shells, and plastic lens bodies.
Zenit can be used as a weapon, heavy, die cast shell....use it at the end of its strap in self defense, the thing will still work afterwards!
They were straight evolution of German Cameras and Optics, Zeiss Jena works having stayed in the Soviet occupied half of Germany.
By the way, about a million times better than "American" cameras.
Oh wait, "Americans" didn´t even manufacture precision cameras. 😱
Best Ansco, or, say , Kodak Retina ... were made in Germany.
Honeywell Reflex cameras were, of course, made in Japan by Pentax, which quickly swept them under the rug and started direct selling in USA.
"American" best journalist photographers in Korea and later in VietNam did their job using German Contax and Leica cameras, until those were replaced by Japanese Nikon.
But how would YOU Know???????
Remarkable, is it not, how well educated the average arrogant UK citizen seems to be?
FYI: Schott was the regular glass supplier to Zeiss, but the glass for telescope mirrors was sourced by Zeiss from the former USSR, it takes years to cast and cool down that thick piece of glass.
That means Schott is less capable than some guy in the former USSR, according to Zeiss, who must machine and coat the mirror!
Bell & Howell imported SLR cameras from Asahi Optical Co., later they became Asahi Pentax and then later simply Pentax.
The Soviets took away most of the Leica plant and machinery, some early Fed were assembled from parts taken from the German plants as war compensation after WWII.
Assembly was done using German machinery at the start...
Then they actually improved the optics from soft glass and soft lens coatings to hard glass and hard coatings.
Also the mechanism, particularly in focal plane shutters.
They were sold cheap in the West, as the Soviets wanted dollars.
And they got the image of cheap stuff.
Sure, if I get an improved Zeiss Biotar for $5, rather than $1000, why not?
Nikon comes from 'Nippon Ikon', their first cameras were modelled on the Zeiss Ikon, and their lens sharpness was better than Zeiss even then, 1947.
It would be educative for the ill informed to find out who owns Nikon, and its financial strength.
FYI: Schott was the regular glass supplier to Zeiss, but the glass for telescope mirrors was sourced by Zeiss from the former USSR, it takes years to cast and cool down that thick piece of glass.
That means Schott is less capable than some guy in the former USSR, according to Zeiss, who must machine and coat the mirror!
Bell & Howell imported SLR cameras from Asahi Optical Co., later they became Asahi Pentax and then later simply Pentax.
The Soviets took away most of the Leica plant and machinery, some early Fed were assembled from parts taken from the German plants as war compensation after WWII.
Assembly was done using German machinery at the start...
Then they actually improved the optics from soft glass and soft lens coatings to hard glass and hard coatings.
Also the mechanism, particularly in focal plane shutters.
They were sold cheap in the West, as the Soviets wanted dollars.
And they got the image of cheap stuff.
Sure, if I get an improved Zeiss Biotar for $5, rather than $1000, why not?
Nikon comes from 'Nippon Ikon', their first cameras were modelled on the Zeiss Ikon, and their lens sharpness was better than Zeiss even then, 1947.
It would be educative for the ill informed to find out who owns Nikon, and its financial strength.
Last edited:
I took excellent pictures with Zenit.
I would attribute your poor results more to being a beginner at Photography, rather than to equipment failure.
I have used Pentax (my favourite brand) extensively, as well as some Minolta, Leica, Olympus OM1, Pentax K1000, MX, ME, Super A, and a host others : Rollei 35 S and T (Zeiss Sonnar 2.8 and Tessar 3.5), also the excellent (if noisy) East German Praktica MTL5 ; can get high quality pictures from any of them, and Zenit matches any and all, only taking care to work within speeds which run only from 1/30 to /500 of a second while others mentioned can go down to second and some up to 1/000th
By he way the "limited" speeds come straight from Classic Leica and Contax cameras, and their black cloth shutters, go figure.
All lenses used are excellent (not like cheesy plastic lens American snapshot takers) and results depend on shooter´s capability to pick proper diaphragm and speed, lighting, focusing,and camera stability,the nemesis of beginners.
But as far as lens sharpness and contrast? ... they rate as good as all Pro ones mentioned.
Obviously tobydog never ever used one, and his Photography classes must have been given my Senator Mc Carthy.