Children's shoes

Canon Elan IIe, Arista 400 film, Canon 28-135mm lens.

Caveat emptor

Buying camera gear can be a dicey proposition if you're not careful. Just realize one thing: retailers do not mark up cameras, bodies, or lenses very much. They make their money selling you memory cards, filters, batteries, straps, etc. So if you see a price on a new camera or lens that's significantly lower than you see it on Amazon, Adorama, or B&H, it's probably a bait-and-switch scam.

Say you buy a camera from one of these shady outfits, like Broadway Photo, Foto Connection, etc. About a day after you place your order, you'll get a "confirmation" phone call. During this call, the belligerent caller will try and "sell" you a whole bunch of items that should already come with your camera, like battery chargers, software, etc. They'll be pushy and mean, and you're probably not getting what you ordered in the mail. When you call them to complain, they basically tell you to piss off.

Most of these scammers have Brooklyn addresses, but they're not what you think — most are actually empty warehouses, shipping centers, or private residences. To his credit, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has begun cracking down on these unsavory business practices, but you still have to be careful.

If you're buying new camera gear, and you have any question about who you're dealing with, check one of these two sites before placing an order:

1. www.resellerratings.com — you can see customer reviews of the stores themselves. Look for comments detailing bait-and-switch tactics.

2. Don Wiss' pictures of Brooklyn Camera Store storefronts. Some results may surprise you.

I have always received outstanding service from these retailers:
1. Crutchfield
2. B&H
3. Adorama
4. Freestyle Photo
5. Collectible Cameras
6. Beach Camera

Blackrapid does it right

I have to hand it to Blackrapid. I ordered their R-Strap (love it) last October, and when I did I also ordered their replacement swivel hook they call the ConnectR-2. According to them, it was far superior to the swivel connector on the existing R-Strap, only they were still negotiating with manufacturers, etc., and didn't have the replacement available yet. When we have it, we'll ship it to you and charge your card. Incidentally, they offered it up at $0.01 — though with $4.99 shipping. But what's $5 if it'll help protect your valuable gear?

Months passed, and I forgot all about the ConnectR-2. Then an email came from Blackrapid, apologizing for and explaining the delay. And about a month ago, the replacement finally came. It was a vast improvement, as promised — a spring-loaded clasp was replaced with a locking caribiner-style connector that seems quite a bit sturdier than before.

Today brought a surprise in the mail: Blackrapid discovered a small amount of the new connectors had failed, and since they couldn't identify the lot they simply mailed a new one, along with a letter containing instructions on how to swap out the connectors. And since the connectors appear identical, they wrapped a piece of black tape around the new one to avoid confusion.

This is what you get when you deal with a small, homegrown company that cares about what it does: good customer service and support after the sale. And in return I have no problem recommending their products to other photographers — and other photographers notice and ask about this strap pretty often.

Another 35mm roll from the Holga

Again following the excellent instructions at Squarefrog, I shot a roll of 35mm film through the Holga. This time, I loaded Arista Premium 100, since the day I did it was sunny and I figured the Holga's 1/125 (or so) shutter at f/11ish might overexpose every shot at ASA 400. One key difference between this time and last: I taped the hell out of the camera with electrical tape to block light leaks.



Squarefrog also gives you a handy chart showing how many clicks to wind the wheel between shots. Turns out some enterprising nerd figured out exactly how many clicks you need to wind the film as the spool takes on film (and therefore changes size). It works perfectly to give you 24 frames per roll. Sweet!






Yep, that's the General Lee, parked outside Monticello.

35mm film in a medium format camera

If you shoot 35mm film in a medium format camera, you're using film that's smaller than the image circle cast by the lens. Therefore, every bit of film is exposed, and the sprocket holes show up after processing. The problem is, using the film holder for my Canoscan 8400F scanner is no good, because it blocks the sprocket holes. Where's the fun in that?



I just placed the negative directly on the scanner's glass under the transparency backlight to get these scans. I didn't care if it wasn't perfectly flat on there because I shot it through a Holga to begin with. I've heard of folks flattening it on the platen using a piece of glass, too, to varying degrees of success.

As for modifying a camera to perform this experiment, nothing beats the flexibility of a Holga. Many others have done this before me, and I more or less followed the instructions at Squarefrog. An unused kitchen sponge worked great to keep the 35mm canister in place, and I did opt for the rubber bands on the 120 takeup reel to keep the 35mm film from straying to the edges.

So I have to wonder why anyone would buy a 35mm Holga...just buy the normal one and you get the 35mm version free.

Wind a few less clicks on the film reel, and the frames overlap, giving you a panorama, Holga-style.



I imagine this could work in many medium-format cameras, and I like the effect, so if I get my hands on one I'll be sure to try it.

Push processing

When I ordered my photo chemicals from Freestyle, I threw in a few rolls of their house brand Arista Premium film. It comes in ASA 100 & 400, and I chose 400. Rumor has it the film is really re-branded Tri-X, but I don't have enough experience with film to verify this. The reason to try it out is that it's only $2 a roll, while Tri-X is $3.75 or so.



I do know that people love Tri-X because it's very "pushable," meaning you can underexpose by a couple of stops, then develop it longer to make up the difference. The result? You can shoot your 400 film at ASA 1600. The difference in developing times is about 3-1/2 minutes.



Being new to the film developing game, I had never actually tried this, and I assumed the grain would be plentiful and possibly annoying. Boy was I ever pleasantly surprised!



Good enough for me.

Adventures in Caffenol-C

It's been documented elsewhere, but once I found out about it I just had to try this — developing B&W film in a mixture of instant coffee, vitamin C, and washing soda. How cool is that? Here's what you need:



I used the Photojojo recipe:
12 oz. water
5 t. instant coffee
3-1/2 t. washing soda
1/2 t. vitamin C powder

I divided the water in half and dissolved the washing soda in one part and the coffee & vitamin C in the other. Let it sit until all bubbles were gone, then combined. I put the mixture in the fridge for a few minutes until it read 20° C.



How long to develop was a crapshoot. I've seen starting times on the web anywhere from 12 to 30 minutes. And to top it off I was developing a roll of Arista Premium 400 film I had exposed at ASA 800. I decided upon 30 minutes. I also didn't agitate as much as I would using regular developer. Just didn't seem necessary with such a long developing time.

It's funny how bad this stuff smells — you'd think it would result in pleasant-smelling coffee-tinged negatives, right? Well, to me it smelled like the air you let out of an old tire. Weird!

Anyhow, after 30 minutes I used a Kodak fixer and then washed using the Ilford method. Went to hang up the negatives, and...they looked black! Oh, crap, did they need more time since they were underexposed to begin with?



After holding them up to a light I was relieved to find they had indeed been developed — but a combination of underexposure and a coffee stain made them look different from the other negatives I've developed. The pictures are there, sure as hell.

Problem is, I couldn't scan them. They were too dark, which in most cases would indicate the photos were overexposed — except that in this case, the whole roll was deliberately underexposed by one stop. So I conclude that I let them soak too long...30 minutes was too much time. I'll try again soon, with a shorter soak time (and maybe a slightly higher temperature). Clearly, though, this developer is viable.