Eric Praetzel - My 35mm Cameras

As of July 2000 I am using a HP S20 slide / negative scanner to scan the slides and negatives of my vacation at 1200 dpi. I've not found 2400 dpi to be worth it. ie the files are 4x larger and there is very little noticable difference. It would be useful for printing but not viewing.

Digital Cameras

Sony DSC-WX50 Digi-Camera

This camera is 16.2MP

August 2013From the start the camera would stop responding. After about 200 pictures, and 4 weeks the problem became clear - the battery was not making reliable contact with the camera and so it would loose power until the battery jiggled back into place. Unfortunately I had to pay $17 to ship this back to Sony for "repair" and I didn't get it back for 2 months - missing the entire vacation season. At this point I don't know if the camera or the battery is at fault. Henry's, where I bought the camera, did no diagnosis of the problem and just shipped it away. I'd assumed that they'd try a different battery at least.

August 2014Another problem - likely battery related. The camera refused to power up it's computer. You could turn it on and take pictures (but not movies and you could not zoom and no picture information was present upon the screen). You could not review the pictures on the SD card. Sometimes it would present a message saying that you had to power it off and on again - but doing that just greeted one with the same message. In both cases the only solution was to pull the battery, wait a few seconds and re-insert and it was usually ok.

Aside from that I'm not very pleased with the camera.

1. Although it's 16MP I would not call the images much better than my Cannon A590 - although the file sizes are much larger.
2. The panoramic picture mode is fast - but a much lower resolution than the camera allows for stills.
3. The 1080p movie mode isn't anywhere near as clear as I would expect, esp. if one is panning the camera.
4. They really did a great job of hiding the macro mode - it's called the "gourmet food" mode!!
5. Battery life has failed to impress. I was hoping for 200 pictures per charge - but it looks more like 130.
6. It is small and will likely be very hard to use for anyone with large fingers.

Cannon PowerShop A590 IS Digi-Camera

Generally this was a fairly good camera with a few issues:

1. Over 2 years more and more specs of dust collected inside adding a fuzzy spot to each image.
2. The lens has to be cleaned several times a year as a strip of dust collects on it - right under where the protective shutter is split.

I managed around 400 pictures with Advanced Lithium batteries and 350 with Duracell CopperTop batteries - 1/3 the cost and nearly as many pictures per pair of AA's!

Kodak LS 443, DX7440 Digi-Camera

In comparison to my 35mm Pentax I can say that the Kodak LS 443 definately gives pictures in better focus (nature scenes at infinity) than my 28mm lens on the Pentax.

As of August 2005 I now have a refurbished Kodak DX7440 4MP DigiCam as a replacement for my crappy LS443 which suffered it's 3rd major failure in 2 years and was no longer being repaired by Kodak.
I've taken about 200 pictures with the camera and it's a vast improvement over the LS443 - I'd say that it's about "average". I will not trust it unless it manages to work without a failure for 2 years. Some of the controls are a nice improvement over the LS443 and some are a step backwards (zoom). The flash appears to work fairly well as opposed to being horrible.

I have a Kodak LS433 4MP DigiCam and I would not recommend it. It's ok, but the picture quality is not sharp, the auto-light detector (for types of lighting) drives me insane and the flash over-powers images far too often. It turns on when it's in your pocket and I've seen too many out of focus pictures - even in landscape mode! The camera doesn't tell you the f-stop or shutter speed and blury pictures have often resulted from not knowing it was at a slow shutter speed. In comparison Cannon cameras embed such info in the JPEG comments. It's ok and I have no experience with other cameras (directly) but I would not buy this camera again! I have the wide angle lens attachment and it's quality is worth what you pay for it (aprox $100) - it's not as good as what you're expecting and a pain to put on and take off and carry the camera with when it's on.

Note: This camera takes out of focus pictures when in Landscape mode on bright days when fully zoomed. For some reason when the aperature stops down fully - the pictures become blurry. They never addressed the problem or responded to my reporting it

I would recommend a Cannon Powershoot G2/G3 or S45. Friends have also been very happy with their Fuji cameras.

In July 2005 the camera died again and Kodak no longer repairs it. They offered an upgrade to a "refurbished" DX7440 for $125. That camera is reputed to have shorter battery life and all of the image quality problems.

In July 2004 Kodak repaired the LS443 1 month after the warranty expired (but it was done under warranty). They did not fix the problem with the camera resetting and deleting pictures, but the shutter and lens mechanism was repaired and the main on/off/mode switch was replaced with on that was lower profile and stiffer so that the camera is less likely to turn on in a pocket.

Near the end of the 12 month warranty the camera started to blank 1/2 of the screen and do a power-up reset while taking pictures - typically when I got to the 20th to 40th picture. In so doing it would wipe out the last 10 to 20 pictures and leave the memory card corrupted. About a month after that (1 month after the camera warranty expired) the CCD sensor went dead. Kodak has said that they'll repair the camera under warranty if the camera shows no signs of abuse. I can't believe that the first problem is due to a faulty memory card - it should not cause a reset and corruption of pictures on the memory card.

Film Tests

I now have a digital camera (Kodak LS433 with wide angle lens) and I don't like the colors (they are too saturated - blues and greens) but generally it's an ok camera and you get what you pay for (if you have money to blow get an SLR digital or Cannon G2/G3).

A while ago I decided to do some tests with color negative film

XRays and Photographic Film

I have not had any problems at airports and film. But I only use 100 ASA or 200 ASA in rare cases and I've had both exposed and un-exposed film xrayed as carry-on baggage. In a few special cases I have managed to get a hand inspection and so avoid the xray exposure. Film is a chemical medium and it is best to avoid any light, xray and heat exposure that you can.

Kodak Info about Xrays

Kodak Tech. Bulletin - Xray Scanning effects on film
My biased summary of this - your film WILL be dammaged if x-rayed with the checked baggage and slight dammage will result from hand baggage x-ray equpiment!

Air Transport Security Authorities

• Canadian Air Transport Security Authority
• Transporting Film

Info from Glasgow airport

I recieved a pamplet at Glasgow since they would not hand inspect my film. The pamplet states that:

• ISO 400 ASA are "visually unaffected" when exposed to x-rays 8 times while very low ASA films can handle 32 exposures
• If films are exposed more than this "the nature of the change occurring is barely noticable to the naked eye and does not become visible until film is exposed around 32 times".

Films

Film is a chemical marvel. Thru layers of dies and/or light sensitive crystals you can record color or B/W pictures. Film is exceedingly sensitive once it has been exposed to light. You should process the film as quickly as possible and keep it cool. You should definately avoid X-ray equipment!
Different film speeds and different film formulations have different sensitivies to light. Some films will be more sensitive to certain colors [visible or not!]. For example UV light tends to wash out film and special films are sensitive in the infrared spectrum. Different films have a different contrast; that is they expand or compress the contrast range [the slope of the curve of their density vs exposure]. This is generally a subtle point but that is why 1000 ASA film looks different than 100 ASA film. Not only is the grain size different; but so is the contrast.

Storage

All films should be kept cool to slow the deterioration of the films. The different colors degrade at different rates and that is why unexposed films go reddish when they get old. Storing film (and batteries) in a fridge is the best thing that you can do. For long term storage you can use a freezer; but the film must be given time to warm up and for condensation to evaporate. Film will last for many years past the best before date when it is stored in a refrigerator.

Slide

I used to use only 100 ASA slide film; Kodachrome, Ektachrome and Seattle Filmworks Chrome. Slide, or positive, film expands the contrast of pictures. As a result it is much more sensitive to the exposure settings and is unable to capture a wide contast range. However, it does make for excellent, bright, pictures for projectors.
Getting pictures from slide film is possible via a special type of printing paper but I've had problems getting consistant color saturation. When I started taking pictures in caves I switched to negative film to get a wider contrast range and more latitude for incorrect exposures.

Inter-negative

I mention inter-negatives because this is how you make "negatives" out of slide film. Basically you take a special, low contrast, negative film and put it back-to-back with slide film. Seattle Filmworks does this cheaply and that is the primary reason why I used their film services for a decade.
However, typically the inter-negative has a sharper contrast and details are lost in the extreams (dark and light).

Negative

I only use 100 ASA negative film for outdoor pictures. When desperate I use 200 ASA and I've only resorted to faster films for indoor wedding and astronomy photography. Negative film has a flatter contrast than slide film. The slower the film the small the grain. For 35mm films:
• 100 ASA - grain becomes visible on 8" x 10" prints
• 200 ASA - grain becomes visible on 5" x 7" prints
• 400 ASA - grain becomes visible on 4" x 6" prints
• 800 ASA - grain clearly visible on 4" x 6" prints
APS films are smaller in size and so the quality is slightly worse. The quality is directly related to the size of the negatives. If you use 110 or 210 film (6cm square negatives) then you will have even higher quality.
You can shoot 200 ASA negative film withe the camera set at 100 or 400 ASA and barely tell the difference. Slide film would be noticably light and washed out. As a general rule, over-exposing film is better than underexposing. Underexposing will reveal the grain while overexposing will reduce the grain. Colors will change the more you underexpose the film.

Photo Paper

One of the important parts of the arcane art of printing film is the paper. Paper is available in a variety of contrasts. Some papers will reduce or expand the contrast. Typical film printers will only stock medium contrast papers. If you want to properly print wedding pictures with both detail in black suits and white lace on white dresses; then you need to reduce the contrast by the proper selection of film and printing paper.

Printing Quality

I have rarely ever been pleased with the quality of printed pictures. The colors are rarely consistant. That is why I only scan the negatives. I don't care what the print shop does with my prints; as long as they properly develope the negatives for me! Sadly, one expensive local shop has dropped my film into boiling water and their developing & printing machine scratched an entire roll of negatives.

Digital Cameras

Cameras

• 1979-1991 - fully automatic generic 35 mm with 50 mm lens
• 1991 - California vacation
  • light meter failed on generic 35 mm, 2 rolls of film lost
  • bought 35 mm semi-auto Chinon body, 28-200 lens - lens was set to automatic, camera body did not support it - all film shot at F22 and severly underexposed
• 1993 - Europe Trip
  • 2 rolls of Kodachrome had a funny color cast after developing
  • Chinon body recieved small crack
• 1994 - West coast trip
  • Pentax MEF had intermittant problem with exposure compensation right [also happened with a different ME later]
• 1998 - West coast trip - Chinon body was leaking light due to the back opening up slightly
• 1999 - Pentax ME advanced film incorrectly and had intermittant contact on exposure copmensation ring resulting in severe under-exposure
• 2000 - one roll of SFW film poped open [14 frames lost], 2 rolls over-exposed due to setting camera to incorrect ASA setting [this turned out to be not a bad thing - overexposure is by upto 3 or 4 stops is not bad]

Camera Filters

Polarizer

I lover polarizing filters. They remove glare and indirect light, often restoring blue and green colors that are washed out. They only work well when the camera is at right angles to the sun. Often this means that you have a blue-fade in the sky with the polarizer working very well at right angles and less so for scenery that is closer to the sun. One problem is using the polarizer too much and turning the sky or water to a jet black color. This is clearly visible in some of my Northern Italy pictures

Useful Information

Field of view vs film format and lens

Comments on Film Exposure

The ISO number, according to Techno-babble, indicates the 'minimal useable gradient', in English, the minimum exposure needed for an acceptable picture.
If you actually are silly enough to actually USE that number, you deserve the underexposed shadows (weak blacks, brown actually) you'll get (reason being that the shadows are placed on the toe of the curve, giving in other words an opacity increase which is subproportional to the exposure given... so, the photo paper doesn't get enough exposure whilst printing, hence muddy tonality.
All c-41 films should be exposed at half to 1/4 of the ISO number: grain is finer, tonality much superior.... your average 200 films have a useful range of 12 to 14 f stops, all on the straight line (opacity proportional to exposure) With long scale scenes, I put the highlights on the shoulder of the curve, so they tend to compress themselves and don't block up. Everything below that prints normally.

Film information is on the Kodak web site at: Color Negativ Films There is very little difference between 'pro' and 'not pro' regarding charecteristic curve.. here is a fairly typical curve
A wonderful family of color negative films are the Kodak Supra line
They are designed for 'imaging professionals' who will be SCANNING the film... extended range (impossible to overexpose, or 'over-scale' the picture, also 'overcoated' to minimze handling scratches.

On grain. I was getting great results in the mid '80s shooting pro soccer on 1000 speed color neg. I made grainless 16 x 20s. Here's how:
This is chromagenic film: the silver is bleached out during processing, after clouds of dye are formed about each silver image grain. If one gives more exposure, more dye clouds are formed, overlapping, and eliminating the clear parts of the negs. More exposure, therefore, less grain. Exactly the opposite oftraditional photography.
If a c-41 picture is grainy, its not the film, its been UNDEREXPOSED.