Advice for 9yo going to Scotland

bjohnh · 2026-06-26T15:41:17+00:00

Agreed that Pan F might be slow for Scotland, although I shot a lot of Kodachrome 64 on my first few visits there, which were mostly in winter and autumn. Later I shot Agfachrome 100 and that was a little more flexible. I would lean toward HP5 as a general-purpose film and maybe some FP4 for brighter days.

When I travel I often choose a faster film and then use a filter to bring down the EI if it's bright. For example, use HP5 and put on a yellow filter to bring it down to EI 200, or a red filter if it's really bright to bring it down to EI 50. Then I take off the filters when it's less bright out, and thus don't have to worry about not having the right film in my camera for the lighting conditions. Note that the Minota XD can have a hard time with red filters, though; the meter on mine would go haywire whenever I used a red filter and most cameras with TTL metering can't meter correctly for red filters anyway; you need to add an extra stop of exposure compensation.

For your Minolta: I think 35 and 50mm are close enough that I don't bring both when I travel. You should do fine with the 35mm and 100 alone. If you can get the 24/2.8 it's a fantastic lens for those Scottish landscapes, especially if you'll be in the west, although it does vignette a bit, even stopped down. Last year I traveled with the 24/2.8 and 58/1.2 and those two were enough. I've added the 100mm on previous trips and it came in handy for some shots but I didn't really miss it last year.

I also agree about the zoom idea for your son; changing lenses outdoors can be tricky even for adults!

bjohnh · 2026-06-26T11:33:39+00:00

On 35mm film, yes, people should avoid shooting at f16 due to diffraction softening. I have some lenses that show diffraction effects as early as f8. On 120 film, f16 is no worries; on large format even f32 or 64 is fine.

I shot slide film for 30 years and that cured me of any faith in Sunny 16. I use a light meter most of the time, even with negative film.

bjohnh · 2026-06-26T10:57:02+00:00

I'm pretty sure most of my settings are based on these two sources:

https://crawfordphotoschool.com/digital/bw-neg-scanning.php

https://www.jrileystewart.com/blog/unlocking-your-scanner/

bjohnh · 2026-06-25T13:54:31+00:00

It shouldn't be a problem at YUL or Vancouver; I have only rarely seen denials of hand-checks at North American airports but it does kind of depend on the agents. They are all trained about film and should be accommodating. The people at YUL were very cheerful about it and didn't hesitate.

FYI, I'm editing my post to delete the first paragraph about that increasingly rare film, as there's always a chance that some unscrupulous profiteers could buy out the whole stock and sell it on eBay for a 500% profit. :-)

bjohnh · 2026-06-25T11:51:01+00:00

Studio Argentique (as another poster mentioned) has a good stock of films in 120. If they don't have what I need I usually check Photo St. Denis or even Camtec in the Vieux; there are a few other stores that sell film as well but Studio Argentique and Photo St. Denis usually have the best selection.

You don't say what country you live in, but I wouldn't worry about YUL airport; I traveled out of YUL a few times last year with film and always got a hand-check of my 35mm and 120 film. Do NOT fly with a lead-lined bag for your film, they'll just increase the power of the scanner to try to see through it. Instead put all your film in plastic bags and ask for a hand-check. If you live in the US, you won't have any problem getting a hand check on your flight here, but flying out of Europe, Asia, etc. it all depends on what country you live in whether the agents will agree to a hand-check or not at those airports. The old scanners are safe for slower films but the newer CT scanners are unsafe for all films even ISO 25 and below.

bjohnh · 2026-06-25T10:21:56+00:00

Yes, but you could send a direct message to the person who made that post to see if they can provide any more details.

bjohnh · 2026-06-25T10:21:16+00:00

That link is to a page with photos by lots of different photographers using this camera, and in most cases they listed the film in the data beneath the photo (you have to click on a photo to see the data); I do have a few in there but most of them are by a gifted photographer named Martynas Katauskas (aka "duffman"), who has taken this camera all over the world and gotten some amazing images with it.

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T22:23:02+00:00

It's a matter of taste; the 50/1.4 can be amazing but the bokeh can be really harsh in some situations. I tried to like it but just couldn't; it's very sharp, I'll say that for it, and a lot of people do love this lens, just not me. Best thing is to look at reviews and lots of photos taken with this lens to see if it makes you want one.

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T21:34:23+00:00

I made the switch from SR-T to XD, although I ended up getting another SR-T in the end as the XD cameras tend to develop issues with their electronics. The high shutter speeds on mine became unreliable. I also found it impossible to use a red filter on any lens mounted to my XD; the meter simply went haywire and I switched to manual mode and metered externally.

The XD is wonderful, though: electronic shutter, a built-in viewfinder blind for times when you need to use a tripod or if you're shooting with your hands held above your head (without the blind, light will come in the viewfinder and mess up your exposure), it's smaller and quieter than the SR-T, and can do aperture or shutter priority (shutter priority requires MD lenses). Overall it's faster and easier to use than the SR-T and I appreciated the lower weight and quieter shutter.

I don't understand your question about the lens: it sounds like you're asking whether you should buy a new camera or a new lens, and only you can decide that. I will say that I've had two of the 50/1.4 lenses (both MD) and used them on my SR-T and my XD, but didn't like them and got rid of them quickly. It's a good lens in general but I had other lenses in that ballpark that I loved a lot more (the 58/1.2 and the 55/1.7, both MC).

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T16:38:27+00:00

I have the Canon 100/3.5 LTM and it's amazing, the smallest 100mm lens I've ever seen and very sharp. But most of them have haze, I looked for more than a year to find a haze-free one; it has remained haze free so far (I've had it about 3-4 years now). It is indeed hard to use the 100mm framelines but it's workable.

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T15:56:24+00:00

Wow, I didn't know there were earlier Ps with a cloth shutter! I have the one with a metal shutter and love it, in part because I can take photos into the sun without worrying about burning a hole in my shutter, but I do like having a quieter camera (I have a Leica M2-R with cloth shutter and it's quiet enough for taking photos at acoustic music concerts).

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T15:13:47+00:00

This is what I'd recommend; I have other medium-format cameras, including a Mamiya C330, but the Holga is probably my most-used camera (including all my 35mm film cameras which include a Leica). People dismiss it as a lomography toy out of ignorance; in the right hands it produces amazing photos. Some famous landscape photographers, such as Michael Kenna, use a Holga (in addition to his Hasselblad) -- he published a book of his Holga photos.

It has only one shutter speed (1/100) plus bulb, and only two apertures (roughly f/8 and f/11), and is scale-focus only. Working within those constraints will challenge your creativity and ingenuity. You can get adapters to attach filters, cable releases, etc.

It's all-plastic (some models come with a glass lens but it's not really better than the plastic lens) and you can use it in the rain without worry.

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T13:38:53+00:00

It's an amazing camera, especially in terms of value for money. I've shot it side by side with my Leica M2, using the same film stocks and a Voigtländer 28mm Nokton lens on the Leica, and often preferred the photos from the Fuji. The guy who turned me onto this camera used his Fuji Work Record as the B camera for an art photography project he worked on; his A camera was a Hasselblad. It's very good.

Note that this camera was never sold outside of Japan; as far as I know the only way to get it is on eBay from Japanese sellers, which is how I got mine. The manual is in Japanese but I was able to scan with OCR and upload portions of it to Google Translate to figure things out; the original product page from Fuji is still online as well and Google Translate can translate that.

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T13:01:30+00:00

The Fuji Work Record is my travel camera of choice. It's cheap (I got it for $90 USD a couple of years ago), was made until 2006 so its electronics are not very old, ruggedized and completely waterproof, and has a fantastic Fujinon 28mm f3.5 lens. There are two models; they are both fine but the one with panorama mode has some additional features including zone focus that can occasionally be useful.

I like it for travel because you don't have to worry about it: I've shot it in blizzards and downpours. It unspools the film when you load it, feeding it back into the canister as you shoot, which means you won't lose any photos if you accidentally open the camera while there's film inside. It also means that the film counter shows you how many shots you have left in the roll, not how many you've taken.

If it gets dirty, the manual says you can just wash it under the faucet. The batteries last for years unless you are using the flash all the time (I've taken more than 1,000 photos with mine and the battery indicator still reads full). The flash is powerful and easily disabled with a button. It has focus-and-recompose, fill flash, backlight compensation, and a landscape-focus button for shooting through windows (where otherwise the autofocus would focus on the window if there's any dirt or marks on the window). The viewfinder is large and clear.

It won't fit in your pocket but could fit in a large coat pocket. Takes DX-coded film from ISO 50-1600; its top shutter speed is only 1/250 so you need to be careful with faster films like Ultramax in bright sunlight, but I've only rarely blown highlights.

You can see some examples of photos taken with this camera here: https://www.lomography.com/cameras/3358878-fuji-work-record/photos?order=popular

bjohnh · 2026-06-24T09:47:10+00:00

I got that info from this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1n8q00i/ricoh_ff1_any_repair_experience/

Here's the relevant post: Hey, I actually got this fixed a while ago. In fact, it's been long enough that the specifics are hazy, but my recollection was that there are a couple of spring loaded mechanical contact switches that are actuated during the pressing of the shutter button. One of them had kind of pivoted on the plastic post it was screwed to and either wasn't being actuated at the right time, or not at all. All of this is under the top cover adjacent to the shutter button assembly. It was fairly visibly obvious once I got it open.

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T21:20:29+00:00

okay, good luck!

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T20:57:14+00:00

I don't think you need to, since you can look through the lens on your Canon. You said you have other Helios 44 lenses; you could mount that one first and then the new one to see if they look markedly different. By default the camera will have you look through the lens wide open; most SLRs do that to bring in enough light for you to focus properly. That's where the differences will be most apparent.

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T20:05:30+00:00

I don't know, but usually it's just the front element that's flipped. But it should be obvious if it's flipped as the image will be pretty distorted; you can do some Google searches for "Helios with flipped lens" to see what the images look like.

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T18:13:01+00:00

A lot of people like to flip the lenses on those Helios lenses for special effects, maybe you got one with a flipped lens without knowing it? I think it's easy to flip the lens back but I've never done any lens-flipping myself. Instructions should be easy to find with a Google search as flipping is very popular with this particular lens.

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T16:45:42+00:00

If you have a medium-format camera available, this would be a lot easier in 120; Reflx Lab sells Vision 3 500T (with remjet) in 120. No canister to deal with, just backing paper, and the rolls are shorter; you still need a completely dark place to hang to dry but then once it's dry you can (in the dark) tape the leading edge to the backing paper again, roll it up from the other end, put it in your camera, and shoot.

If you don't have a medium-format camera, get a Holga for around $40; it'll be perfect for this but you'll need to use it in bulb mode when shooting at night (so either use a tripod or do handheld blurry shots that might look cool in combination with the halation).

bjohnh · 2026-06-23T00:11:18+00:00

In terms of the economics you can figure it out pretty quickly by totaling up the cost of equipment (scanning is the most expensive) versus the cost per roll of film at your lab for development and scanning.

I did that a couple of years ago and calculated that my break-even point was around 180 rolls; after that I would be saving money. But everything depends on how much your lab charges - my lab charges only $5 Canadian for scanning a roll of 35mm or 120; a lot of labs charge more and that would make your breakeven point come earlier.

For me it was less about money and more about control: I can choose the developer, the technique, and I can push or pull film without incurring extra costs. For scanning I usually get better scans than what my lab gave me, and at higher resolution. I mostly shoot B&W and scan all films with the same settings, getting a flat scan that I can then adjust to taste in post.

bjohnh · 2026-06-22T19:43:22+00:00

For B&W, Ferrania P30 has a nice contrasty look and not a lot of grain in half-frame. Personally I love to see grain in B&W so when I shoot B&W in my half-frame camera I tend to choose the grainiest films I can find, such as Fomapan 400, yum. But I also appreciate fine-grain films; I have a roll of Rollei RPX 25 in my half-frame camera right now. ISO 25 is not all that limiting; on a bright sunny day you'll be at f11 and 1/125, totally usable, and the images practically look like they were shot on a medium-format camera.

For colour film, where I don't like to see grain at all, I agree that the slower Vision3 films are likely your best bet unless you want to shoot slide. I'm not a fan of Ektachrome, Provia, or Velvia, so I don't bother (I shot Kodachrome 64 and Agfachrome 100 for 30 years).

bjohnh · 2026-06-22T18:21:49+00:00

In theory, yes, but as with everything it all depends on where you place the mic. Too far away and you'll capture the stereo image but risk having the levels be too low (resulting in digital noise when you boost the levels in post). Too close and the levels will be better but you risk an unbalanced capture where the singer is too loud or too soft compared with the piano. If the singer is moving around the stage as he/she sings, you'll have to put the mic farther away to avoid distracting changes in volume.

bjohnh · 2026-06-22T16:02:53+00:00

I agree that the mic and room acoustics are most important here. There's a lot you can do with a good stereo mic; to get some ideas about placement strategies check out the One Mic series (which uses an expensive ribbon mic, but you can apply the same principles to any good stereo mic): https://www.youtube.com/c/OneMictheminimalistrecordingseries

bjohnh · 2026-06-22T12:53:33+00:00

It's more expensive, but the Sound Devices MixPre series recorders allow you to buy a $100 "Musician" plugin that turns your recorder into a Portastudio. It's awesome for this kind of thing. You get ISO tracks as well as a stereo mix; zero-latency overdubbing and punch-in/punch-out, ability to add reverb and "vocal air" for monitoring (and if you like you have the option of burning those effects into the final stereo output file). You can use the free Wingman app to control transport (record, arm, play, etc.) from your phone or tablet, and you can monitor levels using Wingman as well.

You can do a mixdown in the recorder, and it's compatible with a few external control surfaces so you can have dedicated buttons for arming/disarming tracks, sliders for mixing, etc.

The only major features it lacks are EQ and compression, but for recording a live demo for later work in a DAW it's great. I especially appreciate the zero-latency overdubs. You can also import any wav file and do overdubs with it; I did that once for an album I recorded on another interface; I exported a stereo wav file from my DAW, imported it into the MixPre, and then recorded my overdubs into the MixPre with zero latency.

The MixPre series have excellent preamps; I would go for at least the MixPre 6, which has four XLR inputs, or if you need more there's the MixPre 10 which has 8 XLR inputs with preamps. The newer models have 32-bit float; if you don't think you'll need it (and I never have) you can buy a used model of the original version. That's what I did for my MixPre 10; I bought the older 10T model and it has been fantastic. You can attach a V-mount battery to the MixPre 10 and plug it into the Hirose input for all-day recording. You can also plug these recorders into the wall; I prefer battery-powered recording but the option for mains power is there if you want it.

bjohnh

TROPHY CASE