OK, I know this is a digital group, but I dare say the group wisdom here goes back a fair way to the days of film.

I have been given (long story - a late friend's estate) a number of cameras, mainly an Olympus and some Leicas. The OM-1 (yes, the original OM-1, so I'm guessing mid to late '70s) feels like it has film in it if I slowly tension the film rewind knob.

My late friend died about 20 years ago (estate only wound up after his wife passed away last year), so I'm wondering what the chances are of there being anything salvagable on the film. If there's anything there, I'd like to get it processed and pass it on to the family.

AFAIK, the camera was stored in a relatively cool place (well, cool for Australia, so say +/-18°C or 65°F).

Most of the local camera houses that dealt in film and processing seem to have disappeared and all we seem to be left with are office supply warehouses of the 'Bring in your SD card and we'll print it for you' type of thing.

OK Brainstrust - Suggestions, comments, ideas, etc?

Cheers,
Magani

In article <2b44aef7-ca14-41f0-b8bb-5e49ed3ccb31n@googlegroups.com>,
Magani <cdsross@gmail.com> wrote:

> OK, I know this is a digital group, but I dare say the group wisdom here goes
> back a fair way to the days of film.
>
> I have been given (long story - a late friend's estate) a number of cameras,
> mainly an Olympus and some Leicas. The OM-1 (yes, the original OM-1, so I'm
> guessing mid to late '70s) feels like it has film in it if I slowly tension
> the film rewind knob.

there's film in it. rewind it fully and try to get it processed.

> My late friend died about 20 years ago (estate only wound up after his wife
> passed away last year), so I'm wondering what the chances are of there being
> anything salvagable on the film. If there's anything there, I'd like to get
> it processed and pass it on to the family.

there's a very good chance it's salvageable, although the colours will
be way off.

if it's kodachrome, your only option is to have it processed as
black&white negatives by blue moon in portland oregon. as far as i
know, they're the only lab that does this:

<https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/35BWK14/black-and-white-develo
ping-of-35mm-k-14-film>
We use this process to produce a black and white negative from
Kodachrome films. We have a custom-tailored chemical process
based on recommendations provided by Kodak data sheets and
further optimized to mitigate the effects of aging and base fogging.

a quick check of their web site suggests they are a good choice
regardless of what type of film might be in it, as they claim to deal
with fading of older films.

> AFAIK, the camera was stored in a relatively cool place (well, cool for
> Australia, so say +/-18°C or 65°F).

that helps.

> Most of the local camera houses that dealt in film and processing seem to
> have disappeared and all we seem to be left with are office supply warehouses
> of the 'Bring in your SD card and we'll print it for you' type of thing.

search for pro labs in your area. they still exist. or contact blue
moon, although international shipping might be an issue.

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 10:28:09 am UTC+10, nospam wrote:
> In article <2b44aef7-ca14-41f0...@googlegroups.com>,
> Magani <cds...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > OK, I know this is a digital group, but I dare say the group wisdom here goes
> > back a fair way to the days of film.
> >
> > I have been given (long story - a late friend's estate) a number of cameras,
> > mainly an Olympus and some Leicas. The OM-1 (yes, the original OM-1, so I'm
> > guessing mid to late '70s) feels like it has film in it if I slowly tension
> > the film rewind knob.
> there's film in it. rewind it fully and try to get it processed.
> > My late friend died about 20 years ago (estate only wound up after his wife
> > passed away last year), so I'm wondering what the chances are of there being
> > anything salvagable on the film. If there's anything there, I'd like to get
> > it processed and pass it on to the family.
> there's a very good chance it's salvageable, although the colours will
> be way off.
>
> if it's kodachrome, your only option is to have it processed as
> black&white negatives by blue moon in portland oregon. as far as i
> know, they're the only lab that does this:
>
> <https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/35BWK14/black-and-white-develo
> ping-of-35mm-k-14-film>
> We use this process to produce a black and white negative from
> Kodachrome films. We have a custom-tailored chemical process
> based on recommendations provided by Kodak data sheets and
> further optimized to mitigate the effects of aging and base fogging.
>
> a quick check of their web site suggests they are a good choice
> regardless of what type of film might be in it, as they claim to deal
> with fading of older films.
> > AFAIK, the camera was stored in a relatively cool place (well, cool for
> > Australia, so say +/-18蚓 or 65蚌).
>
> that helps.
> > Most of the local camera houses that dealt in film and processing seem to
> > have disappeared and all we seem to be left with are office supply warehouses
> > of the 'Bring in your SD card and we'll print it for you' type of thing..
> search for pro labs in your area. they still exist. or contact blue
> moon, although international shipping might be an issue.

Thanks, nospam.

A friend in a local camera club has pointed me in the direction of a local lab, so I'll talk to them next week.

Cheers,
Magani

On 4/3/22 2:11 AM, Magani wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 10:28:09 am UTC+10, nospam wrote:
>> In article <2b44aef7-ca14-41f0...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Magani <cds...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I know this is a digital group, but I dare say the group wisdom here goes
>>> back a fair way to the days of film.
>>>
>>> I have been given (long story - a late friend's estate) a number of cameras,
>>> mainly an Olympus and some Leicas. The OM-1 (yes, the original OM-1, so I'm
>>> guessing mid to late '70s) feels like it has film in it if I slowly tension
>>> the film rewind knob.
>> there's film in it. rewind it fully and try to get it processed.
>>> My late friend died about 20 years ago (estate only wound up after his wife
>>> passed away last year), so I'm wondering what the chances are of there being
>>> anything salvagable on the film. If there's anything there, I'd like to get
>>> it processed and pass it on to the family.
>> there's a very good chance it's salvageable, although the colours will
>> be way off.
>>
>> if it's kodachrome, your only option is to have it processed as
>> black&white negatives by blue moon in portland oregon. as far as i
>> know, they're the only lab that does this:
>>
>> <https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/35BWK14/black-and-white-develo
>> ping-of-35mm-k-14-film>
>> We use this process to produce a black and white negative from
>> Kodachrome films. We have a custom-tailored chemical process
>> based on recommendations provided by Kodak data sheets and
>> further optimized to mitigate the effects of aging and base fogging.
>>
>> a quick check of their web site suggests they are a good choice
>> regardless of what type of film might be in it, as they claim to deal
>> with fading of older films.
>>> AFAIK, the camera was stored in a relatively cool place (well, cool for
>>> Australia, so say +/-18蚓 or 65蚌).
>>
>> that helps.
>>> Most of the local camera houses that dealt in film and processing seem to
>>> have disappeared and all we seem to be left with are office supply warehouses
>>> of the 'Bring in your SD card and we'll print it for you' type of thing.
>> search for pro labs in your area. they still exist. or contact blue
>> moon, although international shipping might be an issue.
>
> Thanks, nospam.
>
> A friend in a local camera club has pointed me in the direction of a local lab, so I'll talk to them next week.
>
> Cheers,
> Magani
>

If it is color print/negative film, look for "Process C-41" or "Process
C-22" on the cassette. Process C-41 is current and shouldn't be a
problem. You could take the film to the local drug store or Walmart, if
you feel lucky! C-22 is older and will require specialty processing. DO
NOT take it to the local drug store or Walmart- it will destroy their
chemistry and every roll that goes through the machine after it until
the chemicals are dumped and the machine cleaned!

If it is color slide film, look for "Process K-12", Process K-14",
Process E-4" or "Process E-6". E-6 is the current process, available at
any good lab- not the local drug store or Walmart; see above warning
about C-22! Process K-12 is old Kodachrome, K-14 is latest, but
discontinued Kodachrome, E-4 is old Ektachrome. Any of those older
processes will require a specialty processor. My recommendation is Film
Rescue International. I have toured the facility and talked at length
with Greg Miller, the owner. He knows what he is doing.

For the sake of history, the last Kodachrome K-14 was run on December
30, 2010 at Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas, USA.

--
Ken Hart
kwhart1@centurylink.net

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 3:56:12 am UTC+10, Ken Hart wrote:
> On 4/3/22 2:11 AM, Magani wrote:
> > On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 10:28:09 am UTC+10, nospam wrote:
> >> In article <2b44aef7-ca14-41f0...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Magani <cds...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> OK, I know this is a digital group, but I dare say the group wisdom here goes
> >>> back a fair way to the days of film.
> >>>
> >>> I have been given (long story - a late friend's estate) a number of cameras,
> >>> mainly an Olympus and some Leicas. The OM-1 (yes, the original OM-1, so I'm
> >>> guessing mid to late '70s) feels like it has film in it if I slowly tension
> >>> the film rewind knob.
> >> there's film in it. rewind it fully and try to get it processed.
> >>> My late friend died about 20 years ago (estate only wound up after his wife
> >>> passed away last year), so I'm wondering what the chances are of there being
> >>> anything salvagable on the film. If there's anything there, I'd like to get
> >>> it processed and pass it on to the family.
> >> there's a very good chance it's salvageable, although the colours will
> >> be way off.
> >>
> >> if it's kodachrome, your only option is to have it processed as
> >> black&white negatives by blue moon in portland oregon. as far as i
> >> know, they're the only lab that does this:
> >>
> >> <https://bluemooncamera.com/store/product/35BWK14/black-and-white-develo
> >> ping-of-35mm-k-14-film>
> >> We use this process to produce a black and white negative from
> >> Kodachrome films. We have a custom-tailored chemical process
> >> based on recommendations provided by Kodak data sheets and
> >> further optimized to mitigate the effects of aging and base fogging.
> >>
> >> a quick check of their web site suggests they are a good choice
> >> regardless of what type of film might be in it, as they claim to deal
> >> with fading of older films.
> >>> AFAIK, the camera was stored in a relatively cool place (well, cool for
> >>> Australia, so say +/-18蚓 or 65蚌).
> >>
> >> that helps.
> >>> Most of the local camera houses that dealt in film and processing seem to
> >>> have disappeared and all we seem to be left with are office supply warehouses
> >>> of the 'Bring in your SD card and we'll print it for you' type of thing.
> >> search for pro labs in your area. they still exist. or contact blue
> >> moon, although international shipping might be an issue.
> >
> > Thanks, nospam.
> >
> > A friend in a local camera club has pointed me in the direction of a local lab, so I'll talk to them next week.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Magani
> >
> If it is color print/negative film, look for "Process C-41" or "Process
> C-22" on the cassette. Process C-41 is current and shouldn't be a
> problem. You could take the film to the local drug store or Walmart, if
> you feel lucky! C-22 is older and will require specialty processing. DO
> NOT take it to the local drug store or Walmart- it will destroy their
> chemistry and every roll that goes through the machine after it until
> the chemicals are dumped and the machine cleaned!
>
> If it is color slide film, look for "Process K-12", Process K-14",
> Process E-4" or "Process E-6". E-6 is the current process, available at
> any good lab- not the local drug store or Walmart; see above warning
> about C-22! Process K-12 is old Kodachrome, K-14 is latest, but
> discontinued Kodachrome, E-4 is old Ektachrome. Any of those older
> processes will require a specialty processor. My recommendation is Film
> Rescue International. I have toured the facility and talked at length
> with Greg Miller, the owner. He knows what he is doing.
>
> For the sake of history, the last Kodachrome K-14 was run on December
> 30, 2010 at Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas, USA.
>
> --
> Ken Hart
> kwh...@centurylink.net

Thanks, Ken.

I've rewound it (I suspect it might only have 1 or 2 exposures taken as it was only a couple of turns). It's Kodak Gold III 100 12 exposure, so C-41. Who ever bought 12 exposures?

I'm thinking mid to late '90s?

Have found a lab about half an hour away across town who can process it, so we'll see what happens.

Cheers,
Magani

On 2022-04-04 02:07, Magani wrote:
> On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 3:56:12 am UTC+10, Ken Hart wrote:

....

> I've rewound it (I suspect it might only have 1 or 2 exposures taken as it was only a couple of turns). It's Kodak Gold III 100 12 exposure, so C-41. Who ever bought 12 exposures?

I did. My father did.

Colour was expensive, so reserved for the few important photos than
deserved it. If we bought larger, it could happen that we did not finish
the roll and would store the camera for the next occasion. Specially if
not a 35mm roll, but something bigger and even more expensive.

I had a trick: I would rewind the film carefully, just leaving a bit
showing, and store the roll with a paper stating which was the last
photo, then put a B/W roll on the machine.

Months later I could put back the half used colour roll, and with the
lid put on the lenses I would shoot the same number of blanks, then one
or two more for safety, and then start using the roll again.

The danger was that the lab might not notice and cut the film at the
middle of a photo.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <tftqhi-hkg.ln1@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> I had a trick: I would rewind the film carefully, just leaving a bit
> showing, and store the roll with a paper stating which was the last
> photo, then put a B/W roll on the machine.
>
> Months later I could put back the half used colour roll, and with the
> lid put on the lenses I would shoot the same number of blanks, then one
> or two more for safety, and then start using the roll again.

that was a common trick to switch between different types of film, such
as colour/b&w, daylight/tungsten, slide/print, fast/slow, etc.

some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive, plus the
photos were out of order.

none of that is needed with digital. each photo can have completely
different settings and/or adjusted later afterwards, even if the camera
was incorrectly set when taking the photo.

> The danger was that the lab might not notice and cut the film at the
> middle of a photo.

true, but rare.

On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 22:10:14 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <tftqhi-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
>
> > I had a trick: I would rewind the film carefully, just leaving a bit
> > showing, and store the roll with a paper stating which was the last
> > photo, then put a B/W roll on the machine.
> >
> > Months later I could put back the half used colour roll, and with the
> > lid put on the lenses I would shoot the same number of blanks, then one
> > or two more for safety, and then start using the roll again.
> that was a common trick to switch between different types of film, such
> as colour/b&w, daylight/tungsten, slide/print, fast/slow, etc.

yes I did that.

>
> some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive,

Never found it particually expensive as I used to shoot both colour slide film
and black & white aka monochrome. Much more convenient than keep swaping film in and out,
less likely to scratch the film or fog it too.

Sometimes I'd even have 3 cameras

>plus the
> photos were out of order.

Mine never were, not sure how that would happen.
>
> none of that is needed with digital. each photo can have completely
> different settings and/or adjusted later afterwards, even if the camera
> was incorrectly set when taking the photo.

And of course no one needs more than one camera do you ;-)

> > The danger was that the lab might not notice and cut the film at the
> > middle of a photo.
> true, but rare.

My biggest problem was remembring just how many shots I'd taken so I could 'wind on'
that number , did get some interesting double exposure due to it though.

On Monday, April 4, 2022 at 5:10:14 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> ...
> some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive, plus the
> photos were out of order.

I've done this with digital systems; found that what's important to do is
to get each body's internal clocks synchronized very well between them.

With the newest gear that has GPS, this is close to automatic, but when
one has a GPS and non-GPS, its important to get the GPS camera booted
up onto current correct time and then slave the non-GPS clock to it.

Likewise, if one travels, its also important to doublecheck each body for
just what time zone it is set to.

Some DAMs allow you to fix timestamps in post, but its much more
straightforward to prevent the problem in the first place than to have
to work out how to fix it later.

-hh

On 2022-04-05 14:05, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 22:10:14 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
>> In article <tftqhi-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:

....

>> none of that is needed with digital. each photo can have completely
>> different settings and/or adjusted later afterwards, even if the camera
>> was incorrectly set when taking the photo.
>
> And of course no one needs more than one camera do you ;-)
>
>>> The danger was that the lab might not notice and cut the film at the
>>> middle of a photo.
>> true, but rare.

Happened to me.

>
> My biggest problem was remembring just how many shots I'd taken so I could 'wind on'
> that number , did get some interesting double exposure due to it though.

I wrote that in a paper inside the plastic tube holding the film
cartridge. So didn't have that problem.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <24a39d7c-2864-4be5-9f50-5e54014b5823n@googlegroups.com>,
Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

> > some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> > each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive,
>
> Never found it particually expensive as I used to shoot both colour slide
> film
> and black & white aka monochrome. Much more convenient than keep swaping film
> in and out,
> less likely to scratch the film or fog it too.

using multiple cameras + lenses multiplies the cost, although the
cameras and lenses aren't necessarily identical, so the calculation is
more than a simple multiplication.

> Sometimes I'd even have 3 cameras

making it more expensive than 2, and more of a hassle too.

who wants to carry all that shit?

> >plus the
> > photos were out of order.
>
> Mine never were, not sure how that would happen.

if you take sequential photos on two different rolls of film, you
guarantee that the rolls are not in sequential order.

> And of course no one needs more than one camera do you ;-)

not anymore, except for pros who carry a backup camera, which usually
always sits idle because digital cameras are *far* more reliable than
film cameras.

> My biggest problem was remembring just how many shots I'd taken so I could 'wind on'
> that number , did get some interesting double exposure due to it though.

write it on the film roll.

In article <03949e9d-c778-4caf-ba10-5a1e830faa68n@googlegroups.com>,
-hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> > some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> > each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive, plus the
> > photos were out of order.
>
> I've done this with digital systems; found that what's important to do is
> to get each body's internal clocks synchronized very well between them.

that's not that critical. a few seconds one way or another isn't going
to matter.
> Likewise, if one travels, its also important to doublecheck each body for
> just what time zone it is set to.

set it to gmt. problem solved.

> Some DAMs allow you to fix timestamps in post, but its much more
> straightforward to prevent the problem in the first place than to have
> to work out how to fix it later.

the only way to prevent it is use gmt.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 5:36:28 PM UTC-4, nospam wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > > some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> > > each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive, plus the
> > > photos were out of order.
> >
> > I've done this with digital systems; found that what's important to do is
> > to get each body's internal clocks synchronized very well between them.
>
> that's not that critical. a few seconds one way or another isn't going
> to matter.

The degree of synchronization needed depends on the use case. Just
because it isn't important to you doesn't mean its the same for everyone else.

Just how far off a synchronization may be depends on just how
meticulous one was with its manual time-setting vs reference, plus
how much the clock drifts. The clocks in cameras aren't intended to
be high precision, so ~10sec/month of drift isn't unusual...and the
drift varies between each camera too, so the divergence rate can be
much greater:

<https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2680677>

> > Likewise, if one travels, its also important to doublecheck each body
> > for just what time zone it is set to.
>
> set it to gmt. problem solved.

That is one approach, although it may introduce other trade-offs.

For example, if one system's clock is GPS based, it may not offer an option
to override local time zones to display only in GMT. Likewise, when a
photographer is employing other time-centric tools (eg, sunrise/sunset),
these may be in local time only too. To be tracking multiple time zones
represents an overhead & can be a new source of risk from conversion errors.

> > Some DAMs allow you to fix timestamps in post, but its much more
> > straightforward to prevent the problem in the first place than to have
> > to work out how to fix it later.
>
> the only way to prevent it is use gmt.

No, its not the only way, for one can "set" to GMT, one can also "set"
time zones. It is just one more item on the unpacking & setup checklist.

-hh

On 2022-04-05 23:36, nospam wrote:
> In article <03949e9d-c778-4caf-ba10-5a1e830faa68n@googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote:

>> Likewise, if one travels, its also important to doublecheck each body for
>> just what time zone it is set to.
>
> set it to gmt. problem solved.
>
>> Some DAMs allow you to fix timestamps in post, but its much more
>> straightforward to prevent the problem in the first place than to have
>> to work out how to fix it later.
>
> the only way to prevent it is use gmt.

Mine doesn't have GMT, has +0, or "London", which is not the same thing
(GMT has no summer time: London does).

And when it syncs with GPS dongle, it f*s it all.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2022-04-05 23:36, nospam wrote:
> In article <24a39d7c-2864-4be5-9f50-5e54014b5823n@googlegroups.com>,
> Whisky-dave <whisky.dave@gmail.com> wrote:

>> And of course no one needs more than one camera do you ;-)
>
> not anymore, except for pros who carry a backup camera, which usually
> always sits idle because digital cameras are *far* more reliable than
> film cameras.

You have not seen the pros doing weddings and such :-)

They may have two or three cameras linked together in a metal frame.
Different lenses and flashes on each one. Maybe two guys doing photos,
and at least another doing video. Sometimes another with a slave flash.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 19:00:14 UTC+1, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2022-04-05 14:05, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > On Monday, 4 April 2022 at 22:10:14 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> >> In article <tftqhi-...@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> >> <robin_...@es.invalid> wrote:
> ...
> >> none of that is needed with digital. each photo can have completely
> >> different settings and/or adjusted later afterwards, even if the camera
> >> was incorrectly set when taking the photo.
> >
> > And of course no one needs more than one camera do you ;-)
> >
> >>> The danger was that the lab might not notice and cut the film at the
> >>> middle of a photo.
> >> true, but rare.
> Happened to me.
> >
> > My biggest problem was remembring just how many shots I'd taken so I could 'wind on'
> > that number , did get some interesting double exposure due to it though.
> I wrote that in a paper inside the plastic tube holding the film
> cartridge. So didn't have that problem.

I used to write on the cassette in felt tip, but I must have forgotton but I knew I'd pre-used the film because
the leader was a different colour, this was about 6 months later.
>
>
> --
> Cheers, Carlos.

On Tuesday, 5 April 2022 at 22:36:28 UTC+1, nospam wrote:
> In article <03949e9d-c778-4caf...@googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > > some photographers carried more than one camera, with different film in
> > > each to avoid switching. it was both expensive and primitive, plus the
> > > photos were out of order.
> >
> > I've done this with digital systems; found that what's important to do is
> > to get each body's internal clocks synchronized very well between them.
> that's not that critical. a few seconds one way or another isn't going
> to matter.
> > Likewise, if one travels, its also important to doublecheck each body for
> > just what time zone it is set to.
> set it to gmt. problem solved.
> > Some DAMs allow you to fix timestamps in post, but its much more
> > straightforward to prevent the problem in the first place than to have
> > to work out how to fix it later.
> the only way to prevent it is use gmt.

Yes why use any other time, all times are fake times only GMT is true time ;-)