You are reading a single comment by @BrickMan and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Coated / uncoated, after about 20years the surface often gets damaged. I have a 1960's BERTHIOT cine lens here, gorgeous little thing of very high quality. Coated front element is fine, uncoated rear element looks like its had a bit of fungus attack it in the past, and then been harshly cleaned off, leaving snail trails all over the thing, still usable, and frankly with 16mm film you would never notice anyway.
    But yes, IME I've found uncoated glass does get damaged more easily. Also when the coating breaks down you can generally remove them with thinners or optical polish and just use the virgin glass underneath.

    GA2G, sweet location! What brought you to this soggy bankrupt isle in the north atlantic then? Must be mad ;)
    Sounds like he might have some success with it, if not might be interested, either as a sexy paperweight, or as a bday present for a mate, as a paperweight, he'd appreciate it.

    ALL Of these 69s print much better than they scan, the scan isn't the best, which was then uploaded to flickr at a reduced res, then downloaded somewhere else, then pumped through lightroom, then saved as a jpg again, then uploaded to flickr etc. Hence they look bollocks compared to how good they could be.


    Sheep Lover - Crummock & Buttermere Valley - Ensign Selfix 820 Special - Ross Xpress 105/3.9 - rollei RPX100

    Second shot I ever took with that cam, (well, third, the first was a film advance fail, was advancing according to the 66 markings on back of film, not the 69, FAIL!), previous was the rather serious shot of a drystan wall.
    Dog is actually very interested in a pack of ewes just up the hill, and yes its backfocussed because he moved, and yes the film wasn't flat against the plate, so the focal plane is a bit, erm, interesting! (didn't remember to drop lens first, advance last).

About

Avatar for BrickMan @BrickMan started