The original FM that I purchased in the late 70’s, has had one CLA. It has
burned countless rolls of film, and is cruising along flawlessly. 👍
A photograph that mirrors reality cannot compare to one that reflects the
spirit.
www.spiritvisionphotography.com
On Jan 7, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Bernard_Cousineau (Redacted sender
"bernard_cousineau" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Why would a motor drive reduce shutter longevity?
I presume it is cocking the shutter as fast the mechanism allows, day after
day, week after week. It's the photographic equivalent of shifting a manual
transmission as fast as the synchronizers will go.
I don't mean to imply that the cameras were weak in any way. Quite the
opposite. The business ran on efficiency, and no other camera was as
cost-effective, and able to take as much abuse. A used F3 was either an
ex-press camera that already had a half-million clicks on it, or a pristine
body that sold for 3/4 of the new price. The FM and FM2 you could buy
wholesale from camera stores that took them on trade-in.
The really fascinating part of that business was the production line for
processing and printing. He used the biggest Kindermann tanks you could get,
which were over a foot long (someone will remember how many reels they fit),
and would process 3 tanks at a time in a finely orchestrated dance.
Printing was done in batches of a dozen, shuffling them through the
developer, stop and fix.
Variables were kept down to a minimum. Everything was shot on Tri-X and
souped in HC-110. It wasn't the best combination, but it was never out of
stock. All of the shots were done under the same flash exposure, at the same
aperture, using the same lens, so they would all print the same (on the same
paper, of course).
The modelling school business tailed-off before digital photography came
along. The 1990s were the end of the super-model years, when you would see
Cindy Crawford staring back from five different magazine covers at the local
news stand. Young girls would file through modelling schools and come out
with a portfolio of 8x10 glossies after a few hours of instruction. Maybe 1
percent of those would work in the business, and less than one percent of
those would have a career. It was an unhealthy business (literally). Girls
needed to have the body shape of a coat hanger to "make it" (because clothes
sell based on how they look on a rack). They also needed a strong jaw line to
catch the light, which was achieved through malnourishment.
I digress. The photographic aspect is that the schools would farm-out their
portfolio packages to the lowest bidder. The only way to make money was to
run a very tight ship. For my friend that meant going through dozens of Nikon
FMs, endless bricks of Tri-X, gallons of HC-110, and hundreds of 250-sheet
boxes of Ilford Multigrade. The abuse that those amateur cameras could take
was incredible. Any conscientious non-pro should be able to make one last a
lifetime, given an occasional CLA.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
