FoodLover

I've constantly have had film come up blank from 2 previous cameras I had (2 Canon FT-QLs, one that had light leakage and a replacement that also had light leakage). Gone through a lot of rolls of film that have come out blank. But, my AE-1, I don't know what the problem is. The back panel that prevents light leakage was replaced, I have to set my ASA from half of the ISO from the film I use, my lens works, the battery is still good, snapping photos and everything else is pretty much good.

But, I don't know why my film is coming out blank. I follow the directions in setting the ASA, the shutter speed is right (and I check my meter to see how I should set the aperture on my lens depending on the lighting in the viewfinder). I don't know what is wrong with it at all. Only that is wrong is that the door panel to hold my battery in is broken, but it's been taped up with a specific tape used for cameras. Nothing sounds broke or weird at all, so I don't know what is going on. Any suggestions?

I've constantly have had film come up blank from 2 previous cameras I had (2 Canon FT-QLs, one that had light leakage and a replacement that also had light leakage). Gone through a lot of rolls of film that have come out blank. But, my AE-1, I don't know what the problem is. The back panel that prevents light leakage was replaced, I have to set my ASA from half of the ISO from the film I use, my lens works, the battery is still good, snapping photos and everything else is pretty much good.

But, I don't know why my film is coming out blank. I follow the directions in setting the ASA, the shutter speed is right (and I check my meter to see how I should set the aperture on my lens depending on the lighting in the viewfinder). I don't know what is wrong with it at all. Only that is wrong is that the door panel to hold my battery in is broken, but it's been taped up with a specific tape used for cameras. Nothing sounds broke or weird at all, so I don't know what is going on. Any suggestions?

Now, not all men who are feminist are like this, and I am a male and accept feminism (but don't call myself one, yet it's common sense to me to know that women are equal to men). But, when I see men, who call themselves feminist and are vocal about the things that women go through, can some of them be a bit one-sided and act like they're the oppressed? What I mean in them acting like the oppressed is when they understand the troubles a woman can go through, and nothing wrong with that since sympathy/empathy is good to use in understanding someone, but then some will bash men or act like men in general are the oppressor (when they are a man themselves).

I haven't met a male feminist that hasn't come off as bias and snobby to me, those I have seen write and such do sound intelligent on the subject, but if they want to teach men in being a better man towards women and such, then why treat a man as inferior based on his gender? It's nice to see men understand what women go through and want to help a cause, but how can you help a cause when you make one side seem superior and the other inferior? Isn't that a vicious cycle that steers away from equality?

Those who have severe traits or just traits of anxiety, stress, etc., people will not give them a chance if that person had feelings for them and such. But yet, the person who rejects them has the same traits (whether severe or not), but will look down on that person or fault that person for having anxiety issues and such when they have the same problem.

Why fault someone for having traits about them without taking the time to understand why they're that way (even when you have the same issues)? Wouldn't that help the person more in opening up about why they're like that to the point of hopefully breaking out of that shell?

I see this on the side of entertainment, whether it be video games, music, TV shows, movies, etc. that people say others take things way too seriously when the source material is suppose to be a satire, comedic, bizarre, etc. People will sometimes talk down to those or inform those that what is presented to them isn't suppose to be taken seriously (since it is something they like).

But, those who say not to take things seriously, aren't they technically taking things seriously also when they are so immersed in the source material presented to them that they like? For example, someone might not like A, but another person does and tells the person it isn't meant to be taken seriously. But, when you see the person talk about the love they have for that material, you see them so immersed in it, ranging from talking about the story to the metaphors and even the music presented to them. So, aren't they technically taking the source material seriously when they stated themselves it isn't suppose to be serious? Isn't that along the lines of irony?

I see there is pressure on women in society a lot and is always a topic brought up since pressure on women and mistreatment from them does get attention.

But, there is pressure on men in society also, yet some people deny there isn't or believe such a thing doesn't exist. It's like there are people who live in denial (and men themselves) that men are given pressure in our society just like women are given pressure.

Do you think such a thing should be brought up more and not feel like one side outweighs the other? Or do you think no such thing exist for men?

I see there is pressure on women in society a lot and is always a topic brought up since pressure on women and mistreatment from them does get attention.

But, there is pressure on men in society also, yet some people deny there isn't or believe such a thing doesn't exist. It's like there are people who live in denial (and men themselves) that men are given pressure in our society just like women are given pressure.

Do you think such a thing should be brought up more and not feel like one side outweighs the other? Or do you think no such thing exist for men?

I have a hard time believing this when people say confidence is key. The reason being that is because everyone these days seem to have their own interpretation of what confidence is, and when you see different ideas of what confidence is, it's hard to grasp how to be confident since people have a different perception of it.

I always thought confidence is just being yourself. Not everyone is going be fearless or walk up to you without messing up or not shy. I always thought of confidence as just being yourself, with the flaws and everything. But, when I do see people be themselves, they are still not seen as confident, and that doesn't make sense to me and just is confusing. What do people want from others? Not everyone has the best body or always loves themselves, not everyone has the money, not that good social wise, perfect skin, great personality, etc. Is confidence too vague these days or do people ask too much from it? It always feels like the only way you are seen confident is if you fall in the criteria of what someone perceives confidence as to themselves.

I have a hard time believing this when people say confidence is key. The reason being that is because everyone these days seem to have their own interpretation of what confidence is, and when you see different ideas of what confidence is, it's hard to grasp how to be confident since people have a different perception of it.

I always thought confidence is just being yourself. Not everyone is going be fearless or walk up to you without messing up or not shy. I always thought of confidence as just being yourself, with the flaws and everything. But, when I do see people be themselves, they are still not seen as confident, and that doesn't make sense to me and just is confusing. What do people want from others? Not everyone has the best body or always loves themselves, not everyone has the money, not that good social wise, perfect skin, great personality, etc. Is confidence too vague these days or do people ask too much from it? It always feels like the only way you are seen confident is if you fall in the criteria of what someone perceives confidence as to themselves.

I'm starting to notice, amongst young adults (I am one also), that some will pay attention to the words that a music artist or anyone who is on the entertainment side of things about the advice they give or their words on love, trust, friendships, being yourself, etc.

And I find that kind of annoying, reason being because I've seen those (considered as average joes) give their words on things also, but aren't given that attention because they don't have that popularity, power, attraction, talents, etc. that people see in those that are higher up. Some might not have the best confidence (and I'm tired of hearing that confidence is everything) but can still give the best words and genuine emotions in how they present themselves, but people never notice because they don't have that ideal self that others consider attractive and such.

Why is that people will pay attention to those who seem more higher up and such, but not those who are seen as average joes? Why ignore those who might not have everything, but have the genuine feelings that seem real?

I know females don't want to be the woman that a guy wants to just have sex with and wants to be the woman the guy wants to be with, but does it ever cross a woman's mind that when a guy doesn't want to be with them, that the guy could have doubts or feel weary?

I know women get hurt, have issues with trust and such, but men can be the same way. I know some women are hesitant and question if the guy is really with them because they like them. But, it can be the same for a man, a guy can be with a woman, but even some men might question if the female is really with them because they like them for them, not other reasons. The guy could have trust issues, been hurt a lot, his confidence shattered, etc. Some people want to be with the person they like, but doubts come into play in questioning if this person will hurt them or not. I see some women say they don't want to be the female a guy wants to have sex with, but to be with, but doesn't it ever cross their minds that men could feel the same way about women?

Because some women do go after guys just to have sex with them or just for reasons that could hurt the guy in the long run. Does that ever cross a woman's mind?

What are some good flash mounts to go with a Canon FT QL? I decided to use flash for now when I am in dark areas, going to use Wein zinc batteries that are 1.3 volts.

But, what are some good mounts to use for flash that is ideal for the FT QL?

What are some good flash mounts to go with a Canon FT QL? I decided to use flash for now when I am in dark areas, going to use Wein zinc batteries that are 1.3 volts.

But, what are some good mounts to use for flash that is ideal for the FT QL?

I had a talk with someone who thinks the images in what you find online of dead people (or people who reblog or post pictures of dead bodies) think people don't have compassion, and think it is wrong since that person you see who is dead is someone's brother, sister, mother, etc. I agree with them and they are right, what you see could be someone's dead brother, sister, etc. I don't think it is cool to enjoy those pictures because you like gory things and such, but he does have a point.

I try not to rationalize why I've done it before (I have seen pictures of dead bodies online), but try to wonder why I do it. With me, I can't stand seeing a dead relative at an open casket at a funeral (reason why I don't go to funerals). It makes me sick and just can't take it because I know I will break down. But, when I see dead bodies online, it does bother me in a more shocking way and wonder why that had to happen to them. But, since I don't know them and aren't a relative, it doesn't affect me in the biggest way since I have no relations with them (that's the sad truth). Entertainment wise with movies and such, I am not affected at all since I know it is fake.

But, with relatives and friends I know, I can't take it. With people I don't know, but see these pictures online, it does shock me and gross me out, but doesn't affect that much as those I know. I have more of a fear of death towards those I know, with those I never knew, I don't have that fear or care that much. Is death mostly feared with those you are close with?

I had a talk with someone who thinks the images in what you find online of dead people (or people who reblog or post pictures of dead bodies) think people don't have compassion, and think it is wrong since that person you see who is dead is someone's brother, sister, mother, etc. I agree with them and they are right, what you see could be someone's dead brother, sister, etc. I don't think it is cool to enjoy those pictures because you like gory things and such, but he does have a point.

I try not to rationalize why I've done it before (I have seen pictures of dead bodies online), but try to wonder why I do it. With me, I can't stand seeing a dead relative at an open casket at a funeral (reason why I don't go to funerals). It makes me sick and just can't take it because I know I will break down. But, when I see dead bodies online, it does bother me in a more shocking way and wonder why that had to happen to them. But, since I don't know them and aren't a relative, it doesn't affect me in the biggest way since I have no relations with them (that's the sad truth). Entertainment wise with movies and such, I am not affected at all since I know it is fake.

But, with relatives and friends I know, I can't take it. With people I don't know, but see these pictures online, it does shock me and gross me out, but doesn't affect that much as those I know. I have more of a fear of death towards those I know, with those I never knew, I don't have that fear or care that much. Is death mostly feared with those you are close with?

Does being yourself not seem like enough anymore these days? Like, you have to do more and more for people to notice you and such? With certain areas, like relationships, friendships, etc. not everyone is the best at them because they could be shy, have trust issues, avoidant, etc. But, it feels like being yourself isn't enough these days.

I feel like people accept you when the terms are good for them in you doing the things or seeing things that they deem acceptable. Can be yourself, but not a lot of people are loved for being themselves. But, condition yourself to be the person that the person wants to see from you or can relate to, than everything seems ok and are loved more than for the person you really are. Is being yourself not seen as enough? Or is "not enough" more along the lines of people wanting you to have the conditions they want from a person?

When someone texts you (saying hi and seeing how you're doing), but the person doesn't reply back or tries to give off the message to the person that they don't want to talk to them (even though they've known the person for a long time or do know the person).

Sometimes, the person might what are you up to and such constantly, but I always see it as them not getting the picture because they could assume that you're busy or doing something, so they aren't going to get the clues since people do have lives and are busy. So, they could assume you are busy at the moment and will text you later. But then, the person who is receiving the text will humiliate the person by telling people how they are annoying and don't get the big picture. Well, why don't people just tell the person to stop texting? To tell them that you don't want to talk to them? It's that simple, yet people just don't say anything or might even humiliate the person (without them knowing) in screen-saving their text conversations, pretty much making fun of the person.

Why don't people just tell the person to stop texting them and that they don't want to talk to them? Not everyone gets the big picture because they could think of a number of reasons why you aren't talking (and it could be one that you aren't thinking of). So, why torture yourself? And why make fun of them or humiliate them when they don't know it? What is there to gain from doing that to a person?

You guys are really helping me out with understanding photography a bit more (with the previous questions I've asked about 35mm film and photography since I'm getting into it more).

But, I use a lot of ILFORD 125 ISO film and 400 ISO also. I had a conversation today with a relative about what to use in the light or dark, right now, I can't remember since everyone was talking to me at once.

But, when using 125, is that kind of ISO better to use when it is getting dark with minimum light? And when using 400 ISO, is that better to use when the environment is well lit or is light outside? Or are they the complete opposite?

I have a Canon FT QL and it uses a Mercury battery for it's lighting meter (has a built in exposure meter).

I know the mercury batteries aren't made anymore since they are banned, so the Wein Zinc batteries are used to replace them. But, is the battery MANDATORY to use for my camera? When I check the battery, it says it does need a replacement, but do I HAVE to have a battery for my 35mm camera? Or can I just use it still without it? Because the built in exposure meter seems to work (when I was testing it out last night changing the aperture and shutter speeds, it seemed to lighten and darken depending on what settings I had. So, it is working I guess with it doing that).

Do I have to have a battery for it? Or is it ok to just use one without having to waste money on a battery?

This is the 2nd time this has happened. I have a Canon FT QL that I bought from Adorama used (in E condition, that is good).

The first time, I loaded it wrong and to know if the film is loaded right, the little revolving knob to rewind the film back will twist when you take a picture and then reload for another, that's what it says in the manual for it in knowing that the film is taking pictures by seeing the revolving for it twist when you take a picture.

But, just now, my film came up blank again, even though I loaded it right (I noticed every time I took a picture, the knob twisted when I reloaded for another shot, telling me that the film is loaded right). I went to Walgreens to develop it, I don't know how reliable Walgreens is, but I don't know how to develop my own film so I went there. But, it came up blank again and I am just really irritated now. The lens cap isn't on, the shutter is working, but I don't know if I am under or over exposing (I do have a light meter in it). When I'm inside a place, I shoot from 500 and up so I can get less light, when I shoot under 500, I do that when I go outside to get some light inside the camera.

But, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. It is just annoying me and such because I'm trying to do photography as an outlet to calm myself and just not feel depressed anymore. I don't know what I'm doing wrong, any of you have any ideas? (I use ILFORD XP2 Super 400 B&W Film and ILFORD FP4 PLUS 125 B&W Film).