*rubs hands in glee*
Right, in chronological order: (and do stick with it, because while at times it may seem a personal response to Spilot, there ARE actually proper answers and responses in there)
[1] There's nothing wrong with re-refrigerating as long as you continue to observe the normal precautions with storing film in there.
[2] Condensation is a problem any time when you take film out of the fridge. See above. The moisture itself doesn't ruin film because obviously it gets wet when it gets processed, and there are good reasons for a pre-soak when processing anyway. But the damage will be if you try to put moist film into a camera, and also at the stage of exposure. Hence, as I say above, observe the normal precautions.
[3] I understand the case for saying it is more dangerous with film that has been exposed to the elements, but AFAIK films are not cased in their plastic containers in any special environment. So as long as you put the half-used cartridge into the plastic canister (which IS more or less air tight) then you are back to square one.
[4] Despite all that, my advice in the given situation is this, and it really isn't complex at all so I don't know why all the fuss. If you are planning on finishing the roll within a reasonable period, say, 2 weeks, then just leave it out of the fridge, don't place it in a particularly hot environment (like a car), finish it and send it in. If you intend to finish it at a longer time, then just develope it straightaway.
[5] As to the Dynax 7 being able to do automatic mid roll rewind... great. That's just another example of technology making our lives easier. But like so many other things out there, it's not anything that we haven't been able to do before. You could do it with an ancient Nikon F for example. The thing you DO save is unnecessary wear on the shutter. But like a lot of other things (and some readily spring to mind), you can do perfectly well without them. The net result to your pictures is effectively zero.
[6] Let me clarify this bit too. There is no problem doing a reload of a film rewound in midroll on compact cameras. The only cameras that cannot do that are cameras which need to lock focus on something before you can trip the shutter. With compact cameras, just find a flat, opaque object (like a book), cover the lens, and you've got a lens cap. If you can force it to turn the flash on, all the better, although you will obviously consume more battery power, as it will keep shutter speeds nice and fast.
[7] I agree largely with Ed's excellent comments. Sure there are dangers to keeping film for longer than necessary, but no offence to anyone, but the general people at Clubsnap are struggling to come to terms with far more damaging variables than having to worry about potential colour shifts from a few weeks of prolonged storage.
[8] Bean, no offence, but I don't agree with you, and second hand information (from a photographer more experienced than yourself) is the source of a lot of problem. Especially when it's not clearly stated as second hand as was the case with your original post with information.
[9] The quality of the photos WILL be degraded, but to any meaningful degree? Like I said, there are so many other factors which impact the final picture to a much greater extent.
[10] Handling film out of camera should be minimised simply because you have an increased chance of imparting dust and grit to the cartridge which would increase the chances of scratches on your film. Again, though, with careful handling I wouldn't consider it a major factor.
[11] Red Dawn, well carry a permanent marker with you, and as you mark down the last frame shot, mark down any push or pull. Easy.
[12] Spilot. Digital whatever is blasphemy in the art of film photography... what do I need to say? Where do you draw the line? How about the digital displays on your Dynax 7? Or the digital technology that allows the Dynax 7 to offer your precious automatic rewind function?
[13] Spilot. Digital cameras are very much commercialism... again, what do I say to this? Do I take poorer pictures than you because I use a digital camera and you don't? Or do I take poorer pictures when I'm using my digital cameras instead of my film cameras? Sure it's a very commercial entity, so is everything in the world around us, including film cameras.
[14] Practical Photography. Some others have already pointed out. I'm sorry, but Practical Photography is a big joke. In fact, most photography magazines are. There was a stage where Practical Photography was the only photography magazine I read, because while all photographic magazines are generally a waste of money, at least PP was funny. Now I get my humour from elsewhere.
[15] I speak from personal experience (as in, more than a casual reader, with or without knowledge/experience) when I say that I have my doubts over PP's credibility and the way they approach their articles.
[16] Well Red Dawn, to painting and photography, you should add colour and black and white, vinyl and CDs, etc.
[17] Spilot. DC formats (what's that? I assume you mean DCs) are shortcuts in photography? Really? How so? Care to elaborate? Maybe you mean that the cameras are so technologically advanced that they help you take reasonable pictures, of good technical quality, faster. However, the same could be said of the Dynax 7, with reference to manual cameras.
[18] I agree with Red Dawn. While Spilot triumphs the Dynax 7's ability to do automatic mid-roll winding on, with digital cameras, you completely eliminate the need to change rolls in mid-roll. The reasons for doing so are, wrong film speed for the given situation, wrong film type (colour, black and white, slides/negs), wrong film palette (Astia and Velvia for example), low number of frames remaining. Digital allows convenient and faster alteration of film speed with every shot, with far greater flexibility. There is no need to consider film type any longer. Film palette can also be altered through a combination of colour profile, colour temperature, and post processing. Storage options mean that you run out of frames far less frequently than with film, and also you can accomplish a change of cards far more quickly than even the Dynax 7 can do a mid-roll rewind and wind on.
[19] Yes, nothing wrong with using slide film that has been left out of the fridge for 2-3 days.
[20] Certainly Spilot is entitled to throw his film away if he'd forgot to store it in his mini-fridge, it's his money and his priorities are what matter in that reason. But I would urge Tonski to strike a balance. How long do you think the film has sat unrefrigerated even before you'd bought it? In transit here and there? Certainly the deterioration from 2-3 days is, in my view, wholly insignificant. And this all assumes it is professional film stock to start with.
[21] Speaking of professional film stock, Spilot, I should warn you, if you hadn't already known, that there are variations from different batches of film as well. Which is why some photographers buy film in bulk (and I don't mean 10/20 ft rolls), and always use film from the same batch for a given job. I hope you don't mix and match film batches as well because there will similarly be differences. Better throw it away than risk any disappointment however slight it may be.
[22] Yes, in Singapore everything rots, as you say including on the roads and as work. So I suppose you bring an insulated, or better yet, climate controlled container with which to transport your films between getting them to your mini-fridge? If not, then better throw away than risk any disappointment however slight it may be. Where do you draw the line?
[23] There is no way you can get acquainted with something enough to condemn it, and everything else like it, from a brief meeting in a showroom. From one fiddling about one camera in a showroom, Spilot has decided to condemn digital photography. Draw your own conclusions.
[24] As Red Dawn has already corrected, Spilot you need to compare like for like. To compare an interchangeable single lens reflex camera with a non-interchangeable lens reflex camera and to criticise the latter for not having changeable lenses is like comparing an apple and an orange and criticising the orange for not being an apple.
[25] Spilot. You obviously don't know a lot about the market at all if you think Nikon and Canon make cameras that have both "digital and Film abilities"... capitalisation is Spilot's, not mine, so you can see where his priorities lie. Not knowing a lot is not a problem, but condemning the technology without knowing much about it is not very bright.
[26] Spilot. A die hard you are. Weird to find someone who likes fiddly things but not technology. Since technology is generally more things to fiddle. Also strange how come you don't enjoy doing mid-roll rewind and wind on the old fashioned way then?
[27] Trevor, DX coding stickers are generally a waste of time. Visit your favourite lab. You should have a good relationship going, but even if you don't, there should be little problem getting used cartridges from them, and you can then match the right cartridges to the right film speed. I even got the right film cartridge, so there'd be absolutely no confusion - for example Velvia in Velvia canisters.
[28] Harvestnow. Velvia is good yes, but I'd caution against making judgment based on its appearance on the web.
[29] Ninelives. Hey, you're alive! Erm, as to the last frame giving way, make sure you buy proper tape. Again, your lab will be able to help you, alternatively offer to buy it off them. Works a charm.
[30] Red Dawn. Editor needs the pictures tonight? HAHAHAHA. Talk about slow turnaround time!
[31] Yes, the middle age uses computers, since Spilot uses a Dynax 7 which will have several processors in it.
Whew.
