john_layton

<p>Do keep in mind that Hasselblad made a drop-in viewfinder mask for 645. Not sure how easy to find this these days, but maybe try doing a web search. </p>

<p>From your photo, it looks like the lines are oriented across the short dimension of the film...which should eliminate the possibility that these scratches were caused by holder loading/unloading. </p> <p>But we need more info! Do let us know about your processing techniques/equipment. Such as: do you process in rotary processor, or in open trays? If in open trays: Face up or face down? Multiple sheets or single sheets per processing run? What kind of tray design? (ribbed, smooth, etc.). Size of trays? Amount of solution in each tray? Are the trays clean? Do you presoak, and if so, with or without adding a bit of photo-flo? What is your agitation technique? Do you lift successive negatives from the bottom of the pile and place them on top? Side to side, or top to bottom?</p> <p>Specific variations relating to any one (or sometimes more) of the above questions could potentially result in what you've shown us. But I guess if nothing "wrong" is indicated here, I suppose this could be some type of manufacturing defect or packaging malfunction.</p> <p>Final question: have you made a largish print from such a negative - to verify that you see the scratches on this print? I'll occasionally get some extremely fine (hardly visible in neg), linear scratches on a negative...almost always along the length of the base (non-emulsion) side, which are likely formed during initial film-holder loading - but I can never see them, even on very large (20x30) prints. </p> <p>At any rate...do let us know more!</p>

<p>For compact, walk-around/travel (MF) cameras, I've been having great luck with the Fuji/Voigtlander 667's (wide and normal versions). Stunning optics, quick, quiet operation, accurate built-in meters, truly Leica-like viewfinders (Mamyia 7's did not cut it here), very compact (Mamiya 7's didn't quite cut it here either)...which also do double-duty on a tripod for more carefully considered/controlled landscapes. Furthermore, I find that TMY-120 can truly "do it all" for all of my uses/needs with these cameras - for print quality that can rival that from 4x5 LF when enlarged to 16x20.</p>

<p>You did not specify 120 or 220 film. But I'll infer 120 due to its relative abundance, your processing tank, plus your stating (correctly for 120) that nothing comes in contact with the base of the film except its paper backing - which moves along with the film and thus protects this base from longitudinal scratching and most lateral scratching.<br> So...my guess is that you need to evaluate your processing procedure - from the moment you've removed the paper backing through to the completely dry state of the film after washing. Pay particular attention to the interval from just after you remove the backing until the time the film is wound completely onto the developing reel - as you apparently do this in a changing bag, and as the film base might be vulnerable to contact with the changing bag during this interval. Another possible point of vulnerability would be if you squeegee your film prior to drying. At any rate...Good luck!</p>

<p>...and for LF - to have a camera much like the Sinar Handy, Cambo-Wide, Travelwide, etc. - in both 4x5 and 5x7 formats, with a series of lens cones with front helical focus, variable viewfinder/RF - but with the addition of a short bellows section in the rear which would ordinarily be hidden within the back structure, but which could be employed to offer a bit of tilt for landscape work - with locking controls similar to those found on the rear standards of Linhof technical cameras. Hmmm...maybe I'll get to work on this!</p>

<p>Two wishes...both for medium format:</p> <p>One - that more manufacturers would have embraced 6x8 cm - which would give nine exposures on a roll of 120 and so fit perfectly into a Print File page. Plus (IMHO) 6x8 is about perfect as a "normal" aspect ratio.</p> <p>Two - that an MF film stock size which would give a 645 image as a horizontal, making the film a bit more compact than 120, could be an option...and then have Leica follow suit with an "M-645" RF camera...would be the cats pajamas!</p>

<p>To answer your question...yes - by underexposing by one or two values, you can then place the resultant negative against a black background (like black felt), emulsion facing upwards, and then, when viewed with a slightly oblique light - the negative image will appear as a positive, much the same as an Ambrotype, which it emulates directly in principle.</p>

<p>Look carefully at the negatives. Do the spots have a color...like greenish or dark blue? This could be iron contamination from your water source.</p>

<p>Hey, consider yourself lucky...this is just the kind of imagery that is selling for big bucks these days!<br> All kidding aside...the top image looks like different problem than other two. hmmm...loose lens element bouncing about when shutter is fired? Depending on shutter speed, and/or camera position - image can look like a "smear" or repeated multiples. A loose mirror bouncing around might cause the first result. What else? Film not properly tensioned in the gate could move a little during exposure? <br> Perhaps you could remove the lens and rotate it about as you carefully view the elements to see if any of them move about. Can you test with a different lens? Loose tripod mount? </p>

<p>Cross-threading might also explain why the cell is so tight - so be sure to closely check the interface of the rear cell with the body of the shutter to verify that the line of contact is even.</p>

<p>Sounds like somebody overtorqued the rear cell onto the shutter. </p> <p>A neat trick instead of a strap wrench is to tightly wrap a length of electrical cord around the lens cell, then, firmly holding together the point at which the wires come into contact, give a tug in the appropriate (counterclockwise) direction. This also works to remove stubborn filters. </p>

<p>Two huge issues: the first being that the back-focus (rear element to sensor) distance of non-retrofocus (or minimally retrofocussed) wide angle lenses is simply too short to accommodate the reflex mirror of the S2 at anything approaching typical camera to subject distances. A fix for this might be to build an MF digital as a mirrorless camera to get rid of the mirror box - but then you're left with the second issue: that of the sensor's difficulty in intercepting oblique light rays. This latter problem can usually be at least somewhat mitigated with software, but the brief history of this software "fix" indicates a rate of success that is somewhat mixed. </p>

<p>If truly in "pristine" condition as advertised, then yes - this is a good deal...as long as the lens is also "pristine." Years ago I owned an Automat type 4 - and its four element Tessar was fantastic at f/8 to f/16 - and with less flare than my current Rolleiflex 3.5f Type 3 with 6 element Planar. Yes, this later Planar is stunning all-around, with a broader range of useable apertures, but those 6 elements do make for a bit more flare in certain situations. At any rate, I wish I still had the Automat.</p>

<p>Greg, can I assume, from your "Mahalo," that you live in Hawaii? If so, which island?</p> <p>I was lucky enough to have family living in Paia, Maui (they've since moved to China) and spent some time there in Feb-March of last year...what an amazing and beautiful place! We basically circumvented the island, spent a few days in Hana and the rest in Paia. Some great waterfalls, beaches, and amazing plants...and lots of sea turtles and whales! Did a few "touristy" things also - like attending the Old Lahaina Luau (plus got the full "private viewing" treatment at the Peter Lik gallery in Lanhaina). The only "disappointment" was getting up to the summit of Haleakala volcano only to be completely socked in by fog. Oh well...just gives me an excuse to return I guess! </p> <p>I found my Fuji/Voigtlander 667's with small tripod for B+W, plus a compact digital for color, an ideal combination for the island - but I would've loved to have had my old Nikonos along! At any rate, good luck in sorting out your "travel outfit" needs! </p>

<p>Fuji/Voigtlander 667 and 667W as a pair, or just 667 to go as simple/quick, compact, smooth/quiet, and lightweight as possible while giving me stunning images and a viewfinder that rivals those of my Leica M6's. </p> <p>Of equal importance to the above is a great aspect of this camera that fits so well into the broader meaning of travel - its ability to "disappear" and yet remain conveniently available to me whenever and wherever I need it. It reminds me of its presence only minimally, and yet I can whip it out on the fly and go with its reliable auto exposure mode, which allows me to quickly "freeze and reframe" meter readings to my liking, before quickly folding it and moving on. </p> <p>The 80mm lens is a surprisingly versatile FL on its own, and is complimented perfectly by the 667W's 55mm. There are admittedly a few occasions when I miss something wider (a 40mm would be great), but the 667's virtues, in total, are so compelling and consistently equate, for me, to a more satisfying experience overall (both process and results-wise) than I typically realize with a multi-lens system. At one time or another I've used all of the major SLR and RF MF systems so can speak to this directly (albeit personally), realizing of course that others experiences will vary. </p> <p>My other compact "travel kit" consists of two Leica M6's, with 28 and 50mm lenses permanently mounted so I can quickly grab either one. The Fuji/Voigtlanders follow this model perfectly, are almost as quick, and weigh almost the same in total. The 667's slim profiles allow them to conveniently stow under a winter jacket in sub-zero temps. so that they can continue to work reliably in these conditions.</p> <p>Another real bonus is that this camera is equally at home taking its time, which as a view camera user recently turned 60 I truly appreciate. I can hike up to some of my favorite waterfalls in the nearby White Mountains (NH) - with one or both 667's, a pentax digital spot meter, a couple of ND filters, and my lightweight Feisol CF tripod - I can take my time with the cameras great manual controls...and have every confidence that I can come away with images that can rival those of my LF images...at least when printed up to 16x20. </p> <p>While I can still shoulder my 5x7 LF outfit and hike some distance with this, I know that over time this will become more and more difficult, and that I will, likewise, realize and even greater appreciation for my 667's. </p> <p>I remain adamant in my passion for the Fuji/Voigtlanders, and am so very surprised that they have not achieved a greater following.</p> <p> </p>