kevin_mcgovern

Seen this a lot lately, so... In my 35mm days, I had a Nikon FM, with the AIS 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor. In the late 1970s, it was said by most reviewers to be the sharpest Japanese glass available, and it did well for me. I was of the mind that a good shutterbug should get one camera, lens, film, paper, and developer with the goal of mastering the format of choice, and it worked. Fast forward to 2020, and after a great deal of study, came to the conclusion that the RB67 system glass is the best one could ask for. I wound up with the ProSD, and three lenses: a Sekor C 50 and two K/Ls in 90 and 250mm. I've used the 180 & 127 as well. I generally do landscapes with occasional street/people stuff and find it true MF lenses tend to give a bit narrower view than you'd expect--even if you're matching your 35mm focal lengths mathematically. Of course, 35mm full-frame is 1:1.5 proportion, where 6 x 7 is 1:1.2; a serious factor as well. So while the 250mm is a close match to the 105mm on paper, it's effective length is more like a 120 or 135mm in use. The question becomes what is the One Lens you might consider for your work? The answer is to determine what kind of work do you like to do, or more specifically, how do you see your images? If I wanted to only duplicate my Nikon work, I'd use the 180mm, as it feels the same as my old 105. The problem is I live in an area where I often can't get a good POV due to the topography and need a wider or longer lens to accommodate my visualization, rather than climb a hill. The 180 is also a fine portrait lens as well, if one does a lot of them. That said, the 90mm acts like a 50mm 35 format lens, and is relatively compact. It also can do macro images pretty well, and not bad for landscape work either. It’s also one of the sharpest RB system lenses by most accounts. The 127mm is the most compact, lightweight RB lens, giving a 75mm feel if you are moving from 35mm. IMHO, anyone starting MF with an RB system, and no idea which lens to use would be well-served with this lens first. I hope this perspective is useful to the Brick aficionados hereabouts!

For what it’s worth, I found the Lowepro Photo Classic Series BP 300 AW Backpack to be just the thing to carry a body, lens or two, film back(s), filters, double cable release and the rest of the junk we need. It’s roomy, well-made, has flexible interior layout, comfortable to tote and has a rain cover. You can carry a tripod on it as well, though I have yet to try one sturdy enough to mount the rig on, like a Tiltall. But it’s really nice for an amateur not trying to haul a studio about on one’s back. Price is great: a bit north of $60 USD at this time from BH or Amazon.

So to use a Universal Press S-channel film back for absolute film flatness, and get 6x8 images at the very least, one must get a P-adapter to interface with the Pro SD body, to allow mounting an M-adapter, and then the Universal Press back? Raises a second question: if all the above is true, would that affect the plane of focus on the film itself. My assumption is that when focusing through the mirror, the distance to the film is calibrated inherently by the depth of the camera body. If I add two adapters and a “foreign” film back, will my focal point on my screen remain the same for the film, or need a small correction for a slightly longer distance from the lens to the film plane? On the face of it, it seems to be a lot of trouble for a small increase in negative size, unless one might obtain a decent 6 x 9 image this way OR obtain a noticeable improvement in image quality from the better film flatness provided by the Press back. In the abscence of one or both benefits, it’d be difficult to justify the weight gain, complexity, and expense of all the extra equipment. Any thoughts much appreciated!

IIRC, HP4+ is a standard grain film, that will have an anti-halation layer, but not so much as more modern T-grain films like Delta 100, Acros, T-Max, etc. Long ago I read it was useful to presoak these films in a 1 or 2% sodium sulfite solution about a minute or so with constant agitation, then rinse several times with tap water until the pouroff runs clear. As I use a glycin-ppd developer which, like Harvey’s 777 works best when reused & replenished, having a load of anti-halation goop building up in your developer is probably not good, so presoaking is a must. Acros will give a blue pouroff that looks like Windex; after about four post-rinses, it seems to be fine for development. That said, using TF-4 to fix often gets a magenta or purple stain, and what that portends, I have no idea. The main thing is to have a film base after fixing and washing that has little or no color cast. Then you know you’re OK. FWIW, the best, sharpest, developer formula is Jay Defehr’s Obsidian Aqua; it will take your images to the limits of your lens’ resolving power! This comes at a slight thinning of tonality, without the lush look of D-76/ID-11. Defehr’s 510-Pyro will give nearly the sharpness of Obsidian Aqua, with a lush tonal range—and nearly invisible grain. Both formulae are staining: QA uses Catechol, 510 uses Pyrogallol. The Caffenol family of developers also render sharpness & tone and are great with classic-grain films like HP4+. Good luck!

You can buy dessicant pouches online. eBay, B+H Photo, & Archival Methods has them. I know these three ship globally, probably Amazon as well. I keep negs in the polypropylene sleeves and archival boxes from Archival Methods, and fear not. Not so sure a free flow of air on your negs & slides is a good idea: you’re allowing in pollutants & moisture doing that. If I was going to be that paranoid, I’d use a sealable plastic container (Rubbermaid or Tupperware) and get Bloxygen (aerosol can with anhydrous Nitrogen gas, used to keep stains and varnishes from gelling during extended storage) to fill the plastic box before snapping the lid shut. I know of one local commercial photographer who does something similar, storing his archival stuff in a Pelican case. It has an airtight seal, and he uses a tank of anhydrous nitrogen for his commercial work. Then again, I’ve seen folks store old materials in shoeboxes, left for for years in their attic without trouble. What to do..?

FWIW, after studying thousands of images on Flickr, I have to give the nod to Rollie Superpan 200 as being the closest contemporary film to our beloved and mourned Verichrome. Everything else is just too “snappy”, and generally lacks that long tonal range VP had. The next closest might be Tri-X in Pyro, but I know staining developers aren’t to everyone’s taste. On the other hand, an un-Godly number of b/w images on Flickr are developed with Rodinol (aka R09), the reason for which is beyond my ken. It has nice tonality, but an overwhelming acutance that makes RPX 25 look like Tri-X in D-76! Gah. Seems if one wanted the convenience of a liquid, HC-110 can easily be had, or F-76, with only a little trouble.

<p>Haven't seen the posted elsewhere; thought I'd share. I also like to do a little woodworking and we use this stuff to keep our finishes from oxidizing. It'll work for your stock solutions as well:<br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.bloxygen.com/" target="_blank">http://www.bloxygen.com/</a><br /> <br /> It's basically pressurized argon in a can. I store all my chemistry in amber glass bottles, with a piece of aluminum foil under the cap. After I pour off some stock, I push the foil over a bit, spritz in the Bloxygen and quickly seal the bottle. Seems to work quite well!</p>

<p>Hi Simon,<br> Without knowing where your main subject interest lies, it's not easy to make a valid suggestion, IMHO. If you prefer portraiture, the 100 or 150 could be a better bet. Landscapes generally--but not <strong>always</strong>--benefit from a wider-angle lens. For 6x6, the "natural" normal lens is about 85mm, which can either be boring or utile, depending on how you see <em>die welt,</em> so to speak. It sounds like the 100 is your preference and if you view well with it, the by all means use it!</p> <p> When I began serious photography, I studied Ansel Adams for the processes of photography and Josef Sudek in <em>seeing</em>. Andre Kertesz brought me to using one lens only and visualizing images in that manner, so I wound up with a Nikon FM fitted with an AI 105mm f2.5 lens as it was the sharpest to be found in 1978. I made wonderful images with it, before moving on to MF and LF.</p> <p> Now I'm back to film and find 6x9 to be my ideal. Just scored an Ercona with a 105mm lens, so I've closed the circle, in a way. I've learned to prefer the view of a "natural" normal lens and am adapting my work to this wonderful, fixed Tessar.</p> <p><em> If it works, don't fix it! </em>:D</p>

<p>Hi Tom,<br> Never been pro and don't care for digital much, but I can speak to your questions about formats. You say you want to do travel, landscape and documentary. Let's consider these:</p> <p>For landscape, you can use darn near anything, up to 12 x 20 wet-plate if you like... Whatever system you choose will work for landscape, I suggest wider lenses, say in the 20-35mm (35mm format; 45-75 medium; 100-150 for 4 x5--2x those for 8 x 10) range, only if because Ansel Adams and Edward Weston favored them for that purpose. FWIW, I have done some nice landscape with 35mm. Short version: tripod; mirror lock-up and cable release; fine-grained film & developer; enlarger lens longer than standard for 35mm; bromide paper; Amidol developer and selenium toner; hold enlargement to 11 x 14 max for casual viewing. Nikon FM w/105mm f/2.5, (used @f/8-11). You'd be amazed!</p> <p>Documentary can be done the same way as landscape, unless you are photographing people, who tend to move around a lot. Here, I would suggest a more portable medium format, unless you are only interested in stationary subjects (or other non-moving objects not located in an office...). Again, I was fine with 35mm in the main, but since you can't get Kodachrome anymore, a 6 x (pick your poison) is a good choice. My first medium format was a Mamiya 645 of 1979-vintage that was easy to use and a massive improvement over 35mm. I went to a Pentax 6 x 7 later and loved it, though it does require a fair amount of upper body strength to muscle around. Took it to Disney World with a 90mm and got what I wanted, but used a small bottle of Ibuprofen doing it.</p> <p>Travel: <em><strong>Oy</strong></em>. I'm sure you'll have an idea of where you're going and what you're doing, so beyond saying be prepared for the unexpected, I'd say lighter is better. Again, maybe a 645 of one species or another with a moderate zoom would fill your bill.</p> <p>In the main, being strictly an amateur--in the literal sense of the term--I have learned you have to know yourself as a photographer first and the equipment you need will become obvious. I can turn out really nice 8 x 10 prints (or decent digital scans of my negs) most any time with a 35mm. I love my old Pentax and developing my negs (usually B & W) at home--the film is easier to get on a reel when using a changing bag. The lenses are sharp, have good MTF and the pressure plate really keeps film flat inside. Digital scans of those print amazingly well, but require I send them out for the work--can't afford a really good scanner yet. But then I don't earn my keep that way, either.</p> <p>I have used 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 also. There is no better way to get a technically superior image, but you will want to learn great composition at the price for a sheet of film and processing! They aren't for speed--unless you want to trundle a technical or press camera around the planet, but have their place.</p> <p>The bottom line: I humbly recommend a compact medium format that has interchangeable lenses. The Pacific Rim glass is as good these days as any you could ask for. Depending on your budget, may I suggest a wider angle prime like a 55mm for 6 x 7 plus a moderate tele in the 150-200mm range and an aluminum tripod when needed. Use with faster than slower film as medium format lenses need to be slower to be lighter in weight. I never bother to meter: the f/16 rule works pretty well outdoors.</p> <p>Books: Ansel Adams' <em>The Camera</em> & <em>The Negative</em>. Best places to start, principles still hold true and they are great reads. View camera use: Leslie Strobels' <em>The View Camera</em> is the last word, though it reads like a text book. Probably easier reads on the Web, but you want to be familiar with the tome. Weston wrote a lot but can be very subjective.</p> <p>I hope some of my experience will be of assistance in your endeavors. Good luck!<br> KSM</p>

<p>Well nuts-- my first post and Mr. Walmsley here beat me to it. Everything he said is gold. All I would add is dump the condenser hear and go cold light ASAP. I have had good luck trying small flourescents and and looking at an LED-based flood that shows promise.<br> Hope your photos go well!<br> KSM</p>