Jump to content

stuart_pratt

Members
  • Posts

    612
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

548 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The number of posts you have to this particular thread would suggest otherwise!
  2. Very interesting, but I think I’ll stick to normal development for the time being!
  3. To minimise halos when burning in, try two or three different ways of burning. For example, use the traditional mask, cut to fit the landscape for perhaps a third of the exposure, then use a straight edge mask mid way through the mountains (you’ll increase the density of some of the mountain tops, but hopefully not significantly. Then use a board with a hole in it to burn in locally. This will help minimise halos that would ordinarily occur using just a straight mask for the whole extra exposure. Keep the mask up near the enlarger for a more diffuse edge. You could try flashing just the sky area of the sheet of paper too.
  4. Are you burning the sky in? If you are getting the contrast you need and like in the scans, there should be no reason you can’t print it. Perhaps it just needs more exposure in that area?
  5. Apologies John, I somehow passed over your earlier comment. Yes, that makes sense. Would be helpful to have a roll of 120 dated 1953!
  6. Thanks for the reply. I feel a bit stupid, having thought about it, I completely ignored the fact that of course, the window isn’t right behind the film gate, but a couple of inches behind it, on the bottom of the camera. Duh! You are spot on, I loaded a backing paper and wound on until the 6x9 ‘1’ was in the red window, and lo and behold, the ‘1’ for the 6x6 numbers sits smack behind the centre of the film gate. This begs the question why did Zeiss put it there and not behind the film gate? I’ll have to make sure that frame 1 exposes and advances correctly with the next film and see how much film sits before frame 1.
  7. Yes, that is correct IRO the frame counter. There is automatic frame registration once you have wound to frame 1 and reset the counter to 1. You wind on and it stops at the correct position. You are correct about it being the 6x9 numbers on that side of the backing paper, not 645, my error. So that explains it, as the number 1 for the 6x9 is about one frame ahead of the 6x6, so you’d pull more film through. But why did they do that, it’s a 6x6 camera? Have the film markings changed location over the years? Camera built in 1953.
  8. I have an Ikoflex 2a which has been serviced and takes great pictures. I’ve noticed that the first frame is well onto the roll, such that there is at least a couple of inches of unexposed film prior to the first exposure. The frame spacing are quite generous and this means the last exposure only just makes it onto the roll, by perhaps half an inch. Not a particular problem, and I’ve heard the usual problem with these is overlapping frame spacing due to thinner films these days than when these old timers were designed. I thought I’d check the frame markings on the backing paper to see if I could stop the wind on process early and prior to the ‘1’ marking so I had less film wound on before the first frame. The 6x6 frame markings are in the centre of a 120 roll backing paper, however, the red window on the camera is to the side of the frame, see picture, and is aligned with the 645 frame markings? This makes practically no difference as the number 1 for 645 is less than half an inch ahead of the number 1 for the 6x6 markings so that would mean I’m winding on an extra half an inch. It would be pretty easy to stop winding when I reach the first set of ‘dotted circles’ which would presumably solve the ‘problem’, but I wonder if anyone knows why the red window was set in that position in the first place?
  9. I've got some FP4 in my recently serviced Ikoflex 2a. I've just put a new mirror in in too, although the old one looked reasonable, the difference is obvious.
  10. I would think insufficient developer as maris discusses above. Just curious that you use unfiltered water for final rinse but filtered for the processing. I do the reverse!
  11. Pentax Spotmatic SPII with a Yashinon DX 50mm f1.7 and with HP5. Once it stops raining and I've put a strap on it!
  12. Contax RTS2. The only unflawed camera I ever owned.
  13. I’ve been using this in the UK. Not sure if you can get it in the US? https://silverprint.co.uk/products/bweurohc05
  14. So I eventually got round to a, well, it's a bodge, lets be honest. I decided I would just have to cut a sheet of 5 x 4 film and modify the holder to fit it. It's fine length ways because the holder is longer than 5" but needs a tad trimming off the top of the film because the holder is only about 3 3/4" high. I filled the ends with two thin strips of wood, painted matt black to make it the length of the film, and filled the DGH with a strip of black foam. Then I cut down a bit of 4 x 2 to about half an inch thick to make the 'pressure plate' which holds the film flat against the aperture (it was all I had in the shed!). In the darkroom, I held the sheet of film against the pressure plate so that three of the four sides aligned, leaving the excess of the film protruding beyond the top of the plate. Then I just cut off the excess bit of film and loaded it. Filled the two or three pinholes in the bellows with some roofing bitumen and took a single shot. It was a bit thin, but shows it all works 'properly' and I'm not sure I've ever had a neg with quite so much dust and scratches on!
×
×
  • Create New...