s_p

Rolland;<p>

New info on your old question. I'm afraid I was only about 1/2

right on my previous posting. Recently I had a chance to talk to

a photographer who has been making his living shooting stock and

assignment photography for magazines for 20 years. He said he

almost always uses 35mm; he uses 90% slide film and the rest is

BW. He said his preference is to send original 35mm chromes; if

he can't or does not trust the magazine not to lose the original,

he sends a 70mm duplicate. Since he often sends the same film

out multiple times to different clients, he makes multiple

"originals" in the camera at the time that he takes the originals

if possible. They are supposedly better than any copy and I

figured out if I buy my film in bulk at have it processed at the

local lab it runs less than 0.40 cents per frame --- cheaper than

any duplicates.<p>

This guy was careful to say that I should not confuse "display"

dupes with high quality dupes. Display dupes cost about a buck

each and are just to show someone to give them an idea of what

you have. The high quality dupes cost $25.00 or more and can be

used by the printer to produce the printed piece. The

photographer told me that he uses the high quality dupes you

mentioned when he has a one of a kind piece of film. He said

that he has a few clients that he deals with on a regular basis

that he trusts not to lose his pictures and he usually send them

the originals. In 20 years and hundreds of submissions a year he

said he had only had his film lost or damaged a handful of

times.<p>

I would vote not to do so.<p>

If you dupe up from 35mm to 6x7, they will be bigger and easier to see

to the naked eye than 35mm, but, compared to 6x7 dupes from 6x7

originals, they will look weak. You may send along cover letters,

notes on the matte, etc., but those will all seem like after the fact

excuses and there is no guarantee that anyone will read your

explanantion.<p>

I would second the previous poster's advice that the best way to get

the attention of the editor is to research his/her publication/needs

and provide that if you can.

Most of these places will have a Chamber of Commerce and some

sort of visitors information center which will enable you to get

in touch with labs long before you go.<p>

About a year ago I was travelling in Europe. At the Frankfurt

airport I asked for a hand inspection and the guard just sent it

through x-ray despite my protests. ISO 100 transparency, ISO

100 and 400 bw, ISO 50 and 100 color neg were all fine but I

would not take the chance again if I had a choice. From my

experience most airport security in US will put up a fuss over

hand inspecting but if you have the film in plastic bags and

allow them to x-ray camera bags they will relent. I discovered

you just need to ask 3 times politely.<p>

I think Rollies are pretty reliable in this department; I would

suspect your lab if you had the print made. If you look at the film

on the lightbox do all the areas look sharp? If you go back to your

group photo, are members of the group in a straight line? Are

people around the edges crowding forward out of the plane of sharp

focus?<p>

If you made the enlargement yourself, maybe your enlarger is out of

whack or your neg got too hot from the enlarger lamp and buckled.

If you made the print youself you could chech alignment of

lensboard, easel and neg carrier with small spirit levels yourself.

I have found that most enlarging lenses I have used do best at f11

or smaller; I don't use them at f8 or larger f stops. I recently

replaced my old enlarger with a new one and my prints never looked

better. I am printing the same negs with the same lens; but on my

old enlarger the adjustment wheels were too worn to hold correctly.

<p>

If you still suspect your camera, try photographing a brick wall at

all f stops. I would use spirit levels to make sure wall and camera

are level and a compass to make sure film plane and wall are

paralell. With your Rollie about 8 feet from the wall the bricks

should be sharp corner to corner to see detail in the mortar between

the bricks at all F stops (probably even 3.5) You can use this film

to perform a quick "enlarger alignment" test in the darkroom. I had

a Rollie with the 75mm Planar and at F8 the corners looked just as

sharp as the center.<p>

good luck

I once loaded 120 film in a Hasselblad 220 back. It cranked and

advanced (although the counter was way off) but all the film was

out of focus. We were using a 40mm lens with strobes at smaller

apertures so obviously the thickness of a single layer of paper

is enough to throw focus WAY off.

I once thought a really good idea would be to hang the negatives

in one of these zip up plastic garment bags that are designed to

hold your whole wardrobe for storage. These bags have an

internal frame (to keep your negs from brushing up against the

sides of the bag) and a rail built into them to hang the clothes

hangers on; you could clip your negatives to the rail with

clothes pins.<p>

The problem with this was that my garment bag was not long

enough; for economy's sake I shoot 36x rolls in 35mm. So now I

keep clothes in it instead. Perhaps one could find a longer

garment bag. I haven't had a lot of dust problems recently

because I try to keep my work area fairly clean.<p>

If your film is getting scratched and marked in drying, perhaps

the film is rubbing together as it curls in drying? I have found

that when film drys, the outer edges dry before the center and

the emulsion side drys much slower than the non emulsion side.

Due to this uneven drying, the negs can curl and coil A LOT. If

you are hanging them with clothes pins on a line, maybe they are

rubbing together? Try hanging them further apart and hang a

heavy clip on the free end.

I have some exercise ankle weights ($10.00 US or so at a department

store) with velcro straps that I can use to weight my tripod. They

have velcro straps that I can use to fasten them onto the tripod.

The Bogen 3021 tripod is okay; with the weights it works great for 6x6

or even a small 4x5.<p>

I have (and dislike) the 3055 head with hexagonal QR plates. After 2

1/2 years of frequent but gentle use, the locking catch came apart. I

can still use the tripod and it is secure, but it is now less

convenient to use. I think is is a bad design; only a small flexible

plastic part held the locking catch in place.

I have ordered all kinds of film (color and bw negative, transparency,

etc., even Polaroid) through the mail and haven't noticed a problem.

If I'm going to use it in a few days after having gotten it, I don't

bother to refrigerate. If I don't think I will be using it for weeks

or months, it goes in the fridge or freezer. I let it thaw a day

before using. I just keep it out of direct light and heat and it

seems to do okay. I have used transparency film 2 years old or older

out of the freezer without problems. I seldom use film faster than

ISO 200 or 400; perhaps faster film is more sensitive.<p>

The only time I recall having fogging problems was with some tmax 100

I had with me while travelling through the desert heat of the

southwest and Mexico.<p>

There are some great bargains that can be had out there if you order

in quantity by mail. I like APX 100 in 120 size; mailorder you can

find it for less than $2.00 per roll. If you do your own processing,

paper and chemistry are much cheaper too and I find the mail order

houses stock all kinds of chemistry, paper and film that my local

supplier does not.<p>

One of the problems seems to be that some mailorder people don't tell

you if something is in stock or not unless you ask. Backordered stuff

is really kind of a pain because you don't know when it will come. I

suspect that some companies list stuff in their ads but don't really

stock it or stock enough of it; they just order it if you order it. I

used to like a low cost bw film with a wonderful tonal scale called

Fortepan (I think it was made in Eastern or southern Europe

somewhere). There were only a few places that carried it and when I

tried to order it they were ALWAYS out. Finally I gave up and started

using Agfapan.

If I am loading 35mm or 120 I try to turn way from direct sunlight

and do the loading in the shadow created by my body. If am am

working outside out of a case I keep the lid shut and turned so

that when I open it the opening is sheilded from the light. This

also helps keep dust, leaves, etc., from being blown in. I do not

leave my film (35mm, 120 or loaded 4x5 holders) in direct sunlight

ever. I haven't done the aluminum foil route, but keep exposed

film in my camera bag's film pouch or in zip lock baggies that are

stored inside the camera bag so that light can't strike them

directly. If I take the film to the lab myself it travels in my

briefcase or knapsack. If I use a courier, it goes in opaque

envelopes or in opaque cardboard tube cans that my lab uses and

reuses. These are like 35mm film cans but bigger; fit about 8 120

rolls. The lab sends my processed 120 chromes to me in them rolled

up, I send updeveloped film back to them in the same can.<p>

I have only had a problem with fogging when either A) I failed to

rewind the 120 film properly or tightly enough or B) I was in the

desert in 100 plus degrees for a week with no fridge to put the

film in. I've had a little problem with old 4x5 holders leaking

light at the corners so I avoid using the most tatty ones.

>>The tool does not decide the photograph, the photographer does.<<

<p>

But when the tool becomes overly assertive, we see the tool marks

rather than the artwork.<p>

You allusion to Gallway is only about half right. Gallway DID

use the penny whistle and this choice by a classical flautist

suprised many. But the songs he was recording were folk songs

traditionally performed by farmers with inexpensive instuments.

The penny whistle was not "another flute" to Galway, it was a

whole new instrument appropriate to the music he was recording.

If your Hasselblad is a flute, then the Diana is a penny whistle,

but it is a penny whistle with only about half the number of

fingering holes it requires to actually play a tune and has a

reed that only works intermitently.<p>

In my recollection of my postings I have not attempted to tell

others that the diana is not a camera or that creativity is

defined by the tool. But the original poster specifically stated

that he was wondering if the $15.00 plastic camera was a good

intro to medium format camera studies. I think the original

poster would be much better off saving that cash towards a low

price TLR or similar camera(as has already been suggested) if he

wants to learn about printing from larger negs. If he wants to

buy the Holga and knock around and take poorly exposed blurry

pictures, fine. But lets not delude ourselves into thinking this

is going to teach him much about the possibilities of imaging

that become availible when one switches from 35mm to MF. Correct

me if I'm wrong --- was that not the original question?<p>

The diana has nothing in common with the Imagon or other soft

focus specialty lenses. I haven't used these lenses but have

seen prints from them. The soft focus lenses seem to allow the

photographer to control the degree of softness and they certainly

allow the photographer to contol where depth of field will fall

and allow the photographer to control exposure. As an Imagon

user feel free to correct me if I am wrong about that. The diana

is not a soft focus lens, it is a lens that is so bad that they

make the film plane curved to compensate in some small way for

its inadequacies. Even fully stopped down my diana did not cover

the corners. It has it's charms and its place I guess. But a

good, fun intro to MF photography it is not.<p>

A few years ago I saw a band called Pianosaurus. They had all

toy instruments and played cover tunes. Me and my friends drank

beer and had a good time. I'd never buy a Pianosaurus CD though

-- it is just a novelty act. If you took away the toys and gave

them regualar instruments the novelty would have dissapeared.

This debate is interesting to me. I agree that we can make good

photographs with any sort of tool. But if the tool overtakes the

process, it probably ceases to be a tool, really.<p>

I don't know how I can explain to you guys that "creativity" and

"imagination" does not mean that you allow your tool to decide how

your photograph will look. My complaint with Diana pictures is that

they all loook like, well, Diana pictures. There has been all sorts

of fancy talk in art criticism and art education circles about using

these toy plastic cameras to "learn how to see," or "liberate

ourselves from the constraints of photography" or whatever. I feel

that philosophy is very misguided. I think most serious lifelong

students of photography go through difficult periods. But so do

painters, writers, musicians, etc. No one suggests that a musician

switch from a real saxophone to one made by Fischer Price. The

problem is that most people percieve the tool in photography as being

SO important that in order to "see different" the photographer must

switch tools.<p>

My definition of creativity? Stop switching tools. Work with the

tool you have; find out everything that you can do with it. In many

photography education programs the students are asked to commit to

one camera for a semester. Do the instuctors do this because they

want to deprive or punish their students? No. The instructors know

that creativity does not depend on tool choice, it depends upon tool

use. If you want to take a picture and you have only one camera to

do it with, you are going to figure out a way. If you are very

familiar with your tool (which you will be if you stop switching

tools and keep photographing), working with the tool will be second

nature and you can spend your energy on making the photograph, not on

choosing or manipulating your tool.<p>

As far as the political implications of being pro or con Diana

photography, well, I read Photography at The Dock by Solomon-Godeau

and Diana and Nikon by Diane Malcolm. I felt that the arguments both

of these writers were making were based on the superficial qualities

of any photographer's personal history and ouvre. Solomon-Godeau in

particular was rather relentless in categorizing some artist

photographers from history as "acceptable and correct" and others as

incorrect. For someone who identified themselves with the left,

Solomon-Godeaus arguments were EXTREMELY regimented and dogmatic.

These arguments sound good on paper but outside the paper castles of

pure theory don't really hold water. NO political philosophy owns or

controls any given photographic mode. Straight photography is not

the photography of the right wing, alternative process photography is

not leftie either. I have done photographic work for publications

that concearn themselves with the rights of workers, women and

minorities. I have donated photographs to not for profit auctions

and not for profit art education groups. THESE acts are my overtly

political acts in the public realm. Soft focus or no soft focus

becomes irrelevant in the discussion. In fact, I would argue that

the continued use of soft focus effects in portrait photography

actually harms women since it perpetuates the misconception that a

womans beauty is directly tied to having smooth skin. Maybe we need

to put away our Softars, Nylon filters and vaseline and start loving

each other with pores, wrinkles, nosehair and all.<p>

>>This camera has a plastic lens. What were you expecting? Something to rival a Rollei, a

Hasselblad, a Leica? You paid a buck for it. You don't

like the soft effect? Irrelevant. The tool

does what the tool does. Discover the forte of the tool,

and use it there.<p>

I don't understand this philosophy that states that artistry and

technical standards are worlds apart. Why, by these standards,

is a blurry picture considered artistic and a sharp picture

considered cold, hard, unfeeling or Nazi? Maybe I am just not

hip enough for Holga but I have done all the image degradation

stuff --- solarized prints, photo lithographs, Diana

photography, pinhole photography, etc., etc., etc. In most

cases, after a while I had to recognize these alternative

processes for what they were as I used them---just gimmicks,

really. One of the things I love about photographs is that they

are a way of storing huge amounts of visual info in an easily

shared form. After a while the soft focus, the lack of exposure

controls, etc., of the Holga/Diana just become a gimmick, blurs

and murkiness to hide the fact that all too often the plastic

camera photographer him/herself really has nothing to say. Is

that the plastic camera's fault? No. But if you are a little

bored with your photography and decide to use a plastic camera

to 'spice things up' I think you are in serious trouble. <p>The

original poster asked>> if anyone has any experiences or

recommendations

regarding the Holga or similar cameras, or just words in general

for an absolute beginner to this format.<< By this format he

meant the medium format. I second the above contribution where

someone said that the only thing a Holga had in common with

other medium format cameras is the film size and that a 35mm

camera with aperture and shutter speed controls will be a better

learning instrument. Most people seem to go from 35mm to 6x6

because they want more image quality. This increase in image

quality is apparent when you make your first enlargement. A

Holga will not give you that increase and is thus not a good

introduction to the capabilities of 6x6 for a 35mm user.<p>

exposure control = right wing politically<p>

lack of exposure control = left wing politically<p>

Excuse me.<p>

Did I miss something?<p>

I once bought a Diana at a rummage sale for a buck. I put a roll

of film in it but never printed any of the pictures --- when I

developed them I saw they were smeary, ugly, out of focus. I

then went to a photo conference and every third college student

had "haunting, evocative photos" made with the Diana. I sold my

Diana to someone for 5 bucks which probably just about covered

the initial cost, the cost of the film and developer I wasted.<p>

$15.00 for a Holga does not seem like a lot of money, but if you

want smeary, out of focus pictures can't you just put a filter

with some vaseline on it and a vignetting lens hood on the camera

you already own and get the same effect? My problem with the

Diana negs were that there were almost no exposure contols (I

think it had sun, sun behind a cloud and no sun to choose from).

So you really had little or no control over neg density. So I

was limited to printing 4 inch square if at all. The only

control I had was where I pointed it. To judge by the fellow

participants at the photo conference who had pointed their dianas

at each other (clothed and naked), their family and pets (dogs

are a popular subject of diana photography), their homes, their

parent's living room furniture, suburban shopping malls, etc.,

they already had most subjects just about covered.<p>

I'm not claiming that interesting work CAN'T be done with a diana

(or a Holga), but if the most interesting thing about a

photograph is that it was taken with a crappy camera, well, then

it is not really a very interesting photograph. In this way,

most plastic camera photography looks the same to me.<p>

My advice (feel free to ignore it) is to do the Vaseline-filter

thing first. If after three months or so you still love it, then

buy the Holga. My insubstantiated assertion for the day is that

90% of the Holgas sold are used once or twice and then end up

languishing in the closet because the owner gets tired of them.

I thought plastic camera pictures were cool when I saw them

first, but it wore off fast.

Oh; I almost forgot. If you must have the (ick!) soft focus

effect, you can use the Portriga Matte paper mentioned above (not

really soft focus, but softer than the glossy Portriga since the

surface is pebbled), try a photo matte spray (sprays on the

surface of your photo -- also hides fingerprints or bad spotting

job).<p>

More softness, if you must (ick!) can be had by holding wrinkled

saran wrap (or the nylon mentioned by D Spohn above) under the

lens. I once made a soft focus picture for a girlfriend (really

--- she insisted) by stretching wrinkled cellophane over a

cardboard frame. I cut a hole in the center of the cellophane so

the center of the image would be sharp and held it under the

enlarger lens during exposure. As an added bonus, I used a

circular dodging tool to dodge out the center while I burned in

the edges of the picture, also while using my cellophane. The

print was sharp and clear at the center, dark and blurry around

the edges. I selenium toned the result. She loved it and hung it

on her wall. I thought it looked like I had a filter that was

dirty around the edges and a serious hood vignetting problem. We

broke up, she moved away and I was relieved not to have to look

at that picture anymore.

I would second //scott's reccomendation of Agfa Portriga in

Neutol. Portiga also used to have a matte surface fibre based

print that had a very warm softened look to it that may fit

your need; I have not used it in years and do not know if it

is still availible. I think it was called PRN 118.<p>

I have also used Edwal LPD developer with the Ilford MGFB

papers with good results. LPD is one of those paper

developers with which you can vary the mix to control color.

A follow up on my enlarger story.<p>

Recently I found a like-new used Beseler 23C11 enlarger with 6x6

and 35mm carriers for a bargain price to replace my worn out

Omega. I do not yet have the lens board for 50mm lens, but the

80mm works great. The difference is night and day. The problem

wit the Omega was that the gears/wheels/etc., that adjust focus

were so worn that they would not stay tight and replacement parts

were unavailible at any price.<p>

My initial tests confirm my suspicions that a lot of my

dissatisfaction with print quality came from enlargement. I have

only tested the 80mm enlarging lens since that is the only lens I

have a lens board for at this time. Previously I stated that I

was less satisfied with my 50mm lens; I will test it again after

I get a board for it and may change that opinion. I suspect that

with the 50mm any flaws from misalignment of the enlarger would

appear worse than with the 80mm since the 50mm projects a larger

image.<p>

I would reccomend a more cautious approach.<p>

Remember that everything you buy will eventually have to be paid

for. You can decide to buy it on credit, but then you will be

paying %18 or so on your purchase; the long lists of cameras,

lenses, strobes, etc., all listed above will run into the

thousands even if you buy used. You will be thousands in debt

before you even find your first client.<p>

I would suggest that you try to purchase as little stuff as

possible at first. I'm afraid that until you establish a client

list and a credit history as a photographer you won't be able to

get you film on an account at your local pro shop so leave the

availible balance on your Visa for that. Remember, a lot of

your clients wont pay you right away but since you are a startup

your vendors will want payment immeadiately. The same goes for

processing and printing costs at your lab. Once you start

working those lab and film costs will mount fast enough.<p>

If you already have a 35mm SLR then make do with that as one of

your cameras. Very few portrait clients seem to want or need 16

x 20 enlargements; get your feet wet with the lower paying

clients by shooting 35mm. You can always move up from there.<p>

Your best investment will be a good handheld light meter that

can measure flash and ambient light. If you have one and know

how to use it you can deliver accurate exposures every time. I

use the Sekonic Flashmate l-308b which is great and costs around

$250.00 For portraits I have used inexpensive strobes like

Vivitar and Sunpak that you can mount on a lightstand with an

adapter. Rowi makes a PC cord splitter that allows you to plug

2 flash PC cords into 1 camera PC socket. PC cord

extensions(with a male PC on one end and a female PC on the

other) to go from the flash to the camera are cheaper for

outdoor daylight portraiture with flash fill than slaves.

Indoors, flash can be bounced off a white ceiling, umbrella,

white foamcore, etc. A tripod you probably already have. If

you have the money for a medium format camera, I would reccomend

one which can take a Polaroid back. I use my Hasselblad with

Polaroid back to do tests for my 35mm camera.<p>

I guess my list would be 2 flashes (like Vivitar 283), 4

lightstands, battery packs for flashes and modules, little

adapters and things to mount flashes on stands, some diffusion

to soften light, a big gym bag to carry all this stuff in, "A"

clamps (from hardware store) to mount foamcore refectors to

light stands. All that would probably cost already $800.00.<p>

Add to that your meter and you have a total of around $1050.00.

(These numbers are just my guess) I am assuming you already

have a 35mm camera and a couple of lenses.<p>

What you really need to do to start your business is get clients

and a portfolio together. With your minimal gear listed above

you can shoot friends, family, neigbors, etc., and get practice.

I had my own darkroom and can still use a friends in a pinch; I

find most people are willing to allow me to practice my

portraiture skills if I promise them a nice 8x10 for their

trouble. As you get satisfied customers, you can keep adding to

the portfolio; just ask if you can keep a copy of a portrait as

a sample; most people will be flattered.<p>

There are other costs you will want to consider: business cards

are very important. You will get a lot of business from

personal referrals; if you can pass out a card saying who you

are and what you do with a number people will start to call. I

give out cards all the time; it is a cheap way to advertise

yourself. I bought a rubber stamp with my name and phone

number; every print gets stamped on the bottom corner on the

back (hint: don't stamp in the image area (it may show through)

and don't stack stamped prints till ink is dry). Even if they

lose my card, they still know who took the picture and how to

get in touch with me. I also stamp the envelope I put the

pictures in for delivery. Some people have fancy matts with

gold stamping, etc., too; those can be kind of expensive if you

buy with your name custom imprinted.<p>

Photo businesses and restaurants have a huge rate of failure;

mostly because people love the craft of photography and cooking

but they don't think ahead about initial costs vs. income over

time or how they will find customers. There are a LOT of books

on how to start a photo business; I think you will get more

knowledge from part-timing your business at first and minimizing

your initial investment, expanding your investment as you grow,

or, better yet, consider assisting an established photographer

for a while before you go off and start your own business.<p>

Is there some reason you don't want to use strobe and prefer

continual light sources?<p>

Strobe, for people shooting, I think is the way to go. Perfectly

balanced for EPP, E 100s, Provia; any 120 slide film you care to

use. Also perfect for any color neg film. A Hensel or Norman

400b are very portable, and, with a fast shutter speed, will

easily overpower off color ambient light from streetlights, etc.,

that may throw color balance off.<p>

HMI lights are really expensive to rent or to own ans you will

need a generator to keep them going unless you are shooting right

outside your front door and can run extension cord. I know of no

battery pack for HMIs. HMIs are also HOT, delicate, heavy (each

light requires its own transformer), bulky, expensive; a real

bother. I wpuld only bother with them if you were shooting cine

film or with certain kinds of digital scan backs (although the

scan back WOULD NOT work for models wearing fashions downtown at

night).

For still photography, Tungsten lights are a cheaper alternative.

They are not truly flicker free (like HMI) but constant enough

for still photography. These also require a generator, but you

can rent a smaller, gas powered model. You can even buy tungsten

bulbs with standard light bulb sockets and put them in cheap

reflectors from the hardware store; not the most elegant solution

but cheap. I have used Tota and Omni lights to shoot portraits

with ISO 50 film and full blue gels on my lights. I recall that

I had to ask my subject to keep very still; in order to get f8 or

so I needed a shutter speed of 1/4 or 1/8 a second as I recall.

They are not the brightest light source. You can use them with

Tungsten balanced film with no filtration. If you want to use

them with daylight film,; you will need to either put an 80A

wratten filter on your lens (eats up about 2 stops of your

exposure) or blue gels like the Rosco 3202 full blue (eats up a

lot of your light). I prefer to gel the lights because the 80a

really darkens the viewfinder of my slr. Some people say if you

are using color neg to forget the blue filters and correct at the

lab; I think that is a bad idea.<p>

If you want to shoot outdoors at night and need to be portable, I

think battery powered strobe like the Normans or the Hensel is

the way to go. I have even used a Vivitar 283 with a Quantum

battery pack with good effect. With tungsten or HMIs you will

also probably need lots of permits from the Police, property

owners and public officials; if you use the portable battery

pack, depending upon where you are shooting you can be done

before anyone gets bothered. If these photos are for a client

(and not just for your personal portfolio), you will need

property releases as well.<p>

I had a Yashica LM with 80 f 3.5 Yashinon years ago. The meter didn't

provide accurate readings but the lens made wonderful black and white

prints. I went as large as 14 inches square with the prints. The

lens seems to perform best at f11 or so; at f5.6 and larger I recall

it got a little dark and smeary at the edges. After the film advance

went out the camera was shot, but I ran 100s of rolls of film through

it for 2 or 3 years; for what I paid for it, this was a bargain.<p>

If you don't know how to load/work it, email me back and I'll try to

fill you in. The Yashica uses Rollie Bay 1 accessories. They make

all kinds of filters (some still new), lens shades (a good idea with

this lens) wide angle and tele attachments (the results are not so

impressive. With the wide angle, all around the edges seems soft; the

center is barely acceptably sharp. If you want wide angle, put a 28mm

lens on your 35mm camera. Instead of useing the 'Sun' brand tele

attachment, I would get better results by enlarging the center portion

of neg.). For a little less than the price of your Yashica, get a Bay

1 Rollinar. The +1 and +2 Rollinars are great close up lenses. I

also has a Rolinar +3 but almost never used it. Rolienar +1 allows

you to focus on objects about 1 1/2 to 3 feet away, Rollienar +2 for

objects 1 to 1 1/2 feet away. The Rollienars have a parralax

compensating lens that you put on the viewing lens; if you mount it so

the red marker dot faces up what you see in the VF is VERY close to

what you get. It is amazing. They worked great on my Rollie; I don't

see why they shouldn't work on your Yashica. When the Yashica started

wrinkling my film, I replaced it with another camera but the Yashica

remains a great bargain. I would also snip out a small filter from a

Kodak gel filter and fasten that Inside the camera behind the camera

lens for when I wanted 81a or something on the lens.<p>

I am not a camera dealer, but when I was shopping for a

Hasselblad set up similar to yours here in the US a few months

ago everything seemed to be priced about 30%-40% more than the

prices you quote.<p>

Roger;<p>

The illustrations would mean nothing in comparison to your own

lenses unless you did the test yourself exactly as I did mine.

They would also be a great deal of trouble to provide since in

order to show such fine detail I would have to enlarge the tiny

(about %5) portion of the 35mm neg that contains the test chart

(most of the picture is blank wall) hundreds of times. To give

you an idea of how tiny the chart is, pin a 6x6 card to your

wall. Put any focal legnth lens you care to on your 35mm.

Multiply the focal legnth X45 and place your camera that far from

the wall in mm. No matter what focal legtn you use, the card will

always be the same size(that is the best thing about this test).

It will also be very small in the frame. In order to give you a

jpeg on which you could read the grain, I would have to create a

HUGE file. I don't know if jpegs (even huge ones) could show you

the photographic grain very well. In order to see it, I had to

raise my enlarger head all the way up and view the test target

with a grain magnifier (which has -- I dunno 10x magnification as

well? more?). Even then, making out the really fine lines was

difficult.<p>

If you simply must see the film, drop me a line and I'll snip a frame

a frame and send it to you.<p>

The point of this test was not to prove that my lenses were

better than yours. The point was to see how well my stuff works.

I still get pictures that I am not technically happy with; I am

trying to narrow the causes. I discovered that of the 6 35mm

lenses I tested (4 that I use and 2 as controls), the 4 I use

come out about the same. My test showed me that even a little

bit of overexposure causes a greater loss of resolution than

switching from an A+ lens to a D- lens.<p>

For the many people who have been sending emails asking, the film I

used was

Tmax 100 in tmax developer 1:4 at 68 for 10 mins. I'm sure there are

finer grain films that would extend the test further; I don't think I

need to go there. The test chart is the one on page 54 of Ed

Romney's book that I mentioned in the text. Your mileage may vary.<

p>

In my description of my test I may have been a little hasty in

condemning my other enlarger lenses; does anyone know of a good

way to test enlarger lenses? I tried the 135 Schneider again; it

seems pretty good but I suspect an alignment problem. One way to

test this, I guess, is to photograph a flat paper covered in

stripes or graph paper, develop the film and see how sharp and

straight the lines are from edge to center. Anyone have any

better ideas?<p>

To answer the question regarding whether I used the best aperture

of my enlarger lens; I put the negs back in and looked again at

all apertures; it made the image darker but I would not change my

judgement of the results. Maybe I would if I had that 100x

microscope.

Part of my problem is that I really don't have the time or

inclination to invest in darkroom stuff right now; I am currently

interested in making lightjet prints instead of tray process

prints but would just like to know how well this stuff works for

when I move into a new place where I can build a darkroom.<p>

The hasselblad suprised me, not because I thought it did badly in

the test, but because I thought in fact it did very well. It

tested right around the better 35mm at smaller f stops and fell

off as I opened up. I had been told that MF lenses were awful

compared to 35mm but this seems to indicate otherwise. For the

record, my Planar is the older 80 f 2.8 C lens, not the CF. I am

told the CF version has 1 or more extra elements to improve

performance at larger apertures. Sadly, I sold my Rollieflex to

buy the Hasselblad. I wish I had been able to keep them both but

needed the interchangeable backs and Polaroid capabilities of the

Hasselblad and couldn't afford 2 MF cameras.

I've just noticed that the upper flap of my second shutter of my

500c hangs a bit low. The end of the flap hangs about 1/4 inch

down from the mirror after the shutter has been fired. As I

recall, it used to rest flush against the back of the mirror

when the mirror was in 'up' (exposure) position. Pictures

seemed okay the last time I shot film (less than 1 week) but as

I look at it today it definitely will block exposure of a part

of the frame.<p>

Has anyone else encountered this? Do you know of anything I can

do?

Months ago I promised other forum contributors that I would come

up with my own lens test. I have been critical of lens testing

in my postings in the past; I still think a lot of these tests

really skew the results because of the way in which they are

done.<p>

I think at this point I have come up with a test that works

pretty well and doesn't require a lot of fancy equipment like

lasers or $3000.00 collimators. I have written a description

located in <a href="http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/

sworn_enemy.html">http://www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/

sworn_enemy.html</a>.<p>

If you just want to see my numbers, go to <a href="http://

www.icon-stl.net/~stefan/results.html">http://www.icon-stl.net/

~stefan/results.html</a>.<p>

Some of the results suprised me. Conventional wisdom states

that MF lenses are less capable of rendering extreme detail than

35mm; in other words, a MF camera depends heavily upon its

larger film size for the better prints you can expect from it.

In my test, my 80 f2.8 MF tested about the same as 50mm primes

for 35mm at smaller f stops.<p>

I would be interested in others views of both my test and the

results.<p>

stefan