stephen_poe1

A while ago I posted a question about my Hasselblad 500c ( "How to

clean a camera mirror" see http://www.photo.net//bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg.tcl?msg_id=000HZ0 ). I complained that I kept finding little

chunks of foam on the surface of the mirror.<p>

Recently some of my negs have not looked as sharp to me as I thought

they should have. I thought it might have been my fault; I did a test

roll and saw that the focus was getting worse. I called a repairman

and discovered that foam pads inside the camera and UNDERNEATH the

mirror were rotting away due to age --- so the mirror was slipping in

position. Getting the foam replaced and getting a new screen (the old

one is too dim) is going to cost $400.00. A good used Hasse body like

mine costs $600.00 or so (body only) so this is significant.<p>

If you are shopping for a Hasse, look for little chunks of blackish or

grey foam inside the camera --- that is the bad sign that the foam

inside the camera is falling apart. Realize that replacing the foam

inside the camera nad under the mirror will cost you $200.00 or more.

If you live in the US, you might consider getting in touch with Bill Maxwell of Maxwell Precision Optics, PO Box 33146, Decatur, GA 30033 (404)244 0095. He makes replacement screens or can modify your existing screen so that it is much brighter and claims to be able to do so for just about any camera. You can send your camera to him or he will send you a screen for installation by your own repairman. I have just sent him one of my cameras (Hasse 500c with the usual dim, flat 500c image). If you are interested, email me back and I will send you my review when I get the camera back.

I had the Rollie with the 3.5 Planar --- I think, based on the film I had from it, dollar for dollar it was the best bargain I ever bought for $400.00 and I am still sorry I sold it.<p>

I used it with the Bay II hood; I find lens hoods really help improve my image quality and try to always use them. The problem is, with the Bay II hood in place, the only filters that will fit are the Rollie Bay II filters. If you put a gel filter of a resin filter at the outer end of the hood you are going to get degraded image quality from flare on the filter or dust/dirt on the filter. You want the filter to sit as close as possible to the lens element so any marks/imperfections on the filter will be certain to fall out of the zone of depth of field no matter what aperture you use.<p>

One solution I used was to cut a gelatin filter to size and tape it to the rear of the lens (being careful, of course, to keep the tape sticky stuff away from any glass or moving parts). On my Rollie there was a conelike rim, like a tiny lens hood, surrounding the rear element on the inside of the camera that was perfect for this purpose.<p> The problem with this solution is that it A) trashes 1 gelatin filter (costing $12.00 or so), although you can use it again for the same purpose. B)You have to put it on before you start the roll of film and can't take it off until after you are done. C) It is a real pain taping that little sucker in there.<p>

I always thought with the right kinds of adapter you could put gel or similar filter between the lens and the hood --- like the Hasse Pro Shade --- but sold the Rollie before I could find or rig one up.<p>

I think the gelatin filters are a good bargain --- they are thin and optically clear so you can stack more than one without having to worry as much about loss of image quality and are availible in so many different types. With the appropriate holder you can use them with your different cameras. Compared to $40.00 or so each for high quality filters, they are a bargain too. The only drawback is their extreme delicacy. I try to remember to put a can of compressed air in my gear bag so I can blow off the Gelatin before I put it on or take it off --- grit seems to scatch them very easily. Even being as careful as I can, it seems I have to replace them every once while.<p>

I began to wonder about this while reading another recent posting

about the coatings on TLR lenses.<p>

Are coatings on lenses really that important? I have used a variety

of coated, multicoated and even a couple uncoated lenses. If I use

them stopped down with a lens hood it is often difficult or impossible

for me to tell a difference in performance other than in those unusual

situations like where I am shooting right into a light source (a

situation I usually try to avoid, or, if I want to use flare as a part

of the picture I should want FLARE, shouldn't I?). In printing bw

35mm availible light pictures I sometimes shoot with 6400 asa film in

nightclubs and similar places, I actually find a little flare that

causes a very slight overall fog helps me print up more tonal shadows

rather than seeing the dark areas go to a very flat black.<p>

The reason I wonder is that I would like to invest in some expensive

lenses in the future if budget allows --- several older view camera

and MF lenses are apparently near matches to their newer multicoated

versions with the exception of multicoating and price. Am I really

going to miss the multicoating if I go for the single coating lenses?

"...if residual flash were a problem

with faster shutter speeds wouldn't it just effect a small portion of the image where the shutter was closing similair to a flash

synch problem?"<p>

Not if your flash sync is working correctly. From my experience, on both my focal plane and leaf shutter cameras, at x-sync the flash fires only when the shutter is completely open. At m-sync, the camera ignites the flash bulb and then opens the shutter --- thus the bulb has a split second to start burning really brightly before exposure is begun. I used to have a 1950s era Leica 111f that had a flash bulb guide table -- if one was using one specific type or brand of flash bulb, one was limited to this or that particular shutter speed. I guess different bulbs burned at different speeds and thus needed different amounts of time to "prime" themselves before optimum exposure conditions were reached. I remember one of the old Leica books had example pictures of where the wrong shutterspeed had been used with a flash bulb -- the picture started out dark on one side, got brighter in the middle, and darkened again at the end --- a graphic illustration of the bulb igniting, burning brighter and then burning out. The example I cited in my previous post was firing the studio strobes manually with the shutter held open on B or T.<p>

My impression is that flash durations are really so brief with portable electronic strobes like my shoemount Vivitars that I will probably never see the difference between the really short burst I get at 1/8th power and the comparitively slower burst I get at full power --- there we are dealing with durations that are probably within the thousandths of thousandsths of seconds. Maybe I will see the difference if I start taking Edgerton type photos --- bullets through apples or milk splashes. But if you are using the studio strobes I mentioned and you are comparing a flash picture taken at 1/125th to a flash picture taken at B, you will see a marked increase in expose in the second even if all other factors (ambient light, aperture, etc.,) remain the same. I discovered this the hard way in the studio -- I was working with a 4x5 camera with lens at 1/250th or so and wanted additional depth of field but my power packs were maxed out. I thought I could gain an additional stop by closing down my lens and using bulb and manually firing the strobes twice in the darkened studio. To my surprise, when I took my next Polaroid it was MUCH brighter than I expected. I did some experiments and discovered that it was a flash duration effect.<p>

To return to Eddie's question --- if you are using your camera in a dark room with a portable strobe like a Vivitar 283, you will see no difference in a picture taken at 1/60th vs. 1/300th. In ambient light situations, obviously you are going to see a difference. With slower flash durations (those unusual m-sync flash bulbs or studio strobes are what I think of) you will see a difference there too. Best to experiment with your particular light source(s) and shutter speeds. Scott's reccomendation of a flash meter is an easy way to arrive at answers.

Basically, the bigger the film the more information and the less you have to enlarge your negative to get the same size print.<p>

If you compare 35mm to 6x6, the 6x6 negative is several times the size of the 35mm. If you make quality enlargements from both, you will see a greater amount of detail in the 6x6, richer shadows and highlights, finer grain in the print, more of a range of colors (which cause some to say that the MF is more saturated --- semantically incorrect but who cares). Unless you are comparing a "bad" 6x6 negative to a "good" 35mm, the 6x6 will produce a technically better print every time. Portability, handling and ease of use are other considerations.<p>

No problem. 1000s of wedding photographers in the US do this every weekend.<p> I work in commercial photography and, for extra money and fun, also do editorial/feature photography for local publications. My editor only requires that I shoot 35mm, but if I only need 1 picture I often use my Hasselblad -- without tripod, usually with flash. My reason? Films are shorter (12 exposures vs 36 so I don't waste film if I only need 1 or 2 frames to complete assignment) and I can use Polaroid back to check exposure in difficult lighting situations.<p>

You can hand hold many of the MF cameras; I think the Hasselblad and the Rollieflex TLR are 2 that I have used handheld that actually work quite well this way.

Not only will the 35mm lenses not cover 6x6, but the distance from the lens to the film on a 6x6 body like the Hasselblad will be too far for a 35mm lens --- the Nikon lens would be a macro lens of limited use if mounted on the Hasselblad.<p>

There are a few examples of 35mm lenses that could be adapted to 6x6 bodies but I know of none currently in production. Apparently a certain version of the 135mm lens for an East German 35mm camera could also be used on a 6x6 camera --- I think it was Pentacon.<p>

If you buy the adapter to put a Hasselblad lens on the Nikon body, don't spend too much. In my opinion, such an adapter would be of limited use. Auto diaphragm and metering probably won't work on the Nikon and it will be clunky and awkward to use. I'm also guessing that photographic results from the combo might be dissapointing; I think the Hasse lenses are among the best in MF but MF usually looks "better" than 35mm because the film has a greater amount of information in it. If you move from 6x6 to 35mm, you lose that advantage.

Ambient light will certainly affect exposure in flash use. With most small strobes that fit into a camera's hot shoe, flash duration is so brief that you will not be able to see any difference in exposure between 1 sec. and 1/500th sec if all your light is coming from the flash. With the larger strobes (I'm thinking of something like a 2400ws Speedotron pack with flash head) you definitely will see a difference. I've noticed a difference of almost a stop in exposures done at 1/500th versus exposures done at bulb with the studio strobes. The portable flash unit has a flash duration of somewhere around 1/1000th or so --- a lot of the more powerful studio strobes have a flash duration of 1/100th or so.<p>

The guide number system of flash calculation factors distance to subject with flash output and film speed. Shutter speed is assumed to be "sync speed" for the camera. This is a definite weakness, along with the changing nature of flash in different environments (see scott's post about flash in a small white room above) to calculating exposure by guide number since under different ambient light conditions the camera's shutter speed can have a definite impact.

I would suspect that the shutter needs a cleaning. In these older cameras, the focal plane shutters seem to get "sticky" with age; the lubricants coagulate with time.<p>

With instructions books and appropriate tools, I stripped and cleaned my 30+ year old Leica M3 about 5-6 mos ago because it was doing a very similar thing. I used camera cleaning fluid and camera oil purchased from Microtools. The camera works great now.<p>

Unless you are really brave and confident in your mechanical aptitude, I don't reccomend doing this yourself. Since your camera is under warranty, if you do it yourself you will void your warranty. The problem is, unless a repairman is really good, he/she will not recognize a sticky shutter as a problem since it happens intermittently. I sent a used camera bought under warranty in 3 times to the repair people with this problem; all three times they told me it was fine and returned it without fixing. I never went back to Harmann's Camera in Lincoln, NE and don't think you should go there either. Because they would not fix it, I learned to do this myself.<p>

What makes me curious is that you say it only happens at x sync speed. My Leica did it usually at 1/60th or 1/125th, but these are the 2 speeds I use most of the time anyway.

Before you buy, you may wish to stop and consider cost/use of a MF camera versus 35mm.<p>As far as gear goes, a good MF camera seems to cost about as much as a high end 35mm system and while the MF camera does give you a larger film area, you will find a great increase in your lab bills if you have your work printed for you by someone else. A lot of minilabs don't handle 120 or 220 film so you may have to change labs.<p> If you like to print your work in your own darkroom, you will need an enlarger that will handle 645 or 6x6 or whatever and appropriate lens. It was a rude awakening for me when I realized that moving up to MF was going to cost me a lot more than just the price of a camera. <p>If you shoot transparencies, the cost of processing a roll of 35mm vrs a roll of 120 at a pro lab is not altogether that different, but remember that you will only be getting 12 shots (in the case of a 6x6 camera) as opposed to 36.<p>

I use my MF mostly for transparencies or black and white. If I want to shoot a quick roll of color print film to process at the 1 hour lab, I use the 35mm because the 120 color print film is more expensive to print and not availible with the 1 hour service unless you pay HUGE rush charges.

My answer would be "any MF system would be great for portraits."<p>

It really depends upon what you want to do and how you want to do it. Years ago I was using 35mm gear exclusively. I bought an old twin lens reflex for about $100.00 and started playing around with it and the results in the darkroom convinced me. If you want a rich print, black and white or color, a bigger negative is a definite advantage. <p>Before I bought the TLR I was usung 35mm cameras, usually with a 50mm or 35mm lens. I know these are not the ones the portraitist is "supposed" to use, but I liked including some of the subject's environment. I discovered that with my TLR with 80mm lens, even if I cropped out 1/2 my negative, I was still getting richer, more detailed less grainy prints that I would have gotten even if I printed the 35mm negative full frame. The prints <i>looked</i> sharper too --- more information on the larger negative translated into a print that needed less enlargement.<p>

I don't know much about the camera you are considering. I have used Yashica and Rollie TLRs --- the Rollie with a +1 Rollinar is great for getting a full frame of head and shoulders. I have also used a Hasselblad with 80mm and 150mm lenses --- works great. In fact, I think I get a better looking print with the Hasse 80mm lens with a cheap +1 diopter than I get from one of my 35mm lenses which focusses closer --- its all in the bigger film advantage. My 35mm cameras may have sharper lenses in a side-by-side lens test, but the prints from the larger negative look sharper, richer, more detailed.<p>

If glamour/fashion/portraits are your interest, I would think about saving your pennies for a MF system with interchageable backs --- the Polaroid and interchangeable backs are invaluable for commercial work. Most MF cameras seem to have longer lenses or a macro lens or can use diopters of some kind; even cropping your final image in close works great with MF so I would not worry about being able to get in close enough.

A very good reason not to hassel the airport security too much:<p>

About 1 1/2 years ago I was travelling with a histronic photographer. There was a delay at the metal detector; my photographer companion started screaming and yelling, demanding to see superiors, etc. The security was not impressed, asked him to step aside and began going over his baggage with the fine toothed comb. We just made it on the plane with out a moment to spare; if we had been delayed another 30 seconds we would not have been able to board.<p>

We can all shout about our rights and priveledges, but if your goal is to get on the plane and go to your destination, ask sensibly for a hand inspection. I've done a bit of location photography assisting out of state and have found that security peiople are doing a thankless job and get treated like dirt. If you hassel them, they can and will delay you --- their reasoning might be that you are trying to avoid close inspection of your baggage or person by being uncooperative. If you are respectful, you might get your way.<p>

In some other countries, there seems to be a lot more leeway in how security people do their job. In Germany, they xray it all no matter how you protest. In eastern europe, maybe, maybe not. I have carried lots of 100 and 400 asa film and had it xrayed (e-6, c-41 and BW) and never had a problem other than some TMAX 100 that got fogged in Mexico -- but that might have been from heat.

I was in Prague last year and had good experieces with AZ foto. As I recall, it was just northeast of the Old Town Square, and, despite its location in the high rent district, had decent prices and the staff spoke English and German.

The store had a lot of binoculars and telescopes as well. I was looking at used cameras; I don't recall if they sold new ones but the people who sold me a camera allowed me to shoot a roll of C-41 that I had processed at a mini lab down the street before I finalized the purchase.

Attention readers!

Someone here in St. Louis sent me an email regarding my question; I wanted to respond to thank the sender and arrange to see the prints he mentioned but accidentally deleted the message.

<p>

If it is not too much trouble, could that person drop me another note?

<p>

thanks

<p>

stefan

<p>

p.s.: Although I have noted that I dislike cibachromes, I am prepared to change my mind if I see results that please me. Does anyone know if Cibachrome or Ilfochromes or whatever can be made on differently textured papers? A slight matte finish would perhaps be better.

Frank;

<p>

To answer your first question, I have no idea how compatible the two emulsions are other than they are two emulsions that I have used a great deal with satisfactory results. The c-41 was Agfa Optima and the e-6 was Kodak EPP. It will be a while before I get prints; I have the EPP back and the color is very satisfactory.

<p>

I decided to try to use c-41 because I wanted some prints. I almost never use color print film anymore because I am unsatisfied with the results the lab gets back to me and am frustrated as to how to instruct them to print.

<p>

I have tried ordering cibachromes from one of the best cibachrome labs here in Saint Louis --- Novacolor --- but found them to be consistently too contrasty. I am frustrated by the loss of detail, especially in the shadow areas, that cibachromes seem to exhibit consistently. Also, the paper has a slickness to it that I find unattractive.

I used a UV filter for all photographs taken at high altitude (e-6 and c-41). I don't ALWAYS use a uv (or any other) filter because I believe that they can degrade the image --- in this case, the uv correction outweighs other issues.<p>

For some pictures I used a slight warming filter too.<p>

I have inspected the chromes on a color correct lightbox and the color is good; very close to what i remember it being.

<p>

I would prefer to use 6x6 for both e-6 and c-41 --- I want the larger image size in both emulsions.

<p>

In actual fact; I had my 35mm camera with me both when I had the 6x6 and when i left it behind due to the weight, etc.

<p>

The question that interests me is how well the e-6 can serve as a color match for the lab person printing c-41.

<p>

As a general note, I dislike the look of cibachromes.

I am interested in obtaining negs and transparencies for both my personal work and to eventually use for stock sales. I recently returned from a trip to the Rocky Mountains on which I brought a whole heck of a lot of gear; 6x6 camera, 35mm, lenses, tripod, etc.

I had a padded photo backpack to carry it all in on hikes but it was still too heavy and bulky. My fiance, who takes 1 1/2 hour long vigorous walks 5x a week did much better than I in the thin atmousphere so I have started exercising more.

I want to be able to photograph from on the hiking trail rather than from the side of the road so everything I use has to be carried with me.

<p>

Part of my frustration with color is control over printing. I learned to be a pretty good color printer a few years ago but no longer have access to a color darkroom and am unsatisfied with the quality of expensive color prints from the local lab.

Particularly, I am frustrated with being able to communicate how I want the color to look in the final print(I like it to be as close to how I saw it at the time of exposure as possible). To solve this problem, I loaded one Hasse film back with slide film and one with color print film.

I am hoping that the lab person can use the slide as a color match for the print. I got the slide film back yesterday and it looks great; will get the color print film developed soon. Has anyone else used this system or something similar? Are there any lab people out there who could comment? If you have used this system or something similar, how did it work?

<p>

One of the problems I will point out right off is expense; twice as much film. Also, in the mountains there were a lot of winds, clouds and rapidly changing light; sometimes I could not switch film backs fast enough to keep up with rapidly changing conditions.

Also, we were hiking. The trails were steep and sometimes rough, all that gear weighed a lot and I also had to carry food, water, rain gear and other clothes, survival gear, etc. Eventually my fiance pointed out that I was not able to attain my hiking goals due to the weight of the gear; I had to either leave gear behind or get left behind on the trail.

I ended up carrying a 35mm with 1 lens instead of that whole load. The thin air and the steep trail taught me why most hikers carry just a point and shoot.

<p>

One of my philosophical imperatives for this sort of photography is as much accurate information as I can muster given my limited means. I have considered using a lighter MF camera(like a folding camera or something) for the color neg and a 35mm for the matching slides but would hate to give up having the 6x6 slides for inclusion in my stock files. Any thoughts/ideas about this?

I have used both the Hasse and the Mamiya RZ and RB.

Before you go changing systems ( I find that changing systems for the photographer is always at an economical disadvantage and at advantage to the dealer) I would advise you to stop and consider, especially idf you use the camera for something other than still life.

I think the RZ works fine for this kind of stuff but don't like the RB at all. I would stick with the Hasse if I was in your shoes; I think it handles better for all around stuff---handheld, people, etc. The RZ is just a little too big, heavy and ungainly to go anywhere other than on a tripod or stand with any ease of use.

I don't want to insult you, but have you considered changing studios? 13 feet is just not enough room to get real versatile; maybe that could be the option to consider.

Also, just to enter the question; why do you want a rectangular picture? I like the square; your posting implies that this is for arts sake, not to fit a layout, so you could, I suppose, make it any shape you like.

stefan

Dear Warwick;

<p>

I am a higher-math impaired photographer who bought a flashmeter a few years ago. I got a Sekonic L-308b for arouns $200.00 US. It is easy to use. I have used more expensive meters that have more functions, etc., for the price the Sekonic seems a good deal.

<p>

One of the reasons I reccomend the flash meter is that it will also compensate for gels or diffussion I might use on the flash heads as wel as other variables. I have been using strobe gear as an assistant here in Saint Louis for about three years or so; there is sometimes some variation (usually no more than 1/3rd a stop) in output from unit to unit. More from Speedotron, less from Broncolor. Probably has to do with how well the pack has been maintained or how old the flash tube is, I guess. I reccomend the flash meter because it will warn you of these discrepencies.

<p>

good luck

<p>

stefan

Dear John Braud;

Makes perfectly good sense to me.

Thanks for the clarification.

stefan

I have had quite a different experience than yours with Kalimex. I have never bought from them, but I have always received answers from them by e-mail. It just takes a little longer; probably because Eastern European systems are not as well integrated into the net as western. The answers from Kalimex come a few days later athan from say a camera trader in NY, but they always take the time to answer your question. Email some busy camera store in USA and usually all you get back is a price quote --- no answers to questions. I also think Kalimex deserves thanks for making instuction books for the Kiev 88 and Kiev 60 availible on the net for owners and prospective buyers. American dealers will only sell the instruction books.

As far as the Czech republic being "much farther away" than Germany --- well, if you look at a map you will see this is not true.

I have not bought Kiev from Kalimex or any other dealer, but am thinking about it. If the time comes and I decide to invest my money in Kiev, I think I will try Kalimex.

Unless the scratches compromise the optical quality, the price seems a very good one compared to what people are asking all over for these.

<p>

I would be sure to use the lens in as many as possible different situations --- outside, inside, etc. A lot of people seem to believe in testing lenses with fiddly little targets on the walls; I say use it like you will use it in real life. Be sure to try it at every aperture and compare, if possible, to another lens. Perhaps you could rent an unscratched 50 mm and compare the results? Here I can rent one for 20-30$ US --- a lot of money, but not so much when you think of $725.00.

<p>

I have used this lens and think it is a great one; good luck, stefan

Dear John Braud;

While I agree that your technique is sound; I would question your philosophy. What is the good of a very sharp lens if the body of the camera produces such intense vibration that the image is blurred from exposure? Unless you do all of your photography with flash heads in a darkened room (as a commercial photographer and assistant I can say that this is frequently the case) the test is not really that useful in the real world. I can't understand why a phtographer of landscapes, for example, would find such a test useful.

<p>

I have made frequent postings on the subject of lens testing; not all my views are popular to judge by the responses I have recieved.

<p>

 

stefan

Dear Roger;

I would avoid tech pan, especially for this application. Sounds to me like you have a job to do --- record the barbeque --- well, in your situation I would just use something that works. A good panchromatic b&w film like Kodak Plus-X or Ilford FP-4 is made for just this sort of thing. I like Agfapan 100 developed in Rodinol. If you are going to take your film to the lab, consider tmax 100. It is not my favorite film, but most labs do 1,000s of rolls of tmax every year so they would probably be most likely to develop yours correctly.

If the noonday sun and people's faces falling into shadows worry you, I would second the fill flash idea.

Tech pan is probably not a panchromatic film (I guess that's why they name it tech PAN) but it sure acts like one. I haven't used it in years just because I didn't feel the fine grain was adequate compensation for the lousy contrast control I felt it had. Others may have 'magic formulas' but experiment with those when you can afford to lose the results.

good luck

stefan