peter_gale

<p>Gus, many thanks for all of your responses, and especially your photos. All of this information will allow me to visit a source and really get into the matter.</p>

<p>Martin, thanks for that info. I have long appreciated film cameras, but processing film (especially colour film) has become very, very limited. So, I feel a need to move over to digital. While I wait for the right thing to come, of course, my desire/capacity to carry several things also diminishes. I have always had and used a tripod, for years. So, a lighter back-pack seems desirable - but maybe not obtainable with a combination of things. I did like Zeiss lenses, and so, although their 'aesthetic' or quality may not match Leica lenses, I might go back in the direction of Zeiss with the new Sony digital body (but not the 'kit' lens).</p>

<p>Martin, thanks for the photo of your equipment. As I suggested earlier, I was hoping that someone had acquired the relatively new Sony 7 and would have also used or tried R lenses on it. Weight has become a factor for me, and the Sony R is touted as being light! I still have a 6.2 and various R lenses, and was hoping to use the R lenses on a fairly light digital body (a benefit when I also carry a tripod with me!).</p>

<p>Gus, thanks for taking the time to respond, and you helpful comments. I am also hoping to hear from someone who has actually used R lenses (especially longer ones) on the new Sony digital body.</p>

<p>David, thank you for your response. Technologies advance, and Sony may argue that its new camera body has solved certain problems that others have found. However....</p>

<p>I have been using various Leica camera types and lenses for many years, and I am fully aware of the strengths and limitations of a digital system and how it might work. My curiosity was raised by a sales person who argued vigorously that R lenses could be now be fully used in all respects with the new Sony body (auto-focus aside). I had read and heard otherwise, and thought I might ask here, even though I am aware of the personality of photo forums, but would like to have other opinions.</p>

<p>I am being told that my various wide-angle and long R lenses can be used with an adapter on a new Sony A7 digital body. I expect certain limitations (e.g. no auto-focus), but wonder if I am actually reading/hearing about all of them (like, will there be properly metered readings, etc.). Any digital body that works well and extensively with R lenses (and an adapter). Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Again, many thanks to all for your help. A number of dealers here in Toronto carry versions of several of the mentioned scanners (or current models), and I will now seek out their opinions in light of what you've all been suggesting. Various new Epson scanners seem available, and I will ask around about used items as well.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your responses. Let me say only that circumstances will not allow me to continue to process or print my film work in the traditional way I once used. The possibility of using digital equipment presented itself, although some may feel that the only way I might go is outside to a professional film lab. Nevertheless, I wondered if a home-based scanner now exists in 2011 that users were finding could really do a good job with a Leica R film negative. I subsequently print no larger than 8x10", and usually work in b&w. Any newer 35mm home-based printers to consider now (for b&w and/or colour)? Suggestions welcome. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I use a Leica R 6.2 camera, and usually shoot b&w film. I have recently been told that I can no longer develop or print this film at home. I can find a commercial outlet to do this. However, I am wondering what I may do that would avoid some or many of the traditional methods that I've been using (or a commercial outlet may use). I can imagine having the film processed to provide a set of 35mm negatives (some of which, on occasion, may be in colour).<br>

Is there a scanner now that can be used with these negatives? It would be a scanner that would generate a set of digitalized files that can then be used to create/print images that will continue to have the filmic character that I have had in the past with this Leica? Is this the way these days to look at this sort of 'strategy' or need?<br>

Any suggestions are welcome. However, for various reasons, I want to continue shooting film and do not want to switch to a total digital system. I will likely have to ask about a printer as well. But, for the moment, I am asking about scanners - unless you feel that the printer is something to concentrate on from the beginning. <br>

Thanks you.</p>

<p>Frank, that's very helpful. If I sound repetitive to Russ, it's because I was interrupted by a phone call and didn't see your second response until now. So, given the speed that my question provokes, thanks to everyone!</p>

<p>Thanks Russ. A good recommendation, one that I didn't know. The readings of outdoor subjects taken through my window using the reflective mode tend to be virtually the same as those incident readings taken outside between the camera lens (still inside) and the meter (which is then held close to the subject). So, when inside, I tend to assume that the incident readings (lower) were 'informed' by that somewhat 'duller/darker' location inside. As a consequence, I favored the reflective reading in my final reading, with some considerations.<br>

Nevertheless, I have often wondered if the glass pane, even if very clean, acts somewhat like a 'filter' and the reflective readings should be adjusted in some way. I have assumed that the glass is not a factor, but each year, I wonder.... And I do have several gray cards, and must perform some experiments with them. Thanks again. </p>

<p>Frank, for some reason my initial response, and thanks to you, has not been posted as yet. Anyway, again, you put forward some good 'metering' questions. As my original post indicated, I am particularly interested in shots from my interior to subjects outdoors. I have gone outside to compare readings there to readings from my interior (where the camera would be located), and have wondered, to what extent (if any at all), the glass window pane itself acts like a 'filter' and might be a factor affecting the readings taken indoors (the glass is clean!). I have always assumed that the clear glass is not a factor, but, as I contemplate this situation again, I wonder.</p>

<p>It is getting cold here (around freezing) and becoming colder, with fewer and fewer opportunities to remain outside to photograph autumn colours. No snow as yet, but the late-autumn colours and shadow forms are still very, very interesting. I have always been inclined to use my 500C/M to take shots from inside my living area (during the day) to capture (1) the plants (and their strangely expressive forms) that are now sitting inside on the window sill, but in full sun; and (2) shots of nearby shrubbery and young trees, which are just outside, but throwing up interesting shadows across the late autumn ground. In the past, I have used my Sekonic meter to take incident and spot readings of each subject, and depending on the readings, will 'average' them, with the idea that I'll get a relatively good indication of the light on each subject. I can walk right up to the window sill for an incident reading of the plant forms in that subject matter, and take an incident reading against the window for outdoor scenes. I then compare these reading to a reflected spot reading of each subject (which tends to be higher in each case). The results that follow seem OK, but I'm wondering if I'm doing it all wrong.<br>

I am particularly interested in the shots take from inside a room (where there is just the natural light of the morning or day, and it is less bright than outside) and the readings I might/should be using from the meter to take a subject that is outside, through, and beyond the window.<br>

Over the years, I've looked for answers, here, online, and in sources I have at home. But none provides an answer that seems just right for my situation (although many directions/opinions are related). If this question doesn't seem redundant, I'd appreciate any response or advice you might have. </p>

<p>Thanks Q.G. A perfect response. Even I could understand it!</p>

<p>Again, thanks Brian. I am always pleased (and humbled) by the speed and substance of responses via photo.net.</p>

<p>My last response and thanks to Brian reminds me that I should never look at forums or reply to them before the sun comes up and I'm really awake! The picture that I appreciated so much was supplied by Q.G. de Bakker, to whom I also extend my sincere (and belated) thanks.<br>

A supplementary. If the dark slide can be inserted either way, does the manner of its insertion in any way effect or determine the blackness of the film chamber (i.e. in terms of film mechanism blackness, does it matter which way the slide is inserted)?</p>

<p>Thank again Brian. The picture that you provided conforms with my understanding of things. Many thanks as well for the picture. The 'instruction' sheet that came with the back had general pictures and printed directions about loading the film, in a text that speaks initially of the dark slide but not with the precision of an image. I agree that it would have been nice if Hasselblad had identified the 'sides' of the slide. Your picture reminds me of one in Wildi's 4th edition, which I had used as the way to operate or use the various parts the camera. However, your response has been much more helpful and precise. I'm glad that I did no damage. It's getting hard to find someone in the Toronto area to work on it quickly! Bye for now.</p>

<p>Thanks Brian, that helps clear things up. When you speak of the dark slide facing the lens, is that saying, in effect, the same as the sheet of 'instructions' that came with the film mechanism (which I still have). It states that the side of the dark slide that is 'smooth' should face back toward the film mechanism (i.e. on that 'smooth' side, the metal then wraps from the slide plate around the hinge handle, so that when the slide is inserted in the best way, the circular hinge would face toward the lens). This matter of identifying the front and back sides of the dark slide seems to elude me!</p>

<p>Is it possible to shift the button on the film mechanism to the right, and remove the film back on a 500C/M, whether the smooth side of the dark slide is inserted facing back toward the film mechanism or forward toward the camera body?<br>

Is the insertion and then removal of a dark slide with the smooth side facing forward toward the body (rather than back toward the film back), likely to 'hurt' the mechanism that connect the back and the body?<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>

Thanks Bob. The 72865 number (on the shoe mount) makes more sense date-wise, and is probably the correct number. The certificate may have just been something kept from sometime earlier.

 

Each lens that came along with the camera when I received it (Linhof/S-K 90mm and 150mm) are on their own boards.

I just met a local person who has used Linhof cameras for many years, so I'll get him to help me so I don't damage anything that's just stiff from a lack of used, or whatever. Right now, the camera seems quite sticky and that may be from a lack of any recent use. Other details I am now seeing suggest that it's a Technica IV, but I'll wait a bit before trying things.

In the meantime, thanks again.

Bob, and others who are keeping in touch with this string, you may continue to receive odd questions like mine. My father-in-law passed away a couple of years ago and I've just received his Linhof Technika camera, lenses and various filters, etc., which I think is a late-model III (although parts look like a model IV). Some years ago, I took a course locally in large format cameras and have used one, on and off, when I'm not traveling with my old Hasselblad. So, in a sense, I know a bit about large format cameras, but realize that this Linhof model is complicated, particularly without an instruction book (which I hope to acquire).

 

There was a Linhof certificate (no date) with the camera, but honestly, I don't know if it belongs to this camera. It states that the camera is a Technika III E 4x5, and that the serial number is 55294. The number on the camera's accessory shoe is 72865 and there is no number beneath it (I looked). My father-in-law was a professional photographer in a hospital and he may have modified his personal camera (which I now have) and the certificate may belong to a camera that he used at work. There is no way I can check that! Anyway, there is no number under the accessory shoe on this camera, none at all, and I have not been able to find another location for a number.

 

If this is a model III E, does anyone happen to know if the serial number might have been put somewhere else. Any suggestions?

 

With thanks

Peter Gale

Last weekend, I used my Hasselblad 500 M/C to take some b&w photos (with HP5

Plus, 400ASA) of the swirling snow outside and the frosty patterns forming on

our windows. I set the depth of field to get a zone of focus on either side of

the window pane and into the storm, and took an incident light reading from the

window pane back toward the camera lens (80mm). I then adjusted the EV setting

upwards in value (higher number) to compensate for the fact that my original

meter reading was indoors and fairly low while it was much brighter(though flat

white)outside. I bracketed my shots to see what I might get and also received

some advice from the Medium Format forum. I have not yet had a chance to process

the film.

 

In the meantime, I am wondering if there are any books or online sources to

consult that might provide me with additional specific information on settings,

etc., for this sort of situation.

 

Thanks.

Thank you Antonio. After looking at your lovely shot, I'm anxious to see my own. (I know that I might achieve some sort of immediate awareness with a digital system, but the images just don't look the same, at least to me).

 

I have a yellow filter and your suggestion has reminded me to use it.

 

Now, if these conditions ever happen again, I'll be ready!

 

Peter

Thank you both for your responses. Right after posting my message, since conditions started to change, I took some shots and decided to expose for the plants inside, and hoped that the patterns on the window (which are almost on the same plane)will also read well. I did take incident readings back towards the lens (although my meter can also be used for spot readings, which I didn't take)and did imagine that I'd have to 'close down' to a higher EV reading in order to compensate for the brighter exterior light (which I actually did, beyond bracking my initial shots).

 

Thanks, again, to both of you. It is very valuable to have additional input when I know that these conditions won't be around for very long. I suppose, to some extent, I should be thankful for that!