tom_harvey1

Here's a bit of a tip regarding signal interference: If you have a jumble of wires and cables behind your computer (as most of us do), try to segregate the AC line current-carrying cables from the signal-carrying cables. Don't bundle or tie-wrap these two groups together, because that alone will allow inductive coupling between the 120 volt lines and the low-level signal cables.

 

If the two groups of cables MUST be in close proximity to one another, then try to rearrange them so that the power cables group and the signal cables group cross each other at a 90 degree angle.

 

Also try checking the integrity (good solid connection) of the ground on your computer.

 

TH

Martin:

 

I have to agree with Jeff....the problem is most likely being caused by the T-Max 100 film...it's just "flat" by nature. Try a roll of Ilford FP4 plus and see if there's a difference. If you're souping it at home, try using ID-11 developer.

 

If you're not at a shortage for light, also try Ilford Pan-F. WOnderful stuff.

 

TH

Well, something had to go wrong eventually, since there's a shortage of both vowels and consonants. There's a worldwide effort underway, as we speak, to export vowels to Bosnia and consonants to Ethiopia.

Martin:

 

Try Ilford XP-2 processed in C-41 chemistry, and scan with a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro equipped with Erik van Goederen's Scanhancer (http:www.scanhancer.com). You'll be impressed with the results from the Minolta once you use the scanhancer to tame down the overly-collimated light source.

 

TH

Wayne:

 

The widest angle of view that you'll be able to get is about 89 degrees on the diagonal with the 45mm wide angle. There is a 35mm fisheye available but it's not rectilinear (distortion of any line that's not on the centerline of the lens).

 

TH

Hugh:

 

I don't believe there's any such adapter, but you're better off (as far as film flatness is concerned) shooting the 120/220 film in the 670III and cropping the film. I don't think that a 70mm length of 35mm film laying unsupported over the film gate would stay flat, especially after being rolled up in a 35mm cartridge.

 

TH

Yup, the older I get the more near-dated film I buy at a discount. Age has its priveleges...

 

TH

I'm happy to see that film and medium format still have some devout followers. Me, I'm sticking with my Pentax 67II and film. Maybe if this discussion hits the right folks, they'll be dumping equipment at lower prices on the market. Well, I can hope.....

 

Now, if a digital back for the 67II were to be introduced, I'd be interested. But I'd still be using film and Pentax lenses.

 

TH

To all: It seems as though Michael Reichmann of the Luminous

Landscape has evaluated results of the Canon top-of-the-line digital

imaging system versus the Pentax 67II loaded with Velvia, and

pronounced (decreed?) that the Canon was the clear hands-down winner.

Hmmmmm. Sure, digital is fast. Sure, digital manipulation is easy

with a 2 GHz Pentium machine loaded with 2 GB of fast RAM. Sure,

digital requires much less dust-spotting and correction of minute

flaws. And, to top it all off, you can leave out the 350-MB Tango

drum scans for $300.

 

I, for one, enjoy the meticulous setup, film and lens choices,

framing, and possibility of a very long wait for just the absolute

right moment when using my P67II. I guess I'm a purist, eh what?

 

Have some of us lost sight of the "art" as well as "science" of medium

format photography (and other formats as well)?

 

TH

Ming:

 

I'm unsure of the optical characteristics of the B&W soft-focus filter, but the B&W line of optical accessories has quite a good reputation. On the other hand, I personally have the Contax (Zeiss) Softar 1 and Softar 2 filters, and their effect is quite pleasing for portraits (especially if you're using a lens which has excellent out-of-focus characteristics [bokek]).

 

TH

Probably a simple mass-produced (?) triplet. Mass-production in those days may have meant individual elements in their own retaining rings, so perhaps the front and rear elements can be CAREFULLY unscrewed for cleaning...may require a camera technicians tools, however. Good luck with it!

 

TH

Jaroslav:

 

try this:

 

http://www.merrillphoto.com/DecoraDigna.htm

 

http://www.vintagecameras.co.uk/box.htm

 

The Dacora Digna from the 1950's may have used that lens.

 

TH

Frank: I have a Fuji GW670III which supplements my P67II body and lenses. The Fuji glass is extremely sharp and many of us believe that this lens (90mm f/3.5) has the best bokeh you're going to find. I did some environmental portraits about 6 months ago for a friend, used Fuji Provia 100F and different combinations of Contax +1 and +2 Softars. Photos were excellent.

 

You can use Nikon diopters (for the FM2, I believe) on the Fuji viewfinder...I needed a +2 just to focus. The Nikon right-angle finder also fits the viewfinder rear thread.

 

The Fuji gets my vote.

 

TH

It looks like a Mamiyaflex C (possibly a C3, unsure), or it could be the original Mamiyaflex from the late 1950's and early 1960's. Very robust, but it lacked many of the shutter/lensboard/slide interlocks of the later C2,C3,C22,C33,C220,C330 or C330f models. It looks as though you have the black anodized lens set which is quite a bit sharper than the chrome versions. The more I look at it, I'm beginning to think it's the original "base" Mamiyaflex which I had used on occasion in the mid-1960's.

 

TH

I just ordered the BG60 grid screen for my 67II body as an aid to

obtaining level horizons and true verticals when using the 45/f4 wide

angle lens. How much of a chore is it to change the screen, and can

it be done in the field easily? Thanks in advance, as always.....

 

TH

Try Custom Photographic Services in Dublin, CA. (925)828-6000 or email at cps@customphotographic.com. They do very good work for me and they may be setup for specialties such as yours.

 

TH

Chuck,

 

Never had the problem myself, but I use a Pentax 67II. As a matter of fact I prefer Ilford spools for ease of loading in this camera...the ends of Ilford spools are able to engage the winding mechanism at 4 distinct points in 1 revolution of the spool, whereas Kodak and Fuji will only engage at 2 points per revolution. Anyone who's loaded or unloaded a Pentax 67, 6X7, or 67II knows about the "learning curve" involved with these cameras.....

 

TH

Taki,

 

I also use the VC meter in the hot shoe of my Fuji GW670III as well as with the Pentax 67II...you can slide it into the shoe on the hot shoe bracket. VC meter seems quite accurate and compares well most of the time with the AE prism's meter.

Try the 300 EDIF if you can get the right price...I've got one I found used at KEH and love it.

Well, I took the plunge and acquired a 300mm ED(IF) lens for my 67II from KEH. So far I've shot a roll of Tri-X pushed to 800 of some distant mothballed ships at Benicia, CA. These exposures are extremely sharp, and were shot at about 1/800 second at varying apertures from 5.6 to f/16, allowing the AE prism to do the metering. I'm quite surprised at the sharpness, considering they were shot hand-held from a moving boat, using only the back of the padded driver's seat as a support. The prospective user should note that this combination of body and lens is not for the faint of heart due to its weight. However, I've seen no indication of unsharpness as long as the lens is tripod-mounted (Bogen 3046/3047 head) to the rotating collar.....whoever did the design work on the new 300 EDIF was thinking ahead of the "sweet spot" or balance point. I'm impressed.

I had the same question when I first learned about photography in the early 1960's. At the time there were film names that used a number of Xs to indicate relative speed...Panatomic X (ASA 32), Double-X (ASA 100) and Tri-X (ASA 400). I believe Double-X was dropped in the late 1960's to make way for Plus-X (ASA 125), but some stocks of XX remain. The all-around "amateur" film for a whole slew of rollfilm sizes (120,620,127,126,116,616 to name a few) was Verichrome Pan (ASA 125). Very long tonal scale and some folks claim that it had about 7 or 8 stops worth of latitude.

 

And oh-by-the-way, the name "Kodak" actually was coined by George Eastman as the sound made by the shutter of the first "Eastman" box brownie cameras. Once he managed to get things tooled up for inexpensive cameras and readily available rollfilm rather than sheets, he envisioned the "chicken-in-every-pot" concept and a camera in every vest pocket. "KA-DAK" then gradually morphed into the "Kodak" that we have today.

I'd have to agree with Craig...I've been using the later-produced 55/4 SMC Pentax, and it's blisteringly sharp...you could cut yourself...

Has anyone out there done any extensive shooting with the P67II and

the 300/f4 tele lens? I'm thinking of adding this to my arsenal and

am looking for opinions. Thnaks in advance...TH