skopar

<p>Updating a very old thread. <br>

jdphotochem does not seem to be around any longer, but there is now http://www.argentix.ca/ to take its place.<br>

Valid as of January 2016.</p>

<p>I'm 'only' 50, but my eyesight is such now that I am seriously considering ditching all my MF gear for AF. All except for one 4x5 and one TLR. My eyesight seems to change and require new prescriptions each year now. Pentax 645N is looking pretty good as a suitable compromise for the type of photography I like to do.</p>

<p>Hey Zack,<br>

Sorry you had so much trouble finding the information you need.<br>

This little video gives a quick walk through of the basic features of an SQ-A. <a href="

link</a><br>

Around the 7:34 mark he takes the back off briefly, and you can see how easy it is in practice. The SQ-A/SQ system works for me.<br>

The video creator actually took the time to do 4 videos (I think) that provide a wealth of information to anyone considering the SQ, or for someone who is new to the system.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

 

<p>I hate to add something to a thread so old, but information on old and new Hasselblad lenses is easily available for research or comparison.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx">http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx</a></p>

<p>David</p>

<p>This is a very old thread, and I hesitate to add to it so late, but it has been suggested by a few people that the Nikon 95mm filter will fit the Bronica S 40mm lens. While it is true that the threads will fit, I have also read that the Nikon 95mm filters should not be used with the Bronica SQ S 40mm as it actually touches and rubs against the front element of the lens. Not sure if this is true, but it was reported by someone who I believed also owned the same lens, as I do. <br>

This is for future reference of anyone who is buying or owns a Bronica 40mm lens for the SQ series of cameras.</p>

 

<p>This may seem silly and too basic, but what about those tall measuring beakers we all use, or a Pyrex measuring cup from the kitchen.<br>

Step A. Take the the lid off the Paterson tank and put one 35mm reel in. Use the measuring beaker and just use tap water to cover it. Make note of exactly how much is required to cover it.<br>

Step B. Put the 2nd 35mm reel on top and repeat the process with tap water until the 2nd reel is completely covered. Make note again of how much water it took. <br>

Step C. Use the beaker to add more water until there is only a tiny bit of room between the water and the lid.<br>

Step A gives you the minimum needed for highly dilute or 2 stage developers, where sitting around is more the norm than agitation.<br>

Step B gives you what you need for single or double rolls developing using normal agitation.<br>

Step C gives you the maximum amount of liquid you will need.<br>

Repeat Step A/B with a 120 roll.<br>

If you have written those down, you now know forever how much developer is required for 1-2 rolls of 35mm and 1 roll of 120.<br>

Note, it is probably worthwhile to try this with previously exposed/damaged film wound onto the reels as the film will displace liquid too.</p>

<p>The whole process should take less than 5 minutes... including threading the reels with dummy film.</p>

 

<p>So few people actually know what a Yashica 35 is, most assume you mean a Yashica Electro 35. Nice results with your camera. </p>

<p>I know I am late to this discussion, but thought I should add some pertinent info.<br>

Mark Hama is THE Yashica RF Repair guy. Russell Sisco is also good and recommended, especially for Yashica Electro, but pre-Electro you should contact Mark.</p>

<p>I recently bought a 1958 Yashica 35 (pre-Electro fixed lens RF) and have cleaned it up enough to test it out, but sending it down to Mark will allow me to have a like new camera to use.<br>

<img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7147/6466975249_743c7c2319_m.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="180" /></p>

<p>Hey Mitchell,<br>

Did you ever get to try out your camera? What did you think of it?<br>

David</p>

<p>Hi Jeremy,<br>

Did you ever figure out what was wrong with your lens? </p>

<p>I just bought an Avus myself, and am excited to start using it once I have some holders and film.</p>

<p>Go to Flickriver.com and search Bronica S2 or S2a (select Interesting) and see what you think.<br>

<a href="http://www.flickriver.com/search/bronica+s2/interesting/">http://www.flickriver.com/search/bronica+s2/interesting/</a><br>

In the end, what matters most is that you feel comfortable with the system, as you will use it more often. Repairs can be an issue, so do a little research, but the glass is good to great, and the system is capable of great images. Plus the system is dirt cheap comparatively speaking.</p>

<p>Does anyone have any info on UNbranded Franka Solida's? I have what appears to be a Franka Solida III. It has the accessory shoe on the right side of the camera, next to the shutter release. It does NOT have a T switch underneath the shutter button. It DOES have a Schneider 7.5cm f/2.9 lens, with a Prontor II shutter with speeds from 1 sec to 1/200 sec, plus B. Under the lens is the stylized FW signifying Franka Werks I presume. The top of the camera has a depth of field table which looks identical to those on Solida IIIs I've seen on the net, e.g. like the picture below. The main difference is that there is no marking on the front leather to indicate Franka or Solida, nor on the top, side or bottom of the camera. Perhaps the leather was replaced by a previous owner. Can anyone hazzard a guess as to what this is, if it is not a Franka Solida.<img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/117/295393523_8d7246a10b_o.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I happen to be lucky enough to own 2 Polaroid 110 conversions. One is a 4x5 110 conversion which Dean Jones (Razzledog) did for me. The other is a 110b converted for polaroid pack film back by Four Designs. Years ago I owned a Rolleiflex and a Leica M2, both of which were fantastic machines. Years later I began to use 4x5 and then was delighted with the Super Graphic I bought. As time went on, I wanted the simplicity of handholding, but did not want to go back to 35mm or even 6x6 negs. For very specific types of work I use my handheld 110s, while for the rest of my photography I use a Sony DSC-R1, a 1940s 6x9 folder and occassionally my wife's Minolta X-700. I happen to love shooting with the Polaroid 110, as it can be used much like my old Leica could be used. For me, its a happy compromise that works for specific types of photography. fwiw I still have lots of pack film Polaroid for the Four Designs, and have a few boxes of Tri-X and TMax left for the 4x5. The Razzle is a lot faster than my old Crown Graphic and the Super Graphic that replaced it. I have the old 4x5 Razzle back which does not accept a POL back or Grafmatic back, but I really don't need them, and Dean said he could fix that for me anyway.</p>

<p>The is an advertisement I found on the web that refers to the 1954 Kodak Master View Camera. From what I have read from various sources, this is still a somewhat contentious issue. Hopefully, this will add some clarity.</p><div></div>

I would go further than Leslie, with whom I generally agree, and say if you create art with the intention of public display or exhibition, then it can not be purely art, because at least some commercial intent is inherent. Hands up all of those people who take or create photographs purely for the personal feeling of creation and accomplishment? Now hands up all of those who would be perfectly happy if no one besides you ever saw the work, got a chance to give feedback, buy the work, critique it, etc? You can't kid yourself into the delusion that only "I" the artist matters. Galleries are in the business of making money whether it be through sales, grants (sales to the govt) or donations (sales of tax credits). In that sense, its almost all commercial. Even unsuccessful artists like Van Gogh, and acknowledged failure during his lifetime, sought sponsorship by nobility and the merchant class making it commercial. The intent is to create work that soothes, arouses, tells the tale of the soul. That much is true, but not in a vacuum, which is where pure art exists.

Its a great question Marc. Surely the answer lies between the poles of absolute art and absolute commercial. It seems in issues like these its so often an argument which begins with an 'either or' premise, but can quite clearly have a 'both and' answer.

I happen to feel that Irving Penn's and Karsh's portraits stand on their own as art. The National Portait Gallery in London happens to agree with me. Both men were exceptional craftsmen whose work became elevated to art by acclimation; we all felt their photographs were art, and so they are. Cartier-Bresson worked as a photo-journalist, as did Capa, but their work also became elevated to 'high' art status.

Pure art, created from the deeply personal need to create, only really seems to differ from comercial art, work created out of the animal instinct to eat (which may or may not be elevated to 'art status), in its final resting places; galleries and museaums, or trash compactors and paper recyclers.

Maybe the answer was in the question and we only have to understand it to know the answer.

Bostick and Sullivan now sell carbon tissue, etc.

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/ControlPages/our_products.htm

My brother Ashley recently sent me these links as we were having a carbon print discussion.

http://www.atxstudio.com

http://www.turquoize.com/ (In Toronto - exceptional examples)

http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/carbon

http://www.atelier-fresson.com/history.htm

If I remember correctly, all the Hassy ELX models where battery driven, and were Much Heavier than their non-battery driven cousins. As far as the Pentax 67II goes; Yes, it will feel more like 'home' to a dedicated 35mm shooter because of the format. If you have not used the Pentax 6x7, be prepared for a big surprise with the amount of vibration you get from the mirror, especially at slower speeds. As far as focusing the regular Hassys, you can get a Hassy prism viewfinder (or a russian knockoff which will do as well, but not look as nice)... that should solve the focusing issue. Try out the Pentax handheld at normal speeds, take a look at the results, then choose. They are both excellent systems, so the quality of the pictures you take will not be limited by the lenses or cameras.

I bought an old Linhof Super Technika III (6x9) with 65 Angulon, and

105 Xenar. My brother bought me a 65-105 mask for the rangefinder, but

I'm unsure how to figure out how the mask works for 2 lenses (65 and

105). Can anyone help?

 

 

Thanks

 

 

David

Depending on what you want to shoot, and what you are planning on shooting with, I'll give a qualified Yes. If 4x5 (Technika/Horseman/Graflex) sure. If 8x10/5x7, I'd pass. Too long to set up, and the large area of film has more area to freeze and become brittle. Montreal (the old part is kind of in the middle, distinguisable by the old buildings) is very photographic, with interesting architecture (builings are shades of grey, pink, blue and green), a photographic dock area, 3 universities (McGill is generally regarded as Canada's Harvard), and interesting dress (unlike anywhere else in Canada). The dress diferrences are more apparent during the warmer seasons. Montreal 'feels' like a smaller version of Paris and NYC blended together. I would take along a small camera, and record images that you would come back later to photograph the way you wanted. My 2 cents.

A similar discussion, more broadly incorporating vintage MF cameras, developed on photo.net in November 2002. I like the fact that people posted pictures actually taken with their cameras. I think it would be great if the folder folks were to show off their pictures as well.

Here is the link.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0042HC

I'm generally in support of this notion as well, but feel that only pocketable cameras, such as Ikontas, and Retinas should be included. Larger, more boxlike, cameras such as Technikas, and the Graflexes, are already well represented elsewhere.

<html>

<head>

<meta http-equiv="content-type"

content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">

<title></title>

</head>

<body>

One name springs to mind: <a

href="http://www.staleywise.com/collection/dahl_wolfe/dahl_wolfe.html"><span

style="font-weight: bold;">Louise Dahl-Wolfe</span></a>.  In my

mind, then best Rolleiflex shooter ever.<br>

You may not agree, but it is hard to deny how good she was.

</body>

</html>