mel_brown1

Wayne, the KO 200 went out of production in 1977.

 

Jim, I have an RB Pro, a Pro S, a pair of KO 200s, and a C33. The latter, which I no longer use, came along first and has served me well for many years. But since I don't normally do square prints, it's really a 6x4.5 to me.

 

Then, along came first one Koni 200, then another. At less than $200, I couldn't pass up the first one. I found it to be an incredible value, and fell in love with its quiet smoothness, its ergonomics, its tank-like construction, and its precision. When another presented itself for even less money, the decision to buy was a slam dunk. I since added 60mm and 135mm lenses to the fleet, and can't bring myself to part with any of it. Their only serious limitation is that they cannot get close enough to do head shots, and can just barely do head & shoulders. Well, there are two Auto-up auxiliary lenses available, but they work only with the 90mm lens, and nobody ever says they are easy to use, so that's why I don't have one. However, the Konis are very well-suited for landscape and architectural use (though they lack movements available in LF cameras). They are also much more hand-holdable than the RBs.

 

But because I like closeups, I bought an RB67 Pro, then later, an RB67 Pro S (I also like having a backup). The first RB came with a 90mm, then I later added a 140mm macro.

 

Any RB with a lens, back and prism is heavy, so the question is whether they're worth hauling around. Depends. The prism is a huge part of the weight, so if you can forgo buying one or leave it home (or get a much lighter non-metered chimney finder instead), you may find any weight penalty to be negligible.

 

A basic RB Pro S, which I highly recommend because it has double-exposure prevention, will cost about $800 with a 90mm C lens, a WL finder and a 120 back. That will buy you about four similarly equipped KO 200s! Or, for about $1000, you can have one of each (not at all a bad solution).

I've made hundreds of prints from reversal (another word for transparency) film on Ektachrome and Cibachrome, and untold thousands of prints from negatives on EP-2 and RA4 materials. I have also printed a lot of b&w over the years.

 

Add my "negative" vote to the tally. The reason trannies are a bad idea for printing is not the film itself, but that it's impossible to preserve its shadow and highlight details on direct prints. The inevitable results are unpleasantly contrasty prints for all but low-contrast scenes. Before digital came along, making a quality print from a slide involved copying it onto 4x5 internegative film, from which one then made the final print. Kind of a dumb move if you have the option to shoot it on negative film from the start.

 

Exacerbating the problem is the probability that the bar lighting is somewhat on the contrasty side, making it even less likely that you will get anything even resembling a decent print from reversal film.

 

Your target print size, 10x15, is at the upper limit of 35mm, but if they are to be displayed in the same dimly lit bar, who cares? That same print size is, of course, no sweat for 6x4.5 or larger.

 

I'm still committed to analog photography since I feel reasonably priced digital will need 25 megapixels or so to equal 35mm quality, and is still 2-3 years away. Medium format? Another 5 years after that is my uneducated guess.

 

All told, a hybrid approach may be your best choice. Shoot your images on 120 negative film, then at some point in the future, when you start to become attracted to the advantages of digital, scan them so they can be manipulated with imaging software. I have toyed with Photoshop for a year or so, and its capabilities boggle the mind. I don't have a clue as to whether reversal or negative material scans better, but since you want to keep it analog for now, negative film is the clear choice.

 

For color, I would use Fuji 400 or 800, downrated a bit (as Scott suggested) if you want to preserve a bit more shadow detail.

 

Another possible aid, if you can work it out with the bar owner, would be to replace their 25-watt bulbs with 40s (or whatever), or hang another light or two, just for the evening of your shoot. My first choice would be to use one or two clamp-on hot lights bounced off the ceiling to add a bit more light intensity while keeping the soft quality of indirect lighting.

 

Personally, I would be strongly inclined to shoot it all on b&w film, probably HP-5. For your subject matter, I feel colors will detract from the power of the character study portraits you seem to have in mind. The use of b&w, however, brings up another set of choices that is less than perfect. I have read that typical silver-grain films do not scan well, a possible disadvantage for going digital in the future. That is easy to solve by using a chromogenic C-41 film. Unfortunately, that choice removes the ability to control image contrast by manipulating exposure and development times. Even with conventional b&w films, you either have to process and print it yourself, or find a lab that still has a good b&w guy. Those, alas, are becoming more rare each year.

I have cleaned several such first-surface mirrors with a microfiber cloth, and use nothing else to clean my lenses. I have yet to scratch any surface. I use the household types of microfiber cloths, those that I sell. I suggest you get one made for cleaning lenses, mostly because they are small, finely woven, and readily available from photo shops. The key is to keep the cloth clean, storing it in a sealable plastic bag. Also, they work best when very slightly dampened with plain water. My household types are about 14" square, so I wet them under a faucet and wring out as much water as I possibly can. If it leaves streaks, it's too damp, so just hang it up for 10 minutes or so, and try it again. After using it forty or fifty times, wash it with soapy water, rinse thoroughly, hang to dry.

 

Naturally, I can't guarantee anything, but kept clean and used with reasonable care, any microfiber cloth should safely clean your mirror, lenses and filters.

I am not clear about what has led you to feel you need an extension tube for portraiture. The main purpose of tubes is to allow you to move in closer to increase image magnification. So I assume your goal is to compose tighter head shots than are possible with the unaided 100mm lens. I am not familiar with your equipment or with your proposed combinations of lens and tubes, but it's a generic exercise, so a bit of simple arithmetic will reveal all the mysteries to you.

 

The formula is: mag = ext / fl where mag is image magnification, ext is the lens extension distance (8, 16, or 32mm), and fl is the lens focal length (100mm). It also happens that mag = image size / object size, and I'll be using both below.

 

Starting with the 16mm tube, mag = 16/100, or 0.16. Your image size on film is about 56mm square, and since mag = image size / object size, it follows that object size = image size / mag. In this case, that's 56mm / 0.16, or 350mm. That's less than 14", and would produce a very tight head shot. So, a 16mm tube is probably a bit much when used with a 100mm lens.

 

With the 8mm tube, mag = 0.08, and object size = 56 / .08, or 700mm. That's about 27.5", fine for a full head shot, but still a bit tight for a typical head & shoulders shot.

 

Now, those figures assume your lens is focused at infinity. As you focus it closer, its outward travel adds to the tube's extension distance. That is simple to measure, so just add the two numbers and use the formula to get a feel for the range of object sizes you can photograph with each tube.

 

Before you get too deep into all this, focus your bare 100mm lens as closely as possibly on a meterstick or tape measure to determine whether you really need an extension tube at all. If it won't quite let you get tight enough for your taste, you may find that a +1 diopter lens will suit your needs better. Even a full set (+1, +2 +4) of coated diopters will cost a lot less than a single Hasselblad tube. Another benefit is that diopter lenses, unlike tubes, require no exposure increase.

 

Don't worry about any theoretical loss of image quality caused by such lenses. A +1 screw-on lens used at f/8 or smaller will not likely cause any detectable image degradation. Consider also that, in portrait photography, a too-sharp lens can become your enemy as it all too faithfully records every facial blemish. Women in particular don't want to see what they look like, but rather, what they wish they looked like.

 

Another factor to consider is the rule of thumb for portrait photography that suggests a lens about twice the normal focal length. Normal for your 6x6 camera is 80mm (75mm for the 6x4.5 image portion of the image you will use to print standard portrait sizes). The idea is that the greater shooting distances demanded by longer lenses produce more pleasing facial perspectives. Your 100mm is usable for portraiture, but is a bit on the short end of the desirable range. Adding either a tube or a diopter lens to achieve the tighter shots you want will force you to move in closer to your subjects, negating the perspective advantage of a longer working distance.

 

I suspect your unaided 100mm will work quite well for you, even if you have to crop the images a bit to get the tightly composed shots you seem to want. If you find the noses a bit large and the ears a bit small, consider instead a lens in the 150mm to 180mm range, one that will back you off enough to render more pleasing facial perspectives.

Any of several brackets should do. Among them, I can assure you that a Stroboframe Pro-SQ will work perfectly with your camera and flash. It places the flash above the camera and slightly off to the right side so it does not interfere with your ability to peer down into the viewfinder.

 

Placing the flash well above the camera is a good thing for two reasons: 1) it minimizes the probability of redeye and 2) the higher the light source, the more it tends to mimic natural light, such as having the sun behid you.

 

If memory serves, the 283 has three Auto settings from which to choose, depending on the working distance. You simply set the aperture to the appropriate setting, determined by the film speed.

 

All you need is a sync cord with a standard PC connector for the camera end. Be sure to get one that's 3' or longer. And be sure the camera is set to X sync, not M.

Gene, for the focusing problem, you may want to try some corrective lenses ($8 readers from Wal-Mart work well). They should be about half a diopter less powerful than any glasses you may use for reading. I know that if my correction is more than half a diopter off, I have trouble focusing. Getting an OM4-T with its built-in diopter made a big difference for me. For my RB67, I fashioned a fricton-fit corrective lens from an old plastic lens salvaged from outdated reading glasses, cut to shape with a Dremel MotoTool and a file.

Well, Rip, now that you've awakened, smell the coffee and have a cup before you get to work. [:-)

 

Yes, you can salvage the roll. Everybody seems to have his own way of doing it, so I'll tell you mine. In the light, thread the trailing end of the backing paper onto the original spool and get it started for a couple of turns. In the bag now, continue winding it on, feeling for the loose trailing end of the film. As you know, the film is taped to the paper backing only at the beginning, the Frame 1 end. Tuck the end of the film into the roll of the original spool.

 

If you were to simply continue rolling it back, when you get to the taped end, you will likely have a buckle in the paper (too much paper) or in the film (too much film). Others report they get too much film, but my particular technique tends to produce too much paper at that point. So, just before I tuck the loose end of the film into the roll, I scoot it toward the spool 1/4" or so. Play with it a couple of times to make it come out right when you get to the taped end. You don't want a big hump in the tape because that can put a strain on the camera's wind mechanism as it goes between the rollers and around the corners.

Stuart, clearly Bob Chong answered your question best with, "Anything but Holga is up." Of the responses you've received so far, I think the advice offered by Joseph Verdesca and the questions raised by Kevin Ing deserve most of your attention.

 

Back to basics for a bit. It would be very helpful to me and to the more knowledgeable among us if you would provide all details regarding your style of shooting. Why do most folks seem reluctant to provide such sorely needed details in their first post? Grasshopper, have not mouth of perch, but rather that of bass!

 

Are your portraits outdoors or indoors, natural light only or with flash fill, or is it studio lighting? If you use flash, is it your main light, or fill only? What is its Guide Number? Where is the flash? In a hotshoe atop of the camera, on a light stand, handheld, or what? Identical lighting with both cameras? If outdoors, are you using a lens shade on the Lubitel? At which aperture do you usually shoot? Are you doing B&W or color? Which film? Same film in both cameras? Same exposure? Who processes and prints your stuff? Is it you, a custom lab, or a 1-hr. lab, or some crackhead distant acquaintance using a Russian enlarger using a lens fogged by time and smoke? What are the specific problems you find with your MF work so far? For best feedback, imagine that you must accurately describe your entire setup and results to a bunch of blind folks. (For some of us, that may be closer to the truth than we�d care to admit!)

 

In absolute terms, the lens quality of the Lubitel won�t quite measure up to that on your much newer Canon, but properly used (f/8 or f/11 for the Lubitel), either camera should produce virtually identical prints up to 8x10 or so, beyond which the Canon (or any 35mm) should begin to lose the race as film grain becomes more of a factor.

 

If, after all that, you are still convinced that you need (want, really) an MF camera, of those mentioned so far, I would rate them like this, from top down: Mamiya 645E, Mamiya C330, Rolleicord, Minolta Autocord, Yashica 124. I put the 645E at the top only because it's new, though it's probably way out of your price range. Also, I would question its resale value two years from now. As with a new car, because it�s new, its value will take a bigger hit than will the used ones that have already mostly depreciated. That should hold us for ten years or so, which is when I predict affordable MF digital cameras (less than $1000 in today�s money) will finally displace MF film cameras.

 

I rate the C330 very high because of its interchangeable lenses (unique among TLRs), its close focusing ability, and its reasonable price. The C220 is lighter and less expensive, but lacks the crank wind and other features. The C33, C22, C3 and C2 are attractively priced, but old enough that you may have problems with reliability and economical repair. Keep in mind that one characteristic all those cameras share is that, when printing standard sizes such as 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc., the usable negative size is only about 6x4.5. If you find square prints to your liking, one of those TLRs is for you. Otherwise, choose either a 6x4.5 for its ease of handling, or a 6x7 for its larger negative. For studio use, 6x7 is the only logical choice.

 

My opinion regarding print quality is that, for standard rectangular print sizes, the 6x4.5 and the equivalent 6x6 format will hold their own up to 16x20 or so, after which the 6x7 starts to pull away. Even if you never make a print that large, there�s another reason to consider 6x7. If you fail to do your cropping before you trip the shutter, you can crop 1/3 of your 6x7 negative in the darkroom and still have a 6x4.5 negative to print, full frame! Whichever camera I have in hand, I make a large effort to crop in the viewfinder rather than in the darkroom, but I won�t use that as an excuse to pass up a fleeting shot that�s just a bit too far away. Cropping a 6x7 is always a better choice than cropping a 6x4.5.

 

Square shooters like to point out that they can shoot first, then later decide whether to print a vertical or a horizontal from a given negative. In my experience, not one of those folks has yet voluntarily pointed out that, at best, those crops are equivalent to a mere 6x4.5 negative. Nor do they point out that most buyers don�t want square prints! Ever try to buy an 11x11 or 14x14 frame off the shelf?

 

Ok, I admit I am a (good-natured) flame-meister, and I mostly enjoy goading the anachronous Ha$$y fringe types who think their cameras, lenses and photographs don�t stink, and who use some ersatz mystique to justify the 2060s prices they pay for their 1960s camera designs. That would be an acceptable tradeoff if their solid-block bodies and their superb Zeiss lenses produced images visibly superior to those produced by modern competitive systems, and if reliability were noticeably superior to those same counterparts. Reality, as it happens, does not support such urban myths. Hasselblads break just as often as do the better value brands, those that routinely produce equally stunning images. In short, don�t become brand-centric.

 

The skeptical among you can convince me only if you visit serious photo exhibitions and can consistently discern which images were shot with Zeiss lenses, which by Fuji, which by Schneider, which by Mamiya, which by Pentax, which by Olympus, etc., ad nauseam. I know you can�t do that, and so do you.

 

More germane to the hardware issue is that only Hasselblad requires a third-party un-jamming tool in case you don�t do the camera cocking, lens cocking thing in just the right sequence. I believe that Hasselblad won�t make that tool because they don�t want to admit its need! As a starkly contrasting example, it is by intelligent 1970s design that there is no physical way to jam any Mamiya RB lens on any RB camera!

 

Now let�s address the Hasselblad focusing method. I don�t think anyone who has ever used rack-and-pinion focusing (a la Mamiya, for example) for one wedding or for two portrait shoots would ever again opt for the tedious helical focusing still used by Hasselblad. Yes, helical focusing works very well on all our 35mm cameras, but it fails miserably with the longer focal lengths incumbent with MF gear! Some years back, I ran this focusing thing by a Hasselblad-using wedding shooter friend, and the best he could come up with was, �You get used to it. And the clamp-on focusing thingie helps.� I regularly read here and elsewhere that some buy and use Hasselblad for the prestige factor the brand affords. That is sick, it�s a crutch, and not for me, folks.

 

Off my soapbox now, let me give you a comfortable, beautiful, very affordable avenue to travel. I think you will get the most bang for your bucks from a Koni-Omega 200, M, or 100. These are 6x7 rangefinder models from the 1960s-1970s. They typically come with a standard 90mm lens and 120 film back, and are a huge steal at 200-250USD. Extra film backs go for 75-100USD. Also available are 60mm and 180mm lenses for about 200USD each. And there's a somewhat rare 135mm that sells for about 500USD. The KO 100 model accepts film inserts only, while the 200 and M models accept fully enclosed film backs that can be changed mid-roll. Avoid any but those three models.

 

When you first see a photo of one of these beasts, you may think you've never seen an uglier camera, and I would not argue with that. Fortunately, they are built like tanks, they are incredibly ergonomic with every control falling readily to hand, and they produce absolutely gorgeous 6x7 images. Check them out at: http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/korapid.html.

 

Rangefinder cameras are different from SLRs, of course. Each type has its advantages, and I would not say either is better. I have shot weddings with TLRs, SLRs and with Koni-Omega RFs. Of those, based entirely on my personal bias, I would first toss the TLRs into the trash. Judging what's left over, I find the Koni RFs to be every bit as comfortable and easy to use as the SLRs. When I first shot in a dimly lit wedding reception hall, I was surprised to find the Koni easier to focus than any of the several SLR types I have used in such low light.

 

Their biggest shortcoming, shared with all RF cameras I know of, is that they cannot focus closely enough for a tight head shot. (That shortcoming is also inherent in all TLR models except the Mamiyas.) If you can live with that, the Koni is very likely the best value for you. If you prefer square photos and can learn to love the quaint viewing system of TLRs, the Mamiya C330 can't be beat, assuming it falls within your budget. Failing that, go for a Rolleicord, Minolta Autocord or a Yashica 124 (not the 124G because it's overpriced and its meter is all but useless anyhow).

 

In the beginning, I quoted Bob Chong, and I�d like to finish that way. �The MF world is your oyster.�

 

Talk to us.

 

The C lenses are multi-coated, thus theoretically less prone to flare, but you should use a lens shade on any lens, regardless of its coating or lack thereof.

 

Perhaps a weightier consideration is that Mamiya no longer repairs shutters in non-C lenses; they simply replace the entire unit for about $400. I seem to recall that some independent shops still repair the old shutters, but parts are scarce.

 

So you pays your money and you takes your chances. If the price is right and you're willing to gamble just a bit, go for it.

Casey, for studio use, you'll need all the flash power you can afford. Metz makes fine gear, but I think you will get more light for less money with a Sunpak, something in the 500 or 600 series. The top-line 622 has an ISO 100 guide number of 192, and its predecessor, the 611, has a GN of 160, only 1/2 exposure step lower. The Sunpaks have eight manual power settings, very handy in the studio. Get an AC adapter, and you won't need to bother with expensive batteries. The 611 is selling on eBay for $80-$100.

 

At a minimum, you will also need an umbrella, light stand, and a reflector board placed very close to the shadow side of the face. Get inexpensive slave triggers for your current flash units and use them for background, hair, and fill lights. Hold off on using the fill flash until you learn what you're doing. A white reflector card is easier to use, and works extremely well.

 

Don't be tempted to get too much equipment too quickly. Master photographers like Arnold Newman have produced world-class portraits with only a single light source and a reflector for fill.

 

The slow sync speed won't hurt you in the studio. The trick is to keep the ambient light level low enough that 1/40 at your working aperture would, without the flash, underexpose by 4 steps or more. That way, you won't get any ghost blurring from subject movement. For outdoor work, use a slow film and/or a neutral density filter to keep the light within range of your sync speed.

 

For determining exposure, you have two options: 1) buy a flashmeter for ultimate flexibility, or 2) run exposure tests and put X marks on the floor where the light and posing stool should go, and make notes of which apertures and power settings to use with your chosen films.

Clark, you sure are a moving target! [:-)

 

Shooting from the hip, I'd conservatively value the Pro S body/WL finder/120 back at about $450, each C lens at $300-$400, tubes at $150 each, extra Pro S 120 back at $150, Polaroid back at $75, CDS finder at $300, any decent case at $50-$100. That adds up to far more than the price you mentioned. Plus, you've tested it and it all works. Take it and run.

 

Even if you later decide it's not for you, you can definitely make money on it by selling it piecemeal on eBay.

 

There's not much to be wary of in RB67 systems; they're tank-rugged and rather simple, considering all the Rube Goldberg-esque activity that takes place when you press the release! As in all cameras, there may come a time when you will have to replace the foam seals in the backs, but those can be considered maintenance items that you can do yourself, inexpensively. Also, as with any other brand, you should check the lenses for signs of fungus, separation, or excessive dirt. Holding them up to the light won't do; shine a flashlight through them to reveal those nasties. I assume you have already checked the slow shutter speeds for consistency and reasonable accuracy. Even if you have to treat each lens to a CLA, you'll still have a fine deal.

 

I would also suggest that you replace the stock screen with a brighter one. Mine has a Brightscreen, and it is a large improvement over the standard focusing screen. They're a bit pricey new, but you should be able to get one on eBay without having to mortage the cat.

Another source of info is www.outofprintmanuals.com, where you can get a Rolleiflex service manual for the opening bid price of $20. I've not seen this one, nor do I remember how much Rollei info is in Tomosy's #2 book, so unless someone else chimes in, the choice is pretty much a coin toss.

 

Luck!

Well, Daniel, you have carried the torch proudly and performed well. All I can do at this point is to confirm what you already know. The black plate should not move. I am glad that I had an analogue for comparison, but I'm afraid we've reached the limit of my experience with Rollei surgery.

 

If yours is a nice one, loose plate notwithstanding, it probably deserves a trip to a decent repair facility. If you still want to have a go at it, you may want to take a look at Tomosy's repair manuals (Vol. 1 is general, Vol. 2 is more specific).

Daniel, mine is a 2.8F, so I assume it's the same type of meter as yours. I suspect your match-needle indicator (with the circle at its tip) is fully to the rear, and does not move when you change aperture, shutter speed, or ASA setting. If that's the case, I think I can be of help.

 

Just for reference, in the center of the meter is a knurled knob used to set the film type reminder. The two screws I mentioned are about 10mm left and right of the knurled knob, and about 1mm above it. Assuming yours matches that description, loosen the two screws (they are captive so you won't lose them), remove the meter, and you'll see how it all fits together. A spring-loaded lever on the rear of the meter operates the match-needle indicator, and must mate with a cam in the body. That cam is at the lower right of the triangular opening in the black plate. Also note the two brass mating pins on the meter that must seat in corresponding holes in that black plate. Check that the felt seal ring inside the focusing knob is not interfering with the seating of the meter. To get everything happily mated, the cam must be as low as possible. To make that happen, set the ASA to 12, the exposure compensation to 3, the shutter to 500, and the aperture to 22. Slide the meter back into its cylinder. Now, even before you tighten the screws, hold the meter firmly in place, and note that changing the aperture or shutter causes the match-needle indicator to deflect. If that happens, the meter is properly seated, so hold the meter in place while tightening the two screws, and you're done.

I don't think you'll need to open anything. The meter is concentric to, but independent of, the focusing knob. Have you tried tightening the two screws that hold the thing on? Unless something's really mangled, that should do it.

With the button depressed, you can't slide the nameplate to the left?

Advance the film normally, make the first shot. With the wind crank unfolded, look near its base for an engraved counter-clockwise arrow. Note the knurled, spring-loaded ring just below it. Turn the knurled ring counter-clockwise a few degrees, then wind the crank backwards to cock the shutter again.

 

The camera should not be lubricated by graphite powder, but by a professional repair person! If you'd like to have a shot at it, check out www.edromney.com and Camera Maintenance and Repair (Books 1 & 2) by Thomas Tomosy.

Brian, I'm not sure where you disagree with me. I used "factoid" in its less common sense of "factette" (Amer. Her. Dict. - look it up in Google if you really care). And your description of the application of the word diopter seems to coincide totally with mine, so I am puzzled.

 

Could you confirm your formula? My Source Of Knowledge shows it as 1/p' = 1/p + 1/f. Using your terms, that would be 1/v - 1/u = 1/f.

 

Another SOK (The Manual of Close-Up Photography by Lefkowitz) confirms that you are correct in that the focusing distance is that between the subject and the front of the supplementary lens.

 

I just took a look at about a dozen of my cameras, and not one of them has the mark I mentioned before (circle with a line through it representing the film plane). Do you remember that marking on any camera? Clearly, I was mistaken in assuming it was the measurement point for focusing a diopter lens, but I do remember using that mark for something many years ago. Just can't remember what...

 

Charles, I do tend to agree with your humorous analogy, but Jose did want to know *exactly* how it worked. And, umm, you are the one who grr[owled] at not having the formula at your fingertips! [:-)

Jose, Jack has given you the formula for determining the exposure increase when you know M (the magnification). Let me add two ways to determine M. Use whichever best fits your style. <p>

 

The first is a formula, M = ED/FL, where ED = extension distance from infinity focus, and FL = focal length. With the lens focused at infinity and no extension tubes or a bellows in place, ED = 0. When you focus closer by turning the ring, the lens moves out a few millimeters. Most lenses will not focus close enough to cause an exposure error of more than about 1/4 step (less than the acceptable limits of shutter and aperture errors), so you can generally ignore any such calculated exposure increase. <p>

 

In practice, you simply use whichever extension tube and focus distance that lets you compose as desired, then use a millimeter scale to measure how far the lens is extended from its infinity focus position. That's your ED. Divide that number by FL, the focal length of your lens, to determine M, the magnification. <p>

 

If you use a programmable calculator and want to combine my formula with the one Jack provided to determine the Exposure Increase Factor, it's: EIF=((ED/FL)+1)^2. If you like, you can take this a step further by converting EIF to steps of exposure with this formula: Steps = log(EIF)/log(2). <p>

 

Another way to determine magnification is: M = image size/object size. The image size is fixed, generally equaling the width of the viewing screen, probably about 56mm. To determine the object size, observe how much you can see of a ruler placed at the object plane. For example, if you can see 100mm of the ruler through the finder, M=56/100, or 0.56. Plug that into the formula Jack provided to come up with an EIF of 2.43. <p>

 

This second method of determining M is a bit more trouble than the first because it requires that you hold a ruler at the object plane. However, it does relieve you of having to consider the lens focal length in each calculation. <p>

 

If you want to see how various combinations work out, try this BASIC program: <p>

 

Hedr$ = " E.D. E.I.F Steps" <br>

Mask$ = " ### ##.### #.###" <br>

CLS <br>

INPUT "Focal length of lens: ", fl <br>

INPUT "Max. Extension (in mm): ", MaxE <br>

CLS <br>

PRINT "Focal length of lens:"; fl; "mm" <br>

PRINT <br>

PRINT Hedr$ <br>

FOR i = 1 TO MaxE <br>

PRINT USING Mask$; i, (((i / fl) + 1) ^ 2), LOG(((i / fl) + 1) ^ 2) / LOG(2) <br>

NEXT <p>

 

Ok, all that said and done, once you�ve played with all the formulae and variables, you�ll find that various combinations of your lenses and tubes will require 0.25 to 1.5 steps of correction. So, I suggest you make one or more simple charts telling you how much correction to use for each lens/tube combo, tape them to your tripod, then forget all the fancy math. You can base your charts on a known magnification, as Charles suggested, or on lens extension. Use whatever works for you. <p>

 

Another option to consider is the use of screw-in close-up lenses of +1, +2, or +4 diopters. Contrary to popular opinion, the image degradation caused by the added element of glass is frequently less than that caused by using a bellows or tubes to extend a standard lens to produce magnification ratios approaching or exceeding 1:1 (M=1.0). This is especially true at f/16 or f/22, apertures typically used in close-up photography. Plus, they are much more convenient than tubes and require no exposure compensation at all. If you did not already have the tubes, I would suggest you consider purchasing a set of diopter lenses instead. <p>

 

A useful factoid regarding diopter lenses is that, when placed in front of a standard lens focused at infinity, the focal distance of the camera becomes the reciprocal of the strength of the diopter lens, in meters. Thus, adding a +2 lens will create a focal distance of 0.5 meters; combining a +1 and a +4 (equalling +5) creates a focal distance of 1/5, or 0.2, meters. If I remember correctly, those distances are subject to film, not subject to lens. To facilitate such measurements, many rangefinder cameras have a small circle with a line drawn through it on top of the body, at the film plane. If I am wrong about that, I hope some more knowledgeable person will correct me. <p>

 

Let me add one last note. Negative film has enough exposure latitude that, whenever you use either or both of your extension tubes on either of your lenses, you can simply add 1, maybe 1.5 steps of exposure and be assured of a good negative. If that notion seems a bit sloppy to you, let me ask whether you have ever printed (or had a lab print for you) a contact sheet based on MEMB (Minimum Exposure for Maximum Black). If you have no concept of that concept, simply add 1 step and you�ll be happy with the results. On the other hand, if it�s really important that you nail everything down, say the word, and I�ll fill you in. <p>

 

To further limit DOF, stick a circle of black tape to the center of a Skylight (or whatever) filter. The larger the circle, the less DOF, and of course, the less light in general.

Jon, I'm sure the CLA will be a worthwhile investment, so long as you don't expect it to come back with the shutter speeds dead on. A couple of years ago, I cobbled up an Excel spreadsheet that prints a graph showing shutter performance, based on the input of raw data from the shutter checker machine in milliseconds. The graph looks much like those that Modern (Pop?) Photo used to publish. I offered it free to two repair shops, but neither put it into use. One shop told me they were hesitant to provide customers with that much info in such a clear format because they would only want to know why their shutter was not perfect at all speeds. The short answer is that it is totally normal for even a new shutter to be off by 50% or more at several of its speeds.

 

I'm sure Mamiya can do a good job for you, but you may learn of independent shops that will do it just as well for less money.

Well, david, I've come across some stupid questions over the years (many of which spewed from my own mouth), and am happy to inform you that yours is not one of them. The EV thing is a very confusing issue!

 

The EV figure changes with film speed as well as with luminosity. As a starting point, 1 sec at f/1 on ISO 100 equals EV 0. Change to ISO 400, and 1 sec at f/1 still equals EV 0, but only if the light is 2 steps dimmer! Makes no sense at all, so ignore EV and go with your meter.

 

Could you have made a mistake in the figures you wrote? At ISO 400 and EV 12, my meter says f/16@15.

 

I don't use Hasselblads, so I can't relate to whatever indication their lenses give you.

It's because even negatives from the same film type can have different height:width ratios. For example, a 6x9cm neg has 50% more area than a 6x6cm neg and can hold 50% more information. Clearly, however, when magnifying those negs to the same linear degree, neither has an image quality advantage. We use linear measures to express enlargement factors, so it follows that we use linear measures when comparing grain concentration.

Bob, I found some info in my 1939 edition of Handbook Of Photography by Henney and Dudley, but it is not conclusive. A table lists the Novar f/4.5 as a Tessar design, indicating Figure 44 in the book, but there's a "(?)" behind the figure number.

 

Unfortunately, the Tessar diagram does not match your description. Its rear group of two elements is plano-convex. However, the book lists the other Novar, an f/6.3, as a Cooke lens, and that diagram does match your description so far. From front to rear in this 3-element design, there's a bi-convex element with the more convex side frontward, then a bi-concave that appears symmetrical, then the diaphragm, then the rear bi-convex element with its more convex side facing rearward.

 

Another possibility is the Beck Neostigmar, which differs from the Cooke in that its front element is plano-convex and the diaphragm is just behind the plano surface. Its rear element is oriented just as in the Cooke.

 

The only other design I found that could possibly fit is the Voigtlander Heliar, with 5 elements in 3 groups. The front group is convex-concave, followed by a bi-concave, the diaphragm, and a bi-convex group. Again, the more convex side faces rearward.

 

I have no experience (that I know of) with a lens such as yours, so I can't be of any practical help. My only thought is that possibly an internal spacer ring may have been lost, placing that rear element just a bit too close to the negative element. Not sure what effect that would have, but it can't be good.

Matthew, you are thinking, and that is commendable, but because you�ve not been properly grounded in the basics, you�ve made the very common mistake of being 180 degrees off in this confusing subject. Also, you need some clarification in auto and manual modes. Let's address that second part first.

 

When in manual mode, your Sunpak 622 flash doesn't know or care about apertures, so you can�t set it to f/anything. However, you can set its output power to full, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, ... 1/128. In that order, each setting progressively cuts the output power to half that of the previous setting. Doing so has the same net effect on the film as changing the camera from f/16 to f/11 to f/8 to f/5.6, etc.

 

Regardless of how your camera is set (to manual, auto, or magic), with the flash in manual mode you must determine the proper aperture via flash vendor Guide Numbers. With ISO 100 film, I think yours has a full-power GN 192 or so, in feet. The GN is simply a number which, when divided by the subject distance, provides the suggested aperture. Thus, at full power and a distance of 12', you would set the camera�s aperture to 192/12, or f/16. You could also use the GN to determine the appropriate distance for your chosen aperture. If you want to use f/8, you would divide the GN by the aperture. Thus, 192/8 would tell you to back off to 24'.

 

But what if, without changing to a different film, you now want to shoot from 12' at f/8? You must, of course, somehow reduce the output of the flash. Not to 1/2 power as you might first suspect, but to 1/4 power (that�s because of the inverse square law, wherein 1/2 the distance requires only 1/4 the power). How about 6' at f/8? No problem; reduce your flash to 1/16 power.

 

With your flash in manual mode, all those numbers and their requisite calculations can set your head awhirl and result in a lot of poor exposures. Fortunately, your 622 offers a more convenient alternative. Set it to auto mode, so that it uses a remote sensor to determine how much light to put out. My 611 units have separate shoe-mount units for that purpose; not sure how it works for your 622. If yours lacks such a cord-connected remote unit, look for a very small, glassy �eye� on the front of the non-tilting part of your flash. Whatever its physical appearance, its job (in auto mode only) is to monitor the intensity of light reflected from the subject. When the sensor determines that it has seen enough light, it quenches the flash output in a matter of microseconds.

 

There, you just entered the magic world of wedding shooters (f/8 and don�t be late -- set the camera to f/8, set the flash to auto mode, f/8, and don�t forget to show up!) For fill flash, set the flash to f/5.6 or even to f/4. The idea is that, when you want the auto-mode flash to provide only part of the illumination, you simply lie to it. With the camera set to f/8, you tell the flash that the camera is set to f/5.6. The flash then outputs only enough light for f/5.6, half what would be required to fully light the scene if it knew the camera were set to f/8. For a two-step reduction in flash power, leave the camera at f/8, but tell the flash the camera is set to f/4. See how easy?

 

The main difference between auto flash and TTL auto flash is that the sensor, rather than being located externally to the camera and the flash, as is the case in auto flash mode, is now located behind the camera lens, within the body. The primary advantage is that the sensor now sees only what the lens sees, regardless of focal length.

 

A secondary advantage is that TTL flash-capable cameras can provide a confirmation signal, usually via a blinking LED in the viewfinder, signaling that an acceptable amount of light was provided by the flash. That's a nice theoretical advantage, but in the heat of the photographic moment, I seldom notice whether the stupid LED blinked.

 

The only disadvantage of TTL flash, other than the somewhat more expensive equipment required to make it work, is that it can lull one into a false sense of �it�s totally automatic, therefore everything is perfect.� In the real world, TTL auto flash is as much prone to exposure errors as are ANY other modes of exposure, flash or no flash.

 

It�s really no different from shooting TTL auto without flash. (Or manual without flash, for that matter.) If the background is excessively bright or excessively dark (very typical with macro work at f/16 or f/22), your camera, TTL auto flash or not, will tend to be off the mark. Whatever you use, it is up to you to learn your equipment and learn to correct it when you sense it is wrong.

 

Finally, regarding your last question, the short answer is that I don't know. If your camera can do TTL flash (not just TTL), and your 622 can do TTL flash, and if there is an appropriate module to connect your camera to your flash, then yes, it will work. But, sorry, I have no experience with either piece of equipment.