andre_noble4

I can see you don't want to take sound advice. Personally, I think you should really meditate on selling it before doing anything at all.

 

Hasselblad is still a hot item. A 203FE body only, mint offered with a one year Mack warantee, sold for over 2,200 recently. (Had two bids, winning bidder with 27 transactions??).

 

Display the item well. No Reserve, low initiial bids generates mutiple interests, whereby you'll get 15 men thinking about owning your camera over the course of days. They'll figure out where they can gathr the funds from, and will be planning for a camera they begin to feel 'has their name on it'. At the last minute, bidding becomes competitive. Bidders feel comfortable with high price, seeing others also with same view, and Voila! - you've gotten your money back, and winning bidder is happy to have one such a lovely Hassy.

 

free shipping w/insurance will net you an additional $100-150 in money - believe me! people love "Free".

 

If you're serious about selling it, in your ad, talk about it's history, condition. Give serial numbers. Sell al pieces seperately, but ending 10 minutes appart, so people can re-load and go after you kit again. Offer free shipping. 10 day auction, ending Sunday evening. You'll get free market and then some.

If you have 30 minutes, sift through the Google search results of "Selling to KEH", like I did recently.

 

There is a lot of unfavorable psychology in (tempooarily even) giving your possessions over to a second party for an "professional evaluation" of it's value. Resellers exploit this 'wedge of doubt' to their financial gain.

 

If you want the most dough, put it up, piece by piece on Ebay, 10 day auction, no reserve, bidding starts at $0.01, couple of nice photos of each item (natural light, include colors somehow.

 

BTW, I recently sifted through a Pop Photo review of the Rollei AF you refr to. You know how Pop Photo can never say a bad thing to hurt their advertisers feelings? Well I was suprised to hear that they were very unimpressed with the AF performance of the 6008AF.

 

If I were you, I'd go for jst the plain 6008 II.

Hard to believe, isn't it.

 

You'll just have to come down to L.A., give A&I your business, and help one of the best labs in the country stay afloat a little longer.

What's weird is society really doesn't want to pursue fraud or white collar crime. But a jury will sure get sanctimonius and convict a homeless man of stealing a loaf of bread (or is more often the case, a 40 ounce beer) with pleasure.

It's scary you had to even ask if it's a scam. This wasn't even close. I am concerned about you.

Arthur: Size of the image circle is the first you want to consider in a large format lens. I'll bet this lens was nice and cheap. The reason is it's small image circle.

Rui,

 

What you're getting has been reported elsewhere on the forums.

 

Rollei, in my view, really %$#*ed this film up. Truly %$#*ed it up.

 

The infrared filters are expensive to replace. I also have an expensive 092 that is useless now. I used to used Maco IR820C in sheet film. It was fabulous.

 

I'm positive the new Rollei IR will fail in the marketplace. Absolutely positive.

What I really want to know, do any of these suggestion Listerene, Pec-12, Rexal (or whatever) actually work? I am inclined to think not. BTW Mr. Jainis, where do you live that it's so humid? I don't want to move there.

Jonathan, with those shots, your 903SWC has been duely christened.

"I'm pretty sure that stock of Ilford's FP4+ is still available in 220..."

 

YEAH, I WISH!

You could call them (KEH) and seek info from them too.

No.

Use Polyguard sleeving first, then insert these inside Print File Ultima pages.

Photogenic people have facial 'micro beauty' - meaning: curtailed features, open eyes, facial symmetry, contrasty features.

 

But there are also plenty of really 'in-person' atrractive people who just don't come out well on film.

I might opt for a new empty paint can, but not a used one with dried or soft paint residue still inside. You have to be careful of the environment you store lenses in due to possible fungus sourse issues long down the road, I feel.

 

Yeah, I could see storing two lenses in a new empty paint can, and maybe dripping paint on the outside, etc. Not a bad idea.

Despite the box EI of 125, Plus-X in many develpers is truly near EI 32 for many devlopers.

 

So if you shot EI 25 on film that's new at EI 32, but is now 25 years old, then you simply underexposed the film.

 

Rate your 25 year old Plus-X at EI 12 or EI 10 and try again.

You need to be familiar with two terms: 'stock' solution and 'working' solution.

 

Manufacturers sometimes give minmum amount of stock solution to adequately develop the surface area of 80 sq inches of film or the film equivalent to a 36 exposure roll of 35mm film which is = (4) sheets 4x5 film which is = (1) roll 120.

 

But if your developer working solution is 1 part stock to 1 part water, you have a "1:1" working developer dilution. you now have one half the volume of stock solution as your total working developer volume.

 

Say if a manufacturer states that for their developer, you need a minimum stock solution of 200ml for 80 sq inches film.

 

Your 350ml volume would be 50ml short to develop 2 rolls of 120 film. If the 350ml you mentioned above is already diluted to a 1:1, as an example, then you would be 225ml of stock short (or 450ml working developer short) to develop two roll of 120 film.

 

That there is a minimum developer volume is the downside to using a Jobo tank. It is often desireable to use a devloper at 1:1 or 1:2 or higher dilutions. Then, you will quickly reach the maximum tank volume capacity before you have met the minimum developer volume for the amount of film that's in the tank.

 

 

Get the pdf for your developer and look this 'minmum stock solution per 80 sq. inches film' value up.

 

Good question you asked, though.

Alexander, what you're getting with Bronica is due to what I mentioned. I believe the Seagal is a TLR, and it's lens design may not have as many optical compromises as an SLR lens because the taking lens can be seated closer to the film plane, I believe.

 

With Bronica, distortion free starts with the (I believe S 105 and PS 110 macro lenses).

 

If your need distortion-free in portraiture (or very low) shoot with a rangefinder like the Bronica RF645 or Leica. Distortion free in architecture, shoot Large Format.

David's observations are more like an opinion.

 

Look at the distortion graphs on Tamron website, especially for the PS 40mm. They indicate the lenses will produce OBVIOUS distortion, and it does (the 40 especially).

 

The PS 80: http://www.tamron.com/bronica/prod/sq80.asp

 

The PS 40: http://www.tamron.com/bronica/prod/sq40.asp

All the Bronica S and PS series with a focal length 80mm and under have this slight barrell distortion you see. It gets worse as you move down in focal length. It has something to do with the compromises a lens maker makes to have a focal length that is shorter than the lens to film plane distance. The Bronica 135mm lenses and up have much less distortion. The 250 has NONE.

 

The effect is not as bad when lens focused at infinity. It's less noticeable, also, the more you enlarge the picture, (I feel).

 

I understand your frustration. That's why large format exists.

Mirror-up is a very distinct, 'thwap!"

 

Mirror-down should not sound way you describe, I don't think. (But I have SQ-Ai, not SQ-A).

My feeling (As a 35mm, SLR 6x6, and 4x6 user) regarding the large Mamiya RZ for use outside the studio is this:

 

If you're willing to carry it around outside, set up your tripod, compose, etc - you might as well use and set up instead a 4x5 (or even a 5x7) camera.

Sell it to Pico, he'll take anything.

Cesar, find a way to make some money with the Mamiya - Shot some Quincinera's (you know what I mean), or a wedding or two.

My concern is that the term 'lacy' describes possible beginning fungus. I'd be inclined to look int more fully while you still have return rights with KEH. KEH sells what others have owned, they are not perfect.