jerry2

<p>I have them on ebay, new, never used<br>

eBay item number:</p>

190976904144

<p>Is it possible to connect a cable to the EVF and its mated area on the hot shoe to use the EVF off the camera? Is that connection some type of standardized connection which cables are made for? TYIA</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Van, thanks for sharing much of that information, sad.... but we all feel your pain.... but it seems you are a realist, and that helps in life. (of course, I need to take a dose of my own medicine here :- ) </p>

<p> I too look at tons of my film gear that is useless. I still do some film occasionaly, and often buy stuff for spare parts. <br>

What film recorder do you know of that produces 8k on 35mm? I think you meant 8k for MF.<br>

What E-6 processor were you using?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Van, its time to bail.... save some equipment for yourself if you stay with film.... Then list what you have, maybe some of us diehards will bail you out :-) I think many people who stay with film, will process themselves, low volume, small processors, etc. Film recorders seem to serve very few purposes today, as mentioned by the previous poster. <br>

The only darkroom procedure that will survive for the coming years is R-4... mainly because minilab technology has developed such a head of steam for so many years of development, as a result, there is no cheaper way to make a print, which is archival and no headaches for the end user. And is of very high quality by anyones standards.<br>

But even a die hard film person like myself..... I shoot MF and LF... yet my 50d gets more action than all my cameras combined....when I want a big print, I stitch 8 shots together in PS, its so simple, its scary. It makes me wonder why I keep al lthis LF gear. Oh yeah, shooting non static scenes, I still need that high rez, ONE SHOT capture..... oh....and the fact, all the film gear is worth pennies on ebay :-) When I keep it, I don't feel like I lost anything...how dumb...</p>

<p> </p>

Van, thanks for the input.... the messages were not that old, within a few years IIRC....

 

and yes, these comments were all about rotary style processors.... I will be experimenting shortly... thanks again...

Van, I agree..... I was thinking more in terms of messing up the replenishing, or contamination, etc. I guess if the savings justify you, you learn to do it right...

Van, just going through the forums, here is some of the bits and peices that turn up...

 

> JOBO recommends increasing the first development time of the E6 process by 16% for Fuji films. This has worked fine for me using the Kodak E6 kit.

 

 

> I use 6.5 minutes for Kodak film with the Kodak E6 kit using the JOBO. The extra 30 seconds (6.5 vs 6) is because of the rotary processor. The additional 16% extra time is for Fuji film, which translates to a first developer time of 7.5 minutes.

 

 

> So for rotary processing, we consider 6:30 to be normal for Kodak and

Agfa films. We bring this up, because we find that for virtually all

Fuji films (with 1 exception) the first developer time is even longer.

It is necessary to increase the 1st developer time by another 16%,

bringing us to 7:30 as a normal rotary time for all Fujichromes except

for Astia. We found that 8%, or a total time of 7:00, was enough of an

increase to get normal densities with this film.

 

All these 1st developer time recommendations are based on exposing the

film at its manufacturer-rated ISO speed. If you are modifying the speed

for any special reason, then you may need to do some testing to find the

correct developing time for your needs. However, according to Kodak, a

1st developer time between 5:30 and 7:30 is reasonable.

 

 

Does any of this make sense?

Van, thanks for the nice response..... on the economic front, obviously it makes sense...but what is the possible downsides? None?

> I got the impression here that Fuji needed extra time, and it turns out that this is flat out wrong. It's a reflection of the way the original Velvia handled.

 

Van, you could be right..... however, I have read MANY references that state that ProviaF, Astia and Velvia all need to be adjusted accordingly, vs. Kodak chrome films.... Astia requiring the least amount of added time, next Provia then Velvia.

A few questions regarding replenishing the bleach:

 

1) Is there any disadvantages or risks associated with replenishing the bleach?

 

2) Is it as simple as people make it out to be?

 

3) Is the $ savings really 50% for the next run of e-6?

 

4) Do most commercial labs replenish their bleach? I assume they do.

In the commercial setting for E6 waste, what does the city force you to do with waste? Save it? Or do they just monitor what you are doing? Seems like an honor system even for the big labs?

John, i am in the process of learning the Kodak Z e-6 manuals....thanks for the steel wool tip.

 

Van, from what i read, fuji films require extra developer time, i will surely experiment with this variable. Not sure I will mess with replenishing the bleach, at least for now. Great tip on easier mixing of the Fuji chemicals... thanks! I am curious about this archival issue. These chromes need to be ultra archival. Can you explain how more time with the bleach / fixer increases archival characteristic of the processed film? What is optimal time? I am curious if most labs run the fixer / bleach long enough to hit these max. archival times? Any good resources on this archival issues for e-6?

 

I am still confused which drums to buy for the atl-2300 to process 120 film. Jobo literature says the 2300 processes up to 10 rolls of 120, however, when you look at the tanks, 10 rolls takes over 1000ml of chemistry, above the 1000mm limit of the 2300. I assume it must have been a mistake, and the 2300 can only process 8 rolls max?

 

Pros / Cons for the 1500 series drums vs. 2500 series for 120? Stainless reels vs. plastic?

Hi Everyone.... new Jobo atl-2300 owner.... I have some questions (well actually, a lot of questions).

Background: my ONLY use for the ATL 2300 is for E-6, 120/220, 45, 810 of FUJI films, not Kodak. My goal is to

get perfectly developed color, contrast, exposure, etc. So I will surely use the 6 step process for better

control. Volume will vary to continued use all day to, a few rolls, or a few sheets on some days. The goal

is perfect processing, and to that end, I am not concerned about chemistry cost... if consistency comes at the

price of single-use chemicals, then so be it.

 

 

I will number the questions so hopefully these who know some answers can easily respond by number. There

seems to be a lot of knowledge on this forum, but still some issues over chemistry....... hopefully by clarifying

my goals, you can help me hone in on whats best. Since I have no prior E-6 processing experience, I am

desperate for knowledge. Here is my strategies (all up for debate) and Questions.... TYIA

 

 

1) For 810 film the consensus is the Expert drum J3005, so I will order one exclusive for 810 film. For 4x5

sheets, J3010 Expert drum, 10 sheets. Foot pump for both.

 

 

2) I assume if I run less than max. number of sheets, I just use less chemistry and the development will still

be consistent?

 

 

3) For 120/220, I am confused between the 1500/2500 series tanks. It seems the 2500 series tanks suggest using

1250ml chemicals, but the ATL 2300 only allows use up to 1000ml per tank ?? Or is this mis leading? Others

have advised the 2500 series tanks are more desirable.

 

 

4) How is the qnty of film best handled, i.e. 2 rolls vs. 10 rolls of 120? Is this nothing more than an

adjustment of chemistry?

 

 

5) Other than the kodak manual on their e-6 chemistry, is there a good book to teach the basics, or maybe

details of e-6 processing?

 

 

6) What is chemical life, unopened bottles? open bottles? Does it make sense to transfer large volumes into

smaller containers to keep bottles full, i.e no air?

 

 

7) Processing only Fuji chrome films, I assume its best to use Fuji chemistry? Where to buy? I am in west

coast USA.

 

 

8) I assume running test strips is good safety check.... where do I get the strips and how often do I need to

run them?

 

 

9) How do users deal with waste chemicals when you are not in a commercial environment?

 

 

Any additional contributions would be much appreciated. Again, TYIA..

Kudos, its time someone stood up to these tactics.....

 

Here is another tactic OP does.... they keep sending you magazines after your subscription expires....then, you decide to renew your subscription, say for 24 issues...you expect 24 months of magazines, but they deduct all the ones they sent you when your previous subscription expired, so you may only get 12 total, then they start the renewal process over again.... I find them so annoying, I may discontinue the magazine, specially after reading these posts....

Anyone check out Zion fall color? Does anyone know when peak will come?

Derek...

 

A 20k investment in a digital back, IMO, is much riskier then a $8k, or $3k investment in Canon. As 35mm cameras encroach on MF digitals turf, the value of the MF digital backs will fall like a rock, so the bigger the investment, the bigger the fall....

 

Here is a few things to ponder. If you need fast lenses, 35mm has MF beat hands down. With 35mm being so remarkable and a Canon 5d produces image quality that is stunning up to a bit less then 16x20"...well, if you plan to print no bigger then this.... the decision should be easy.

 

Another factor is what % of your shots are landscapes vs. wildlife...of course, with wildlife, again 35mm is just clearly superior, as faster shutter speeds is the order of the day.

 

If you enjoy MF, and you don't shoot a ton of it, I would strongly considering having your MF stay film and spend $2k for a Nikon 9000 scanner, and over all, with a superb small camera like the Mamiya 7, you will produces results more stunning then a $30k digital back. Of course, this assumes you don't shoot 100 rolls a week, whereas econcomics becomes an issue. Mamiya 7 gear has become dirt cheap on ebay, and I shoot everything from 35mm to 8x10, and that camera is the biggest steal in the market for travel type photography....its two main weaknesses are, no close ups and no very long lenses.... 210mm max... but 150 is the most practical, so about 2x normal...the 43mm wide angle is the most stunning super wide angle lens I have ever seen.... some pros by the body just to use that one lens.

 

Anyway, just some thoughts to help you with your decision. Before you buy, be sure to look at Mamiya 7 chrome on a light box...

 

Bill G

I do not yet own the 9000, but from the discussion above, it seems for the optimum scans, a best case scenario is, to use fluid mount on film which is not warped and if film will not lay flat, use Roberts well thought out custom film holder.

 

I never hear any issues about the fluid mount holding film flat. The maker claims you simply lay acetate over the top of the film/fluid. Whereas if the film is not perfectly flat, I can't imagine how this scenario (with no sandwhich force applied) will cause the film to go flat? What good if fluid if the film is not at the focus point of the lens?

 

Robert, if you were to make this contraption again, is there anything you would do different? Would you still start with the same Nkon glassless carrier?

 

TYIA

The HP 130 DOES use VIVERA Inks! HP has managed to confuse everyone about this.... whether this is the same ink used in previous models, such as 5500 and they simply renamed it, its still a mystery!

On the Yahoogroups HP130 list, we are currently discussing this...

Bill

Matt, of course like everyone else, I too spent an hour browsing their web site looking for comparison....I sent an email off asking the same, and much to my surprise, one week later, they responded! (truly amazing how bad sales and marketing can be...but just like Microsoft, when their products and/or market positioning is right, it just doesn't matter) Here is their response.... whats interesting about the PRO version which I was NOT aware of, or have I ever seen it written..... PRO offers 2 additional releases at no upgrade cost. So that reduces the differences tremendously, as two upgrades of LE will bring you to at least $300..... anywway, I hope this helps others make the right choice....

 

At the moment we do not have a comparison chart.

 

The difference between LE and PRO comes down to requirements. What services do you offer now? What services would you want to offer in the future? Who receives your images ad agencies, labs, web bureaus etc.? How much control do you want to have over your images?

 

When it comes to 'out of the box' image quality and camera support there is no difference on PRO and LE. Both versions offer a good workflow as well. LE provides photographers, both professionals and semi-professionals, with a RAW workflow, which is affordable and competitive in terms of workflow and image quality. The photographer gets a lot for the money, however, a professional user would need more functionality.

 

He needs PRO. PRO offers the same advantages as LE. On top of this, PRO users get advanced features and functionalities that only makes sense to the professional user, who has a high volume production and need special tools to differentiate his studio from other digital studios in terms of digital services and image quality. Among these are:

 

- RGB to CMYK color conversion

- Ability to customize standard ICC profiles to suit own color requirements (selective color control)

- Ability to bring in 3rd party ICC profiles to suit own color requirements

- Ability to work with Phase One camera backs and DSLRs in the same workflow

- Ability to tether Phase One camera backs and (from version 3.7) all Canon EOS cameras to a computer to obtain a better preview while shooting

- Ability to work with more sessions at the same time and ability to move images between sessions

 

As a PRO user you know that you will always be able to benefit from all new technologies developed by Phase One (who has 10 years of experience in the high end digital back market) and you get two major updates (including in the price). You are guaranteed cross platform support (should you decide to switch from PC to Mac or vice versa). Generally, if you are a professional shooter and your ambition is to provide your customers with the best digital services and image quality then you need PRO, and you will appreciate the advanced tools it provides. 90% of all professional work is finished after being processed through Capture One. The rest willl need creative retouching in Photoshop. At least this is what our customers tell us.

 

LE is a good choice for semi professionals, enthusiasts or professional shooters, who wish to get started shooting RAW and are not ready for PRO yet (but they will be later on though).

My research also did not reveal any solenoid makers for LF lenses, except the Graflex, which as you can tell by the link you provided, is not well suited for LF lenses. The Fuji noid is made to fit modern LF lenses. It would be more expensive to modify a noid vs. a just buying the Fuji noids...and so far, I can't even find them for sale anywhere, it seems they are only used at Fuji factory repair...

 

It looks like these people might be selling replacement solenoids; they may be of some use to you.

http://www.paramountcords.com/graflex.htm

 

I think these actual noids used on the Graflex....

 

> would insert a resistor in series with the solenoid on the fast one; this should slow it down.

 

It would be easier to use adjustable noids, less guess work with the resistors.... but I follow your point.... I have explored this.

 

> BTW, I was not suggesting that you swap shutters, etc; just that a mechanical in-lens shutter would probably be more consistent in timing than, for example, an SLR camera.

 

I am not so sure this is true.... mechanical lens shutters are pure mechanical, whereas many fl shutters on slr have noids that fire them...beter chance of getting noids synced vs. full mechanical shutters. At least that has been my experience so far...

 

> Otherwise, a siamese cable release and a good, firm hand on the button should get the shutters within 1/60 or so.

 

That's about right.... I have done this many times... and the only way to acheive any consistency with a dual release is by setting up a single cable for each lens, into a dual machined box, wheras a single cable release goes into this piece and fires both shutters. The machined piece needs to have an adjustment piece for sync tuning. Then you must secure the lens cables to the lens board so they never move. However, this device is not easy to make, and in the end, you still have mechanical shutters in lenses which will limit sync to about 1/30 th to maybe 1/60 th max.

 

Agreed if images go digital, one can compensate for mismatched fl's.

 

> It's also trivial to swap the images to convert cross-eye viewing to wide-eye (standard stereoscopic) or vice versa, and (if necessary) adjust vertical registration at the same time.

 

There is software ready made for all these functions... check out www.pokescope.com very good program....

 

> In fact, with a copy of Photoshop between the taking lens(es)and the stereo viewer, shutter synch is the only reason not to prefer two

lenses.

 

TOTALY AGREED!!! BUT THIS IS MY SHORTCOMING...SORRY FOR YELLING :-)

 

> And I still don't think you'll find an 80 mm that can cover a dual 6x6 frame from a single lens

 

See above.... I covered this....

 

> FWIW, I've seen a web page for a fellow who's been taking stereo video with two synchronized cameras,

 

As you know, syncing video is nothing like syncing still shots. It seems the digital revolution may soon hold the solution to this quandry.... Some small digicams will allow for center lens spacing of 65mm, but only in the vertical format, which I might be able to live with. Howver, after cropping, the MP remaining is bit shy vs. film...well, a lot shy. The new Sony RGBE 8 MP cameras hold some promise.... assuming I can jury rig the sync.

Hi Bill

 

> I think your research hit a glitch on this one; I'm pretty sure at least some Speed Graphics could expose at 1/1000 second. I'm not saying this is the best way to go, just calling into question an assumption that this is not feasable.

 

Wow, if this is the case, you may be on to something... I may be able to overcome the vibration issues. I will try to investigate this... I remember a web site dedicated to speed Graphics ...

 

> If you're just looking at things like a falling leaf (I presume from a distance away; not macro),

 

yes, even at a distance, say 15ft....

 

> it seems to me that simultaneously firing two solenoid release equipped cameras would be good enough. Solenoids are probably

available which will thread into a cable release socket on the camera.

 

I have investigated this...and oddly enough, Fuji makes such a solenoid which is sold on the their newer version 6x17 camera. I assume this was to make the camera more "hand holdable". This was my last resort, as I have been told that two of them firing at once will cause lots of vibration. In addition, these noids are not designed to have specific lag times since they only fire one single lens at a time. I could not get specs, so not sure how accurate they would be. I thought about independent noids, and then retrofitting them to have them screw into a cable release threads, but lots of tedious work, hard to get this stuff done.... not to mention have it performed as desired. Lots of intricate work here and the vibration issue may not be overcome. So if I did take this route, I would try the Fuji noids first, $200 each...but considering they will install with no hassles, not too bad.

 

> No specific source, but within the past couple of years, Horseman, for example, had such units. You would probably want to use some batteries and a single push button switch to trip both solenoids simultaneously (ie, an "old time" flash gun as used on a press camera has outlets for this).

 

Yes, a simple double pole momentary push button switch will peform this task well. I synced my mamiya 7's together this way, but even with these very responsive leaf shutters, the best I can sync is 1/250 th, it shows how hard this can be. LF lenses are all mechanical, so I would expect even less success. Of course these M7's are fabulous stereo cameras, except side by side, the min. lens spacing is 165mm, just too damn wide for the intended purpose. Bases wider than human eye spacing (avg 65 mm) introduce too many obstacles in the viewing, such as miniaturization effect, cardboarding, difficulty fusing, etc. There is one guy who hated this so much, he actually fused two M7's together, creating a Siamesed M7, with 78mm lens spacing...not too bad... but he charges $6k just for the labor..you provide camera and lenses. And even then, I still don't have the base seperation I desire and lens sync is 1/250th. If that Speed Graphic fl shutter works at 1/1,000 th, that would be ideal. FL shutters guarantee perfect sync!

 

> I don't know for sure what kind of actuation times the solenoids would have, but an off the cuff guess would be a couple of milliseconds. Even if longer, the times would probably be a pretty close match to each other. If the camera itself introduces a variable time, switching to the most straightforward mechanical leaf shutter may help; I would expect your Mamiya leaf shutter

lenses would be fine.

 

I agree leaf shutters are better than Copal shutters in LF lenses...but are you suggesting installing an electronic leaf shutter in a LF lens? That would be awesome, but I never found any that would fit? Are you aware of such?

 

> You could fine tune the system, if necessary, by adding resistors to one solenoid circuit. You could probably even use an electronic flash unit to evaluate the timing;

 

Actually, a simpler and more effective test is to point the lens fronts at each other, shine bright light through the back of one lens, then a shutter speed tester in the back of the other lens. If both lenses fire at 1/500 th, then when pointing at each other, if they have perfect sync, the shutter tester will also read 1/500th. If they are off, you will always get less than 1/500th, but you won't know which lens is off.... but you can experiment to find out.

 

Off to the Speed graphics site....

 

Struan....

 

> One solution to the shutter problem would be to settle for 2" images side-by-side on 4x5" film or a pair of 645 frames on rollfilm. A speed graphic or similar shutter would then expose both images the same way.

 

This would be ideal, and I have researched this, however, those old Speed Graphic shutters are very slow and cause lots of vibration. If I remember, they max out at 1/60th of second, I need a min. of 1/500 th. Also, the vibration will kill some of the sharpness which is so critical in stereo. I also looked into Packard shutters, but once again, 1/25th was max speed, and they were too big anyway.... but your on the right page here....

 

> What's the application? It almost sounds as if you're trying to do high-speed stereo photogrammetry.

 

I am trying to produce many of these cameras for several types of events that have moving subjects. Perfect sync is the hard part of stereo imaging... So I was trying to find "off the shelf" products to make such. Hence why I was so attracted to an image splitter, it solves the sync problem perfectly, but it seems like its other drawbacks are too great. As in some of the old Leica and Leitz cameras, they made custom stereo lenses to work with their Image Splitters. They recognized the shortcomings of using a normal lens with an IS. That would be the ultimate solution.

 

> Regular stereo imaging can tolerate a fair amount of slop.

 

Not true of moving subjects. Even a leaf falling down from a tree will ruin a stereo pair if the sync is not perfect, and fast. I have hundreds of rolls of film to attest to this!

 

going to 35mm solves lots of problems, RBT makes such stereo cameras, but from what I here, even their lens syncs have problems. The ultimate solution would be using the Xpan camera body, as it has a 65mm long focal plane shutter, so two lenses could be used with perfect sync.... Too bad the 6x17 cameras do not use focal plane shutters!

Struan, very nice response, thank you. I think you just talked me out of this approach. It seems I would be taking a good, high priced lens, and then making the images look as if they were shot with a 1920's lens. Oh well.... If only I could find a focal plane shutter that would work for both images at 1/1000 th's, this would solve my problem. But trying to make two seperate shutters fire the simultaneously is very hard at high speeds...they just weren't designed for that task. The best I have done is Mamiya leaf shutter lenses which sync up to 1/250th.

Paul, funny, I have an 8x10 Toyo field camera.... I often contemplated shooting large format stereo...but one major problem, how do you view them? Its seems near impossible to get the virtual view of any stereo image greater than about 14".

 

Virtual View I define as, image size (one dimension) x magnification. I have explored this for quite some time and it does not matter which variable you play with, you end up in the same place... a severe limitation on virtual view size...

Allen, interesting points. But since I plan to scan the film anyway, I am not bothered by the image position on the roll. I have considered a spud before, but the lenses seemed a bit inferior and more importantly you could not sync very fast. However, after the mess I am going through trying to build a camera, I may re consider. One of my goals was min. 1/500th second sync.

 

Since you are very familar with stereo, what is your answer to my original quesiton? And out of curiosity, what MF viewer do you use? If the world would only would stand still, I would love to shoot all my stereo with my M7's using the cha cha method on a slide bar! But everything I shoot moves....