martin_pistor

Where did he get the bellows? Obviously diy.

Thats what I love the p for. You can mount virtually everything on that gear.

Martin

Hi folks,

I'm visiting Las Vegas for business purpose next month, and might have spare

time to look for some equipment bargain. Any recommendation for a shop with

good second hand LF equipment and fair prices (especially lenses)?

Just nothing out of town, for I'm supposed to spend my time primarly working;-)

Best regards,

Martin

Hi folks,

I'm visiting Las Vegas for business purpose next month, and might have spare

time to look for some equipment bargain. Any recommendation for a shop with

good nikon (and compatible) equipment and fair prices (especially lenses)?

Just nothing out of town, for I'm supposed to spend my time primarly working;-)

Best regards,

Martin

...no camera better....

Handheld operation excluded for obvious reasons;-)

Not as a proceeding in the war, but to keep things in the right way:

there's nothing in LF, a sinar P is not good for, if you manage the transport, and provide the support.

I came across a lot cameras, better in weight/functional ratio (actually a matter of individual preferences) maybe some of better/sexier look, no camera better if you count for function but not for looks and transportability.

And especially for architecture you appreciate the easy operation if you got the beast on site.

Regards,

Martin

 

P.S.: Seen from the owner/seller point of view, there are no "fair" prices anymore. The decrease of marketvalue is ridiculous. Fun for buyers still.

Hi David,

for a converter, you need just the extension, the focal length requires. i.e. extension is equal to fl for infinity.

Whereas the main point of the converted lens is not necessarily within the aperture plane/identical to the "unconverted" plane Ole might be right with his assumption of 20" for the 18". it's not generally more for the converted lens, but depends if the rear or front element is used.

What you are looking for is a telephoto lens, which has the main point far in front of the lens, hence the flange/focus distance is very much shorter then the focal length. Note, that extension for closer distances is increased again as with the normal lens of the same fl, so minimum distance might be long.

Regards,

Martin

Hi James,

for the POP Paper currently available I'd rather recommend negs working on Grade 0-1 when contacted on normal graded/multigrade paper.

You can enhance contrast a little bit by gold toning, or redevelopment of the neg with a staining developer. If you could read german (or know somebody who can) I'recommend to read wolfgang moerschs article about his staining developers.

Go to http://www.moersch-photochemie.com, then Data sheets and select "Tanol&Co..."

Regards,

Martin

Brilliant idea,

even considered the variable development (you could definitly see the effect!).

But hey, they sold the stuff without it for decades.

So what?

Still, I might consider to do that myself...Its just one exposure on the film, and development flaws are determined instantly.

Agreeing, nothing in wikipedia (as every information in the web or elsewhere) can be considered as a devine wisdom, they are (according to a recent research underlying the same restrictions) better in statistics then the encyclopedica britannica.

Hi Martin,

actually a real pity, they didn't realise the exposure meter, as described in the patent document.

 

Martin

Hi Abhinava,

despite the Efke/Adox are not identical the unchanged mixture like their ancestors the Adox KB15/17/20 Tetenal Neofin is still the developer "especially made for them". They are similar to what you will find as Beutler developer receipt at different web resources (Basically 1% Solution of Metol+Sulfit and Carbonate).

Note, this is not exactly a fine-grain developer (still at least as fine as rodinal), but gives a good tonality and high accutance for the films which were regarded to be super fine grain, when they where young.

Perfect if used with 120s or Large format, not the choice if "no-grain-prints" from 35mm are the goal.

 

Have fun,

 

Martin

Hi Lauren,

silly question,

you got 4x5 Neg, film, you want a larger size neg (film also), and you got the tools (darkroom).

They say all roads lead to Rome, but if you're in Milan already, it's silly to head for Tokyo (scanning) for that road leads to Rome in the end too....

Maybe I misunderstood, whats 9x11.25? Feet? That might be tricky with wet process (a printer for that will be hard to find also).

Inches? Then do a direct duplicate enlargement(as mentioned before) or a two-step-duplicate (positive to 9x11.25, possible also on normal RC paper, contact on Lith/Print-Film) and spend the bucks on Partying.

Have Fun

 

Martin

Hi Martin,

so, whats your point?

The tessina is a pita if you strictly look for perfect pics and ease of use, at least compared to a Minox B or later (EC's not counting).

It's just a curiosity, and great fun to use still. Stopping it down two stops gives nearly vignetting free pics at mine, compared to the minox it allows 1 Stop for faster Film, the third stop to compare 4 at the tessina to 3,5 at the B is neglectable. Sharpness is hard to judge, I'd have to take pics with a solid stand to compare.

Do you really own the pentaprism? Congrats.

BtW, I did 8x11 to 8x10(inches) enlargements, and they went out fine.

 

Have fun.

 

Martin

Hi folks,

Obviously scientific calculators spoil a lot of basic math knowledge ;-)

All manufacturers supply us generously with circles of exposure for their lenses.

The maximum dimension of a pic is obviously diagonally.

so squareroot of (long side� added to short side�) gives the minimum circle for the lens without movements.

root of4�+5�= root of 39=6,2something.

Movements accordingly.

So the angels can remain before the lens.

Hi Rick,

Generally speaking: yes! Whats lost is lost and will not be brought back.

More specificly: it depends. If your subjects have a contrast of between 1:32 to 1:100, variable development is not necessary. Especially for the higher contrast range, read again above.

 

Regards,

Martin

Hi Phineas,

for AF lenses compared to the AF-Gs the answer is no.

For MF lenses there is no degrading in image quality (of course depending on the lens design but not on the mount) but loss of comfort (light metering).

If any, the G-types might be regarded as cheapos (like the E-types for the old nikkormat series), not vice versa.

Actually nobody seriously believes Nikon changed lens designs since the 80s but only added new designs to the line (and of course changed the housing).

The only drawback might be there are new designs specially referring to the need of WA-Zooms of Digicams available as G only, but normally there is a comparable Zoom as an AF lens (unfortunately often the better and much more expensive one).

 

Regards,

Martin

Hi Martin,

haven't had any Problems with Adox CHS 25, Acros and the new Spur Orhopan. The last one is a real weapon for the small format stuff.

If it's the fact that the camera does'nt wind 6 frames without reloading the spring, I wouldn't worry. That might be just a weak spring, mine is not better (3 frames sometimes four, but I tend to not fully load the spring to keep it in good condition).

Anyway, gratulations, nice little sucker ain't it? Still overall not as sharp, sturdy and not as comfortable to use as my B. Do you have the coupled meter?

Have fun.

 

Martin

Hi Chuk,

thats what POP looks like. Deep purple-brown instead of black.

You may tone with gold before fixing, that brings it down to colder colours.

BtW, 15 mins of fixing seems definitly long. How strong is your fixer?

Regards,

Martin

Hi Geert,

actually the lightware stuff looks a lot like what you had if you'd DIY.

Whereas you refrain this, the sinar Vario disadvantage of distracting "out of picture"-view is praised as the essential feature of many rangefinder-users. It's a matter of taste and individuality if you can use it, or find it distracting.

 

Why are no 5x7 and 8x10 masks around? pretty simple, what format do you want to mask down to? If you go down, you take a reduction back or a format converter with according glass and holders.

The issue to mask individual formats from the larger ones is so uncommon, no manufacturer saw a benefit in adressing this non-market.

Maybe for 4x10 panoramics? See, the holder will be customized anyway.

 

Regards,

Martin

Hi Josh,

I'd recommend a Berlebach Report 9033 or the comparing Wolf model.

They are light, the integrated Ball Head is sufficient if you're working with a bench camera (no extra ball/pan/tilthead necessary)and wood absorbs vibration still best.

No rose without a thorn:

The integrated Ball movements are limited (still it saves weight, and I seldomly use drastic movements with a LF camera oposite to fixed lens cameras).

It's light (brilliant for hiking), that means with a long bellows it will be critical in windy conditions. Anyway it's more advisable to fix the tripod i.e. by a center-rope down to the floor or similar constructions, for a tripod that is wind-stable by weight need a truck. Remember with a 300mm lens, you have one half square foot of "sail" on top.

 

I use one of those, also with a p4x5 and a Field Camera 8x10. They're borne well. As I said, tripod weight, that is able to resist wind is simply out of reason for the field.

 

Martin

Do as Ling advised.

The basic principle is the same front and rear, but the pin with hole on the carrier is turned 90 degs, so the fixing screw (with the knob) on the rear standart goes square to the bench, in the front (without the knob) it goes parallel to the bench. As in the rear it's a screw with a conic tip, that presses into an according hole in the mentioned pin. Besides scales this is the only difference between Front and Rear geared blocks on a P.

I used that exactly for the purpose you describe.

 

Martin

Hi Joe,

Efke speed a bit of sounds odd. If any film, the Efkes are not overrated.

Compared to shooting TMX on 64 you can definitly shoot Efke 25 at 25.

Of course depending on developer, i.e. Pyro is slow anyway. Everybody should do his tests anyway. I.e. the new Moersch staining devs (Tanol) as well as other highly diluted combos, loose speed with hard water significantly.

Regards,

Martin

Hi Ralph,

as said before: in the negative process stay for the "technical good" negative as you did before.

The only advise would be: avoid Film/Dev combos with significant base/fog density. The positive lith-printing process needs lots of light. So base/fog densities only causing a little extra exposure with normal paper development might lead to several (or even several ten) minutes of exposure in the enlarger for liths. You'll definitly learn about reciprocity failure of photographic paper.

 

Have fun.

Martin

Hi Nina,

might be interesting what's your idea about that.

The lack of resources for chemicals? That might be a problem, since even if sivler nitrate is available in some "everydays products" like water desinfection pellets from the globetrotters store, or in some medical applications, the complete coposition of those products is somewhat unclear, and you will fall back to the need of some "chemicals" for the tuning of the process.

If it's an artistic approach to use only "easy available" stuff including the restrictions in quality (craftsmenwise) i see a chance.

(I remotely remember a process to give blue colour to cloth using a special herb exposure to sunlight and going back to very ancient times, sorry no details in the attic of my brain)

Kind regards,

Martin

Hi Johannes,

Where do you get a Wolf half price of a Berlebach?

They're not the same company, just similar construction. Berlebach doesn't use quicklocks, Wolf does. Wolf rates their pods rather double weightcapacity then Berlebach does, to me rather a matter of rating.

Maybe your Berlebach dealer fucks you? It's less then 10% difference, rather 5.

Just compare:

http://www.berlebach.de/

 

Regards,

Martin