jim_landecker

They probably advise this because at the wide open aperture there will be some light fall-off due to mechanical vignetting in addition to the loss due to the lens design (which is what the filter is designed to compensate for). Stopping down a couple of stops eliminates this mechanical vignetting and will give the most even illumination on the film.

Maybe this will help, from the Photoshop help file:<br><br>

To select layers in the document window<br>

1. Select the Move tool .<br>

2. Do one of the following:<br><br>

-(Photoshop) In the options bar, select Auto Select Layer and click in the document on the layer content you want to select. The topmost layer containing pixels under the cursor is selected.<br><br>

-(Photoshop) In the options bar, select Auto Select Group and click in the document on the content you want to select. The topmost group containing pixels under the cursor is selected. If you click an ungrouped layer, it becomes selected.<br>

Right-click (Windows) or Control-click (Mac OS) in the image, and choose a layer from the context menu. The context menu lists all the layers that contain pixels under the current pointer location.<br><br>

-(ImageReady) In the options bar, select the Layer Select tool . Click in the document on a single layer to select it, in a group to select the entire group, or in a layer in a set to select only that layer. Note that you can?t select locked layers with this tool.<br><br>

-(ImageReady) In the options bar, select the Direct Select tool . Click in the document on a layer within a layer set to select the individual layer.

A noise reduction software like Neat Image would be a good starting point. You could probably apply aggressive NR on a copy of the image on a new layer, and then paint the de-speckled, more even-toned areas back onto the base layer using a layer mask. That way the heavy noise reduction won't obscure the details where the specks aren't so visible to begin with.

On the middle picture it looks like the barrel has some dents and is not totally round... which could explain the difficulty in getting the ring out. And is probably why the seller took the other pics with the lenscap on. A high volume seller, maybe, but a totally forthcoming one, not. The optimistic ratings, combined with the excessive shipping charges, have steered me away from this seller in the past...

If your lens is in a modern shutter with a linear aperture scale, it can be even easier than the method erie describes. Find the f9 point on the scale as instructed above, then just use the existing marks to figure out where the other f-stops are relative to the f9 position. I found that I could see the aperture blades almost right after moving the pointer from the wide open position, so I used f5.6 on the old scale as my f9 mark. Next I'll print an adhesive strip with the new numbers and just cover up the number part of the old scale.

There's a quite educational thread on APUG about film production <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/44377-facts-film-production.html">here</a>...

GKing Photo would be my recommendation - plus they're nice people...

So, given that the developer has a capacity of 10-12 rolls per liter and ignoring the volume requirements of any particular tank system to adequately cover the film, what is the difference in developer exhaustion between running 12 films at once or in 3 batches of 4 films? I would think that there could be some difference in oxidation using the developer 3 times (i.e. for about 10 minutes total) vs. once for 3:15, but what else?

The DM 4500 is an older model... the column and head mounting are different than the 4500 II. The column has a smaller cross section and the head can swivel 90 degrees for horizontal projection. It also looks like the column can swivel on its base so that you could hang the head over the edge of a table to project onto the floor, but I've never loosened that bolt to see :). The whole filter module and lamp housing, etc. appear identical as far as I can tell. They probably reduced the number of bolted connections in the 4500 II to make the whole column assembly simpler and stiffer. That said, I'm perfectly happy with my DM 4500.

 

Cheers,

 

Jim

From the <a href="http://www.tamron.com/bronica/etr_guide.asp">Bronica Archives</a>:<p>

<p>

ETRS (1982): this is probably a "late" back<p>

<p>

The backs changed the insert release from the single tab with the coaxial lock to two independent tabs which must be squeezed simultaneously.<p>

<p>

ETRSi (1989): this is an Ei back<p>

<p>

"The backs have a locking darkslide, designated by a grey handle. The film advance grasp on the insert changed to a folding crank. The pressure roller tension was increased for film flatness improvement. The body/back F-Release pin housing returned to a substantial metal collar. Internally, the counter mechanism and gears were revised for greater reliability."<p>

<p>

So, the darkslide lock of the Ei may be a good thing to have as well as the mechanical "improvements"...

My 150 wasn't working recently while I was on a trip... unmounting and remounting the lens a few times didn't help. Then I tried rubbing the contacts on the lens firmly with my T-shirt, and voila... so maybe the contacts are oxidized. I'll leave it up to you to decide how much abrasion you want to try!

When you put a lens on the body, the lensmount pushes on the little tab just under the bayonet which moves the correct framlines for that lens into position. Looking at the body from the front, the tab is hiding behind the bayonet flange at the 9 o'clock position. It could be that something in the linkage on yours has come out of adjustment...

Thanks, Jay... I'll give it a try and let you know.<p>

<p>

Jim

"I usually use 300ml of solution/roll, since it's so cheap"<p>

<p>

I do have a practical reason for minimizing the volume/roll: I develop 5 sheets of 8x10 in my Jobo 3005, and Jobo recommends using no more than a liter of solution with these drums. I use Arista EDU ultra in 8x10, a film that builds density very quickly, so again, was wanting to use higher dilutions...<p>

<p>

Jim

Hi Jay,<p>

<p>

Sorry, I got some numbers mixed up. I had used a 1:3:200 dilution, which corresponded to a 1:1.5:100 dilution of my particular mix. I had made up my Hypercat A twice as dilute as your recipe, so that it was closer to the Pyrocat concentration of Catechol (I'm too used to thinking 1:1:100), as I figured twice as much PG in the working solution wouldn't make a difference. My B solution is 100g of Potassium Carbonate to make 100ml total in water. Maybe that's where the problem is. Anyway, I used 400ml of water, 4ml of my half-strength Hypercat A, and 6ml of my pot. carbonate B solution. I developed 2 rolls of Delta 400 (120) shot at ISO200 for 10 minutes at 68F. My test roll, developed with everything the same except, I think, 300ml working solution for the one roll looked fine...<p>

<p>

So your 1:3:200 has 0.3g of sod. carbonate/100ml working solution, and my mix as described had 1.5g of Pot. carbonate/100ml. In <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18006&highlight=hypercat" >this</a> thread (2nd post, 1st page) you recommend a 1:2:200 solution of Hypercat as equivalent to Pyrocat, but were you referring to pot. carbonate and, if so, at what concentration?<p>

<p>

Let me know how much pot. carbonate you recommend and I'll do another test.<p>

<p>

Thanks,<p>

<p>

Jim

I started trying Hypercat recently, and everything was fine until I started

developing 2 rolls together in my Jobo using 400ml at the 1:1.5:200 dilution...

the negatives came out unusably thin - so I'm wondering what the minimum amount

of solution needed per roll is. After this happened a first time I did a clip

test of 1/2 a roll and the developer was fine, so I thought I must have made a

mistake in mixing. So I did 2 rolls again and had the same problem... I wanted

to use the more dilute solution because I find the developing times too short

for my taste with the 1:1:100, and I'm used to using Pyrocat. My B solution is

potassium carbonate as used in Pyrocat, so could that be the problem? I based

the 200ml on the recommended minimum for Pyrocat per roll at 1:1:100...

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

I agree with Brian on the merits of the Bosscreen vs. the others... although I like to also use a fresnel with my Bosscreen. I ordered mine from Bromwell, and just said that it was for a Linhof TK... no measurements needed.

One way to test is to get a piece of 6x6 groundglass (maybe a screen out of an old TLR?). Open up the back, focus on something using the viewfinder, then put the groundglass on the film rails and check the focus. Of course, on a Rolleiflex this is harder to do than with other cameras because you can't have the camera on a tripod and open the back at the same time. I've done this by taking the back right off and resting the camera on a table. So it maybe preferable for you to take pictures of a ruler at an oblique angle and examine the negatives, although I like the instant feedback of the groundglass method!

Thanks Clayton, that's what I needed! The Apo-Ronars come in several different barrel configurations and it's hard to determine what's what. As Kelly points out, the element spacing is the most important thing, but it's not terribly convenient to measure the extremities of the glass to glass surfaces. Not to mention that I wouldn't expect anyone to risk scratching their lenses for the cause!

 

Jim

I purchased a CPA-2 from a European who had lived in North America and bought a 110V model, which he took back to Europe. He had used it in Germany with a simple step-up transformer that was only rated 150W! I never got the details about whether he was using the motor only, but it didn't damage the unit, which has been working well for me for some time back here in Canada. I don't think the speed difference will have a huge effect on developing times. And a transformer rated at 500W is going to be pretty honking big!

Thanks for the help - the Butzi page was where I got the 59.2mm figure, but as specs can change between older and modern versions of lenses by a few mm, I was hoping someone would have some data for this vintage of Apo-Ronar. I did thread the cells out until I got the 59.2m length, and the image still looks good on the gg, so I'll just have to do some tests!

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

I've got this nice set of '60s vintage Apo-Ronar 360/9 cells which I

got without a barrel. I'd like to find out what the proper cell

spacing is. They thread into a Compur 2 shutter, but the threaded

portion has a locating step (see picture), for which there is no

corresponding recess in the threads of my shutter. With the cells

threaded in up to the step, a pretty good image is formed on the gg,

but knowing the as-designed spacing would help me decide whether to go

to the effort of machining a recess in the shutter threads. Specs for

the current Ronar 360 lists the overall length as 59.2mm, and mine,

threaded in as they are now, measure 56.4mm overall. Does anyone have

any leads to this information?

 

Thanks,

 

Jim<div></div>

"Focus, use your swings and tilts, lock the camera down, have sombody stand off 30 feet, fine focus at 30 feet, then re-frame without changing the focus."

 

A question about this - if you're using swing or tilt, how do you find the "30 foot" point, since the plane of focus has changed and is sitting somewhere in near/far space? Should you move the gg away from the lens a certain amount?

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

Because the glass-containing ring an polarizer rotates in the threaded portion, could the oily stuff be dampening grease that's leaked out?

Nice idea! You may have to clear the dye layer from the backs of the films after removing them from the tubes. The tubes in the expert drums are slightly barrel shaped so that the back of the film sits off the surface and chemicals can get in there. Maybe you could find a way to put some dimples or ribs in the tubes (plastic rivet heads?). Connect the tubes with glued on ribs and they won't rattle around. I'm curious to hear how it works!

 

Jim