Glenn McCreery

This looks like a good idea. B&H Photo, Adorama, and others have this holder for $20. This is cheap enough that I will buy one and try it.

I think that you will have a market for this holder, including myself. There is nothing wrong with using aluminum against glass as long as the aluminum surfaces are smooth and the corners rounded. There is a bending problem with using thin aluminum sheet if not handled carefully. For your application, molded plastic would be preferrable from a structural, tolerance, and cost standpoint (although a magnetic holder using a steel frame might be worth considering). I think that $75-100 is way too high a price point. You will have a wider market if you can keep the price below perhaps $30.

Here is a good web site that describes Polaroid cameras:

http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm

I have owned a C3 with 80mm lens, a C33 with 80mm and 65mm lenses, and a Rolleiflex 3.5 E2. I tohught that the C33 with the 65mm lens was a very good camera. The 65mm lens was noticeably sharper than the 80mm lens. I recall a magazine test that concluded the same. The C3 body does not have the self cocking feature of the C33 or C330, but is otherwise a decent inexpensive camera. I liked the versatility and macro capability of the C3 and C33. The Rolleiflex was also a good camera. The E2 does not have an exposure meter. But I prefer to use a modern handheld spot meter rather than an old less-accurate incidence meter on the camera. Otherwise the features of the E2 are the same as the F. The interchangable screens allowed me to use a much brighter than the original microprism screen. The e-bay prices for the E2 are much less than for an F. I found that the Rolleiflex lens was sharper than the Mamiya 65mm (and much sharper than the 80mm), but that flare was not as well corrected. The camera is also lighter than the Mamiya and the machine work is gorgeous. Photography capability aside, using the Rolleiflex was a pleasure due to it's silkey smooth operation. However, I now use a Fuji GS645S rangefinder (with 60mm lens) and find that it has better optics than the TLR's, an accurate exposure meter, and a bright viewfinder. I will never go back to using TLRs seriously. This Fuji rangefinder sells for about $500 or les on e-bay.

I replaced a leather panel on my Linhof Technika III with a piece of top grain black leather excised from one of my wife's old purses. The repair looks good, if not a perfect match. You might find a good selection of old leather purses at your local thrift store.

Anyone interested in this question should read the book "Vision and Art, the biology of seeing" by Margarite Livingstone. Here is one link: http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/May17_2002/neurobiology.html Of course we (almost) all see in both color and black and white. We see in shades of gray when the light is low and only our eye's rods are sufficiently sensitive. And our eye's cones are responsive to both color and luminance. And it's luminance that translates into the gray scales of black and white photographs (but, you don't see in terms of the Zone System without a lot of learning and practice). We are most sensitive to edge definition (i.e., form) rather than smooth textures. And we are highly sensitive to movement (which may or may not help our photographic vision). Our vision evolved more to find food (color and form) and find prey and avoid predators (movement) than to compose photographs. How learing all the left brain neurobiology of vision translates into the right brain activity of composition is hard to say (another left brain activity). But, photography is all about going back and forth from the right brain activities of composition, etc. and the left brain activities of craftsmanship.

Ross, thank you for the difinitive answer! I had been wondering for several years what this thing was. It looks to be well made. Certanily better than I would expect from Russia or the old USSR.

Sorry, the image posting did not work. The image address is:

http://www.photo.net/photo/1418535

<img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/1418535">

I am hereby attempting to post the image:

<img><src="http://www.photo.net/photo/1418535">

There was supposede to be an image attached to this posting. The photo.net FAQ says that,

for including an image in a forum posting "..To do this, you fill in the

form that comes up after you "confirm" your posting". However no form

appeared when I confirmed, and the question was posted without the image.

What did I do wrong?

I own a finder for, probably, a 6x6 cm twil lens reflex camera. There

are no labels or other markings to identify it. I have owned

Rolleiflex and Mamiya TLR's in the past and know that it is for

neither. Can anyone identify the finder?

The suggestion to buy light trap material at Micro-Tools looks to be a good one. They have a downloadable catalog with the material listed on page 99. I see a few other items in the catalog that I didn't previously know that I needed, so the $5 light trap meterial will end up costing me $50! But, that's a lot cheaper than a new camera.

Thanks for the suggestions. I talked with the Fuji parts department and their camera repair department. Unfortunately, they no longer stock the light trap material. My next step will be to search the local arts and crafts stores for suitable felt meterial with just the right thickness, compressibility, and capable of being cut in thin strips.

The felt light trap material on my GS645S film door is flaking away

causing light streaks on the film. I have repaired missing pieces

with black silicone sealant which is somewhat effective. However, as

a long-term solution, I would like to replace the light trap

material. Does anyone have experience doing this?

Brian and Bob, thank you very much for your replies. The

number, which is only half legible and written in ink, is on the top

of the cam. Nothing is on the bottom. So, perhaps this was not

the original cam? I guess that I may never know the serial

number of the camera. Which does not bother me. My main

concern was that, if there were an obvious place for the serial

number on the camera body, and if it were removed, then I might

own a camera that was stolen at some point in time (I bought it

from a camera store and have a receipt, so legaly I was not

worried, just ethically). Now, does anyone have a difinitive

answer for my other question? (see my last previous message

and the attached image).

Thank you for your answers. I will take another closer look under

the accessory shoe. I believe that the 13 cm by 18 cm Technika

is older than a II since it has no provision for a rangefinder, has

an old uncoated Schneider Xenar lens (SN: 1849321) in a

dial-set Compund shutter, and has a pre-war Art Deco look to it.

The rotating back has D.R.G.M. and D.R.P. inscribed. Am I

mistaken?

I have two questions. I own a very old 13 cm by 18 cm Technika

with serial number 3241. When was the camera manufactured?

The second question relates to my Technika III version V. I can

find no serial number. I think that I have looked everywhere, even

under the accessory shoe. There were some partly legible

numbers on the cam before I removed it (along with the

rangefinder, etc. in order to lighten the camera for field work).

There is no evidence of filing or grinding off a serial number.

Were there cameras manufactured without serial numbers?

And, if not, where should I look?

I recently sold a Toyo 45M on e-bay for $305 with two lens boards, extension rail, film holders, and a case. Since I only do landscapes these days I no longer needed it. It, and the more recent 45G, are all metal and have the same fine machining of the GII, which is much superior to the C, CX, D, etc. The GII has few noticeable changes from the G. The G and M take the same backs, lens boards, bellows, etc. as the GII, C, D, etc. The rail for the 45M is different from the G (is the G rail the same as the GII?). Buying an excellent used 45M or 45G for $300 to $500 on e-bay, or a bit higher from say Lens and Repro, versus paying B&H $2,600 for a new GII without accessories, should be an easy choice.

Look at the web site below for medium format lens resolution tests, including Fuji 690 and Hasselblad. Contrast and film flatness also play a big part in image quality. It's harder to keep a 6x9 negative flat than 6x6. My experience is that Fuji's multicoating and internal baffeling for flare reduction and contrast enhancement is excellent. Another point to consider is that, for hand held photos, a rangefinder with leaf shutter produces less vibration and resultant blurring than an SLR with leaf shutter.

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html

I find that Ilford XP2 and Kodak T400CN chromogenic films scan better than conventional silver based films.

I just sold a really nice 210mm Symmar S (not multicoated) on e-bay for about $250. This lens is extremely sharp and has very good coverage for 4X5. The multicoated version runs about $50 to $100 higher on e-bay, but I find the non-multicoated version to control flare quite well. The lens is fairly large and heavy, at least in comparison with my 150mm Symmar S, which is quite reasonable to carry on hikes (I would rather crop the negative than carry the extra weight of another lens, which is why I sold it).

Rather than use a viewing card, I use a view finder amputated from a Polaroid pack film camera series 100, 200, 300, or 400, see http://www.rwhirled.com/landlist/landhome.htm for reference). A model with separate view and rangefinder is best. It is lightweight, rugged, and easily fits in a shirt pocket. The field of view is approximately that of a normal to slightly wide lens. I bought the camera for about $2 in a thrift store.

I agree with C.P.'s and Ron's comments. I live in Idaho. Most of my best snow photographs seem to have brightly lit areas contrasted with areas in open shade. Sometimes looking straight at the suns reflection (with perhaps a tree blocking the sun's disc) shows the best texture, especially for wid blown snow (sastrugi). Ansel Adams wrote a chapter on snow photography in his book Natural Light Photography; one of the original book series. I have not seen this information reproduced in later books. It is well worth finding a copy on e-bay or a used book store.

I found my copy of "Black and White Shootout" by Gordon Lewis in Camera and Darkroom, November 1991 which gives tests of seven different films, including Tri-X and HP5. His conclusions on HP5:

"In many ways HP5 plus is more like one of the new technology films than its conventional brothers. While its film speed and shadow detail are similar to Tri-X, its grain size and definition are closer (but not quite equal) to T-Max 400 or 400 Delta. HP5 is also similar to T-Max 400 in its rendtion of highlight detail. Subjects that gleam, glisten, shine and sparkle will have a bit more kick with HP5 than with Tri-X. The downside is that you have to be a bit more careful not to overexpose or overdevelop. (It isn't nearly as sensitive about this as T-Max 400, however.)"

"Ilford claims HP5 is flexible enough to be used at exposure indices as high as 3200, but for best results they recommend using either Ilford Microphen or Ilfotec developers. T-Max developer, particularly at 1:4, tends to be too active and yields negatives with too much contrast.":

I use both a Technika III version 5 and a Kardan Standard monorail for landscape photography. Although the Technika is more compact, I prefer the Kardan Standard for most landscape photography. I built a backpack for it, with the monorail sticking out the back but protected by a fiberglass box (I can provide details of the construction if anyone is interested). The Kardan Standard is lightweight (less thna 5 lb),easy to set up, has all the necessary movements and a rotating back (but only focus is geared), can be used with wide-angle lenses down to at least 75mm with a flat lens board, and is inexpensive (about $500 from Lens and Repro or perhaps $300 on e-bay). The only reason that I use the Technika is when I need to transport the camera in a small case or backpack.