joe_hunt1

The GW690 III manual gives actual size as 56 x 82.6mm - slightly less than a perfect 2:3 ratio.

Yes - "pulling" the the ISO 400 film to ISO 200, combined with reduced development, is an accepted way to tame contrast. Just as "pushing" the film to ISO 800 or higher, with increased development, can raise contrast.

Very compact - 147mm (W) x 114mm (H) x 90mm (D). Weight 750gm without batteries.

Without seeing the light leak it's hard to comment, but a horizontal faint change of density is much more easily tolerated than vertical one (which typically runs through different image sections like sky to ground)

I've done this, on the few occasions when there were drying marks on the shiny side, with no damage - "touch wood":

 

Grip end of neg strip with finger nail on clean paper surface, breathe ONCE on strip and immediately wipe (away from held edge) once firmly with pad made from clean cotton hanky. Marks are removed and don't show on prints. Of course damage can be done if you're not careful.

Having just read again Chris's query he's got me wondering. If the lens has floating elements maybe it does need to be set for near and far - not so much to focus it, but to put the floating element in an appropriate position. I could check this but don't have the lens or manual to hand.

Christian's description of his TLR applies to the depth of field scale on the 55mm lens for the RB67 - it's just a guide to set and read off the information, and has no connection to the focussing mechanism.

All the lenses are focussed on the bellows rack, giving a wider focus range than helical focus threads on lens barrels, particularly so the wide angles.

Cambo Wide DS finder would be fine - it's a nice finder with an extensive range of masks for wide angle lenses and formats. Not so for longer lenses - it's essentially a wide angle finder. Calumet website will list the masks.

You might find the equivalent for the 210mm lens with 4x5 by getting a suitable wide angle mask for 6x7 - after doing the calculation. Alternately you could improvise a mask for the mask ......

"I have noticed three tiny fingers of black that are showing up with regularity on the top left of my film frames"

 

If there are areas of black exposed on the film frames that would be from excess light - or are you referring to prints? Gunk should block the light and give clear film. If the shapes are sharpish the source would be close to - or on - the film.

I've had this consistently with the 7ii. I'd say there is enough play for the film to creep downwards as it progresses. This results in the top pre-exposed film markings creeping down towards the edge of the upside down image (the lower edge when viewed as normal).

 

As I like to print off the edge I resorted to scraping off the emulsion where numbers etc intruded, spotting the prints, and even abandoning Ilford film (larger markings on edges), and using Fuji Neopan instead - some reason for choosing a particular film!

 

Doesn't help you, but maybe Mamiya (and Ilford) might get the message eventually.

Working in a college with both Pentax 67 and Mamiya 67, I've lost count of the number of times the Pentaxes have been immobilised by this particular problem (and others). Then I read the usual photo mag regurgitated c**p - "built like a tank" ..... treat the wind-on gently. It is, or was, delicate. Some students have heavy hands of course.

Me too! It creaks a little. It's a long back - take care not to strain it when inserting / extracting the film, or it could get worse!

While we're at it, it's very easy to snag the strap near the hinge when closing the back.

I took this photo with a Cambo Wide and 65mm SA, 6x12 RFH. The boat's a Galway Hooker, a traditional gaff rigged fishing boat built by the guy in the photo.<div></div>

I have the manual and might photocopy and send it to you if you don't get it elsewhere. I live in Ireland so postage could be some Euros. I looked at it and fold-out pages are larger than A4, so it would be a pain to scan and e-mail. Get back to me if you can't get it.

Use 560ml (not 275ml) for rotary agitation, but you have to keep it moving because the film isn't covered. Otherwise the tank takes 1300ml to cover the film standing, or 1500ml to fill completely when horizontal.

 

I think your dev times should be reduced to about 80% if it's on the motor (Jobo recommend the faster of the two speeds, presumably to assist even development with partial filling).

I keep trying to rename the DS a DL above - just in case it confuses.........

See Bill Mitchell's "How much does a 4x5 outfit weigh" on this forum. I replied that I got away with 9.25 lbs for Cambo Wide with 65mm and other bits, plus another 6lbs for tripod and head. I believe in keeping it simple and settling for what one lens will do, no tilts or swings. Cambo Wide suits me very well.

 

I recently bought the new Wide DS with 38mm and am still getting used to it. First results look sharp so that's another vote for accuracy of a rigid body and helicoid focussing with extreme wide angle. The new DL is more refined than the old Wide but bulkier - very tall at 10.5", and unstable with Cambo's setting of Q/R foot reversed away from the vertical movement. As I couldn't use full downshift with 38mm (and don't care anyway), I redrilled the foot and refitted it under the centre of gravity of the camera. The versatile double shifts (DS geddit?)are a bit wasted with the 38mm, even on 6x12 which is where I use it so far.

 

Camera DL fits snugly in Lowe Pro Specialist 80 bag. If you decide to get an older Wide, and want an optical finder, try to get the newer DL finder. Not much difference in price but a quantum leap in quality

About 9.25 lbs for: Cambo Wide with 65mm SA, eye level finder and three double sheet film holders, Polaris meter, small flash, spare batteries, all in Besseler camera bag. Add another 6lbs for Manfrotto 190 and H/D ball head. As I usually substitute a 6x12 RFH and a couple of rolls of Neopan 400 it's lighter still but not 4x5 of course.

If I don't have to carry any distance I use a heavier tripod.

Aarggh! The modern condition!

 

Yes I too secretly would like to have my current photo gear, reasonable leisure time and ability to move around, and live in a world not so totally awash with visual images, multi-channel viewing and all......and stun people with images like they haven't seen a dozen times already!

 

Some while ago in this part of the world a visual artist tried to get a project going for a three year art strike. He probably completed his project satisfactorily on the basis that no one paid much attention to him.

 

What can we do except function, and enjoy the times we live in?

 

I suppose in theory every moment and place is uniquely experienced.

The GW690III's shutter (and yours too presumably) can't be triggered without film in and advanced to "1", unless the back is left open. Of course it should work normally with film wound on to frame one!. Subsequently the first stroke of the lever wind cocks the shutter and partially advances the film, and the second stroke completes film wind-on.

 

The shutter speed ring must also be at the click positions. The blades may not open if set anywhere between click stops.

 

Fuji uniquely have a mileage counter on the baseplate (of the III series at least) for shutter firings. They recommend servicing at 500 (5,000 exposures) and predict shutter failure at 1000 (10,000 exposures)! If yours is II series maybe it's reached that figure ...

I don't know if this remains useful to Peter who posted the original question, but Don has a valid point.

 

Comparing a 4x5 cropped and 6x12 roll film, when the same lens is used, and not seeing a difference, doesn't make any kind of a case - it's the same lens!

 

Don was referring to the (probably) superior resolution of similar focal lengths designed to cover smaller formats. He argues that, if you want a 6x9, do it with a 65mm lens for 6x9cm not a 65mm lens for 4x5. BTW the Super Angulon 65mm easily covers 4x5 - image circle of 170mm as far as I recall.

 

The last time I used 4x5, on a visit to NY, I was trying to change sheet film in filmholders in a Lower East Side apartment in a not too light-tight bathroom in 100 degrees and 100% humidity. I also faced blank incomprehension when I attempted unsuccessfully to avoid X-rays with weird-shaped "film" at the airport. If they made roll film in 8cm wide, and if it was flat, I'd use it like a shot. 6x12 is a good compromise and I like the shape.

Amen to that George

Horseman 6x12 RFH at 56x112 is an accurate 1:2 ratio which appeals to me. Also it enables printing full-frame with edge border in 4x5 enlarger. I use the Horseman RFH and find it ok - preferable to the similar priced competition. I'm sure the Linhof is very nice if money no object.

Not by any chance using a L/F lens with a roll film back? If so could it be that the lens shutter switch was pushed open?? It's easy to do. As David said it sounds like an in-camera problem.

Eric

 

I'll try posting up a scan from 4x5 using Canoscan D2400U - equivalent to the Epson 2450 but maybe not so well thought of.

 

It's a crop, 1/8th area of original so about 40mm x 35mm. Best viewed using Photoshop or similar to enlarge and get better idea of definition. Just to emphasise - it's only 1/8th of the 4x5!<div></div>