jim_thompson6

Hello,

I use Neofin Blau almost exclusively -- it's an excellent accutance developer, i.e. not fine grain. Unfortunately, I have yet to try it with FP4+. You should definitely take a look at "The Massive Development Chart." They offer development times for many many different film/developer combinations, and have proven to be an invaluable point of departure. However, I have developed Delta 100 once at ASA 100, 6 min, 35 sec @ 21 C. (derived from the 7min. @ 20 C provided at the site), and the negatives came out quite well. If you need times for Neopan 400, Acros 100, PanF50, Delta 400, HP5, APX 25,100,400, then just drop me a line. I have experimented quite abit with these films -- even with pushing and pulling.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello,

I would vote against bringing any of your B&W chemicals with you. First, as mentioned above, access to such things is very easy in Germany. Chances are, if you are living anywhere other than in a very small town, you will find a well stocked photo store. Second, if a store is not available, there are many online companies that sell everything imaginable. Third possibility: if you want the chemicals as soon as possible, then you could order them now, and have the shipped to the address where you are staying.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen,

Jim

Hello,

I have to agree with Donald. For very little money, you could start developing your own negatives. Of course, if you have absolutely no desire or health conditions prevent this, then please disregard. Otherwise, it is all very easy and you gain control of the entire process. Additionally, you will recoup what you invested in equipment within the first 10 films (if not earlier).

With respect to your actual question, you will probably have to ask your local photo store. Another possibility is to contact a member of a photo club, who might be willing to do it for you.

Jim

Hi Bill,

About 3 weeks ago I shot my first roll of Adox 25 (same material). I developed it in Neofin Blau (Blue) with the times from the "Massive Development Chart" -- something like 8 min @ 20 C. -- and the negatives came out great. Looking at the negatives only (I haven't had the time to print them yet), APX 25 seems to hold the slightest advantage over the Adox/Efke with respect to grain. But honestly, the difference isn't worth arguing over. I will wait 'til I have time to go into the darkroom before I make any further claims, but I believe I have found my replacement for APX 25.

Also be very careful when handling the film after processing. The emulsion is very soft and scratches easily until it is completely dry.

Ciao,

Jim

I am aware that the Yaschica lens is a completely different focal length, and that is the reason for finding another "taking" and "viewing" lens. Actually, there is no rear cell, only the front two.

Does anyone have ideas regarding the transport problem? At the moment, this is the more grave of the two problems.

Thanks again,

Jim

I promise that this is the last post for at least several hours. When I (lightly) turn/giggle the crank lever I can see that is still connected to the actuating arm which cocks the shutter. However, whereas previously the arm moved all the way up, it now only moves 1-2mm. When I lift the arm with the screwdriver it moves almost to the top -- it freely goes to the point just before it could set the shutter. Anyway, I will keep at it.

Ciao,

Jim

So you noticed the prototype lens (then) under consideration by Rollei. Most likely you are correct with regard to the hassle involved. However, I enjoy a challenge, and would certainly like to try putting this thing back together. Worse case, I have an interesting doorstop or parts camera. For 23 Euro I am not complaining. I am only confused by the sudden locking up of the transport crank. I just found a small screw slightly wedged next to the actuating arm for the cocking lever (see area circled in the picture). I cannot see where it came from. Could this be a linkage screw? If so, what is involved in getting the side panel off? Again, the lens issue will probably require obtaining a matched set from another Rolleiflex, but the transport mechanism should be repairable.

Jim<div></div>

Well, I received my Rolleiflex today (appears to be an X). I bought

it "as is" for reasons not relevant to my question(s). First, when I

tried everything out it all worked. Admittedly, the shutter needs to

be cleaned, but it does work. Even the transport crank was doing its

job right up until I put film in it. It transported the films and

cocked the shutter (like it's supposed to), and then prompted froze.

I did check to make sure that the film was threaded between the

rollers -- it is. I have tried rolling the frame-counter by hand, and

it just winds on smoothly, but does not free up the crank. I have

also tried the little lever which closes the two rollers together, but

still nothing. I think that is something simple that I am

overlooking; for prior to the loading the film the crank moved

smoothly and appeared to be doing its job. Because of a possible

connection, I would add that the initial film that I loaded did not

have a paper backing -- I was trying to keep from having to sacrifice

a roll. Afterwards, i.e. after the crank lever locked up, I then used

an actual good roll of film, but to no avail.

I would appreciate any assistance with this situation. Note: I am

completely willing to disassemble the camera if necessary. I have

experience pulling apart and repairing several older MF folders, but

realize that the rolleiflex is more than a magnitude higher in

complexity. Still, I am determined to repair or destroy it myself

(whichever comes first).

A second question: I need to replace (at least) the "taking" lens. I

am aware that the two lenses need to be matched, but (theotretically)

would there be any problem in using e.g. a Solinar 3.5/75 or perhaps

the East German Tessar 3.5/75? The front two cells of the Solinar I

already have fit the threads, but I have not yet tried the rear cell.

If there is an inherent problem with this idea, does anyone

(especially in Germany) have either a "taking" lens or both "viewing"

and "taking?"

Again, I thank you in advance for your time and effort.

Jim Thompson<div></div>

Hello,

I concur with Tom's response, i.e. keep things light and simple. Might I suggest one SLR body, 2-3 lenses, and perhaps a digital P&S. Of course, lens selection is up to you; for everyone approaches their subject matter(s) differently. However, in many places within Europe (certainly not all), you would do well to go wider. When I am out-and-about, I find that I use either a 24mm or 28mm., the 50mm (also good for low light conditions), and either the 100mm macro or 135mm. The 100 and 135 don't see as much time on the camera, but they are relatively compact and allow me to single out a particular aspect/motif from the larger scene.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello,

Well, I have been developing Acros in Neofin Blau (Blue) with excellent results: 14 min @ 20 C. The acutance is stunning and the grain (in my opinion) is more than acceptable. If you are interested in more information (with respect to pushing and pulling Acros), please feel free to contact me.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello,

Although the Dynax/Maxxum 7 is indeed faster, it is only fractionally so (compared to the 800si). As far as the body goes, the three are roughly the same size, but the 700 & 800 are more bulbous than the 7. I have no problem holding the 800, but the 7 does fit (my hands) better. I hope this helped somewhat.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello Bill,

Although my 50mm comes close, the 100 macro is my favorite lens. As far as using it for non-macro situations, it performs excellently. Actually, I don't use its macro capacity as often as I should. Depending upon the kind of portraits you want to take, I would echo the above response that the lens might be too sharp. Of course, a "soft" filter or 2.8 focused right on the eyes (and at close distance) would rectify the situation. I can definitely recommend this lens.

Ciao,

Jim

I agree that Nikon is hurting itself by not advertising this flash system. We need only look to Minolta for evidence of this kind of marketing mistake, i.e. their wireless flash system has been capable of doing this for almost a decade now and almost no one knows about it.

Jim

Hello,

I know that this is not directly related to your question, but if you like accutance developers, then I can recommend Acros in Neofin Blau: 14min @ 20 C (for a condensor). I have had excellent results with this combination, even pushing it to 200. If you are interested in this combination and would like more information, you can write me directly.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello,

Although I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question, I also suffer from this malady every so often. I have read (on P-net) that it might have something to do with a mismatching of film spindles, i.e. an ever so slight difference in diameter (or something related). Indeed, I have stumbled upon certain manufacturer combinations that work and others that give problems. If you used the same manufacturer's films, then there shouldn't be any problem. My advice is to carefully evaluate which film combinations (if any variance) you use, and avoid the problematic ones. I noticed that you said you used two rolls of Tri-X -- did you shoot one right after the other and use the spindle from the first roll as the take-up for the second? Anyway, I how this was of help.

Jim

Partially on topic: If you already have the lens, know of one at a good price, or are just curious, then go for it. As mentione above, it is made by Kiron, which is a pretty good optical company. On the other hand, for not much money, i.e. under $30, you could pick up a clean Kiron 28/2. I have one, and feel that its quality is top-notch (probably only exceeded in the Minolta mount by the Minolta 28/2).

Regards,

Jim

Thanks for both responding and answering my question. You basically saved me a couple euro; for I was tempted to just buy it and see if it would work.

Regards,

Jim

Hello all,

I have recently come across a bulk film back for an XK, and was

wondering if there is anything preventing it from being used on my

XE-1. Although the two cameras are nowhere near identical, their

basic outer frame/body below the top plate appear to be very similar.

If an XK were available for measurement, I certain would have done

that before posing this question on the net. Is there anyone who might

be able to help me out here? Perhaps providing the relevant

measurements for comparison?

I thank you all for your time and effort.

Jim

The oldest camera that I actually use is an Agfa Isorette with an Apotar lens and Compur shutter (1937 or 38 depending on the online source). When stopped down the camera is pretty good, and with the built-in dual format masks it becomes downright versatile. The slides I get back are more than acceptable.

Jim

Hello Bill,

While the 50/1.7 + 2x converter would certainly be capable of creating good quality pictures (assuming that the converter is of high quality), the 135/2.8 would still be superior (especially at wider apertures). When one also takes into consideration that the 135/2.8 costs very little money, I would advise that you pick one up anyway. You could still use the other combination when you really want/need a 100mm lens. However, this decision depends primarily upon what kind of photography you wish to pursue and even perhaps the simplicity of the kit you prefer traveling around with.

Just as a side note, I have used a kenko 2x converter in conjunction with both the 135/2.8 and 200/4 with more than acceptable results. I hope some of this will be of help to you.

Ciao,

Jim

Hello,

As you are already aware, it depends on what kind of photography you "do". I find wide/normal angle lenses more useful in Europe, with the occasional telephoto & macro shot. Accordingly, either my 135/2,8 or 100/2,8 macro fit the "long" lens bill. However that's my preference, which may not match yours at all. Perhaps your style concentrates more on isolating elements, rather than pulling several together. If so, I would probably suggest the 80-200 2,8 with an eye on quality and available light. Even during the summer, some parts of Europe are not blessed with constant sunshine, and the larger aperture will certainly come in handy. I hope some of this has helped.

Ciao,

Jim

Personally, I don't find anything horribly wrong with the downloaded picture. If you feel that it has too much contrast, i.e. you cannot work with it to make an acceptable print, then I would look either (1) at your exposure, and (2) at a possible over-development due to mixing error. But again, I don't think the negative looks bad. Since you are unsure, you should trying developing another roll with a mixture ratio known to be correct. Afterwards, you will be in a position to judge where the true "problem" lies. As a side note, unless you are hooked on the Efke 50 emulsion, why not try something in the 100 range, where the development times are long enough to avoid any major "under/over" development situations. I find that Acros and Neofin Blau are a good pairing as well as Agfa 100, and the grain hardly larger than with PanF50.

Ciao,

Jim