rush

Sorry, it is a No. 2

How do i clean the inside of the lenses. I just bought one and I

found that there is a spider web between the lenses, and I also

wonder how the shutter works too. Any pointer on how I can get this

camera up to speed would be apppreciated.

Peace

Oliver

It is prolly bad film, as in <i>really</i> bad fogging

P.S. I deleloped my MACOPHOT film in 1 part XTOL with 2parts water for 14 minutes. I often forgot to pre-rinse it, but it did not affect the images with that long developing. ALSO, DO NOT REUSE YOUR CHEMICALS AFTER DEVELOPING IR FILM FOR NON IR FILM. Peace,

~Oliver Rush

I just finished doing IR work for my independent study for advanced art. I shot MACOPHOT 820nm film in the 120 size in my Rollieflex Automat using a homemade IR filter made from cut down sheet of Lee #87 filter material in my rollie filter holder. I found that I had to shoot at 1/2 a second @ f/8 in sunlight for my one properly dense negative. My first roll had one good frame, the rest were thin or clear. EXPERIMENT!!! YOU WILL NOT GET A PERFECT FIRST ROLL!!! Bracket and record your shooting data for the first roll, and find what works for you. I will upload my IR work when I get back from break and get my adv. art portfolio back after break. Also, read up on it, the film speed really drops when you use the appropriate opaque IR filter.<br>

<br>

I also found that the psuedo IR film, ilford SFX 200, is a nice film for portraits. Skin impercetions do not show, and it gives a nice look. I used a wratten #25 filter on my Rollieflex, and it shot at a usable ISO of around 50ASA.<br>

<br>

I recomend the MACOPHOT film, and it is the only true IR film availible in 120 size, and it is great once you learn how it works for you. Also, remember that IR film focuses diffrently than normal film, so use the IR shift marks on the lense, or if you do not have them, shoot @ f/8 or smaller to compensate. If you have any questions, e-mail me.

Use the kodak techical data publications for your chemical. I would recomend x-tol for you chemical, it is my favorite.

I developed a couple roll of tri-x 400 120 format in x-tol diluted at 1:1. The best source for times is the tables published by kodak in their photochemical technical publications. The site is:<br>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml?id=0.3.8.30.4.33.4.3&lc=en">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.jhtml?id=0.3.8.30.4.33.4.3&lc=en</a><br>

<br>

I found it best to save and print the PDF of the info, which I keep in my lab by my developing sink. The address for the file is:<br>

<a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf</a><br><br>

I hope this helps.<br><br>

Peace<br>

~Oliver Rush

I know alot of people have had the purple tint problem, but I never have. When I used the new tri-x (this was when I ran out of my rolls of t-max and was in a pinch) I developed it in tmax developer (this was before I swtiched to xtol) at the new times, stoped using kodak indicator stop bath for 1 min, and fixed for 7 min, washed for 2 min, hypocleared for 2min, and then washed for 5min before photo-flo and then dried. No purple tint, and the film worked ar 400 ISO.

There seems to be more grain in the t-max emulsion... Tri-X by nature should have <i>more</i> grain that t-max. What is the reason for that. I have worked with both, and I have shot around 50 rolls of t-max and 25 rolls of tri-x in 135 size in the past 3 months (i shoot mostly 120 now), and I always get a tighter grain strusture off the t-max, especially in x-tol. It is the nature of the film grain. Is there somthing wrong with my thinking here. Also, the left film has the greater contrast of t-max, but you say it is tri-x? I dunno, but I would like to know the whole process down to the paper exposure (or were these neg scans?), and if there were any level adjustments, etc, in photoshop.

WIN 98 is inherently evil... EVIL!!! Aviod it like the plauge. 98SE is better, thought just a tad. It is all built off the win95 platform whilst 2k, 2kpro and I think XP are off the winNT platform. I use win 2k pro with out compatibility problems (except for certain dos game's sounds, but it may be the machine). I use a Dell Latitude that my school gave me, and I run PS-7 off win2k pro. It is a dog on major manipulations, especially on larger files and for loading large files (ie: jpegs over 3megs, PSD's over 10megs), but it works for my purposes, and the machine is free. The point is, win2k pro is a great OS, it is stabil, or if it is going to crash, it will give you an opportunity to save your stuff. Go with Win2k pro, it is a more 'professional' OS as opposed to win XP wich is more of a 'consumer' OS.

I am actually trying to find a so called beater camera. I use to carry my Nikon FM10 everywhere before it got stolen on a bus back from NY. Since then I either carry my Canon FT-QL or Rollieflex. The Rollei is my favorite when I have film, and I like to take it everywhere, and it has been good to me, but I am too scared of somthing happening to my favorite camera (not to mention it was given to me by my dad, and was is camera in HS, along with the Canon). I am thinking of mayby buying an old Exakta on E-Bay to carry around as they seem to go around $50, but I want to find somthing a little cheaper (I know, it doesn't get much less), and less antique so that I won't feel like I am carrying around a piece of history. It does not have to be an SLR, but I need to have adjustable apatures, F-stops, etc. Any suggestions?

My photo instructor once gave me some special photo transparency paper. It supposibly develops like regular paper, but it transparent. You could allways use that for the negatives and then print positives off that. I forget the name, but I will post it when I remember.

I just bought a brownie off e-bay. (I know, I know, but the price

was right, and if it does not work, I will use it for a pinhole

camera). I was wondering what kind it is? I think it is a model 2,

but I am not sure. Does it take 620 film, or the older 616? If it

is 616, what is the size of that film in relation to modern films?

Could I split 120 before rolling it, or use 70mm?) Or would I need

to order sheet film? Also, what is the shutter speed? Any info on

this camer would be much appriciated.<div></div>

I have respooled 120 film onto 620 cartriges once, with pretty good success. The only problem was that I never practiced it before I did it, I just dove into it thiniking it would be easy. It was not. <b>BUY A CHEAP ROLL AND PRACTICE IN THE LIGHT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS, AND THE PRACTICE IN THE DARK!</b> It is worth the cost of a cheap roll to not lose a good roll with your pictures on it!<br>

The thing to remember is that 120 film is only taped on one side to the paper backing, so it must first be rolled onto another 120 spool (Just run it through a 120 camera with the lens cap on, easiest way), and then back onto the 620 spool so that the tape holding the film to the paper backing will go be at the start of your 620 roll as it goes through the camera. I assume that it would not work the other way as it would probably jam.<br>

As you roll it onto the 620 spool, when you get to the film, make sure that you keep the spools close so that you don't have the film get kinked when you get to the tape... it is important that it is all flush. Also, needless to say, <b>DO NOT TOUCH THE FILM!!!</b> My first time rolling onto a 620 spool, I spent half an hour in the darkroom doing it. I actually ended up having the whole thing unspool, and and had to then re-roll it onto a 120 cartige and then onto the 620. Though I got it done (althoughtI was a little less sane afterwards), I touched the emulsion on it while sorting it out, and found a fingerprint on my film that was from touching it before shooting, and a crescent shaped crinkle. These would have been avoided with prior practice. Also, it is not fun to be in the dark room trying to work it out, it is not as straight forward as it seems... trust me!<br>

<br>

You can see the print from it at http://www.photo.net/photo/1320655&size=lg<br> I used a Kodak Vigilant Junior Six-20 that was from the 40's-50's to do it. Though it is not a brownie, the same method will work.<br>

Good Luck. It is pretty easy once you do it once... but the first time is not as easy as it seems.<br><br>

~Peace<div></div>

I have respooled 120 film onto 620 cartriges, with pretty good success. The only problem was that I never practiced it before I did it, I just pretty much dove into it thiniking it would be easy. It was not. <b>BUY A CHEAP ROLL AND PRACTICE IN THE LIGHT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS, AND THE PRACTICE IN THE DARK!</b> It is worth the cost of a cheap roll to not lose a good roll with your pictures on it!<br>

The thing to remember is that 120 film is only taped on one side to the paper backing, so it must first be rolled onto another 120 spool (Just run it through a 120 camera with the lens cap on, easiest way), and then back onto the 620 spool so that the tape holding the film to the paper backing will go be at the start of your 620 roll as it goes through the camera. I assume that it would not work the other way as it would probably jam.<br>

As you roll it onto the 620 spool, when you get to the film, make sure that you keep the spools close so that you don't have the film get kinked when you get to the tape... it is important that it is all flush. Also, needless to say, <b>DO NOT TOUCH THE FILM!!!</b> My first time rolling onto a 620 spool, I spent half an hour in the darkroom doing it. I actually ended up having the whole thing unspool, and and had to then re-roll it onto a 120 cartige and then onto the 620. Though I got it done (althoughtI was a little less sane afterwards), I touched the emulsion on it while sorting it out, and found a fingerprint on my film that was from touching it before shooting, and a crescent shaped crinkle. These would have been avoided with prior practice. Also, it is not fun to be in the dark room trying to work it out, it is not as straight forward as it seems... trust me!<br>

<br>

You can see the print from it at http://www.photo.net/photo/1320655&size=lg<br> I used a Kodak Vigilant Junior Six-20 that was from the 40's-50's to do it. Though it is not a brownie, the same method will work.<br>

Good Luck. It is pretty easy once you do it once... but the first time is not as easy as it seems.<br><br>

~Peace<div></div>

You can re-spool 120 onto 620 with pretty good success. The only problem was that I never practiced it I did it, I just pretty much dove into it thiniking it would be easy. It was not. <b>BUY A CHEAP ROLL AND PRACTICE IN THE LIGHT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS, AND THE PRACTICE IN THE DARK!</b> It is worth the cost of a cheap roll to not lose a good roll with your pictures on it!<br>

The thing to remember is that 120 film is only taped on one side to the paper backing, so it must first be rolled onto another 120 spool (Just run it through a 120 camera with the lens cap on, easiest way), and then back onto the 620 spool so that the tape holding the film to the paper backing will go be at the start of your 620 roll as it goes through the camera. I assume that it would not work the other way as it would probably jam.<br>

As you roll it onto the 620 spool, when you get to the film, make sure that you keep the spools close so that you don't have the film get kinked when you get to the tape... it is important that it is all flush. Also, needless to say, <b>DO NOT TOUCH THE FILM!!!</b> My first time rolling onto a 620 spool, I spent half an hour in the darkroom doing it. I actually ended up having the whole thing unspool, and and had to then re-roll it onto a 120 cartige and then onto the 620. Though I got it done (althoughtI was a little less sane afterwards), I touched the emulsion on it while sorting it out, and found a fingerprint on my film that was from touching it before shooting, and a crescent shaped crinkle. These would have been avoided with prior practice. Also, it is not fun to be in the dark room trying to work it out, it is not as straight forward as it seems... trust me!<br>

<br>

You can see the print from it at http://www.photo.net/photo/1320655&size=lg<br> I used a Kodak Vigilant Junior Six-20 that was from the 40's-50's to do it. Though it is not a brownie, the same method will work.<br>

Good Luck. It is pretty easy once you do it once... but the first time is not as easy as it seems.<br><br>

~Peace<div></div>

I have respooled 620 film onto 120 cartriges once, with pretty good success. The only problem was that I never practiced it I did it, I just pretty much dove into it thiniking it would be easy. It was not. <b>BUY A CHEAP ROLL AND PRACTICE IN THE LIGHT TO SEE HOW IT WORKS, AND THE PRACTICE IN THE DARK!</b> It is worth the cost of a cheap roll to not lose a good roll with your pictures on it!<br>

The thing to remember is that 120 film is only taped on one side to the paper backing, so it must first be rolled onto another 120 spool (Just run it through a 120 camera with the lens cap on, easiest way), and then back onto the 620 spool so that the tape holding the film to the paper backing will go be at the start of your 620 roll as it goes through the camera. I assume that it would not work the other way as it would probably jam.<br>

As you roll it onto the 620 spool, when you get to the film, make sure that you keep the spools close so that you don't have the film get kinked when you get to the tape... it is important that it is all flush. Also, needless to say, <b>DO NOT TOUCH THE FILM!!!</b> My first time rolling onto a 620 spool, I spent half an hour in the darkroom doing it. I actually ended up having the whole thing unspool, and and had to then re-roll it onto a 120 cartige and then onto the 620. Though I got it done (althoughtI was a little less sane afterwards), I touched the emulsion on it while sorting it out, and found a fingerprint on my film that was from touching it before shooting, and a crescent shaped crinkle. These would have been avoided with prior practice. Also, it is not fun to be in the dark room trying to work it out, it is not as straight forward as it seems... trust me!<br>

<br>

You can see the print from it at http://www.photo.net/photo/1320655&size=lg<br> I used a Kodak Vigilant Junior Six-20 that was from the 40's-50's to do it. Though it is not a brownie, the same method will work.<br>

Good Luck. It is pretty easy once you do it once... but the first time is not as easy as it seems.<br><br>

~Peace<div></div>

People keep talking about the FM10 durability, and I was skeptical when I first read about it. Two or three days ago, I fell off a 10 foof cliff with it, and it survived. I had it hanging off the strap which was over my shoulder as I was walking to take a night shot (I had the leather bottom off, which is rare for me, as I was going to mount it on a tripod), and ater bringing it back indoors, tediously cleaning it, and the filter (The fall knocked the cap off), it was in great condition. Now, it only hit hard dirt, but it bruised me up pretty well, and the camera came out in great condition. Since then, besides being more carful, I have held the camera in alot higher regard. It is a great camera, and bang for the buck, it has been great for me as a student.

~Peace