david_l3

<p>Look for a powered USB Docking station instead. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Chemicals. the last lot was in ilfosol 3. I developed 3 short lengths. The first two were ok, but the 3rd length was clear. I reused the developer assuming it wasn't exhaust from the 3 lengths of short film.</p> </blockquote> <p>This could be part of the problem. Always use fresh developer and throw it away after each use. Developers oxidize during development due to air exposure and agitation, besides the exhaustion from the film. </p>

<p>Been a long time since my last post. Rolleiflex Automat. Brooklyn NY last July. </p><div></div>

<p>There is no reason to use a Macro Close up filter on your 210mm lens and with the long 26 inch bellows length of your camera. Just rack the bellows out to focus close up. You can of course use 58mm filters for color and contrast changes. <br> I also recommend not to use the lens converted to 360mm. It's very difficult to focus and image quality is poor. I tried one time with a 210mm Rodenstock lens and one time was enough to see it was not worth the trouble for a second attempt. </p>

<p>What is it you want with a vintage lens? Vintage can mean many things. Are you looking for excellent optical quality? Some old manual focus lenses can be surprisingly good. Better, get a modern EF or EFS lens for your Canon. If not, then consider a soft focus lens. Or a Lensbaby lens if you want optical softness and out of focus areas. </p>

<p>Paul, you didn't mention processing the scanned files before printing. I use an Epson V700 and it's mandatory to touch up the images and add sharpening with Photoshop. I have scanned lots of 120 film and it's rare a file from the scanner is good enough to print. </p>

<p>Check out the Pentax 645. It handles much like a 35mm SLR, and has a selection of lenses ideal for landscapes. </p>

<p>What Elliott said. Shoot jpeg+NEF. In RAW conversion you can select the amount of noise reduction that you prefer. Compare it to the jpeg and you have another choice. <br> Scout before hand and experiment with increasing ISO values. You might be surprised how well the camera can do in uncharted ISO territories. Also manually set white balance. That can add a little exposure margin with warm light sources. <br> I shoot live music in dim venues, and a test session is invaluable for knowing what to expect and to be fully ready to shoot. </p>

<p>An external SSD, or better, two, would be better than a hard drive with regard to the hard knocks encountered in travel. Hard drives are relatively fragile. It'd be heartbreaking to lose your photos on a hard drive. </p>

<p>I have a Medalist just like yours. Also have the ground glass adapter and cut film back. Ken Ruth at Bald Mountain CLA'd it and told me the lens checked out among the best he'd seen. With that knowledge, it's a keeper. I'm still learning how to re-roll 120 film onto 620 rolls, and the negatives so far are excellent. </p>

<p>I have that lens, which I bought from a videographer who used it quite a bit on Canon DSLRs. He even included the Nikon to Canon EOS adapter in the deal, even though my cameras are Nikons. </p>

<p>55 Year old Appalachian Trail through hiker taking a break in Harpers Ferry, W.Va. Rolleiflex Automat, Tessar lens set to f4. </p><div></div>

<p>I don't plan to use these but I have used film several years out of date with my medium format cameras. </p> <div></div>

<p>I had a Mamiya RB67. It made beautiful photos but it was very large and heavy, a tripod was necessary. The RZ67 is a later electronic version. The RB67 needs no batteries. </p> <p>What are your plans for medium format? 6x7 and 6x9 formats deliver great results but the cameras are not easy to transport. </p> <p>6x6 cameras are easier to carry. I use TLRs, twin lens reflexes. Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords with Tessar, Xenar, and Planar lenses deliver excellent sharpness. 6x6 Bronica SLRs are larger and heavier and they have sharp lenses. </p>

<p>1 or 2 hours is the shutter speed. You set the film camera shutter to the B setting. With a cable release you lock the shutter open for the long duration. With film the exposure relationship with shutter speed and aperture is negated due to reciprocity (aperture/shutter speed relationship) failure during the very long exposures. The film's chemical sensitivity to light is not linear and strange effects happen. Slide film is a very different realm from digital. Experiment and discover for yourself. </p>

<p>The night sky light levels are so very low. And the extreme film reciprocity failure works in your favor by not being overexposed over several hours. Try it once and see.<br> Go to Google images and enter star trails film photography. This I did was with ISO 100 slide film.<br> http://www.photo.net/photo/3758930</p> <p> </p>

<p>It's easier than you think with mechanical film cameras. I have done it several times on 35mm film with old Nikons. For ISO 100 film f5.6 is good for several hours, f4 is better for 1-3 hour exposures. A wide or super wide angle lens is my preference. Light pollution is worse than you expect because small amounts creep into the frame over the long exposures. Try to avoid it as much as you can. A solid tripod (hanging weights on the tripod helps a lot) and taping the lens at infinity helps. Lock the shutter button with a cable release. </p> <p>A foreground terrestrial feature can help. Having the North Star in the frame gives dramatic circular star trails. I have done exposures up to 8 hours to get very long 120 degree arcs on the sky. Only one photo is possible per night per camera. Set an alarm clock if you plan to sleep. I have awakened after dawn and ruined a few shots. Clear nights will leave dew on your lens, another detail to check periodically during the night. </p> <p>The long time exposures cause unpredictable color shifts. Fujichrome can get an overall green cast. I prefer Ektachrome for that reason. Experiment and have fun. </p>

<p>Check the bellows for tiny pin holes in strong light. A lens with either a Copal 0 or a Copal 1 shutter will fit fine. It's likely the lens board is a size matching other 4x5 cameras. Caltar lenses are well regarded. Any standard 4x5 film holder will work. The more recent plastic Fidelity and Riteway holders are excellent and not expensive used. You will need a dark cloth and a cable release. Get a hand held light meter, most are fairly inexpensive used. A good solid tripod and head is money well spent and will reward you in the long run. </p>

<p>Dan, it was at f16. I just examined the negative and there is a thin zone of unsharpness at the outer edge inside the exposed area. Probably explains why lens manufacturers understate the coverage of a lens, not just the cone of light, but also where sharpness and contrast are acceptable. It was a good exercise to make that negative. I learned the limits of my lens in a detailed way. </p>

<p>Wouldn't regular negatives in a monobath need to be done in the dark, and with a timer? Clearing Type 55 film is done in daylight and with easier tolerance for timing it. Never tried either myself but have heard people put Type 55 negatives in a plain plastic bucket to clear them. </p>

<p>I tried my 90mm F4.5 Nikkor on 8x10. It did not cover it, not even close. My 120mm Nikkor just barely does. Here is the 90mm Nikkor 4.5 image. It was impossible to keep the front bed out of the frame. </p><div></div>

<p>Those are not amps but professional lighting power packs. The flash heads plug into them to get the high voltage charge the flash heads need. The power packs plug into the available wall outlets. I wouldn't mix US and UK units with the wrong wall power. Rent the units from where you will use them. And definitely ask about proper usage. Those power packs put out high voltage. It's dangerous if you don't know what you're doing with them. Years ago there was a comedy movie about the whole royal family getting electrocuted by a professional lighting power pack set in a rain puddle. It can actually happen, and has caused harm to people. </p>

<p>Leszek has a good example where autoexposure would fool the light meter and cause the dark sky to be middle gray. Use minus exposure compensation or manual exposure. </p>

<p>I like the Kodak Commercial Ektars, the 14 inch is my most used lens. The shutters need servicing occasionally to keep them working smoothly. These lenses are very sharp, but have a little less contrast than modern multi-coated lenses. It depends on the look you want. There are Kodak Portrait lenses that are less sharp and better for smooth skin and soft details. <br> If in doubt, a 300mm Fuji, Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikkor, or Caltar lens with an f5.6 max aperture will deliver sharp and contrasty results at a reasonable price. </p>

<p>I have had both and the RB67 allows closer focusing than the Hasselblad with the normal lenses. </p>