kirk_thompson

<p>Usually trap, hood, Thumbs Up and softie. But for landscapes it looks like a mini technical camera with carbon tripod, RRS bracket, Frankenfinder, and WATE or MATE – and light yellow filters for Monochrom. I hope nobody will walk by with another Leica and criticize what I've done to it. </p>

<p>And the FF sensor would have to be properly designed, and the firmware would have to include Leica's manual lens corrections, or else it would have the same problems as Sony with tinted and distorted corners.</p>

<p>I agree with Todd – you're off to a wonderful start.<br>

I suggest replacing the thermometer with a really nice laboratory-grade one. It's an investment in consistency.<br>

Kirk</p>

<p>So far nobody has mentioned the considerable advantage of using the New Protra 400 & 160 for BW. Their finer grain makes even better BW conversions than the previous NC/VC versions. In LR/ACR or in PS, you have a full set of sliders to adjust individual colors in relation to one another. It's like having a filter kit for BW, except that you can use each 'filter' for the appropriate part of the image: Instead of a Y or R filter, use the B slider to darken skies; instead of a G filter to lighten foliage, just move the slider. Each color-area can be shifted along the gray scale, independently. </p>

<p>(Within reasonable limits – move the sliders too far & you start manufacturing noise.) </p>

<p>I wouldn't buy one without the baffles. Look for an MX-EVS instead?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Marvin. It probably has some worn parts in the film transport & shutter-cocking mechanism. The shop is only tinkering enough to make it work momentarily, so I'd stop sending it to them. It's worth a 'real' overhaul by someone who specializes in Rolleis & has a stock of parts for them (Krikor or Harry Fleenor). A bright viewing screen might be worthwhile at the same time. It's too good a camera to become a brick or bookend.</p>

<p>It might just need a focus adjustment. The vintage camera repair person (vintage cameras, not vintage person) who works on my Rolleis says a substantial proportion of those he sees need focus adjustment.<br>

Some repair people just eyeball the correct focus on ground glass. But for two 75-80mm lenses to be in sync, adjustment has to be done with a collimator that focuses a beam. </p>

<p>I've been scanning Portra NC 160 on a flatbed scanner, but today tried some<br /> scans with an Imacon 848. My intention was to do minimal processing in FlexColor<br /> - I thought the FlexColor Portra 160 NC profile would yield adequate results for<br /> later processing if I just set the histogram correctly and then post-processed<br /> later in LR/PS.<br /> <br /> But the Portra profile didn't seem accurate enough to allow this simple<br /> treatment. The color was less accurate than my flatbed scans. I was especially<br /> bothered by overwhelming greens, when other colors came close to what I<br /> expected. I had trouble correcting them either with the FlexColor software, or<br /> later with PS. The scanner's owner checked me out, and we saw no incorrect<br /> settings.<br /> <br /> --Have others seen color anomalies with this combination of film and scanner<br /> profile?<br /> <br /> --I didn't have time to check & see: does the FlexColor RGB Standard profile<br /> perhaps give better results with Portra 160 NC?<br /> <br /> (Other than this color problem, I was a happy scanner. With sharpening/texture<br /> set at -120, the images looked much clearer than flatbed scans, yet didn't have<br /> the over-sharpness of FlexColor's default sharpening. In this respect they<br /> looked very 'photographic' to my eyes, which are still calibrated to<br /> 20th-century photo norms.)<br /> <br /> Kirk</p>

<p>The original release of Perfect Resize was buggy, but they've fixed it now. I always use it in preference to Bicubid Smoother when printing over 13x19". IMO it's the best way of res-ing up on Mac. (QImage may be as good/better on PC.) </p>

<p>Kirk</p>

<p>I bought the Bay II size from Fotodiox & use it by preference. I also have a vintage hood in mint cond, but the camera puts it on only for black-tie occasions.</p>

<p>According to Phillips' 'Classic Rollei,' yes it will work on a T, & most other Bay I Rolleis. </p>

<p>The question I'd ask is how this encumbrance could be more useful than a contemporary hand-held meter, for example the tiny & very accurate Gossen DigiSix?</p>

<p>Kirk</p>

<p>If you google Antique Cameras, you'll find a Rollei price guide with a link to a 3.5E1 instruction manual. <br>

In most instances you also end up paying for CLA.</p>

 

<p>I promise I'm not trolling, I'm really curious: Why buy an FX? To complete a collection? Would you expect some photographic advantage from using it, instead of a Fleenored or Krikored 2.8F?</p>

<p>Kirk</p>

<p>Re: the original question: who would fix a SLX? I've been offered one – the 2d version whch supposedly has fewer problems – but I wonder who services them. </p>

<p>Kirk</p>

It's interesting to know what films & film speeds were available in the 1920s, for Barnak to use in the early Leicas.

 

But I wonder what they were in the 1930s 'golden age' of Leica photography - HCB, Kertesz, Brassai, etc.?

 

In US, when did Kodak's 35mm Super X & Super XX first appear?

 

I imagine the movie industry spurred film development & increase in film speeds.

 

(Re: the note above, on how films were rated: it pretty much boiled down to ASA & DIN?)

You can get a 'demo' - that is, a factory-refurbished silver M8 with warranty - for $4295. I got one & the sensor is almost - but not 100% - clean. So a used one w/o a warranty should sell for less than that.

She cleaned & adjusted an elderly 35mm Summicron for me, & it tests out better than a much newer lens!

 

Kirk

I'd have it cla'd & go right ahead & enjoy using it,pretending you're in Paris in the '30s. Some time ago I had one like this - retrofitted by Leitz with a RF from a later model - & found I could get the best results by viewing through a newer 50mm external finder. You'll love the flare - it's part of the image!

 

Kirk

Adobe sells a hard-copy version as a separate item on their Store website. It's the same

sort of thing as you used to get for free.

But back to the original question: For large prints you 'res up' - that is, use an

interpolation 'engine' to raise the ppi with fewer jaggies/artifacts than if you just reduce

the ppi for printing.

 

Bicubic Smoother in PS works pretty well.

 

Genuine Fractals does a better job on a Mac.

 

QImage does an even better job, but is PC only.

My experience is that SterlingTek batteries, when fully charged, will fire as many shots as

Canon batteries.

 

But when they're charged & waiting a while to go in the camera, the Canon batteries seem

to hold the full charge while ST charge drops off more rapidly.

 

I dunno why this might be.

Hi, Bruce -

 

Right - and most folks don't seal the bags; but that's not really the point:

 

The info is still pretty vague, & I wish you'd clarify. Where's the 'notice'? Have you seen

the case in point & do you now how the paper was used, stacked, etc? Which version of

HPR was it - single-sided HPR, coated on one side; or HPR Duo with images that would be

bound as facing pages (that is, with the coatings facing one another)? It's really hard to

tell if 'the notice' points to a real problem for photographers, given the way they usually

handle & store their images.

Looks like Beat's question is more specific: will it work with a Mac Pro?

 

Kirk

Dear Bruce,

 

More info, please?

 

If true this is bad news, because HPR is one of the best-looking & most widely used fine-

art photo papers. The photographer-artists who use it believe they're making 'archival'

prints - in spite of the fact that HPR contains a moderate dose of OBAs. The papers that

have none at all, for example Epson's Ultrasmooth, don't look very good in comparison -

as if they'd already yellowed.

 

Out-gassing is a known problem with glossy & luster papers, but it's not a generally

acknowledged problem when a matte print on 100% rag has been allowed to air-dry for

24 hours.

 

We don't normally stack prints on HPR, nor bind them. They're usually stored 'archivally,'

without exposure to light, until they make their way into frames. Then they meet up with

a 100% rag overmat & undermat, & with limited protection under glass or plexi. If they

aren't going to be framed soon, then after their day of drying they go into clear plastic

bags, which in turn go into storage boxes. The bags & boxes are marketed as 'archival' or

PAT materials.

 

 

Could you - or your source, the conservator - give us more information about the

conditions under which something went wrong on HPR? If, for example, the prints had

been stacked right after they were printed, that's just human error, not a problem with the

paper.

 

Kirk

See the Luminous-Landscape site for reviews, both favorable & unfavorable.

 

While Ellis states the point pretty boldly, he's basically right - you can indeed see the

difference between profiles from 1700 patches & the Atkinson target with 4K patches. So I

assume the differences would ne as obvious with even fewer swatches.

 

A more general question: I've long been curious about why so many folks want to make

their own profiles. If you've worked out a consistent style, you probably print on onlly 1 to

3 papers (a work-print paper, an archival rag paper, & perhaps a luster paper for

commerical uses &/or richer blacks).

 

How often do you play with new papers? You can get useful experimental profiles - just to

try out new papers/inks/printers - for $25 from InkjetArt, & the highest quality profiles

from Andrew Rodney for $100. I never spend more than $2-300 a year on profiles this

way, & if I bought a good profiling system (1700 patches) it would be obsolete long before

I amortized its cost. Instead I'm getting latest equipment & technical expertise.

 

I don't want to start an argument about this - I'm just genuinely curious!