paul_harris
-
Posts
96 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by paul_harris
-
-
I have a fair amount of pictures taken with both those films at EI1600 and above. You can see some if you click my name below. I do my own processing, however. When I first pushed TX to 1600 I used D-76 and got extreme contrast, etc. Now I use Xtol 1+1 and I like the look of it. For Delta 3200 I have used Xtol up to EI 3200, but now use Microphen, stock, using John Hicks' times on unblinkingeye. com- up to EI 6400. You will just have to ask the folks at the lab what they do, and with a little experience, you can decide what you like. For me, having shot TX and Delta side by side in the 1600-2000 range, I feel the following: TX- finer grain, more contrast, weak shadows, but _with care_ you can get a surprising amount. Delta - better tonality, bigger grain. I don't worry too much about a really robust tonal range, but if you are getting "chalk and charcoal" with either one of these, something is wrong. Also remember that it ain't daylight in there! There is a long history of heavy pushing of B&W film under these conditions, and people are used to the look.
-
I switched to Edwal LFN after some PhotoFlo (in working dilution) that I was trying to save turned slimy on me. Of course, you could use the PhotoFlo once and throw it out- that's what I'd do.
-
I got an R2 from Stephen quite recently. I will buy more stuff from him. He has been absolutely straight to deal with. He responds quickly to e-mail. I got a Cosina 107SW from him with a meter problem. I described the problem to him; he told me to send it back. Three days after he received the problem one, I had a good one in my hands.
I find the R2 pretty much as described in the literature. Lots of good features. Fine viewfinder. Build quality: not a Leica, but that's no secret.
-
from a .jpg advertising a M6 here recently, it appears to be
845-496-8834
-
I also like Edwal LFN, in distilled water for the final 1-minute rinse. I put the reels in a salad spinner (lettuce centrifuge-thingy). I fasten the reels to the basket with small cable ties, opposite each other for balance. Spin for 1 1/2 minutes or so. Most of the water is removed without touching the film. Take off the reels and hang up in a warm, humid place, using the shower as mentioned above. No squeegee or sponge. No spots, very little dust.
-
I should add to the previous: I use Xtol for the majority of my B&W processing, but for D3200 at 3200 and beyond, I have gotten better results with Microphen.
-
Try here:
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/D3200/d3200.html
I've shot a fair amount of D3200 up to EI6400. I have not had good luck with Ilford's times on this film - pretty thin. John Hicks' times work very well for me. Watch the temperature pretty carefully; distilled water for the developer would be nice. This kind of pushing needs everything to work right. I have not had luck with Rodinal as a very energetic "push" developer. For an example of this speed, try clicking on my name below. The picture on the left of the "latest"(not that new!)series was shot and processed that way. It was easy to print; absolute strait print with #1 1/2 filter. Hope your monitor is not too dark!
-
I recently got a 50mm Summar (no. 405095) from KEH. They had the
front thread diameter listed as 36mm. Trying a 36mm-->37mm step-up
adapter showed me that it is smaller than that. The _outside_
diameter appears to be in the general area of 36mm. Is the actual
inside diameter 34mm, or some strange fraction? I don't have a
caliper to measure it precisely. BTW, the lens was listed as "ugly,"
with some fogging, but I am enjoying the pictures it makes.
-
I had a IIIf for quite a while years ago. It was elegant, small, heavy for its size, slow to load and rewind, and fun.
The rangefinder is totally different from any modern camera that I know of, including Leica M. The Bessa T has a similar rangefinder, but no viewfinder. In the LTM Leicas, the rangefinder is pretty good, but you shift your eye to a squinty little 50mm frame viewfinder beside it, no parallax correction or anything, or mount an accessory viewfinder.
If it's checked out and working well, it should continue to work well. They're great little brass bricks. A modern Voightlander Bessa might be a more practical shooter, but the oldies are fun. Outfit it with a 1930's Summar ($99-$130) or slightly newer Summitar, and you have something a little different to have fun with. Goes under your jacket on a strap just like a point-and-shoot.<div>
</div> -
I happen to enjoy Frank van Riper's columns. He seems to use what he likes rather well, and some of us nattering away on photo.net probably don't generate enough business individually to have $3000 monthly processing bills and still make a good living as professional photographers.
On the flash sync. workaround. The slow flash sync. on the M series cameras is, as you all know, a direct result of the shutter design. It is, and has been for a long time, a horizontally-moving cloth shutter under relatively low tension. This limits the speed. It also makes the Leica sound like a Leica, which is one of the strong selling points. The life of the shutter is also extraordinarily long. I imagine that the folks at Leica have given some thought to the issue, and while this multiple flash thing is a bit of a kluge, that is how they can keep the essential nature of the camera.
-
You will get strong opinions on this! Probably more anti-filter than pro-filter. Interestingly enough, Leica recommended a protective filter in their M3 manual. Look at Han's Pahlen's Leica M page here:
http://w1.320.telia.com/~u32008343/leica.htm
and click on the M3 manual link.
-
-
Check here:
http://w1.320.telia.com/~u32008343/leica.htm
For Hans Pahlen's comments on a couple of good bags.
Also, here:
I've used the Domke "little bit smaller" bag for my Nikon FM2 or F3 - it's very good. Also their smallest regular bag (5xb?) for one Nikon, 2 extra lenses. My Bessa R2 with Summicron 50 fitted, another lens or 2, film, etc., fit comfortably in this little bag. I'm looking at the satchels listed above.
-
As already suggested, a wetting agent (I use Edwal LFN) and distilled water for the final rinse will help. In addition, I use a techinque that I heard about on this forum a few years ago to remove quite a bit of the water. I use a salad spinner/lettuce "centrifuge", found in the kitchen department of many stores. I use small cable ties to fasten 2 film reels to the basket, opposite each other for balance, put on the lid, and spin-dry for 1-2 minutes. Even if only one reel has film on it, you need the other to balance the load. Then I hang up the film in the shower to dry. It is a good idea to have run the shower for a couple of minutes beforehand to get the dust out of the air. Very little spotting needed, no scratches.
-
For someone with lots of experience with Mamiyas, check out:
Scott Smith is obviously a big fan of the older Mamiyas.
-
Clarification to previous comment on the "3200 speed" films.
Ilford at 3200 and above=sandpaper
Kodak=oatmeal
How's that for objectivity?
-
This is tangential to the thread, but Roger Michel asked about the "Ilford product." Both HP5+ and Delta 3200 have quite a following. I use Tri-X instead of HP5+ because I feel that I will understand what I can get better if I don't keep switching back and forth. I prefer Delta 3200 to Kodak Tmax p3200 for somewhat similar reasons, but also I have gotten grain that I prefer at high speeds. I have gotten a sharper, more "sandpapery" grain, as opposed to a mushier, more "oatmealy" grain with the Ilford film. I have used a lot more of the Delta 3200, however. Xtol up to 3200, Microphen at 3200 and above.
For further opinions that I have found most useful, look around for comments by Roger Hicks and Ed Buffaloe (http://unblinkingeye.com). For comments on film/developer in general, I like _The Film Developing Cookbook_ by Anchell and Troop.
-
I have pushed Tri-X many times, up to EI 1600 or so. Xtol produces negatives for me that are easy to print. I usually use filters of 1/2 to 1 grade less contrast than I would with EI 400 (Ilford paper and filters). I have also shot quite a bit of Delta 3200, at EI 1250-6400. It has a smoother tonal range than the Tri-X, but at the less extreme speeds I prefer the finer grain of the Tri-X. I used HC110 for several months, but found that the contrast range and grain seemed to be harder to manage than with Xtol.
You might start with Kodak's suggested times. Also see the "massive development chart" at http://digitaltruth.com. They have fewer times for HC110 than for some other developers.
Other "high-energy" developers would include Acufine (as mentioned), and Ilford Microphen.
Have fun with it. As you get farther away from the basic EI of the film, it becomes increasingly important to take care with purity of water (I use distilled for the developer) and temperature control. You almost certainly will have to go through a fair amount of film and and processing to get exactly what you want. After some time, you can become more comfortable "tailoring" your results.
You might also try going over to http://greenspun.com, click on LUSENET and look at the B&W forums there. Usually quite a bit of information of the sort you are looking for.
-
Here are a couple of sites:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/gallery/
My own personal experience is pretty much limited to to scree and glacier climbing in Mexico. Pico de Orizaba, the highest mountain there, is around 18,700 ft. but presents few technical challenges. I also climbed to the summits of Popocatepetl, Ixtaccihuatl and the Nevado de Toluca. At that time I just used an Olympus rangefinder and Ektachrome, and didn't feel too deprived.
-
For some good ideas on the use of diffusion panels, and how to make them yourself for a minimum of $$, try
-
Galen Rowell does a lot of this kind of photography, albeit in color. He loves ND graduated filters.
-
The FM3a appears to be a hybrid of the FM2 and the FE2. It uses similar center-weighted metering as those cameras - no spot. It might come pretty close to your wishes, except for that. I use the FM2 most of the time, and am quite pleased. It is small and pretty light, with good build quality, though not with the tank-like quality of the "F" series. Lots of good lenses, new or used. For me, it works quickly and intutively. The FE10 and FM10, like the Bessa rangefinders, have a body made by Cosina. Build quality: pretty light - wouldn't bet my life on them. Some low-end Pentaxes and Olympus cameras are similar - I don't know the model numbers. If you want traditional control layout in a smallish, well-built camera, some of the used Pentaxes or Olympus models might be worth a look.
-
You seem to have a pretty good idea of what you _don't_ like, though without knowing why you don't like about Nikon, etc., it might be pretty difficult to do this by remote guess. You indicate that you might like a Mamiya 6, so that a rangefinder might be an idea. The Cosina/Bessa line might be something to look at. Otherwise, you probably need to get to a store that carries what you might be intersested in.
-
For another discussion that's going on, try here:
<p>
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0018aa&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet
No Words: Motion
in Leica and Rangefinders
Posted