juan_de_valdenebro

<p>Thanks everyone... The Sharpie idea looks like having nothing but lots of advantages... I'll try it, thanks!</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

I am photographing in dangerous neighborhoods in South America, and I need to darken my Summaron because it calls everyone's eyes (on a black camera), so I guess there must be a few chemical compounds that can do it... The easy part of this story is I don't mind the final tone, or how uneven (tonally) lens' surface can be in the end and forever: I'd prefer a lens that looks old or beaten or rusty... ANY idea is very very welcome... After a couple of days searching, I have no clue... I really think applying some liquid with a brush can make it, maybe some acid? Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>Wow! I did it!<br>

Thank you all!</p>

<p>Hi Frederick, it seems you're talking about a different camera: I explained it on my first post... Thanks!<br>

Jean-Yves: great info! I'll try to contact them...<br>

Cheers,<br>

Juan</p>

<p>Hi Arthur, I talked to Stephen just before posting here (we crossed e-mails)... I've bought from him several times, and I've also posted on his forum for years... He recommended me to send him my camera, but I just can't... I wish I could... I understood his position because that would be the safest option and that's his bussiness... Maybe Tom A. knows about the T... I guess he knows about the R4M specially, as he helped on its design, if I remember well... Let's wait and see if someone can lend a hand: the Bessa T is a wonderful camera, and as vertical alignment is something that's commonly required every certain number of years, it would be great to learn how to do it... Specially for me, living this far!<br>

Thank you! </p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I´ve been a happy Bessa user for nearly a decade: long ago using an R4M, an R3A and two T´s. They have never given me any problem... 100% lucky with my Voigtlander lenses too, the 15mm, the tiny 28mm 3.5 and the 40mm 1.4. Although I love my only Leica, a Barnack IIIf RD, it sees much less use... All I ever needed with my Bessas was adjusting my R3A's vertical alignment once, and that took me just one minute, including the hot shoe removal, gently using a simple small screwdriver for vertical alignment, as a web site explains.<br>

Today I removed one of my Bessa T's hot shoe, thinking of doing the same, a quick vertical alignment, but I sadly found I can't access that way its screws for rangefinder calibration because below the hot shoe there's no hole: no way to go through the top plate...<br>

So here I am asking if someone has ever corrected a Bessa T's vertical alignment... Unfortunately I am living in South America (Colombia) and sending a camera for service in the U.S. means a really huge risk of losing the camera before it reaches there, and not even shipping insurance helps: post companies here are allowed not to refund the price of any customer's items sent because of very high levels of corruption and unsecurity... Yes, I know it's unbelievable... So I need some guide to do it for myself or, if it's not easy (I'm no expert), I need to give some information to the only repair guy here, who's old and doesn't even use internet, but has experience with older rangefinders and mechanical cameras, but never with Bessas...<br>

Thanks a lot for any guide or comment... All stories can help!</p>

<p>Cheers,<br>

Juan</p>

<p>Wow! No one using an Industar-22?</p>

<p>HI,<br>

Could someone please confirm the size of the (inner) screw for filters on the collapsible I-22?<br>

Someone using any screw filter on the collapsible Industar-22 instead of the bigger push-on (36) filters?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>The chimney with a circular "loupe" is the one I've always had... Focuses very well, yes... <br>

I think I'll order the PM to give it a try. It's a price not to worry in any case...<br>

Thanks for such great help!</p>

<p>Q.G.,</p>

<p>I found for the very same price the NC2 100 and the PM (42307(?) at keh), so... Which one should I get? Are they different in any way? I do have the polaroid back...<br>

Thank you!</p>

<p>Wow!<br>

You have been really helpful!<br>

I'll start looking for all of them...<br>

Thanks a lot!</p>

<p><!-- @page { size: 21cm 29.7cm; margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></p>

<p >Hi everybody...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use a Hasselblad 2003FCW years ago, and have always used it waist level with the image sides inverted when focusing and composing... Now I'd like to try an unmetered prism to see the image as it really is... Used, of course...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have absolutely no idea on this subject. Could someone please recommend me a few models?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don't care if it's Hasselblad or other brand... If there's a cheap one, metered, maybe I would go for it too, although I always meter handheld...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I just saw written on line (without more detailed information) “hasselblad meter prism”, “hasselblad pm42307”, “hasselblad pm5 42308”, “kiev nc2” and “kiev ttl”, all of them cheap, below $100...</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Do all of them flip the image to see it corrected? Are all of them 45º?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Any preference or advice?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks a lot!</p>

 

<p>Anyone having tested options precisely on Arista Premium 400?</p>

<p>Thank you very much, Larry...</p>

<p>Hello</p>

<p>I'm using, some time ago, Rodinal ONLY with all my B&W films. I won't use any other one.<br>

I use Tri-X constantly both for sunny and overcast or interiors shots.<br>

I am about to start some tests on how Tri-X reacts underexposed and developed in different ways with Rodinal always...<br>

Then I read about Freestyle's Arista Premium 400, and some people think it's Tri-X... (Already read all threads)<br>

With the money I buy 25 rolls of Tri-X here in Barcelona, I could order 100 rolls of Arista!<br>

The question:<br>

Is someone pushing Arista with Rodinal with results enough for printing on silver paper with enlarger?<br>

1600 or 3200 would be great...<br>

I know some people scan... That's why they talk about astronomic ISO numbers... I'll be printing with my enlarger ONLY.<br>

Thank you all.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Juan</p>

<p>I meant go for slides in c41</p>

<p>Andrew,</p>

<p>Cross-processing slide film in C41 means developing transparencies with the wrong chemicals: those used to develop color negatives. So the final colors will be a bit (or a lot) different to those you would get if your roll was developed with the right slide chemicals (E6).<br>

You'll get very high contrast, with black zones in shadows. Your slide film will become a negative, to make prints, not to project... The results can be beautiful or a disaster. Personally I don't like most of cross processed images, because most of them have color casts and are just experiments from people who do not know what they want. But when done the right way, there are no casts. Here are some advices:<br>

1. Avoid Fuji slides. Avoid expired film. Avoid not knowing the results you will get, and pretending that whatever comes might be interesting: as everything in photography, this requires precise metering and well known materials. And of course, write metering and shooting details for each image, at least in the first roll of a kind...<br>

2. Depending on the scene and the colors you need to get "in the middle" (colors go to black or white easily, more than usual) you may need to expose normally (N) and N+1 (twice the required light in a second image) but no more than that because you start losing color, and color casts appear. (N+1/2 makes little difference, forget it)<br>

3. Best films for cross-processing are those used for decades in fashion for cross-processed sessions: they give those contrasty, yellowish skin images that look almost normal because their palette has been around us for a long time in books, posters and movies... Best materials are, in my opinion, EPP and EPR, Kodak Ektachrome 100 Plus and Kodak Ektachrome 64. I use the first for daylight (N) and the second for tungsten light (N+1: it takes a lot of light and a fast lens). A way to remember is that ISO100 Kodak slides are best, so you can also use E100vs and even amateur Kodak Elitechrome 100, which give great results too. I don't do it with overcast days.<br>

The other case, negative in E6, is not very interesting to me. Pale colors, soft contrast, and pro labs know negatives affect E6 chemicals quality... You'll miss nothing if you never do it.<br>

Go for slides in E6. Don't google on it, because there's so much trash on this subject... Follow this: do it in daylight with Kodak100 slides metered normally and developed without pushing. You bet: you'll have 36 great photographs in your first roll. Enjoy.</p><P>

 

<a href=http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00S/00SbkH-112353584.jpg>Nude Photo</a> </P>

<p>Numbah, my last career's project was precisely done (years ago) after comparing trix and plusx with several developers. Shots were finally done with Hasselblad and tripod, and paper was Bergger grade 3. Even though you already got more than enough great answers, I just wanted to tell you that plusx is one of the best films ever made. I was -and even teachers- amazed at 1 meter prints without grain. The absolut winner developer for both films was PMK, and finally, even beeing night shots, I went for plusx over trix!<br>

PMK is made with Pyrogallic acid, and is the kind of developer widely used for decades in the 1800s. Replaced by other developing agents just because some people died, not because of its quality. The ABC of Pyro is a recommended book. Anyway PMK liquid made by Bergger is easily handled just with gloves. It's true that if skin is in lasting contact with developer, as with wet clothes, there's no medical back, and death comes, but it's also true that biggest risk with pyro is mixing powders: breathing a bit of pyro dust in the air while mixing makes you a ghost.<br>

But the benefits remain there forever... Great shadow detail with highlights that don't block easily, and the pyro staining mark: grain masking. The space between grains is chemically filled too! No other developer is like pyro. Fantastic for clouds and fog... As always, pyro is good for nothing unless you have a great composition with outstanding exposure and really know how to put it all into best paper...<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Thank you all for your help...<br /> Brooks, sadly strange things with fuji and agfa products availability are happening around here since 2007... We haven't agfa chemicals AT ALL in Spain months ago, and even basic slide films like fuji's velvia or kodak's EPP are sometimes unavailable. The same for TriX! Ilford and Tetenal products are always available. I wish I had some rodinal left, but I guess Ilfosol will be able to express proper exposure too, while keeping grain undissolved...<br /> Peter, interesting combo... It would be nice to see the same image through microphen to check out differences for those speedy HP5s...<br /> Stan, thank you! I'm lucky you did it before! I think I won't use 6x6 because that would be for very little grain even in 1 meter prints... I'll use 35mm. Looking at your images, even after scanning process, your negatives look rich in middle gray contrast, and it makes me feel optimistic! I'll just try 1+14 for the last bite of grain. If there's something OK, I'd post it here maybe during... next year!... Happy holidays everybody.</p>

<p>Happy Christmas...<br /> Yesterday I bought Ilfosol3 for the first time, hoping the biggest and most defined grain with classic-type emulsion HP5+. I really like HP5+, and believe it or not here in Spain we haven't ANY other non-t faster b&w months ago! So there's no other option for me right now. "Es lo que hay", we say, "it is what there is". Although I think HP5+ shines in heaven with TriX, I would have tested Fuji's Neopan1600 too, for the grain...<br /> Anyway I want a clean tonal range, so I'll expose HP5+ at around 200.<br /> Ilfosol recommends 1+9 and 1+14 dilutions. I'd appreciate some advice in ways to achieve not diffused grain edges, and minimum (zero?) grain masking too... I want -in looks- the extreme that's far from Perceptol or PMK, and I won't use a push developer either, I don't want to lose range: I don't want everything in zone 4 but the highlights... Ha ha. (Beloved Microphen knows we trust it when necessary).<br /> Any experience in poor agitation, longer times, higher dilutions...? 7 minutes, Ilford says... I would go for a bit more to do it "normally", but for sharper, bigger grain, got no clue...<br /> Thanks.</p>

Hello,

 

Has anyone compared Nikon and Zeiss 35mm lenses?

 

I'm trying to find the same image with both lenses...

 

Thanks.

Hello Tenna, I work in fashion and product in Spain, and sometimes I do macro too, I like a lot flowers and color. I own the Nikon Micro60 since 1997. I have a dozen of Nikons, from fisheye16 to 300, prime and zoom lenses, apart from Rodenstock and Zeiss ones for large and medium formats.

 

The 60mm is the best Nikon I have used in my life if we talk about image quality. Surprisingly sharp and, more important, clean, rich, clear colors, full of contrast, really looks more like a Zeiss lens. Great performance, both with Velvia slide film or b&w, and with digital cameras; an investment for life, very well constructed too: mine has seen many seas and countries and works perfectly.

 

In fact it's the lens I use these days for portraits with my digital camera, where it becomes a confortable 90mm with very little depth of field...

 

The other lens I use for my digital is a 35mm ZF Zeiss, that works as a normal lens. For wide yet I prefer Hasselblad.

 

If you haven't bought the D40, don't do it, you'd want to change it too soon, because of some camera limits and because of its sensor, not able to take everything a great lens can offer. If you bought it, don't worry, anyway you'll find for yourself that your images won't go beyond that sensor's look, and you will need a better sensor, so you'll probably sell the camera before christmas...

 

You are talking about two different concepts: buying a lens that is among the best in the world, and buying a camera that is one of the cheapest in the market.

 

If you get a good camera (excellent sensor) you'll get all your lens can give you. If you get a bad camera (normal sensor) you'll be throwing away lenses & camera money, without getting one top quality image. Even if you are a good photographer. Don't add limits to yourself...

 

In my case, as I don't work in sports photography (I never trigger five times in the same second!), I can use a camera -designed by Fujifilm for Nikon lenses- that takes special care for the image, making digital images have a more natural, film look. This camera is highly recommended for people and flowers photography.

 

The camera price (without lens) was 2,500 and a couple of years ago its sensor won the award for best DSLR sensor of the year. This sensor is completely different from any other camera's sensor: half of its 12,3 effective megapixels sense high lights only, beyond any other camera available from Nikon, and produces the smoothest skins and tonal range I have seen in digital. Now that it's possible to buy it for half the price or less, I'll buy anther S3 as a second body, because I definitely like it better than the new S5. (battery, size, grip, memory cards...)

 

I have used the digital Hasselblad too (I don't own it) and I can tell you that my S3 with the zeiss35, give me 70Mb 16Bit TIFFs from Raw files that make me feel like in medium format... Amazing sharpness and color, great for working in Photoshop, far away from 35mm previous photography. The Fuji S3 is also -and by far- the best high ISO performer DSLR available in the market.

 

If you have any question, my email is juanebro@yahoo.es

Or through my page, www.artimag.eu

 

Every flower is better than any camera