ken_kuzenski

<p>Mr. Dube, to an American of my age, the phrasing of official Soviet press announcements (1950s to 1970s) were indeed amusing. Memories of those are what what my mock-Soviet statement was meant to invoke. I certainly didn't mean to offend anybody. And if you are unfamiliar with American idiom, you might not know that the reference to killing moose and squirrel was an extra indication that it was intended humorously. I'm sorry if it bothered you. --ken</p>

<p><br />I've been shooting B&W 6x6 again recently, and having a lot of fun. I absolutely never expected to shoot 35mm film again, until a whim (possibly aided by one glass too many of wine at dinner) led me to buy a Zorki-4K on a large auction site. And it's been a bundle o' fun.<br> It's remarkably sturdy feeling and appears to be well made. With the first roll I had a hair of trouble with the film advance, but that was probably "learning curve" on my part. I don't think the lens is perhaps quite as sharp as my friend's G2 ... but it's a fun camera to play with. I haven't had a rangefinder since I gave away an Argus C3 25 years ago, and I had forgotten how easy it is to focus a rangefinder in good light. I won't try anything serious with it, probably, but it's been a bunch of fun.<br> Plus, on the rare occasions when someone asks me what it is, I can say, "Ees elegant Soviet camera of rangefinding design, using modern film of 35mm roll, built by heroic workers of peoples' camera factory een Krasnogorsk!" (I'm old and the Soviet era is still recent to me.) :-) "Badenov! Keel moose and squirrel!" :-)<br> <img src="/photo/17949296" alt="" /></p><div></div>

<p>Ted, I gave my darkroom gear away a half-dozen years ago--I was delighted to find a young person who wanted to do wet printing. But I still shoot 120 from time to time; I scan at 3200dpi and can get a very nice 16x20" print from the scans. To me it's much easier to let someone else do the printing. I still do my own B&W film developing.</p> <p>Adorama used to offer digital file printing onto real silver paper--the prints were gorgeous, and very reasonably priced. These days the best I find for the most part is the printing onto Kodak "metallic" paper. It's a bit shiny for regular color prints, but for big B&W prints it looks pretty good. </p> <p>That being said, your mileage may vary: I loved wet printing from negatives but it was more work and bother and expense than I wanted these days. I still love medium-format B&W, and I'd rather let someone else do the printing. :-) The good news is: Whatever you decide on, you're going to have fun! :-)</p>

<p>Just my humble opinion, but I've got an old 50mm ("distagon?") f/4, non-T*, for my 500cm, and it's a very handy lens but there's a fair bit of architectural distortion with it. I wouldn't think you'd want to try using it for portraits. It sounds like the 60 might be a better choice for your purposes. (Or for your porpoises, if that's what you're photographing.) :-)</p>

<p>Andre, let me endorse Andrew and JDMvW's comments; black-and-white film can provide excellent results even with a fairly casual approach. Try developing a few rolls of 120 B&W film yourself, you'll be delighted at the results, even if the developer isn't at the exact temperature the spec sheets say. :-) You'll see that it's really easy to get great results. And that 500c/m is a GREAT "starter camera." :-) You're in for a world of fun, Andre! </p>

<p>Chaitan, lots of good advice here. I just want to pass on the old photographic wisdom: "The best lens I own is a tripod." Using one can make a big difference--or even just enough of a little difference to be a big help. :-) I use a big heavy tripod some of the time, but I also have a couple of small light monopods. One folds down to a foot long and it weighs less than a kilo--easy to carry and use! Worth a thought, IMO. Good luck! </p>

hat is a marvelous picture!

<p>Just MHO, but if I put some effort into the scan, I get a good 16x20" (40x50cm) prints from 6x6 negatives from a V500. I develop my own B&W--inexpensive and easy--and I haven't shot medium-format color print or slide in years, but I'm going to be trying that again soon. :-) Remember the old adage: "The best lens I own is a tripod." :-) </p> <p>I do think you'll probably have a world of fun if you get a 6x7: after 35mm and ordinary digital, a big negative is a genuine thing of beauty. :-) Have fun! --ken</p>

<p><em>"You should not be doing FP4 and HP5 together. B&W films with different speeds take different times."</em><br /> <br /> The Ilford datasheets I looked at listed 20m for both films at 1:3 one-shot. That was actually one of the reasons I decided to try Ilford--it struck me as a real convenience, being able to do both in one tank. I'm really enjoying the Ilford films; they don't seem quite as crisp as TMX and TMY, but I've been getting some great skin tones, and it seems pretty forgiving of my very casual approach to metering. (I've got two flash meters, two ambient meters, and a spotmeter, but I often wind up leaving the meter in the bag and just using "sunny 16." :-) </p>

thank you, Larry! Wow that is an amazing website thanks so much for the tip! The world has changed greatly since I was young. (for one thing, the dinosaurs no longer make a mess in my yard) :-)

<p>I haven't found this on the web in a few quick searches; maybe someone here can advise me. After a few years of shooting no film, I dragged out the medium format gear a few months ago. I'm having a world of fun, but I'm on new ground. Since the early 1990s, I shot only TMX and TMY with T-max developer. On my return to B&W a few months ago, I started shooting FP4 and HP5 and developing it in ID-11. I love the skin tones I've been getting with this combination, and it seems nice for my pre-dawn shooting (link below.) But the ID-11 kit makes 5 liters, and as an American, it would be easier for me to use a one-gallon stock solution. Like D-76, for instance.</p> <p>I've been using the ID-11 at 1:3 dilution, one shot, using 20 minutes for both FP4 and HP5. This is with two 120 rolls in a developing tank. Every source I see says that D-76 and ID-11 are basically the same chemicals. But I haven't found a source yet saying that one-time use at 1:3 dilution and 20 minutes of development is right for HP4/FP5 in D-76.</p> <p>Is anybody familar with this combination? Am I on safe ground using the same time/dilution? Many thanks in advance! --ken<br> http://people.duke.edu/~kuzen001/npav309_LR.jpg</p> <p> </p>

<p><br />Frank's suggestion of the MF Manual by Freeman is very good advice, Sanjay! I've got an old copy I found quite inexpensively, and it has been very helpful over the years. The cameras the manual discusses are mostly out of production but they ARE the ones you can look for on the used market. And there are some real bargains on MF gear where I live, because so many people use only digital.<br> Another "yes indeed" to the tripod suggestion. Most medium-format cameras are too heavy for many ordinary tripods.<br> I hope you find a camera you love and that you enjoy medium format. I use digital for routine things, but I use the MF gear for sheer pleasure, and I still enjoy it. :-) (Personally, I love 6x6 format, but others don't--you'll have to decide for yourself. :-) Good luck!</p>

<p><img src="http://people.duke.edu/~kuzen001/jojo_lr.jpg" alt="" width="693" height="495" /></p>

<p>Whoops, my bad! I was thinking of Kodak 400CN, a B&W C-41 film that was very handy at times. I wanted to mention the time/effort issue: Both of my Epson scanners had negative carriers and slide carriers, and you could load (I think) 12 negs or 6 slides in the 2450, set the settings, and click a button on the computer. The Epson software would scan all the slides or negs automatically. I've scanned hundreds of my father-in-law's slides and my mom's old negatives in automatic mode, with decent results. You may want a manual scan for particularly important shots. I've found that I can let the scanner run in auto mode while I do something else, so it doesn't take much time.</p>

<p>Darrell, Ellis is right that there is a bit of a learning curve. But doing it for yourself is actually quite simple; a scanner that does negatives (Epson V500) and a bit of practice, and you can get good scans for yourself. The 400CN film is very easy to scan compared to some other B&W films. So if you DO want to do it yourself, it really isn't hard. </p>

<p>Pace Dennis, I get pretty good scans from a V500 with Vuescan; I've had a number of good looking 16x20" prints from 6x6cm negs. I've given up on the holders; I've got a taped-down ruler on the left margin of the neg/slide portion of the scanner bed, and if I need help holding film/negs, I use some "easy-remove" scotch tape to hold down one edge. I was just saying this elsewhere; the Epson software is great for quick scanning, proofing, etc; for good scans the Vuescan software and V500 gets me to 16x20" from 120 with very decent quality, IMO. </p>

<p>Whether the cost is worth it is something only you can answer, of course. My late-70s 500c/m still works great, and I love using it; it's always a joy and delight. Now, I'm seeing Mamiyas and Bronicas a LOT cheaper than Hasselblads these days, and I might be just as happy with one of those. But there's no denying that the Hassy is a joy to use. :-) Please be sure to post back and let everybody know what you decided on!</p>

<p>Alan, I’m sorry, I’m not explaining this very well—for one thing, I’m no expert, and for another, my English is, how you say, “inelegant.” :-) The scan passes are all done at the same speed, that doesn’t change. There’s a “long plus short exposure” option I turn on for good scans, but I think that just takes a deeper look at both ends of the histogram to pick up as much detail as possible, light and dark. (I could well be wrong about that.)</p> <p>The number of passes the scanner makes—what I’ve read is that, as you suggested, more passes decreases noise. Supposedly this is because individual corrupt pixels are averaged out. Honestly, I don’t know. The only thing I’m certain of is that when I returned to shooting some 120 a few months ago, and tried the stock Epson software on a fairly new PC, I got results that weren’t great—not terrible, but not fit for a good print. So I went to the hamrick website and got the latest version of Vuescan my license entitles me to, ran another (more intense) scan of the same neg, and got beautiful results. I’ve got a 16x20” print over my desk right now of it, and it’s just lovely.</p> <p>I checked my PC this morning and didn’t find a quick A/B example, but I may play with that over the weekend, just to see. I also should spend more time exploring the Epson software; I do routinely adjust the histogram to bring out this or that part of a photo, but I haven’t spent any significant amount of time trying other ways to maximize the quality from an Epson-software scan. And as you say, there’s a certain amount of voodoo involved in getting results. :-) But I can say with confidence that, for me, Vuescan has made a very significant difference in the quality of my “good” scans. And I still use the much faster Epson software for routine scans. Just MHO, of course.</p>

<p>Arthur, I've seen lower prices on that big auction site, for the same kit. KEH is always dependable, though--if they say something works perfectly, it either DOES, or they'll replace it. (Same with B&H used gear.) If you get a good guarantee from your seller, it may be worth it, or you might try to negotiate a bit lower price.</p> <p>FWIW I've had the same kit (plus a 50mm and a 150mm) for a dozen years, and I still get a little thrill of pleasure every time I use it. The 500c/m is a bit old but it's a lovely camera and a delight to use. :-) --ken</p>

<p>Alan, the software does multiple passes, and does long and short exposures, if requested. What I understand is that the multiple passes reduce noise, particularly in dark areas. Random pixel blips happen on scans (I have read--I know nothing of this myself) and running multiple scans and averaging them reduces this. The new Epson software MAY do this but I haven't explored it, being basically perfectly satisfied with Vuescan for the good stuff.</p> <p>I do a lot of low-light and night photography ( http://people.duke.edu/~kuzen001/npav309_LR.jpg ) and I've seen that one pass with the epson software left that picture in the link very noisy, pretty much not usable. Multiple passes with vuescan gave me that shot. If you're really interested I can find an A/B comparison (or even run one for you). I'm no expert but it seems to make a BIG difference to me. You can email me at firstname dot lastname at duke dot edu and I'll send you links if you want to compare.</p>

<p>Jeana, one more opinion. I've got a V500 now and I've been perfectly pleased with it. I've got several 16x20" prints on my walls taken from 120 scans on my V500 and on the 2450 that the V500 replaced. But one thing I'd suggest is that the Epson software is OK for low-resolution and non-critical scanning. But for a really GOOD scan, one I'll turn into a good print, I use "Vuescan" software. I run it for 6 or 8 passes on the neg, long plus short exposures, and I adjust the histogram before scanning so nothing is cut off, bright or dark, which is something I'll deal with in the editing. I don't know what Vuescan costs today, I bought my copy many many years ago, and I've been absolutely delighted with it (and the free upgrades) since then. <br> Short version: I'd say take that V500 for your proofing, "showing people" and such, and if you want big prints from your scans, save up and buy Vuescan software. Good luck! --ken</p>

<p>JDMvW: "What is that awful so-called "poem" about accepting the things you can't change?"<br> Lord, please grant me the courage to change the things I cannot change;<br> please grant me the serenity to accept those things I cannot change;<br> please grant me the wisdom to know the difference;<br> and please grant me a Hasselblad 120mm f/1.8 for under $100. Amen.<br> <br> </p>

<p>About a year ago I gave my ancient FE and a couple of lenses to the daughter of a friend--she was taking a photography class and needed a manual-control film camera. I was tickled that someone was going to USE it again. That camera deserves to be used. Mine looked like some previous owner had used it for breaking rocks, it was *battered*. And it worked perfectly and it was always a joy to use. What a great camera!</p>

<p>Re single brand proprietary gear: Just recently I bought a couple of hex QR plates for my 3047 heads from a country far to the east, for very little money, on an auction site. They look and function like the real ones but were inexpensive. That was a pleasant surprise. (</p>

<p>Simon, if you ask 10 photographers about this, you'll get 11 opinions. :-) Personally, I find 645 a bit small and I genuinely like the square 6x6 format. I'd suggest you get an inexpensive "starter MF" camera; use it for a few months and you'll have a MUCH better idea of what will make you happy on a longer-term basis. And your starter camera can probably be sold without losing much money. There are some great bargains to be had on MF film gear these days, and in fact a TLR is a great way to start inexpensively, if you pick the right TLR. I bought a Yashica-C 10 years ago, shot it for a few months, and sold it to buy a big 6x6 SLR system. (and wound up buying another Yashica TLR because it was a FUN camera to use.) :-) Look around for local photo clubs, get to know people--it'll help you to talk to others and you're likely to be loaned a camera or three to get familiar with. :-) Good luck! I've got digital SLRs I use for chores--but I shoot a full manual film 6x6 for pure enjoyment. :-) --ken<br> Oh, PS, about metering: I have a spotmeter (learned the Zone System as a newbie) and a couple of ambient meters, but I use "sunny 16" all the time and it it works pretty darned well. :-)</p>