alan_dale

Consider using the Bronica with polaroid back to test exposures, especially if the windows are backlit while you are shooting them.<p>

The polarizer will only help if you are shooting from an angle --- straight on, it will just be like an n.d. filter and will not significantly reduce reflections.<p>

If you could set up a plain backdrop (I would try black) parallel to (sp?) and about the same size as the window and cut a hole in the middle of it to poke your lens through you would get a picture of a window with no reflections. Leave a space between the backdrop and the window so that enough light can get in to take your picture. Unfortunately, I bet that's more trouble than you want to do.<p>

A shift lens, like on a view camera, could get you out of the picture but you would still have whatever was across the street reflected in the window.<p>

I would try overcast days or late evening/early morning, when the ambient light outside would be equal to the light inside and see if that would minimize it. Of course, then you might get a color shift from tungsten/fluorescent lights...how about a digital camera with photoshop retouching instead?

<i>Since I have shot

MF with the latest Japanese and Chinese TLR's, I was wondering if I would notice any significant advantage

using a Hasselblad.</i><p>

I have used Yashica and Rollie TLRs before I got the Hasselblad. I switched because I needed interchandgeable backs and lenses. I have not done "side by side" comparisons (I sold my TLR to afford the SLR) but from having compared film, there is no obvious difference. The Zeiss lens might be sharper corner to corner at f2.8 than the Yashica at f3.5, but at f11 I can see little or no difference in enlargement.<p>

<i>Photography is only a hobby of mine. I don't really need (can't afford) interchangable lens and backs. Will

the advantage of Zeiss optics be negated by the mirror movements? I envision myself mostly doing hand-held

shots and will probably not use mirror-lock-up.</i><p>I think you have your answer right there. I found it much easier to take sharp pictures with confidence at 1/60th with no tripod with the TLR. With the SLR, I use a tripod and mirror pre release. I wish I could afford both -- the TLR ends up being about the same size but is MUCH lighter so it makes a better hiking and biking camera.<p><i>I would appreciate anyone who has used both these systems to comment. And maybe talk some sense into me before I plunge into evermore expensive "systems" with exorbitant repair and maintenance cost. All the talk about jamming scares me, a little. If I don't use it to shoot hundreds of rolls as professionals do, would I still be needing to service it?</i><p>I havent had trouble with the Hasselblad jamming, but if it were lost or stolen it would require a hefty sum to replace it --- that might be a good argument for the TLR. I think you can buy a good used Yashica for around $200. Also --- I have had some seals replaced on the Hasselblad film back -- no big deal. But the film wind gave out on the Yashica -- "can't be repaired at any price" I was told. I had to replace it, but since I had had the camera for over two years, didn't pay a lot for it and rand 100s of film through it before it died I guess that isn't so bad.

I've used a TLR on a tripod tilted on its side with an ordinary ballhead. That gave me an additional 3-4 inches. Otherwise, how about a sturdy plastic "milk crate" as a step stool? I keep one in the trunk of my car and have used it as a step stool/emergency carry all. I'm sure you could rig something up to hang your camera upside down with a magic arm and camera platform from Bogen, but I think the crate is a better and cheaper solution.

Most professionals carry at least 2 cameras on assignment in order to have a "spare" in case of a malfunction. I think with this offer, Rollie is attempting to attract more of the "pro" market --- their reasoning is probably that the kind of person who will want an extra body will also want more lenses, more film magazines, etc., and they will more than make up the cost of a camera body. I understand that the new Rollies use a lot of electronics, so maybe that makes them less expensive to manufacture than the old gear-driven Rollies.<p>

I use a MF camera, but can't consider switching to Rollie simply because my collegues and the rental houses in my area don't carry Rollie gear. Once in a great while I need an extreme wide angle that I can't afford to buy so I have to borrow or rent it. Although the offer of a "free camera body" is attractive, to have a large stock of rental equipment or stuff that I can borrow for a day or two is more attractive.

As everyone else has already said, your list seems to be mutually exclusive. A TLR with a closeup lens like the Rollinar or the wierd close-up attachment for the Mamiya TLR (paramender) would serve your needs but you don't want it becuase its a TLR.<p>

A press camera, like a Graphlex or a Horseman or a Linhof (in 2x3 or 4x5 --- either has roll film backs) would work too. With the 4x5, you can use Polaroid 545i back for exposure tests. With a press camera, you have rangefinder focussing and ground glass focussing for your "macro" plus the option of double exposure.<p>

If I were you, I'd just get diopter lenses or an extension tube for your Mamiya 645.

I looked again at the site. I misread it the first time --- the Hartblei 1006 has the P6 mount, the 1008 has the Kiev mount, as you said in your original post.<p>

With a MF camera I need interchanging backs --- with several magazines I can shoot several types of film at the same time, use Polaroid to test lighting, etc. If I had the luxury of taking pictures only for my own pleasure, I probably wouldn't bother with such an elaborate instrument. The interchanging backs, as well as a greater variety of lenses, including macro, these are the real reason to consider Hasselblad or Rollieflex. You say you want to use a medium format camera <i>...basically to do the same sort of things as the Leica but bigger, i.e. travel, candids, some informal portraiture, a bit of landscape. No real interest in macro, fast cars, animals etc...</i> so, since you don't need the interchanging backs or macro, I wouldn't bother with the Rollies and Hasses.<p>

I would try to decide if you want/like the square format or would prefer something that is 6x7 or even 6x9? Personally, I've always been tempted by the idea of those 6x9 folding cameras -- probably not fast or convenient to use, but producing a wonderfully large 6x9 film, some of them are not too expensive and they can fold up to fit in a coat pocket.

Look at <a href="http://www.dedal.cz/OPTICS/medium_format_cameras.htm"> http://www.dedal.cz/OPTICS/medium_format_cameras.htm</a> --- it may answer some of your questions. There seems to be some inconsistency in information here--- from reading the page I have linked here, I thought ALL Hartblei cameras had the P6 rather than the Kiev 88 lens mount. The Hartbleis also apparently have other improvements, including the shutter and mirror lock up previously mentioned, the limited Hasselblad interchangeability and a construction improvement to the baseplate/tripod socket -- an apparently potentially fatal weak point in the original Kiev 88 design.<p>

I have investigated the Pentacon 6 camera mount and think it's a good design -- simple, reliable, positive. It has a rotating collar that you twist to mount/unmount the lens --- few moving parts, nothing to get loose or wear out. I've only looked at the Kiev mount closely once or twice but remember thinking that the lenses were difficult to mount/unmount and so I would prefer the P6 mount.<p>

As far as the difference in cost, Kalimex mentions a "work distantion" for the Kiev B mount being 82.1mm and the "work distantion" for the P6 mount being 74mm. I'm not sure what is meant by "work distantion" but if this is meant to indicate the distance from the optical center of the lens in the mount to the film plane, then the difference in P6 mount and Kiev B mount is a significant difference --- more than 8mm. I suspect that this may be a pretty significant reconstruction of the mount of the camera --- that why it costs so much. Is it worth it? I don't know --- if I were buying one, I would probably get the P6 mount because I think its more reliable and I would want to be able to use all those Exacta and Pentacon lenses.

Buy a $100 flatbed scanner. Put a polaroid back on your hasselblad. Take a picture. Scan the Polaroid. You now have a sub-$1000 digital solution using your Hasselblad that will probably deliver as good or better results than a $200.00 Walmart plastic digital camera.<p>

Do your research before you commit to a new camera. The 2x3 Crown Graphic is a great and cheap MF camera and can be fitted with 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 backs. The great thing is, everyone else wants 6x7 or 6x9 backs--if you want 6x6 backs, expect to pay about 1/2 the price of a 6x7. However, before you run out and buy, realize that with shorter lenses the movements are unavailible --- the body of the camera gets in the way. So, my Crown has movements with its 101mm lens (which is a "normal" lens with 6x7 film) but no movements with the 65mm lens. Ironically, it is while using the wide angle lens that I most often desire camera movements. I would have been really dissapointed if I hadn't known that before I bought it.<p>

The problem with fitting a 6x6 back on a 4x5 view camera is that you will probably be dissapointed if you wanted wider lenses for architecture or landscape. A 135mm view camera lens is a slightly wide normal on 4x5, but becomes a short tele on 6x6. If you start pricing those expensive German lenses in 43mm and similar focal legnths, well, you'll also need a 4x5 with short bellows draw(like a bag bellows on a Sinar) -- and after all is said and done, I think it might be about as cost effective in this case to buy a less expensive 4x5 with a less expensive 90mm lens and a new 4x5 enlarger to replace your 6x6 enlarger. Wit the 4x5 you would also be gaining a big jump in image quality.<p>

What subjects make you need camera movements? I have found that one can often compensate for lack of camera movements in shooting architecture by elevating the camera --- even up less than 1/4 the height of a structure will do a lot to correct vertical convergence. If you can't go up, try going farther away and use a longer lens.<p> You could also always try corrections in the darkroom using a tilted easel or tilt in the enlarger(some enlargers do this). I know someone who corrected vertical convergence in a picture by wedging a slim book under one end of the easel. I don't think these "printing corrections" work great and you probably end up cropping your pictures down, but it also would cost you nothing more than the cost of the printing paper to try it. Hint: stop that enlarger lens way down and don't try to tilt too much.<p> Rent the Hasse SWC, point it straight at a building (level it out), take the picture, crop the bottom half out (which will all be front lawn anyway) and everone will swear you used a view camera. The SWC is fantastic, but, like all things Hasselblad, $$$.<p>

Investigate a Rollie SL66. It has lens tilt built RIGHT INTO the camera, so you get movements with every lens. I looked at a couple of them and was really tempted --- I only bought Hasse because of the limited flash sync of the Rollie SL66. I might still get rid of the Hasse for the Rollie if not for the sync problem...The SL66 is discontinued, but plenty are availible used(including some really fine lenses).<p>

Other avenues, not explored by me personally, might include a Kiev 88 camera. I've never used a Kiev but know they sell a 60 or 65mm perspective control lens for their camera for about the cost of a Hasse bellows shade. Definitely do a lot of research here -- there is a lot of stuff, pro and con, about Kiev on this site. I thought about doing this myself and started looking at prices -- the lenses, even if they arent as good as Hasse, are priced less than a lot of high end 35mm equipment. But after you add it all up, a Kiev kit is not as cheap as you might think. The rebuilt Kiev with 2 backs, 3 lenses (including the PC lens and the 30mm fisheye --2 of the only reasons I can see of wanting to invest in Kiev) and a Polaroid back cost about the same as a used 50mm for the Hasselblad with cash left over so I decided it was better to wait. For the record, I bought a Kiev prism for my Hasse and am happy with it --- the meter readings it gives, however, are utter nonsense.<p>

Darron;<p>

My Crown Graphic has a lens board that is about 2.5 inches square. Even if I could rig up a reversed-recessed board (extension board?) so the 210mm lens will focus, this "extension" board would be so ungainly and probably on the heavy side for the camera. I'd consider moving to a 4x5 camera (perhaps with roll film back) or selling the 210 to buy a tele version of a longer lens. I think Rodenstock and Schneider made tele lenses for Linhof 2x3 -- one of the dealers at a local swap meet had a 270mm Tele-Rotelar that looked interesting.<p>

Dicomed, a company that made a full size 2 1/4 inch chip single capture camera went out of the digital camera business recently. They were selling a alot of the $60 grand cameras, but so many of the users had so many problems that the warranty service was killing the company.<p>

If you want a single capture digital system, look at something like the <a href="http://www.phaseone.com">phase one</a>.<p>

As far as reasonable price goes, well, good luck. Right now these comapnies have so much sunk into R&D that they are less interested in selling low cost systems since I don't think they are even making much of a profit on hardware unless they are selling the el cheapo 199.95 digital camera at Walmart. In the case of el cheapo, the more units that move out the door, the more money they will make.<p>

The solution for you is to either bite the bullet and buy a "real" digital camera, send your film out to be scanned or spend a LOT LESS for a decent scannerthat will handle MF and LF film. In your place, I'd do the scan route --- $$$ digital cameras are money sinkholes unless you are shooting a lot of high volume digital commercial work like a catalog house.

I suggest Kodak EPN (a 100 speed Ektachrome with a neutral base). If you can borrow a color meter, test all your light sources at the settings you will be using them. As I recall, Elinchroms are fairly neutral at full power but tend to warm (or is it cool? I don't remember but think it is warmer) as you turn them down. Of course, depending upon the age and condition of your tubes, softboxes, etc., you may be warming your light a little that way too. Most softboxes seem to warm the light a little -- if it is a difference of a few 100 k it is nothing to worry about.<p>

Do a test before hand. Some people use a Macbeth color chart --- I've found any object you plan to keep around and study under the same neutral light source works okay --- make sure reds, greens, yellows, whites etc., are present for your test and inspect film on a color correct light table. If you are using more than one lens, try to do a color test with each lens you wil be using.<p>

If you will be renting a MF camera, I would reccomend you rent a Hasselblad with new lenses. I don't normally believe in the superiority of name brands, but from my experience, in terms of color correctness the Zeiss lenses are very accurate, the Mamiya are not. If you are shooting C-41 you won't see it, if you are shooting e-6 under controlled conditions you will.

How about a square hole cut into a piece of cardboard? You will have to experiment with how far you need to hold it from your eye to duplicate the effects of the 80mm lens.

When exposures are not as "sharp" as people seem to think they ought to be, they always seem to start by blaming the lens, then the camera for camera shake or mirror vibration, then the flimsy tripod, then probably sunspots and cosmic rays.<p>

Do yourself a favor: eliminate all variables, test all equipment even if brand new out of the box --- never assume anything.<p>

First -- what do you mean by "unsharp?" I had a friend in school who wanted to sell her camera and buy a new one because everyone elses prints looked sharper than hers -- the instructor looked at her prints and her negatives and thought they looked plenty "sharp" but also thought they looked "flat" or not contrasty enough. She changed the way she developed and printed and it solved the problem. It was not a "sharpness" problem -- it was a printing problem.<p>

I have done tests and discovered I get more image degradation from overexposure and overdevelopment than from using 30 year old Soviet era East German 50mm lens vs. modern Nikkor at f11 (although Nikkor is superior in resolution to Prakticar at wide apertures). Older model wide angles I have used are not so good as modern wide angles and older, single coated lenses tend to handle contrast more poorly than modern ones but my tests have proven to me that exposure, development and film choice are more important than make of lens for general photography at commonly used apertures. Also, a cheap lens with a hood is MUCH better than an expensive lens without in a flare situation. So when people start complaining about this lens being less or more sharp than that one, I start looking at exposure and development first. Unless you develop your own film or you pay big bucks to a really good lab, you are getting 3rd rate film processing. I never understood why some people will pay 3 grand for a camera but then balk at paying more than 7 bucks to develop their pictures. Most nickel and dime photolabs don't maintain their chemistry or bother to calibrate their equipment or train their employees because that costs money --- they just skimp and pass they savings on to you in the form of crappy pictures.<p>

The same $15.00 Praktica camera did not take sharp pictures when I first bought it at a garage sale. I used a screwdriver to tighten 4 screws on the lensmount --- rocket science! --- instant improvement.<p>

If you suspect your image quality is degraded by camera shake, do tests in every concievable situation -- with mirror locked up, with mirror down, with self timer, with cable release, with shutter on "bulb" and exposure by open flash in a dark room. I suspect that most "camera vibration" problems are really "user vibration" problems.<p>

About two years ago I was shooting a lot of PR and editorial stuff for local publications--mostly business publications, portraits of stuffed shirts, lawyers, etc. All the editors really needed was 35mm but I started using MF because of the interchangeable backs. I found the ability to use a Polaroid to check exposure was essential since I was using mixed sources of light 99% of the time (flash and ambient) and the busy businessmen I was photographing appreciate this because checking my exposure with Polaroid meant I would get the picture the first time. I always carried a 35mm with me and took a few frames on that as well for backup. On one occassion I got an assignment that HAD to be completed within two or three hours --- another photographer had blown the asignment and didn't bother to tell the editor. The editor said polaroid was okay -- with a polaroid back and Polapan 100 I had a sharp BW to the editor that afternoon - they scanned it and no one knew it wasn't film when they printed it.<p>

As far as cost goes -- for about $2600 I can find a good, used Hasse 500C, Russian Prism, 80mm lens, x2 extender, 2 film backs and an NPC Polaroid back. For $500 more, substitute a 150mm lens for the x2 tele extender. If that's too expensive -- try Bronica or some other make. For about the same price as the Hasse I bought a brand new Canon Eos outfit with two bodies, a couple of lenses, a flash, grips, etc. Both are capable kits, but in different directions. I think if you are willing to forgo the "latest and greatest" and if you don't need a dozen different lenses then MF need not be as expensive as 35mm. Unless you are shooting whooping cranes or house interiors you aren't going to need extra long lenses or extreme wide angles.<p> When I sold the Canon stuff it was still mint condition --- I just didn't use it so decided not to keep it.<p>

On the other hand, I still have a manual focus 35mm that I like to just put in my bag and take with me.<p>

So, Chris -- is your question in regard to some professional application or personal preference?

<i>I did not understand what you said about showing more background with the 80. If i shoot same sized area with 6X6

format, wouldnt i just be at a diff distance in repect to 80 VS 150, but showing the same potential backgd coverage, depth of field not being of

any consideration.</i><p>

To answer your question, the longer the lens, the narrower your angle of view. Thus with your 150mm lens and an 8 foot wide seamless 10 feet behind your subject with your camera about 10 feet from your subject, I would expect that in your viewfinder you would see your seamless go from right side of the frame to the left. If you kept everything the same but switched the 80mm for your 150mm, you would see the left and right edges of your seamless paper on the left and right sides of your frame beca=use the 80mm lens has a wider angle of view no matter where it is focussed (near or far). Solution? Move the camera closer to the subject, move the background closer to the subject.<p>

BTW - I think the 80mm lens does very well for most things --- I think it is the best lens Hasselblad makes.

<i>....I also understand that using a tripod makes a huge

difference.</i><p> From my experience, it does. But who likes to use a tripod, especially when you have such mobile, ergonomic cameras availible? I like having the freedom to compose a shot, lean forward and to the right, whatever, and seeing how it changes through the viewfinder so I can understand why you want to do without a tripod.<p>

<i> My question is: Does the significant decrease in sharpness caused by shooting handheld make the choice of format negligible to the final

result?</i><p>

My experince has been -- the bigger film will deliver an image that "looks sharper" in the final print if all other things are equal. Some cameras might have more vibration than others. I've found a 2 1/4 TLR is easier to hold steady than a 35mm SLR.<p>

<i>I will rarely print larger than 8x10. However, I have found that I sometimes like to crop the negative

quite a bit (sometimes printing just a third of the frame).</i><p> Before you buy a new MF camera, maybe try improving some of your exposure habits. Double check focus - focus past the point you want to focus on, roll back before it and then focus to it. I've found this little ritual ensures that I will be more careful in noticing where my point of focus really lies. Stick to faster shutter speeds and sacrifice DOF. Use faster film. Exhale before you press the button -- press it gradually and gently. Lock your arms and legs in a steady fashion --- don't shoot pictures mid stride. Compose more carefully -- if you are cropping out 2/3 of the nergative, maybe make multiple exposures (wider views and closeups) to pick from when printing and avoid radical cropping since it will decrease the amount of film you are using to make your print and thereby degrade image quality. Hold still- even if shooting at 1/250th. I try to make these things a habit and since I have I have noticed a dramatic decrease in the numbers of unsharp pictures on my contact sheets. I often employ wide apertures so my DOF might be thin, but its sharp where I want it sharp.

Any other photographers using a Leaf back on Fuji GX 680? When I focus

on objects 3-5 feet away, no problems. Larger things--- 15+ feet away

from camera - and I get colorful registration problems --- after

registering one part of image in software, other parts look

unregistered, as if the camera is focussing the different colors at

different distances. Problem is worse with 50mm lens than with 65mm,

80mm or 135mm. Rule of thumb seems to be that the wider the lens, the

greater the problem. Problem dissapears when I focus close. Problem

remains consistent if I switch from 1 specimen of lens to another

(studio camera -- have access to several 50mm lenses, several 65mm

lenses, etc.).<p>

Have switched out cameras, magnifiers, adjusted focus too many times to

count, locked up mirror, loaded camera stand with sandbags to supress

vibration, etc., etc., etc.

Anyone else been here? What gives?

Tiffen makes a Hasse Bay 50 to 52mm thread adapter. I use a cheapo Tundra rubber lens hood (designed for a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera) and the same set of filters I use on my 35mm camera. I have probably shot at every aperture over the past few years (use this camera a lot) and never had a vignetting problem.<p>

Get a hold of a lens test target, shoot a test target with fine grain film (I used Tmax 100), same exposure, with both MF and 35mm cameras, comparing say, 50mm lens on 35mm to 80mm lens on MF. Shoot the test target at a set distance -- I used 50x the focal legnth ( I was comparing wvarious lenses and checking out used equipment) from test target to film plane. Develop all the film together -- in the same tank -- for the same amount of time.<p>

I discovered modern Canon Eos lenses are slightly sharper than my 30 year old Hasselblad lenses. Then tested older Hasssleblad 80mm against newer CF T* 80mm -- the difference barely rated on my test (I needed a microscope to see it). 30 year old Hasselblad lens is sharper than 50+ year old no-name view camera lens. But the 35mm neg is only a tiny square compared to the 6x6 and the 6x6 is just a small square compared to the 4x5.<p>

Look at a tiny section of film with a powerful loupe on a lightbox and most people will choose 35mm as looking "sharpest." But who looks at film with a microscope? You want to look at an image, right? Prints from my 30 year old Hasselblad lenses put my Canon Eos to shame -- so I sold the Canon. Prints from a 50+ year old 4x5 put my Hasselblad to shame, but I like the faster handling of the Hasselblad so I guess I'll make the compromise.<p>

You need to decide what results you want to obtain. You will never get the range of lenses for you MF gear or the snappy motor drives or the byzantine metering systems. Then again, 11x14 prints from your 35mm are going to look weak next to 11x14s from 6x7 film. In your place (nature photographer), I'd keep the MF for landscape, nature, scenics -- whatever you want to call them and use the 35mm with telephotos for wildlife.<p>

The lenses of you 35mm may or may not be sharper --- maybe its a film flatness issue --- but that is not the problem here. If your gear is working properly, the 6x7 will deliver a better print since it is providing the printing process with more information to make the print with.

Your 35mm may be sharper, but since the 6x7 film is MUCH larger than the 35mm, the 6x7 is effectively more information for reproduction purposes and viewing purposes.<p><i>Is it simply harder to obtain the same

proportion,of tack sharp transparancies, compared to my results with my 35 system? </i><p>

Probably -- it may even be impossible since perhaps precise film plane alignment with 120 film is harder to achieve. The real advantage is the bigger film -- and once you start making prints and making reproductions you will see the big difference..

I recently got a Crown Graphic 2x3 camera with the RH10. I'd like to

find a 6x9 back for it instead of the 6x7 and am wondering what other

makes of backs and accesories are compatible with it --- are the

Graflex XL and XLRF (including the Polaroid?) compatible? I know the

Mamiya RB film backs are and in the archives I found mention of this --

- how about RB Polaroid backs? Mamiya Universal backs? Koni Omega or

others? Is there some sort of spacer (P adapter) that I could use with

Polaroid, a ground glass or film? How about Horseman and Linhof 2x3

backs?<p>

I did archive searches but found little info on this cross

compatability issue. If I buy more acessories for the graflex, I'd

like to be able to use them with other cameras I might use in the

future or be able to save cash by substituting less expensive

accessories.<p>

Any responses appreciated.<p>

Visit <a href="http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html"> http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/index.html</a> and go from there to Danny Gonzalesez'(sp?) reviews. This will help you narrow your search.<p>

Also, on the MFD top level, if you scroll down, are categories including Linhof, Mamiya Press, etc. Although most of these are "bellows type" cameras (and you said you didn't want that), I suspect that only a "bellows type" camera is going to be light enough for you to carry around in order to get your "snapshot" type photos. I am currently using a graflex press camera and once I get the rangefinder adjusted I plan to use it for handheld photos. It's not fast or easy to use, but I've only had it less than two weeks - after I use it more I guess I'll get faster. At work I use a Fuji 680 III which has all the features you want -- SLR focus, interchangeable lenses, etc., but, despite the fact that it is only 6x8 (1 cm shy of your goal in the horizontal) it is so massive that I defy you to use it handheld like a Nikon for "snaps." You'd have to be Schwartzenegger to do that.<p>

In your place, I'd look at press cameras.

Does anyone know the secret to loading a Singer Graflex Roll Film back?

(two days ago I got a lever wind RH10 that gives 10 6x7 exposures on

120 film). I've loaded Mamiya RB backs before (although its been about

a year) and thought the Singer would be a cinch since they look so

similar.<p>

I tried a search and got a lot of responses, but none seemed to be

about loading problems.<p>

My first roll I loaded as if I were loading an RB back, turned the

crank till the arrows on the film lined up to the arrow in the insert,

put the insert in the back and advanced to 1 and shot the roll. When I

got the film back, I saw that most of the exposures ended up

overlapping.<p>

I went home and tried it again, loading with outdated film. I did a

trick a camera repairman showed me to test film advance --- I advanced

a frame and then traced a line along the left and right side of the

surface of the film (having removed the darkslide) advanced another,

marked again, etc. When I got through the roll I unrolled the film and

saw 10 sets of even spaced lines --- if I had been exposing film, I

would have had 10 perfectly spaced exposures.<p>

I don't understand what went wrong. Is there a possible malfunction

with the back? Does it somehow know I am performing a test and thus

performs perfectly, waiting to malfunction when I am actually wanting

to shoot pictures?<p>

My problem is that I don't know if this is a mechanical problem with

the back or a user loading error.<p>

Anyone know the URL of an online Graflex RH loading manual?<p>

Also-I notice that the insert fits into the magazine right side up or

upside down. Does anything bad happen if I use it upside down?<p>

I tried graflex.org, but their help line is shut down.<p>

Advice/assistance appreciated --- Alan