mikeseb

<p>With respect to all writing here, this digital-vs-film struggle in all its variations is simply tired and old. There is really nothing new or useful that could possibly be said about it.<br /><br />Do we have nothing better to discuss?</p>

<p>Depends on the developer/film combination, if you're talking about B&W. For instance, my testing indicates that most films need to be shot at lower than box ISO when developed in HC-110, but not in Xtol.</p>

<p>Really, "L: S&M" should be in every photographer's library.</p>

<p>I agree with the recommendation to mix 1+4 and use one-shot.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j86/j86.pdf">But here is what Kodak says.</a> It took me about fifteen seconds to find it via Google.</p>

<p>Say what you will about Kodak: they are covered up with documentation for their products, all freely available on their website. It's in their interest for the stuff to be accurate and readily available.</p>

<p>Jim is correct. For the Mamiya 7 there are 43, 50, 65, 80, 150, and 210mm lenses.</p>

<p>I lost (LOST!!! *@#%& ) my L-358 and decided to "upgrade" to the L-758 to replace it. While the latter is a fine meter---I thought I needed the integral spot metering capability---I find myself at times wishing for the 358 again.</p>

<p>It's smaller and more compact, and fits the hand and the camera bag much better. The "hump" in the 758 for the spotmeter optics (the meter is otherwise about the size of the 358--they just put in a fat "tube" crosswise for the optics) is right at the wrong spot for my hand when doing incident metering of either ambient or flash. Functionally, either one is terrific. Good choice.<br>

<br /> I heard a podcast with one of the founders of Pocket Wizard and he discussed the very issue brought up above about FCC vs CE compliance; he confirmed that compliance is more than just selecting the appropriate RT module. The meters themselves have internal circuitry such that a CE meter has to be mated with a CE module, and FCC with FCC, or the thing won't operate.</p>

<p>Holy cow. Are you being paid to do this job?</p>

<p>I'm not entirely sure what you're asking. But if I follow you, you want to acquire one camera that will shoot both film and polaroids (really, Fuji instant film, since that's all that's made at present.)<br>

<br /> In medium format, Ilkka's suggestion of Hasselblad is a good one; another option would be a Mamiya RB/RZ67 camera with a polaroid back that will accept Fuji pack film. I shoot with this setup and the results are excellent. Properly enlarged (either optically or via high-quality scanning), excellent large prints will be very doable. Of course instant prints are not enlargable--do you intend them as proofs for the final film image, or are they themselves end products of the project?<br>

<br /> In large format, I second Bruce's response. A 4x5 instant print is a nice size for either proofing or as its own <em>objet d'art</em> ; and a properly done 4x5 negative can produce very large prints.</p>

<p>Aside from the differences in the physical plugs, 110VAC is the US voltage standard, while 220VAC (I think) is the British standard. Is the machine a dual-voltage machine (either manual or automatic detection/switching), or do you have a voltage transformer of sufficient current capacity to run it on the lower-voltage US mains power? If not it won't run correctly.</p>

<p>Bruce pretty much nails the answer to your question. I have another concern that you didn't ask about, but here it is anyway: insurance.</p>

<p>If you are seeing business clients on your home property, I hope you are properly insured. Your homeowners' policy will not cover your liability should some mishap befall a client who comes to your home for business purposes. This is true as well if you're renting the place: renters' insurance won't cover it either.<br /> <br /> Better check on this, unless you relish being bankrupted by a liability judgment.</p>

<p>Edward, most of the images on <a href="http://www.michaelsebastian.com">my website</a> are from the mamiya 7. It is a spectacular camera, and would be ideal for your purposes.</p>

<p>Contrast has more to do with choice of film and exposure and processing than with the camera per se.</p>

<p>The times are different. The films look considerably different. 320TXP is a "studio" film primarily intended for controlled-lighting conditions. If you know how to use it, its look is unique and beautiful.<br>

400TX is probably the most popular general-purpose fast film in photographic history. It does many things well and is probably more suitable to general use than its 320 namesake.<br>

<br /> They are really entirely different films, sharing only the name.</p>

<p>D-76/ID-11, TMAX, Xtol are my favorite developers. Any of the films you mentioned will look great in any of those.</p>

<p>400 Tmax-2 is my favorite B&W film; it is simply spectacular. I also shoot some Tri-X in both 320 and 400 varieties, and T-max 100, mostly large format.</p>

<p>I shoot a lot of C-41 color, which I process in a Jobo effortlessly. Among those films, I like Fujicolor 160S and 400H, and both speeds of Portra VC. I also just shot my first of five rolls of the new Ektar 100 in 120 size; I'm eager to see if this new film will have a place in my armamentarium.</p>

<p>@Lex, I visited the Carter just last month during a family trip to the D/FW area. That place is a jewel, a gem. There was a fabulous Barbara Crane exhibition featured; I regret that I've only now discovered her and her work.</p>

<p>I only wish I'd known about the <em>American West</em> retrospective; I'd have made a trip just to see that. I didn't realize that the Avedon work was not on permanent display; that's where the prints are archived, as I understand it.</p>

<p> More to the point of this thread :) :it is truly amazing to see the difference between large format and all the rest. Amazing tonal range, and butter smooth gradations between them, define the difference. I've recently resumed shooting 4x5; already, I'm thinking about 8x10 and contact printing.</p>

<p>And if I make that move, the resulting divorce will leave me plenty of time in the darkroom!</p>

<p>The stuff is what, four bucks a metric ton? Toss it, buy some more, move on. Life's too short for this kind of agonizing over trivial stuff.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Adam, I bought into the Contax system in late 2004; its discontinuance was announced in early 2006, with support promised for ten years. So that leaves you a 5-7 year support horizon, which is an eternity with any camera system these days. The bodies are well made and reliable, and can be had far more cheaply now than when I bought mine, so I'd advise picking up a spare body as a backup if you are using it for mission-critical stuff and can't afford any downtime.<br>

<br /> The lenses are good to fantastic, and the camera's ergonomics are the best of any I've used. The battery grip is highly recommended, both for its even better handling than the camera alone, and because it allows you to use cheap and available AA batteries. I use both NiMH AA's and the rechargeable 2CR3 which is its standard battery, and that's worked out well.<br /> <br /> The lenses are for the most part readily available; your biggest problem will be sourcing some of the accessories. The waist level finder (which is of limited use, IMO, unless you're shooting landscape orientation exclusively) is rare and pricey, and metal lens hoods are not cheap (easy to substitute B+H metal or rubber hoods, or a Cokin or Lee bellows hood.</p>

<p>I love my Contax system and will keep it indefinitely. That said, I shoot a variety of formats and to defray the cost of some other equipment, I will be selling one of my bodies with the prism finder, 80mm lens, battery grip, and film back soon if a local friend changes his mind about his recent interest. I also have a Kodak ProBack for this camera that I will also probably sell if he passes. If you're interested, send me an email and I'll forward details.</p>

<p>I'd do the KEH EX+ for $525. I paid about $700 for mine "like new" a year ago.</p>

<p>"Jam it in there" is not a phrase that ever needs to be associated with photographic gear.</p>

<p>You can get foam replacement kits from various web sources; and maybe the instructions how to do this are also out there. Otherwise, send it to David Odess or another qualified technician and have the job done right.</p>

<p>I think it's unwise to operate the camera when it is not in operating condition, missing important components. Presumably you bought the gear intending to keep it and use it for a while. Protect your investment with proper maintenance and care.</p>

<p>Why on earth would you want to do this?<br>

<br /> Xtol is its own replenisher; you basically top it up to full volume in its storage bottle, from an unused supply that is reserved for that purpose. I'm not sure that it would be the same for mytol, given that they are similar, but not identical, in formula.<br /> <br /> Seriously, developer is so cheap that replenishment makes little sense for the low-volume home user. If you're not one of those, then you already know about replenishment. If you ARE a low-vol home user, use it once and discard, and sleep well at night knowing you're not going to ruin important negatives with exhausted or contaminated developer.</p>

<p>The Contax 645 is a fantastic camera system. Easy to handhold (I'd recommend the battery grip, especially if you have larger hands.) The glass is great; I have every lens but the 45-90 zoom and the 45. On a tripod, it's significantly better---as is every camera---but it can be handheld nonetheless.<br>

Moving up from 35mm to 645, it's the incrtease in negative size more than the change in camera system that makes the difference. You simply have more negative to work with.<br>

I'd keep the Aria if $$ permits and simply add the Contax, if you like shooting both formats.<br>

The camera I use most these days, though, is the Mamiya 7 with 50, 80, and 150mm lenses. It is as good or better than the Contax in sharpness, is even easier to handhold, and does just about everything (except closeup portraiture) as well as the contax.</p>

<p>Helen, it's good to known you're here! Rest assured, in my many dealings with your company and with B&H, in those instances where I've needed human help, it's been cheerful and forthcoming. Your websites are so full-featured that most things can be done there--very convenient. I'm a chatty Southerner, so I have to remember to get to business when dealing with some New Yorkers. My impression has been "business-like", not "rude".</p>

<p>Dyna-Lite, if your budget permits. It's not in the same category as Flashpoint or Savage, nor Alien Bees. It is lightweight and portable, and can be run off battery power.</p>

<p>If you can afford it, go with Dyna-Lite (if you want a pack-and-head system rather than monolights). A bit more costly up front, cheaper in the long run.</p>

<p>Your english is fine, Carlos. I'd be proud to speak a second language. No worries on that. But those New Yorkers at adorama and B&H <i>are</i> some fast-talking, impatient folks on the phone! :)</p>

<p>David, I've not found much difference in processing times between "old" (before reformulation in late 2007) and "new" (after late 2007) 400TMY.</p>

<p>Just pick times for your desired temp in ID-11/D76 diluted 1+1 and it should be fine. My times won't help you unless you use a Jobo, and even then would be just estimates.</p>

<p>Is your friend going to scan, or print optically? If the former, a somewhat thinner negative is desired.</p>

<p>A good place to start is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/">http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/</a></p>

<p>Kodak's website, or the bottle itself, or the included instructions, are likely to have the mixing directions. I haven't used Kodafix in a while, so I can't remember. Here is the home page for all Kodak technical publications, a treasure trove of information for users of the company's products:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankIndex.jhtml?id=0.1.14.36.7&lc=en">http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/databanks/filmDatabankIndex.jhtml?id=0.1.14.36.7&lc=en</a></p>

<p>It took me about 90 seconds to find these links via Google.</p>