alexander_gisoldi

I've been scouring through the forums, but can't seem to find exactly what it

is I need to find out. I'm trying to figure out how to shoot with an on

camera flash that triggers a second flash. I have one Vivitar 285HV and I

want to buy another--although they are no longer available new-- and I want to

pick up a light stand to mount it on. I have seen other similar posts,

however, I am not sure if I know what all the necessary things are that I'll

need. First, I'll need the second flash. Next, a light stand--I was looking

at some Bogen stands from BH. Then some kind of umbrella bracket to attach to

the light stand so I can attach the flash to it. Now here comes the part I'm

not clear about: some sort of slave to put on the flash mounted to light

stand. Is it the Vivitar SL-2 slave I'll need to use the flash mounted on the

light stand? Does it have to be a Vivitar 285HV on the light stand to be able

to use the Vivitar SL-2 slave or is it compatible with whatever flash is on

the slave? Is this the easiest way to do this or is there an easier way?

Also, I'd much rather pick up a new second flash, but the 285 is no longer

available. Can anyone make any recommendations for an equivalent unit in the

same price range that would work in the configuration I'm describing? Am I

leaving out any necessary cords that I haven't contemplated or can this be

done wirelessly? I'd appreciate any guidance and help with this set up.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks again to all of you that responded. I agree that with low prices on film gear it is very appealing to pick up more stuff--even though I earlier stated it would be counterproductive to invest more in film gear. It's kind of like an addiction I guess and I've got to exercise a little self control! I also look at the low prices of film cameras that I could only dream about 15 years ago and say I'd like to have that--kind of like that F4 at KEH. In the end I'll probably cave in and end up buying it and some more Bronica lenses, but I too am happy with B/W and enjoy developing and scanning. In some sick way it seems to make more sense to me because the prices are reasonable and within my grasp--unlike higher end digital stuff. I'm sure all the naysayers in the digital camera forum would tell me film is a thing of the past and to catch the digital wave--I need to learn how to swim first. Hope to upgrade to a film scanner eventually, but for the time being I'll stick with what I've got and some Tri-x! Thanks for helping me see the light--no pun intended!

Thanks to all of you for your responses. They were helpful in making me see the reality of the situation. The investment required to buy a D200--the only viable option for me at this point--is way too much for me. As was said I'm not a pro making money off of my work so there is no urgency in making a decision. I can't in my case justify spending that kind of money. This has been my issue for a while now. I'd like to try out a digital camera, but with the lenses I like that's not going to happen for what I am willing to invest right now. If I had all Nikon autofocus lenses, I'd have picked up a D50 or D70 in a heartbeat a long time ago. I was just trying to weigh out the cost of film and processing and trying to figure out which would be cheaper for me. I currently use Photoshop 7 and scan on a flatbed. Now the flatbed is frustrating for me but I haven't upgraded because of computer limitations. I need 1 gb or more of ram and I'm running 256. It's not in the cards right now to switch to a Mac unfortunately although I could upgrade to CS2--it would probably crash my system though. I see your point that the investment doesn't end with the camera and that is mostly why I havent taken the plunge yet. Lately I've been shooting and developing B/W and picked up a Bronica ETRS cheap eight months ago. I find scanning that on the flatbed--while definitely not film scanner or digital quality-- is better than 35mm. So I guess my decision will be inaction for the time being--until 10mp dslrs come down to $500--yeah right!! Thanks once again to you all for your input.

Alan: Thanks. I had a temporary mental lapse. They are indeed AIS lenses. I got confused by a previous post.

Michael: Thanks for the input. Now I just have to decide whether or not to invest more money in a film camera or bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital--that's another forum though.

Dave: Thanks for the input. I made a mistake ,however, when I said AIS I think. I've got the lenses with the prongs so I guess they are AI-D? I always mix that up. The problem is budget right now--can't afford a D200.

 

Yaron: Thanks for the input. I didn't know about the converter for Canon dslrs. That might be an option. 20d's have come way down in price. Can you focus without that split prism focus screen? Or does that screen enable metering too? This whole digital cost debacle is annoying. I've got an old Pentium 4 1.8mhz with 256 megs of ram and an Epson 3170 flatbed and it's tough with files of 70-80 megs, so I cant imagine what dslr files are going to do to it. Yet another cost. I considered a film scanner, but that's still a major cost--600 or so for the Coolscan V and I'd still have to upgrade the computer. As much as the flatbed is lacking I still haven't gotten any earth shattering pics lately that warrant professional scanning so I've been holding out on making a major purchase. I really considered an F4s, but even bargain at KEH with a flash we're talking 350-400. Is it worth it to buy another film body? That's what I ask myself! I guess I don't really need any new toys, although I could definitely use the flash automation over what I have to do now. Thanks again.

I know what I am going to ask is a popular question (probably ad nauseum), but

I would appreciate any input, advice or insights. I'm at the digital/film

crossroads I'd have to say--the point where it's getting questionable for me

to continue investing in analog gear yet the prices for what I would like in

digital are out of my budget as well for a hobbyist amateur photographer. I'm

currently using an F2A with 4 manual AIS lenses: 24 2.8, 50 1.4, 135 2.0. 200

4-- a fact that makes going digital even more difficult considering that

manual focus lenses are only good for metering on higher end Nikon digital

bodies--D200, D2x, D2H. An option is to get a D70s and have no metering

capability, read the histogram and look at the LCD for a much more reasonable

price, but that doesn't really convince me yet. I wonder if there are many

other people in my position still out there who have not already made the

switch to digital and autofocus. I guess I am indeed a dinosaur. I had posted

an earlier question about an F4s and flash capabilities. I am considering

getting an F4 as an upgrade from an F2, but I ask myself if I am just wasting

cash that could be put towards a digital body. The problem is how I see it

that the initial investment for digital in my case is too much at this point--

at least 1700 for a D200 to be able to use my lenses or spend less for a D70s

and buy faster autofocus zooms or primes which will bring the cost up to at

least 1700. I guess I've been spoiled with all primes, some of which are

fast. I know the D80 is coming out soon, but I suppose it will be the same

metering situation as with the D70S. Is anyone else in the same boat? Once

again any suggestions or input would be appreciated. Thanks.

I'm currently using a Nikon F2A with a Vivitar 285HV. The F2 offers no TTL so

I opted for the 285. For fill-flash I know there are many who have perfected

this combination and I know it depends on certain factors, but what I'd like

to know is if a more modern flash such as the SB 24, 25,26 on a Nikon F4s body

would make fill-flash and general flash more foolproof. As I said previously

I don't always get optimal results from the 285--definitely user error on my

part. I know flash technology is light years ahead on the F4 vs the F2, but

I'd like to know opinions on whether I'd see considerably better results with

an SB24,25,26 on a matrix metering capable camera with automatic fill flash

capability vs. the fully manual F2/Vivitar 285HV combination. Is it just

convenience factor with the more modern cameras, in this case being the F4?

Can identical results be achieved with both camera/flash combinations if the

user knows what he's doing--in this case me? I ask all these questions

because I am contemplating buying an F4s and would like to know if I am going

to simplify my life and guarantee almost foolproof flash results in any mode.

I believe the F4s does not do balanced fill-flash in matrix metering--only in

center-weighted. Is that going to give me the equivalent of the F2/285

combination? There are also other features of the pro F4S body such as it

ruggedness and built-in motor drive that are factors. The fact that I have

all manual AI-S lenses also weighs heavily in my decision. I thank everyone

in advance for any input or suggestions.

Once again, thanks to all who have taken their time to give me some insight into purchasing an F3.

 

John and Sean--I'm not going to give it any more thought. I'll give it a shot this week and go for it at KEH. Thanks again for all your valuable input.

 

Todd-- I'm looking into the MN-2 and MH-2 as well with purchase of an F3 from KEH. Unfortunately, I only saw the charger available--the MN-2 I believe. I didn't see the actual batteries--the MH-2, correct? I guess I'll have to wait on them.

I had another question for you, Todd. What about the SB16A flash? I believe it's for the F3. I read it's dedicated TTL which would be a plus since I'm using a Vivitar 285HV with my F2 and still can't seem to get fill-flash right 100% of the time. With the SB16A on the F3 can I get accurate, perfect exposure with fill-flash in aperture priority? I think I read that this SB16A did fill-flash TTL with the F3. I know the SB16A says it comes with the Adapter that goes on the rewind knob--at least that's how KEH advertised it. It would be nice to have a dedicated flash instead of the 285 all the time. Although I don't know if the SB16A has the bounce and zoom capabilities that the 285 does. If I stick with the 285 I'll have to pick up the AS-4 as well to use it on the F3. Well, then at least I'd have two options for flash pics. Any expertise you have about this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for all your valuable input.

 

G Armour-- Yes, I have to agree with you. Having a slightly worn camera doesn't make it so painful to take it out in a drizzle or worry about scuffing it up against a wall or a rock. Now please keep in mind that I do take good care of my equipment--I'm not implying I take crazy risks. I've got an F2 I bought off of a friend before I knew what "brassing" meant with the Nikon letters painted over in black to supposedly make it more inconspicuos as I was told when it was used in it's heyday in late 70's--early 80's he told me. There are chips all over it and tons of brassing. I didn't hesitate to take it out yesterday on a cloudy afternoon, and while I covered it with my hat when it started raining it did see a few drops which I quickly dried off before putting it away. I couldn't see me doing that with a new virgin D200 that I contemplate buying every other week, but can't justify making a 1600 dollar investment! Thanks again for all your valuable input

Thanks to all for your responses. It will make my decision easier to make.

 

Tom-- I'll give KEH a try and if the F3 is indeed under par then I'll pay shipping both ways and return it. I'll give it a shot.

 

KL IX--I had read about most people's expectations being exceeded on the KEH website, but I wanted to hear directly from real people. Thanks for your opinion. As I said earlier, I'll give it a shot and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Todd-- I plan on getting the F3 with the MD4 and possibly with the as-4 thrown in as well. What is the MN you're referring to? Is that for the battery pack? I tend to opt for the F3HP because of the viewfinder. I also like a camera with a little character. I'm using a really brassed around the whole body F2 so I'm not expecting a mint condition body for bargain classification. However, I went to a local camera shop and they were selling an UGLY f3hp with md4 for 199--it was down to bare metal and MD4 was kept on with duct tape, the prism was dented and focusing screening was chipped and cracked. That's why I was wondering if 218.00 at KEH was too good to be true or if it would be a beater. I guess with KEH's volume of sales they can afford to give a better price for something in much better condition that would be considered ugly elsewhere. As said earlier I guess it's a toss up and will depend on the luck of the draw when I receive it.

 

Ron--Once again thanks for your input. I hope I get a really nice specimen for bargain condition.

 

Kerry--Thanks for the input. That was a concern of mine about how KEH evaluates equipment and determines a classification. Do they just look at a camera cosmetically because of turn around time? What about actual testing of a camera's functioning? Well, I'll give them a shot and if need be and if my expectations are not met or if it's not up to par then I'll just pay shipping both ways. That's all one can really do when buying used equipment. They seem to be a very legitimate company and hopefully I too can be one of their future satisfied customers. I'll just cross my fingers, shoot a test roll after getting it and hope for the best. Thanks.

Just wondering if anyone has purchased an F3HP in Bargain condition from KEH.

I'm looking to pick one up and the price seems right. From what I've heard and

read their condition ratings seem to be better than what they state. I know

many F3's were used by working pros so I'm concerned that being 70-79% of its

new condition might mean that it's been really beaten. I know KEH has a

return policy but I'd like to make the right choice. Any one have first hand

experience they can share with me? I'd really appreciate any input. Thanks.

Thanks Lex. I'm going to develop it for 6 minutes in the Microphen I've got and see what's on the roll. I don't expect much because I have no clue what I even shot over 15 years ago!

Does anyone have any experience with using Microphen that has been kept in an

airtight plastic bottle for 4 months? I last used it in March to push 3 rolls

of Tri-x to 1600. Will it be less effective or too weak? Mainly I'd like to

use this Microphen to process a roll of Tri-x that was exposed 14 or 15 years

ago and was wondering if the Microphen I have lying around will work on this

old film. Thanks for any input you could share with me.

I just shot a roll of a basketball game in a college gym. I pushed

Tri-x to 1600. Presently I only have D76. Should I develop for

13.25 mins in D76 1:1 at 68 degrees? I've searched through the

threads to see any results with this mixture and haven't found any.

Has anyone used this combination? Could you tell me what to expect

in terms of contrast and grain? Thanks.

Thank you Maury and John. I'm exploring all the possibilities you have mentioned. As I said this was the first roll of 120 I've ever developed--I'm only used to 35 mm developing. It was quite challenging for me to even get the roll on the reel. I'm more inclined to think that the film stuck together during development since it is not black in the overexposed areas, but it is grey and opaque. Inexperience on my part does seem to be the reason for it, although I'm going to run a roll of Portra NC thru it and have it professionally developed to make sure the camera does not have light leaks in the back or in the body. As I only have a 14 day return policy on the camera as it's used I need to figure out the problem as soon as possible. I also realized that the first shots ended up at the end of the roll on the sprocket which I hadn't expected coming from a 35 mm frame of reference, and the first shots were fine. After shooting the last frame I wound the film as far as it would go and the protective paper sleeve came out and covered the film, so I don't think I fogged it. On the advice of the guy who sold it to me I pulled the roll end taut and secured it with the tab so I kind of ruled out my fogging it--or so I think. Thanks again for all your advice.

Here's an example of the overexposure--sized down enough to see. Thanks.<div></div>

Today I developed my first roll of 120 Tri-X in D76 1:1. My

question is: Why are there areas of overexposure on parts of

certain frames? They appear on numbers 5,7,8,9, 10 and 12 in

different parts on different frames--in the middle, bottom or top of

the frame. The remaining frames are fine. I just bought a Bronica

ETRS and this is my first attempt at medium format. Could this

overexposure be due to agitation during development? Or could it be

a light leak in my camera back? Or could I have unloaded the film

incorrectly and allowed light to hit it? I never unwound the

protective cover and it never saw light. Any help or advice would

be greatly appreciated. Thanks.<div></div>

Thanks Steve. I'll try it out. When I get my rolls back I'll be able to see how things turned out. Your advice and a comparison with what I did should improve the next roll.

I'd like to know how exactly to use the Vivitar 285 with a Nikon F2

for fill flash. I have an idea of what to do and I'd like to

explain what I did and see if I'm on the money, in the ballpark or

completely wrong. I tried it yesterday and have not got the film

processed yet. I shot a test roll of Superia 200-- I know it's

consumer film. I took some portraits with it, some pics of birds in

a feeder and birdhouse, and some flower pics. I set the camera for

the flash sync speed, measured the distance according to the ISO,

set the aperture accordingly and varied the power--1/2, 1/4/ 1/16.

I don't know what to expect so I bracketed with the different power

settings. I then re-read the Vivitar instructions-- set the flash

sync speed, and metered by setting the appropriate aperture. It

metered 2.8. I then left the aperture at 2.8 and fired the flash at

1/2 power--I can only imagine totally blown out results. Upon

further reading it said to adjust the aperture according to

distance of subject and ISO--in this case f22. I didn't want all

that DOF, but I tried anyway to see the difference between f22 and

2.8. Is it possible to use the aperture you get when metering or do

you have to use the the one indicated on the dial when doing

distance/ ISO calculations? Thanks in advance for any help with

this.

Thanks Matt. I haven't got a good photo printer so I think I'll live with the Epson. I had noticed soft scans of slides when comparing them to what they really look like. In some ways it might be a good practice exercise to keep using the flatbed. I'll be able to improve my PS 7 skills which are limited. I don't really use much more than curves with B/W negatives and sometimes slides and color negs. I've got a long way to go with digital darkroom skills. I only recently discovered the sharpening filter and the rendering lighting effects filters. Now I've got some time to sit down and check things out thoroughly. I've got a couple really technical books on scanning that I looked at a while back, but will pick up again. Those sites you suggested are helpful, although the whole histogram explanation will take a while to completely sink in. I see what you mean about the limitations of the flatbed in comparison to the film scanners and how much more effort and time it will take to get decent results. Thanks again for all your input. I do notice lots of dust marks and scratches that have to be cloned out. I'll probably eventually end up caving in and buying the Minolta Dualscan IV--it goes for $239 at BH in NYC. That's about all that might be in my price range.

Thanks Yoni. I'll check out scantips and try those Photoshop solutions. Alex

I picked up an Epson 3170 last year because of its capability for

scanning negatives and slides. I've never used a film scanner--and

at the time of buying the Epson couldn't afford a high end Nikon or

Minolta film scanner with digital ICE, etc--still can't afford one

now! That being said, what are reasonable expectations for scanning

slide and negs with the 3170 in Professional Mode? I don't expect

drum scanner results, but using Photoshop 7 could anyone give me any

tips on getting the optimal image quality using this scanner? Does

DPI really matter? Thanks.

In the last few months I've picked up 11 rolls of Elite Chrome 100

Extra Color at CVS--the first few marked down to $2.75 and most of

them down to $1.87--all rolls of 24. 4 rolls are expired--8/04 and

10/04, and the others are good till 5/06 and 9/06. As it is

consumer film I take it that I can be reasonably sure the non-

expired stuff should give me good results. All of it's refrigerated

so I'm hoping for the best. Back to my initial question, in regard

to Colorado in August I'm hoping to get the saturation and vivid

colors the film can render. I've read different viewpoints on it

here in the forum. Has anyone shot this film extensively so as to

give me a clear answer? I also picked up Elite Chrome 200 at

Walgreens very cheap and plan on using that. Any feedback would be

appreciated. Thanks.