colin jackson

OK, I'm an idiot. Yes, there is a moving mask, a lovely little pair of rotating bars on front a

back of the body under the screen. I wish I knew a way of removing my post to prevent

further embarrassment. As Emily Latella used to say, never mind..

I just finished an experiment to determine if there is some sort of parallax correction required for my

3.5E, considering the 2 inches between lens centers.

Putting a piece of wax paper over the film gate and comparing the view from 3 feet to infinity, I could

not detect ANY parallax and can see that there is no moving mask as I have removed the finder/screen

to reveal a fixed mask, not a moving one suggested on a photo.net archive search. I noticed, finally,

that the image shifted as I focussed which seemed impossible but there it was. The only conclusion

that I can come to is that the viewing 45 degree mirror must shift. Can anyone confirm the mirrow

shift?

Now I know why there was no mention of a parallax correction in my downloaded PDF manual.

I have the .85 BP MP and chrome M3 as well as a '69 BP Nikon F. The Nikon paint has worn

beautifully showing brass as the MP is starting to do. If, by "wear well", you mean not

show wear with use, no. The black chrome will not wear through, just look dull and

grubby with use, IMHO. Matter of personal taste.

As far as .85 viewfinder, I can't stand wide angle viewfinders (used to the M3 since '67)

and am prepared to use an auxiliary finder for wider than 35 mm. As long as you use the

50 mm. and up why not go .85 M6 if you can get one, if you don't wear glasses?

You mention that, like me, you don't use flash so the TTL factor doesn't matter.

500 ml. will process 2x36 exp. films if you add 10% to the recommended times as stated

in Kodaks J-78 tech. pub. below, clicking on "Storage Life and Capacity".

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.jhtml#002a

To quote:

"To extend the useful capacity of D-76 Developer diluted 1:1--when processing two 36-

exposure rolls in a 16-ounce tank [500 ml.]--increase the recommended time by about 10

percent."

Otherwise you are right to use 500 ml. 1:1 per film. Kodaks pub above says that you

should use twice the volume of D76 1:1 per film as stock. In other words 1 L. (32 oz.)

stock processes twice the number of films (ie. 4 films) as 1 L. of 1:1 (ie. 2 films). I have

noticed nicer negs since I noticed and heeded this small print. I guess it depends on how

important quality vs. quantity is to your application. I admit I have never tried the +10%

rule to get more economy as D76 is so cheap, at least so far.

I may have just been lucky but I have used a Lloyds loader on and off since about '67 and

loaded thousands of rolls with no trouble. I always keep it under wraps unless using it.

Prior to loading I pull at the fuzz around the cassette seals to remove any loose material

and blow them out with canned air. I use them over and over unless I see the seal coming

unglued or the bottom cap gets too loose and makes me nervous but have NEVER had

scratches due to loader or cassette.

I always handle the loaded cassettes with great care and don't assume them to be as light

tight as new ones but bear in mind a little light leak through the seal will only affect the

first couple of inches and shouldn't affect the frames as raw film is quite opaque and

wrapped over itself several times before it gets to the first frame. Also the spool flanges

should stop light coming in the bottom cap as long as it doesn't pop off, of course. I have

lost a couple of films due to rough handling/dropping of the cassette knocking the end

cap off but never an exposed roll YET. I always keep rolled film in capped film cans pre

and post exposure.

Like I said, maybe I've just been lucky but my scottish heritage makes it hard to throw out

usable equipment.

Another vote for the Elmarit-M 2.8. I have the latest version and was amazed at its

qualities for portraits.<div></div>

I used to use the 300 ml. per film for 1:1 D76 with no 10% time correction (per Kodak J

-78)

but after switching to double volume (I now use 500 ml. per film diluted 1:1) I seem to

have better highlights and maybe a little better shadow texture with a diffusion enlarger

on

Tri-X 400. I admit I haven't done a controlled experiment comparing single and double

volume but I am now happier with my Tri-X results. I sometimes use 10% extra time for

single volume as recommended by Kodak when running equipment tests when I'm

not too

fussy. I assume Kodak had a reason for recommending a fixed amount of stock per film.

It makes sense to me. Why wouldn't one require a fixed amount of chemistry per film

regardless of dilution?

My MP rewind is also a little wobbly unlike my M3 rewind which is still solid. It does give

me some pause about the comparitive quality in that respect. When I sent the MP back to

NJ for a sticky shutter button issue, I also asked that they look into the shakey stalk but it

came back the same with no comment from them.

I bought and installed the Hasselblad seals but when I subjected the darkslide slots on all

3 backs to bright sun, they leaked. The ones from blackbird worked perfectly and I

couldn't make them leak. I don't deny I must have pooched the Hassy seal installation but

why did the others work? Go figger. Blackbird has a good product.

I got a UV filter for protection along with red and yellow for my 50 and 35 'crons. I shoot

only with the 35 shade in place also. When switching filters it is not uncommon for me to

fumble the filter rattling it on the lens surface with the metal filter edge. One should

invert the camera so the filter falls away from the lens instead on onto it. So far no

perceptible damage but I no longer submit my lenses to UV filter abuse as the practice

becomes counterproductive. Maybe you never use other filters or are more dexterous

than myself but....beware!

I also notice the increased tendency to flare with a filter mounted when shooting toward

bright light.

BTW I use Heliopans which were recommended to me over B&W.

I found those proofers needed too much negative handling and took too long when doing

lots of contacts so I peeled the mask off the glass and used Goof Off to clean up the mess.

Now I just lay my clear Print File neg sleeves on the paper and use the glass to hold if flat.

I use the 35 exposure Print Files holding 7 strips of 5 frames so I can print on 8x10.

"we're talking of say 15 seconds difference"

When street shooting, I noticed that I could rewind my MP the old fashioned way in the

time it took me to cross a 4 lane crosswalk. I think I could do it easily in 15 seconds

making the difference a matter of a few seconds one way or the other. I can also do it a

little faster a la Kaplan, rubbing the side of my finger against the rewind but am never

needing the extra second or 2 this gives. I am not impressed when I take out the Nikon F

and have to use the stupid little lever. At least that camera was designed with the quick

rewind in mind, not an afterthought canted system that adds some sort of universal joint

with its inherent vulnerability. I occasionally hear on this forum of those breaking but

never problems with the old pull up knob.

I just got back from a domestic trip within Canada. On the outbound leg (from Victoria)

the security willingly hand inspected the film, opening the cardboard boxes of the 120 but

not the foil envelopes then wiping them all with a piece of paper which they put in an

analyzer for, I presume, explosive residues, using 1 piece of paper for about every 4 rolls.

These included my bulk loaded 35mm cassettes on which I had written "400" on adhesive

tape.

On the return leg (from Halifax), the security was just sitting around between flights but

refused to hand check the exposed film due to the label 400 I had written on them. I

insisted I intended to push some above their limit of 800 ASA but they didn't believe me

and pushed it all through the xray. They were sitting around with nothing much else

happening so it seems to depend on the mood of the crew at the time. I have not

processed my film but am not too worried from the account of others. I think the advice

to ship it home via courier is a good one and I would consider it for next time. The other

option is to label your bulk loaded cassettes at above 800 ASA as I was told that was the

limit for hand inspection.

I bought a 500 CM body mint with years of sitting around and it badly needed a CLA due

to lack of use. The technician showed me that the lens actuating shaft that sticks out at

the bottom front of the body was slow in rotation compared to a properly maintained

body. Normally you should not be able to detect the 2 stage rotation when the shutter is

fired but in this case the naked eye could detect the distinct stop and start. In any case,

the lack of use allowed the lube to get gummy and the CLA remedied any problems. Then

lens was a newer Prontar shuttered 80 which checked fine but older lenses might be a

different story. I was told to fire my lenses through all speeds twice a month when they

are not being used to keep them limbered up and to fire them a few times prior to use.

One of the worst things you can to is to let this equipment just sit without use. Get a CLA

factored into the price.

My experience with DDX on various Ilford films (delta 100, 400) is that the results are

contrasty, better for low contrast subjects, grey days etc. Both of your shots are in bright

sun, and the results are to be expected but still pretty good. I find scanning to be

intolerant of good printing negatives where there are dense highlights. These would

probably print up well with a diffuser enlarger with good highlights but another developer

or longer exposure/ shorter development would help for scanning. Keep the agitation in

DDX gentle and with maybe fewer cycles in bright shadowy conditions.

Some good ideas here.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001bMa

If the film is scratched, you can see the scratch with a good loupe (or 50mm lens) looking

along the film against reflected light. Check both sides, not just the emulsion. If it is a

light leak issue, the film surfaces will be smooth. I can't imagine such fine lines being

light leaks.

Tom, are the scratches down the edge of the film or into the exposures? I once got

scratches at the edge as well as exposures sitting down partly into the sprocket holes.

The film was not sitting between the guide tracks of my MP when inserted so slipped down

while advancing and the sharp start of the track was scratching the rebate area. Once I

got into the habit of checking the seating the film between the tracks prior to closing the

back there was no more problem.

Refinder: "sorry if this is off the topic, but did you get surge marks when you follow

Kodak's method of extending your arms and twist your wrist vigorously?"

No, never had the surge marks. BTW, I use small Nikor tanks for 1,2 or 4 reels. The

agitation is spelled out here:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/

f4017.jhtml#small-tankprocessing(8-or16-ouncetank)

"Provide initial agitation of 5 to 7 inversion cycles in 5 seconds; i.e., extend your arm and

vigorously twist your wrist 180 degrees. Then repeat this agitation procedure at 30-

second intervals for the rest of the development time."

Cheers.