mph

At the risk of stating the obvious: There's a selector under the film-advance lever that can select "A", "L", "2", or "10". Make sure that it's set to "A". "L" is for "locking" the camera, and nothing will function.

 

Also, there's a small two-position dial on the camera, to the left of the prism (as you look from the back of the camera). One of the positions disables the meter display in the viewfinder.

Yep, 48. I actually went through a lot of confusion on this point when I got my QL17 GIII. I bought a 48-to-55 step-up ring for it, because my FD lenses are 55mm. But the ring wouldn't fit, and I couldn't figure out why. It turned out that the ring was actually 49mm, but was mis-labeled by Tiffen!

Thanks, Gregory, that's very relevant to me since I have an A-1.

Pick up the slide. Look at the emulsion side (the underside, if you view the slide normally) with sidelighting. If the dense parts of the slide look thicker than the clear parts, it's Kodachrome. Try it on some "known" slides and you'll see what I mean.

Thanks for the advice. I could figure it out if I had a tube in hand, but sometimes on places like eBay it's hard to tell whether there are coupling levers.

Hi, everyone. I'm wondering which extension tubes support AE

operation (i.e. are fully compatible with a lens set to "A"). Do the

Canon "FD" tubes meed this description (vs. the "M" tubes)? Are there

any aftermarket lines that support automatic operation?

 

Thanks!

Sometimes my slides come back in the shortest possible time (e.g. I send the film Monday, they get it Tuesday, mail them back Wednesday, I get them Thursday). Other times it's a day or two longer. I don't know if the delay is A&I or the mail.

 

I live in Pasadena, CA, so it's not unusual for the mail to be overnight.

Note that B&H sells prepaid A&I print mailers for $11.95 (single prints). That's not much more than I'd pay for 36 exp at a random 1-hour place.

 

I've used A&I for slides for a while. Haven't used them for prints yet, but I just ordered a few mailers and am confident that I'll be happy with the results and value.

Frank, in the course of preparing your patronizing response, you neglected to consider the star's declination. It should be obvious that you don't need a 180-degree fisheye to capture a 12-hour star trail of Polaris. You'll need a cos(dec) term in your calculations.

The first time I went to Joshua Tree, it was very windy, and I had only a plastic Velbon tripod. At one point, I actually had to chase my tripod across the terrain.

 

Pitching the tent by myself was loads of fun, too.

Aircraft cabins are pressurized, typically to 9,000 or so feet as I recall. It would be suicidal for a laptop hard disk manufacturer to make a drive that didn't work in a pressurized airliner cabin.

<i>How does the distance scale match up to the focus at say 20-30 ft. or even 5-7 feet?</i>

<p>

When checking this, remember that the distances marked on the lens are measured from the film plane. The film plane is marked on the top of your camera with a symbol like "-O-" (except that the line goes through the circle).

Just recently on A&I's message board, they indicated that they're happy accepting bulk-loaded film (and will even return the cartridges if requested). But they didn't say anything about tape.

 

So, out of curiosity, what is the right tape to use? I've used medical tape when bulk-loading, but that was just for B&W film that I was developing myself.

Joe, please let us know about your experiences with International Camera Repair. It's around the block from me, too.

 

I went to one of the local shops when I got my Canonet, to ask for a quote for foam replacement. It was over $100. I ended up doing it myself in a few minutes, with no previous experience. I think they didn't want the work. I thought it was ICR, but I could be mistaken.

Thanks, Charles. In my non-expert judgment, the lever on the lens doesn't seem particularly stiff or gummy, but on the other hand, I wouldn't think that an electronic camera like the A-1 would be prone to weakening...

 

My dad's got an AE-1, so maybe I'll see how the lens does on his camera during my holiday visits.

Hi everyone. I've just added an A-1 to my kit, to supplement the TLb

I've been shooting for a few years. I'm really enjoying the new

camera so far. However, I've been having some trouble using my

favorite lens, a Vivitar Series 1 135mm f/2.3, with the A-1.

 

When the 135/2.3 is mounted and I try to fire the shutter, the

viewfinder darkens, suggesting that the aperture has stopped down, but

the mirror does not flip up and the shutter doesn't fire. This

happens whether the lens is set to an f/stop or on automatic. If I

then dismount the lens, the mirror flips and the shutter fires.

 

My other lenses work properly on the A-1, and the 135 continues to

work properly on the TLb.

 

Any ideas? I don't even know whether to blame the lens or the camera.

 

I think I have found a workaround. The lens' aperture stop-down lever

has a locking position (similar to my Canon 50/1.8). With this lever

locked, the lens seems to work correctly (full-aperture preview until

the shutter fires, then it stops down correctly). However, the lens

then stays stopped down until I turn the film-advance lever. It's no

big deal, but obviously this isn't how things are supposed to work.

Regarding Adams' "Moonrise," keep in mind that the sky was not yet dark... there are crosses reflecting the setting sun. It's a lot easier to get the right exposure when the moon and the foreground are both being lit up by the sun! (Not that it was an easy shot, but at least it was <i>possible</i>...)

I don't know firsthand, but I've heard rumors that Gossen is good

about providing replacement manuals at reasonable rates.

<blockquote><i>That way you'll still have your right eye intact should something go wrong.... </i></blockquote>

 

<p>I'm reminded of the laboratory warning sign: <b>Do not look into laser with remaining eye!</b></p>

I don't have an 85/1.8, but my 50/1.8 SC (you know, that ultra-rare

lens) appears to go 1.8, half-stop between 2.0 and 2.8, 2.8, etc. I

don't observe a detent for f/2.0.

 

<p>

 

I'm basing this on how much rotation is between the detents. Going

from 2.8 to the next (wider-open) detent feels like all of the other

half-stop clicks, and going from there to 1.8 feels like a larger

rotation.

It is almost certainly the case that the recommendations were made on

the basis of obtaining adequate shadow detail, *not* "better

contrast." What does "better contrast" mean? More contrast? Less

contrast? It depends on the brightness range of the scene you're

photographing, combined with your artistic vision.

 

<p>

 

A lab, unless instructed otherwise, should be developing for normal

contrast. Increasing development increases contrast. Since the

recommendation was about shadow detail rather than contrast, the lab

should not be instructed to alter development.

 

<p>

 

The statement that improper development would result in overexposed

images indicates a lack of awareness about the role of exposure and

development on shadow detail and contrast. Adams' "The Negative" is

the usual recommendation for learning about these topics.

 

<p>

 

Ideally, you would test your films in your personal equipment and with

your development procedure (see "The Negative") rather than relying on

someone else's results.

My post is not confusing. Scala can, in fact, be processed by .dr5

and the folks at A&I claim that the result is superior to the Scala

process. It is likely that the Scala and .dr5 processes are similar.

I checked the .dr5 web site before posting; did you?

A&I in LA has a process called .dr5 for producing B&W transparencies

from both Scala and normal B&W films. Their web page says they'll do

Scala at 200 or 400.

 

<p>

 

http://www.aimcolor.com/dr5.html

 

<p>

 

I've used A&I for regular slide processing, but not .dr5. However, I

have read many excellent reviews of the process.

Since you mentioned the red sensitivity of Tri-X, I'll just point out

that HP5+ has slightly more red sensitivity. Amateur astronomers know

this because there is an important hydrogen emission line at 656 nm,

and HP5+ captures this light while Tri-X does not. I'd guess that

differences in skin rendering between HP5+ and Tri-X must arise from

some other factor.

There are various rumors of high-resolution films; just look at the

other posts to this forum recently. But where will the optics come

from to take advantage of 1000 lp/mm or whatever? Keep in mind that

diffraction is a hard limit. I think that rumors of the death of

larger formats are greatly exaggerated.