juanriera

Mike,

The Rolleiflex in your link is exactly the same as mine. The focusing knob is the same, it doesn't show in my photo. I am sure this is the model. Thanks.

I have just find inside the accesory shoe on top the number 140436

Sorry, it seems I can't put a photo here,please see the link to <a href="http://www.juanriera.net/camaras.html">my cameras</a> and click on the Rolleiflex.

Finally I thought it was better to post a photo.

Hi Ferdi, this is only to say that my Rolleiflex is exactly like Rolleiflex T described at <a href="http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/text_pages/rolleiflex_compare.html">your page</a> at rolleigraphy.org, but it has no lever on taking for speeds and f/stops controls but front thumb-wheels on side of lenses instead.

Yes Mike, it is like you describes.

Hello,<br>

I am trying to locate the model and fabrication year for my 5x7

Linhof Technika. Maybe you can help me as I can not find any serial

number on it. The only number is on the focusing lever below the

lens rail. It reads f=210mm 6913217.<br>

Thanks you in advance for your help.<div></div>

Robert, here goes a Velvia scan. If you look at the negative film scan there is not only more grain, as I can expect from this film, but plenty of white spots (only a few on my sample). The Velvia scan is clean. But I guess Roger was right thinking Velvia is better processed than fast negative processing and maybe chemical are not in best condition.<br>

On the other side, I am going to give Astia a try, as Scott sugests, as latitude exposure is what I am looking for. <br> Thanks you all.<div></div>

Thanks Ferdi.

Mike, the Rolleiflex is my favorite among <a href="http://www.juanriera.net/camaras.html">my cameras</a>

Now I only need a good repair shop to do some maintenance, better here in Spain. <br>Regards,<br>Juan

You can see what I consider a correct scan from a 35mm Velvia transparency <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2854919">here</a>.

Scan of a Kodak negative film 1:1

I mean sometimes the scanner focuses on the opposite side of the film. If negative film is thicker than slides that could be an issue, I don't know. Of course my negatives are no more dirty than my slides so this should not be an issue there.

I will try to post a small part of a negative scan just to see.

Ferdi, i didn't notice this number before.

It is 1449697 and it has the letters DBP on the left side and DBGM on the right

As this camera was always in my family I can assure no original element has been ever replaced.

I have seen some extra results with negative film scanned. I usually

use Velvia or Provia in my 35 mm and medium format, and all tries I

have done to scan negatives gives me a scan full of dirt and

scratchs. On the other way, my Velvia and Provia scan are flawless

(within the possibilities of my simple scanner) I guess if my

scanner is focusing on the surface of negative film and not on the

image and so is dirt what is perfectly scanned. Any special clue to

get good negative scannings? Thanks

Hello

I have a Rolleiflex with a Tessar f/3,5 coming from my grand father.

I have been using it from many years ago and I have never been able

to know the fabrication year. The lens has the Nr 1326578. The

shutter is a Franke & Heidecke. No light meter.

Thanks for your help.

 

Now in spanish -

Si alguien en castellano me puede ayudar, busco un buen sitio de

confianza en Madrid para reparar esta camara, quiero limpiarla,

quizas cambiar el cristal del visor que esta roto en una esquina.

Algun sitio recomendable aparte de Rollei?

Gracias

I would like to contribute to this thread saying that I dont see the utility of two ratings criteria. In origin it is true that Aesthetics an Originality criteria could be good ones, but time shows that they goes always related, i.e. they are not independent. I have followed the ratings on some of my photos and I have seen most people rates by couples 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, and so on to 7-7, as some of you have stated before. The meaning of it, as people working with statistics and panel analysis knows very well, is that these two measures are not filling their original purpose as people are using both to say the same. Maybe in origin or with some experts the two concepts are separate and clear enough, but this does not seem the case for most people rating here. What is more, I have seen on one of my photos more than 20.000 viewings, 200 ratings but not one critique. It seems people gets comfortable with rating but they do not like to critique or they do not know how to do it. If this is the case, I woukld rather prefer people not having clear how to critique would not rate, and only could put a note of the like/dont like kind. Great part of photo.net success is how people likes their photos rated, and as highest as possible. However this does not say anything to people wanting to ameliorate, as ratings are so subjective and not well informed as I have said before.

So, what is what I would like? First, a binary system like/dont like for people not wanting (or not knowing how) to critique, and second, a system rewarding critique much more than rating, to get people involved in critique and discussing concepts and not point scales.<div></div>

A friend just told me that there is a limit of 100k on each photo

posted to photo.net

I am not able to find this info anywhere. I only see I have a limit

on total size around 100 Mb, and a recomendation about 1024 Mpx on

larger side.

Is really any rule here limiting individual photo size to 100k?

In the case you don't know, you can try those places:

http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/

You can find there people like Sandy King,Vaughn Hutchins, Richard Sullivan and others masters of the technique.

 

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/main/index.htm

 

There were other list you could subscribe at

http://rosebud.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/carbon

but it seems is dead.

 

Look also for the work of Tod Gangler, at Seattle. Colour Carbon, best in the world.

 

Some years ago I tried this way as I think Carbon is THE technique for colour printing. However it was too difficult and time consuming for me and I gave up. I still regret my decission...

 

Regards,

Juan

I know this is an old question but from time to time a thread like this shows this is a live question.

To me, as others have said, the first and only question is being true and honest with your own previsualization. Ansel Adams was effectively a master of tweaking the b&w labo but his images were absoutly coherent with his vision. Talking about the pre-PS era, you can think about Peter Turner, Eliot Porter, and other color masters, or you can think about b&w work of Jerry Uelsmann.

I ask you to see my landscape gallery. There is some images near untouched in Photoshop but they have been really changed in the taking, say colour reciprocity change, long exposure blurring water, etc. On the other side, some images are very true to the thing but they were so unreal that I was forced to change it on PS and desaturate it(the rocks with the blue colour)

I think, as I have said before the key is being true to yourself and your image previsualization. If you simply tweak image after image on PS and there is no coherent vision on it, you lose all power you could have got by the technique. So, develop your vision and be faithful to it. Use what you want and do what you need to get the images on your head going out. This is my point.<div></div>

I have searched the PN database but I did not find an answer:

How compares Pictro vs Frontier? Is this the same digital printing

system? Does Pictro use Crystal Archive as digital paper? What

about Pictro's archival quality?

I have access to a local bureau using Fuji Frontier and someone

talked to me about Pictro. Thanks for your help in seeing clear the

differences.

 

Juan

Autumn and first snows on Picos de Europa Nationa Park, Spain<div></div>