gene_crumpler6

It seems that this subject has been covered several times in recent weeks here and on photo.net.

<p>

Andrew, perhaps these should be placed under a general topic on the forum "What are good starting MF cameras"

Tom;

<p>

That's the whole idea is to get some wierd effects. I may try it just to see what I get. It may be a disaster! I suspect that getting the surface really smooth would be the key.

<p>

If I like the blown effect, this might really be BLOWN!!!

We've got some great ideas going here. I'm glad I wasn't the only one

who thought of cutting down 4x5 to 2x3. Iv'e been toying with the

idea of getting a 2x3 graphic for old times sake, but this IR thing is

the only thing I could think of to justify getting one. I let a nice

2x3 crown graphic go by for $125 with an old ektar lense recently at

my local camera shop!

<p>

Now I have had another idea for an experiment. Has any one tried

placing shiny aluminum foil or something similiar on the pressure

plate of a 35mm camera to really increase the reflection of light back

into the film? I suspect you would get some interesting effects!!

<p>

I've got an old nikkorex body that I might try it on. If the foil

screws up the camera, not a whole lot lost as it is just collecting

dust now.

I know I've see some one mention web site(s) for designing darkrooms.

I couldn't find any thing in the printing/processing threads. I'm

starting construction of a new home and I want to make the darkroom

area as efficient as possible and also plan for future space and

equipment that I currently can't anticipate.

The prints that I have made so far with Konica under midday full

sun have deep shadows under trees that totally lack detail. I've

found that to get the leaves, sky and clouds to have decent contrast,

I end up with total black in the shadows. The areas are too complex

to attempt to dodge and there's very little detail on the negative if

I could dodge. I would end up with featureless gray. I've developed

in T-max developer using the Plus-x time/temp recommendation.

<p>

I've been more pleased with the range of tones with 35mm Kodak High

Speed IR in T-max developer, but the grain is not much to write home

about in prints bigger than 8x10. A camera club buddy is producing

mouth watering 16x20 prints from Kodak 4x5 film with very little

grain. I'm not interested in getting into 4x5 just to shoot a few IR

shots. Thus the idea to pick up a cheap 2x3 graphic and a couple

of holders that I can handle in my 6x7 enlarger.

<p>

By the way, I read Laura White's Book and was aware of this problem

before I ordered the Konica film! Thought I could tame the contrast,

but to date, no luck and I don't have enough film to shoot 10-15 rolls

to discover how to deal with this(special developer, preflashing, etc)

If you want to shoot MF Kodak IR, it might be easier to get a $200

21/4x31/4 graphic and cut down 4x5 sheet film. I think you would

spend less time fumbling in the dark. My rough math indicates you

could get two 2x3 pieces of film from a 4x5 sheet. I've considered

doing this!

<p>

I'm not pleased with my results so far with Konica 750nm in 120 size.

Contrast is horrid and the "blown" IR effect is not that of Kodak in

35mm.

I purchased a 80mm F5.6 El nikkor last year. It is a fantastic lens.

It would be absolutely over whelming for 6x6 as it has outstanding

corner-to-corner sharpness for 6x7 coverage. You can get a new one

for about $180, gray market version at B&H. I've made prints to 28x22

(actually cropped 16x20's) with it and it is great! I agree that the

75mm 4-element el nikkor is not in the same league, so I sold it this

year.

Peter;

<p>

A good rule of thumb is not to use less than 1/250 for handheld shots with any MF, if you plan to make 8x10 or larger sharp prints. With this, the shutter release method should not make much difference. I can't get really sharp negatives with my old C33 at 1/125 or less!!

<p>

I bought my 6x7 last year in order to get really, really sharp 16x20 prints. Otherwise, I would have continued to use my nikons for B&W prints up to 11x14. So the use of a MF camera (IMHO) for prints is primarly to get sharp prints.

<p>

I use to have a cord, and as I recall, I found it better to pull, than to push.

Yes, get some different B&W films and try them out! It is fun to experiment and you will feel better about your choice if you make it your self based on our own tests(I did). Good ones to try are Kodak T-max 100 and 400, Tri-x, ilford xp-1 and/or the kodak equilevnt, Tech Pan 6415, Ilford Pan F, Agfa APX 25, etc. Then there is the choice of developer, every one has their own preference.

<p>

We don't know what you will be photographing or the size/type of prints you expect, so I can't be to specific.

<p>

Norman, perhaps you might tell us more and then we can narrow in on films to try!

I second Don's comments. My Pentax takes a while to load, but I'm getting better with practice. I've had limited experience with hassey but loading the insert with the back on the camera seems to me the fastest way.

<p>

Loading film reels with 120 takes some practice. If you can load 35mm on to reels, then you have the skills to load 120.

<p>

This is how I load 120 on to nikor SS reel. I break the seal and start unrolling the paper until I find the end of the film. I then insert the film into the reel clip and insure it is reasonably secure and it is centered in the reel. Then I pull some more off and form a slight inward curl. Then I feed the reel onto the reel. I start at the end of the roll, rather than pull all of the film off the paper before loading, because it minimizes the chance of touching the emulsion while loading.

<p>

I do the same thing with 35mm, by leaving the leader out, cutting it off and triming the edges in room light, then turn off light and feed the film onto the reel directly from the cartridge.

<p>

Marci: get an old roll of film and practice loading in room light. 120 flim is larger and more flexible than 35, so it takes a little more practice than 35mm. Also some of the plastic reel systems I understand, are better to load than SS, but I don't use so have no recommendations in that area.

Tim;

<p>

On my last outing with mamya C33 and 105 lens, I made a few shots

hand held using tech pan at 1/125 shutter speed. All of the frames

were just unsharp enought to discourage me from making 11x14 prints (

my minimum size B&W print). Put in on the pod and the same roll

yielded a first prize 16x20!

<p>

My experience

<p>

Gene

Greig:

<p>

One advantage in shooting this way is you didn't have an electronic

flash in the tub with you!! I personally took all of the tub pictures

of my kids standing outside the tub.

<p>

I had one camera go into the lake at a drunken college picnic and it

never worked the same after!!!

<p>

I use to conduct a beginners seminar for a photo club called "You and

Your Camera". The very first thing at the first get together, was to

ask everyone to pick up their camera and put the strap arround their

neck. I have dings on all of my cameras from not having the strap

around my neck. The last week of July, I wished that Pentax had a neck

strap for their lenses, as I dropped my (prior to then, mint)105 and

bent the front. I can barely get the 67mm filter to stay on!!

<p>

I've never had a shot come out hand held at 1/15 of second that was

worth printing! I'll stick to 1/250 as minimum hand held speed or use

a flash or a tripod!

<p>

My $0.02.

As an engineer with the USEPA evaluating health exposures and cancer risk, I know that lung cancer in humans working in uranium mines is the one clearly documented know cause of cancer in humans (radon gas). Nearly all other human cancer risks are extrapolated from other species (mice, hampsters,etc) cancer responses.

<p>

I'm not suprised that their film was fogged. I hope that's all that got damaged!!!

The last point about the enlarging lens and your whole enlarger in general is very important in B&W. I tried a couple of lenses for MF, but finally ended up with new 80mm El-nikkor, and a new Omega C760XL. It is very sharp all the way to the edges, and not too pricey (About $180 at B&H in greymarket version).

<p>

I sold a 75mm el-nikkor which was good but not quite up to the 80mm which is a six element design , versus the 4 elements of the 75mm.(Of course the 75 wouldn't cover 6x7 anyway).

<p>

A couple of other points. I tested several B&W films in 120 and decided on T-max 100, rated at 320 and souped in Ethol TEC. The extra stop and 2/3 is very useful in MF, as you will be expecting much better sharpness with MF than 35mm, so keeping the shutter speeds up above 1/125 is critical with hand held shooting. You have to really look for the grain in 16x20's blown up from 6x7.

Based on my 44 years of experience buying cameras, my advice is don't buy some one else's trouble.

<p>

Q-Would you buy a 49 chevolet with 200,000 miles?

<p>

A-Only if you wanted to restore it(big bucks) or are a collector!

Start filling out those application papers for your second mortgage!!

<p>

Also remember, as in cars, don't buy the first production run!

6x7 should be considered, if you are doing your own B&W printing. I suspect from your comment about size you have a 6x6 enlarger as I still do. I shot the whole enchalata(sp?) and got Pentax 67, lenses, omega C760XL enlarger, 80mm el-nikkor, etc, etc. The only thing I didn't replace are my developing trays and safe light!!

<p>

Pentax 6x7 lenses(new) are as good as any made! 16x20 print sharpness is to die for!

<p>

I have used 6x6 mamya off and on for 25 years and the 6x7 negative in the darkroom is in a different league.

<p>

Check http://www.bigfoot/~bigcamera, Medium and Large Format Forum for another on-going discussion about this subject.

Gary

<p>

In a word yes!! The previous posts cover the pros and cons well.

<p>

A couple of things to look out based on my limited experience with the C series Mamya:

<p>

1. Best stay away from the chrome faces lenses as repair and parts are hard to find. I just sold a broken chrome 105 to a guy for parts.

<p>

2. I have come across two examples of used lenses where the focus was off. I ended up sticking a shim made from a scrap piece of mat board on the very top of the lens board in order to get both lenses to focus at the same spot in the center of the finder/film plane. I did not notice that the lens boards were bent in the store, nor was able to see it later when I really looked. I don't know if this is very common, but I did run into it on the last two lenses. Test all purchases and get a return privilege!!!

<p>

3. The C220 is a very capable body and is the cheapest of the most recent three digit series of bodies. No auto lens cocking is the biggest difference between the c220 and the c33/c330

<p>

3. The lens performance is not quite up to the newest lenses from most manufactures, but then you'r not planning to take out a second mortgage either!! They still do very well!

<p>

4. The pentax 67 is a lot of camera for the money!

Greg

<p>

It's great to know that people steadier than I am can use down to 1/60. I've found using the old C33, where none of the activity going on in the P67 occurs, that 1/125 hand held on Tech Pan is not always sharp. (I think AA was about the same age I am when he started using blads. One of the few advantges of advancing age is you have a great excuse for a lot of failings. Ha, Ha).

<p>

Brian- Second your experience!

You have to develop steady hands and nerves of steel to shoot hand held with the mirror up. But it works, expecially well with a wide angle lens. Doesn't work too well with the 200mm, but you shouldn't be using less than 1/500 with that focal length anyway, mirror or no mirror.

<p>

The only time the potential camera induced vibration comes in is with the shutter at 1/30 to 1/2 and the mirror is up anyway and I have that licked.

<p>

AA said the he could not handhold his Hassey at less than 1/250! Maybe people can hand hold at 1/60 if they get their printing done at Wal Mart!!

<p>

Any way I don't hand hold MF (p67 or C33) below 1/250 anymore, regardless of the camera or lens, since tack sharp 16x20's are the goal. Other wise, why bother with lugging MF equipment? I'll use a nikon for 11x14 or less.

JSC:

<p>

I've returned from lunch and now remember how I put the thing back together. I'll e-mail you the instructions and not clutter up this forum.

<p>

Gene

Scott;

<p>

Interestingly, I did the same thing, using an FE with a 75-150 E zoom with my old C33. I now have both a TTL pentax 67 and a spot meter. I find the spot meter gives more consistent exposures that the TTL(being an averaging meter), if I take the time to do the metering.

<p>

Gene