erie_patsellis

<p>Edward, slide duplicators pop up from time to time. I waited 2 years to find mine, but having a dichro light source and proper bellows with a macro lens certainly makes a difference.</p>

<p>I'm amazed at how many are ready to dismiss this without trying it. (or for that matter, have the temerity to tell me that my methods are wrong for my needs!) There is a slight difference when I scan, admittedly, but why the hell would I even bother shooting 35mm for large prints? I have two MF outfits and shoot LF, both film and digitally, so it's the wrong tool for the job, period.</p>

<p>Roughly, 1 stop for 45mm tube, 2 stops for 82mm added to the scale on the side of the camera. The bodies focus extension is 46mm, so you can extrapolate from the chart on the side appropriately. Unless you're shooting chromes, that should get you a decent negative that will print easily. Otherwise it's time to do the math with the above numbers.</p>

<p>And here's the table posted here previously that you referenced for those that can't find it:<br /> http://www.photo.net/bboard/uploaded-file?bboard_upload_id=30554984</p>

<p>You might be surprised at how good it can be, I use a Kodak Pro SLR/n with a Beseler Dual Mode Duplicator and get quite usable results. I use an 80mm Rodagon and a modified macro tube with a cpu mounted to allow aperture priority operation, it takes only several seconds per scan, shooting tethered RAW. Would I try to make a 20x24 from it, no. But for up to 10x15 prints off the Frontier at the studio, it's perfect, and far quicker than the scanner on the Frontier.</p>

<p>Crystal Archive will print fine optically, as long as you don't have to burn or dodge much as exposures are pretty short. You have two options if you do need to, either dial in some Cyan and increase Y and M the same amount to add neutral density, or use an ND gel on the bottom of your mixing box. (a Rosco lighting gel works quite well, btw)</p>

<p>Same thing for E6/C41, just use a dishwashing tub or other plastic container.</p>

<p>David,<br>

There are in fact some Frontier operators that can get stunning images. It's far from a hit or miss, as you imply, but requires one to effectively color manage (even though it's in sRGB) and regular calibration and process control. The prints from our Frontier at the studio meets or exceeds the work we have printed out of house, in terms of consistency and color accuracy. How good is it? We print for several local "real" pros up to 10", the limit of the Frontier 370. Since I've been there, we've never had a single reprint due to color errors or poor color on our part. In summary, just like any other tool, the Frontier can produce consistently excellent prints, but is more dependent on good practices than optical printing. I do both, and quite frankly, if the Frontier accepted 16 or 20" wide paper, I'd gladly give up optical printing forever.<br>

Depending on how the frontier is set up, either as a scanner/printer (minilab) or separate scanner/printer connected to a server, or using a PIC computer, makes a big difference. Incidentally, the SP2000 scanner on MF is pretty darn good, far better than many give it credit for. I know of at least one full time portrait/wedding photographer in the Pacific Northwest that uses either a 2000 or 3000 in conjunction with shooting film for the majority of his work. If you employ good color management and strict process control, it's still very cost effective and the final output is as good as it gets.</p>

<p>Poor processing, lack of control strip usage and plotting, or squeezing every last roll out of chemistry, as most minilabs do, will bite you sooner or later. So the choice is really in-house processing or finding a reliable, quality oriented lab that will work with you.</p>

<p>The two rollers on black levers you see are what is holding it open. If you pull the back levers to far, the rollers flip past their center point and will do that. I have had mine adjusted so that they only open enough to load a film holder plus a little bit. You won't hurt anything by pulling the top of the back away and flipping the levers towards the back.</p>

<p>I'd argue about the Compur shutter being a poor choice, in fact the reality is quite the opposite. Copal shutters were built as inexpensive alternative to the Compur. A Compur will likely outlast anybody on this board, with regular (every 10 or so years) maintenance. They tolerate cold and abuse as well as lack of maintenance far better than any Copal ever can.<br>

The only shutter that is more durable and reliable is the Compound, though few see them these days. Anybody who has ever owned a lens mounted in one holds onto it until he dies, typically.</p>

<p>Please be careful on your generalizations based on internet "truisms". A quick chat with an experienced repair tech would dispel your assertions, and I can provide the name of several should you need them.</p>

<p>Except for the fact that Tmax has an ultra long, straight curve and ability to build density for alt process work, and grain that is so much finer than Tri-X, I guess you'd be right.</p>

<p>Takahiro, if you can order from KEH, I'd reccommend buying a 150mm plasmat, either a Fujinon, Rodenstock Sironar or a Schneider Symmar. Any of those shouldn't set you back more than $150 to $200. I've used all three and realistically speaking, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in the negative between the three. Basically, any modern, reasonably good condition plasmat will work fine with minimal expense.</p>

<p>For C-41, separate bleach/fixer is how Kodak created the process, the current trend towards blix is a hack, and sooner or later bites you. (in my experience, of course)</p>

<p>For RA4, I don't know, but I know that PhotoEngineer on APUG would have the answer, as he was instrumental in the development of RA4 Blix.</p>

<p>Jeff, no offense, but my decades long experience (and knowing Paul's attention to detail) tell me otherwise. works just fine, as long as you load properly and stop at 10. These days, I just have a pile of backs, but in the day when a back cost hundreds, I couldn't justify having a dozen backs like I do now.</p>

<p>You do know how to adjust the light position in the reflector, right? Best bet to ensure no hot spot is to expose a piece of paper to a medium gray and process as normal, should you need to adjust slightly, there is an Elwood user's manual on either the Camera Eccentric site or Mike Butkus', well worth the few mins. to download</p>

<p>I wouldn't dismiss the Ilex shutters, they are crude, but they just seem to keep working and working. If there are any timing issues, a quick CLA will get them right again. In my opinion, I would get both of them, they are each worth at least $100, the 12 Comm. Ektar quite a bit more.</p>

<p>Actually, I cheated and bought a Dicomed FieldPro scanback (predecessor to the Betterlight 6K), too inexpensively to pass by. I created an adapter to allow the use of a 4x5 insert onto the back of the camera, just need to do a little shimming, not a big deal now as you can check focus easily enough, but eventually, I'd be easier to use in the field if I didn't have to refocus every shot.</p>

<p>Shoot me an email and I can give you more details.</p>

<p>erie</p>

<p>not really, the only thing I've made lately is an adapter for the Dicomed scan back for the RB, not a finely machined object d' art, but it gets the job done and rids me of a Polaroid back that was too nice to throw out, but not worth replacing the rollers on when you have a pile of them.I do need to send a 250 out to you, just haven't had the time being a f/t art major and the demands of a BFA program.</p>

<p>Francis, depending on the vintage, the earlier pins have a screw that can be removed if it's really gunked up, but unless you've worked on them, I'd not touch it. Contact cleaner does a good job of removing 99% of the old crud and grease, just be sure to replace the grease with fresh grease.</p>

<p>Why thank you Paul, any suggestions should the OP not wish to DIY? ;)</p>

<p>Francis, if you're in the US and would prefer to have it done professionally, look up Paul, his work is first rate and he's a stand up guy.</p>

<p>You need to replace all the foam in the back (and might as well check any others you have) and the revolving back needs a good cleaning and lube, as well as replacing the light seals as well. Not terribly hard to do, if you pay attention to details.</p>

<p>Well, if they don't know much about Sinar's and look at the catalogs, I could see it. But they don't live in a vacuum either, do they?</p>

<p>If I'm not mistaken, the early Componons used the same cell thread, and cell spacing as well. (though I could be wrong..) It would probably be easier to find a junk Componon 360 than a Compound #5. If you have the ability to measure the thread diameter and pitch, I can compare it to my 360 Componon, complete with barrel and tell you the barrel length and aperture location, if that helps.</p>

<p>Gotta love it Larry, you are about as daring as I am, I use Fuji CDU for xrpocessed night shots, works like a champ for pennies a sheet.</p>

<p>"<br>

Her I like my two old 1960's Non AI 35mm F2.<br>

They are so old that Nikon never made an AI kit for the...m"</p>

<p>Kelly, that's odd, as I have an -O that has a factory AI ring. Is it a serial # issue (before xxxxxx, or such)??</p>

<p>Tim,<br /> with patience one can buy that for less than half of what he's asking. Have you ever used an F? if you're reasonably close, I'm about 2 1/2 hours away in central Illinois if you want to spend an afternoon with one to get a feel for whether you prefer the Sinar F, P or a Toyo 45F (I have all 3)<br /> I assume it's the one in the St. Louis Craigslist ad. It's an original F, has no rail clamp, and best case, I wouldn't pay more than around $450-500, max.(with a rail clamp) As a point of reference, I bought my F with a bag bellows, 90 SA, rail clamp and a few odds and ends for $300, a plain bellows for $75 and film holders are very inexpensive. If he tells you it doesn't include the rail clamp, run quickly. They're not inexpensive separately. For $1200 you could be well into a well equipped P outfit with careful shopping.</p>

<p>with regards to the polaroid back, it's a 545 not compatible with the Fuji pack films, and the 4x5 sheet films from fuji aren't cheap</p>

<p>B&W film, when properly exposed and processed, should have a dynamic range of 1.1 to 1.3 if you have spent the time to calibrate your process. Even with a Fb+fog of .5, you're still only looking at a Dmax of 1.8.Where the scanner Dmax becomes an issue is when scanning transparencies, where the Dmax can approach 3.0.<br>

While film generally has a dynamic range advantage, there are exceptions. I have a Dicomed Field Pro back, predecessor to the Betterlight, and 9+ stops of dynamic range is typical without any heroic feats, you can also save a 12 bit linear image as well and apply whatever tonal curve you desire. The downside is that it requires tremendous quantities of light to reveal those strengths. (think 2-5K of tungsten in a studio setting, or between 1-2K of HMI)<br>

Another (admittedly older) camera that has phenomenal dynamic range is the Kodak SLR/n, I measure between 11 and 13 stops consistently in a studio environment and for landscape work, it's low ISO modes (as low as ISO 6) which works by averaging multiple exposures to reduce noise, is amazing.</p>

<p>If you're choosing one for your first lens (because the 150 and 250 C lenses all are less expensive than the ones listed above) I'd go for an 80, T* if you can, though the C is quite exceptional. Get yourself a good shade (compendium) and use it and you'll be quite happy.</p>