scott_kinkade

Hi Sharon...

 

My two cents:

 

- Don't bother with a company to sell the collection on EBay for you...they don't know anything about cameras either.

 

- If you decide to sell on EBay, consider selling one or a couple of the cameras first. No need to feel obligated to have the whole lot up for sale at once. That will get you more comfortable with the process. Before you list it, do an "advanced search" for recently completed auctions of identical cameras to get an idea what they are going for.

 

- There really is no such thing as a "fair price"...the market for these cameras is alive and well on EBay, and plenty of serious buyers will get a chance to look at your listings. The final price offered is, by definition, the going rate, and chances are pretty good that your final offer will be in the same ballpark as the recent auctions you checked out. If it makes you feel better, set an opening bid of $20 or something like that, but I assure you that nobody is going to let a good camera go to another person for an "unfair" price.

 

- Consider keeping one for yourself and learning to use it!

 

Cheers, and good luck.

Hi Marta...

 

Your example (shooting the setting sun) is a bit confusing because the subject and the light source are the same. If you point your light meter at the setting sun, you are actually taking a REFLECTED light reading because you are measuring the amount of light coming FROM your subject. What your salesman was talking about was walking over to your subject and pointing the meter back toward the camera (and also, in most situations, toward the light source) to measure the amount of light falling ON the subject. This is INCIDENT metering. Since it sounds like you're wanting a basic technique, stick to reflected metering for now.

 

I have this same meter, and here is my technique (though it's so basic that the word "technique" is a bit big.) I don't have one in front of me, so I apologize if my descriptions are off:

 

- Set the ISO of your film by turning the clear cover of the meter.

 

- Stand where you intend to shoot from (ie, the camera position) and point the meter at your subject.

 

- Press the button for a second or so, then release it. The needle will stay in place for 30 seconds or so. Make sure the little white bubble does NOT cover the sensor on the front of the meter.

 

- Move the green pointer to line it up with the needle, and select an aperture and shutter combination that line up with each other, based on your needs for the shot (based on speed required, desired depth of field, etc.)

 

- Set those on your camera and shoot.

 

Good luck!

The <a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/sds/Waste/waste4.html">Ilford wash method</a> is 5,10, and finally 20 inversions with a fresh tank of water for each set of inversions (3 tanks total.)

As a matter of fact, if you make a pot of coffee you've already completed the first step!

Sorry, that should have been "Flanigan."

Look at Kelly coming back for more! ;) (Let me guess that you have tabbed browsing, and you responded once, then accidentally looked at an older tab and not seeing your response, penned another one!)

 

I understand exactly where you're coming from, Mr. Flannigan, but it seems to me that a crucial piece of information is missing: the desired print size of the image. Unless there is some sort of standard size for submission, and there might well be for all I know, specifying a resolution truly does not seem to make much sense. They can make a billboard with my submitted image or they can make a postage stamp with my submitted image. Until I know which, I can't do much with "300 DPI." When they say, "Give me 300 DPI," what they really mean is, "Give me an image that will be 300 DPI when I print it at such-and-such particular size." I think.

Donald...

 

The sub-heading at the top of this page, right after "B&W Photo - Film & Processing," is "Film scanning (B&W only)."

 

Cheers,

Scott

Mike...

 

I'm in exactly the same boat, except I started using autoexposure because it seemed to make my scans better! Now I will have to go back and try some without.

 

I look forward to some more responses in this thread...

Hi Alex...

 

The ISO rating of a film is just a measurement of how sensitive it is to light. Setting the ISO on the camera either changes the shutter speed and aperture if you have an automatic mode, or the "recommendations" given by the light meter if you have a manual mode. Both of these do nothing more than changing the amount of light that reaches the film, based on how sensitive it is. If you load ISO 100 film into your camera and then tell it that it's really ISO 400 film (which is more sensitive to light,) then you are just fooling the camera into giving the film less light than it needs. The shortage of light must then be accounted for when the film is processed. This is possible to do...but if the two films were equally good with different amounts of light, then they wouldn't bother putting a 100 on one box and a 400 on the other box. So think carefully about when, where, and why you do this.

Hi Cale...

 

More knowledgeable members can give you far more technical details than I, but in general I have to say that I find your post a bit puzzling. You are interested in trying medium format film, but you are "getting resistance" from local dealers? Getting advice is one thing...getting arguments is another. It is telling that they suggested the most expensive option (a full-frame digital sensor) so you could get--read your own words here--THE SAME IMAGES as you could hope to produce with medium format.

 

Medium format film has produced absolutely stunning works of art for decades and decades. The fact that other areas of imaging technology have progressed recently does not change that.

 

If you want to try out a particular medium then for God's sake try it out. If one person won't sell you the gear then find another who will...there is not shortage of those, I assure you.

Richard...

 

Is your flash selector in the 'M' position? This can slow or damage the self-timer, which may be related to your problem since you mentioned the timer. Make sure the flash selector stays in 'X.'

 

I can't help you fix it if it's actually broken, however.

Stuart...

 

I've said before that I barely even care what I do with the film after I've processed it...it's just pulling it from the reel that makes it all worthwhile!

 

When I processed my first roll--only last year--I actually thought I had blown it. The film appeared black when I pulled the reel from the tank. I was just going to hang the "ruined" film for the heck of it, and lo and behold there were 12 nicely exposed frames on it. What a nice feeling.

Seeing as how you have no experience with Photoshop, my major piece of advice would be to START SIMPLE! I'd either buy a book--maybe one of those "...For Dummies" series (no offense)--or search online for a basic tutorial (should be easy to find.)<BR><BR>

 

Other than the basic operations of resizing, cropping, saving, etc, the two major functions you'll want for scanning B&W are 'Levels' and 'Curves.' The levels were referred to above with the advice about the black point, white point, etc. Try here for some basic tutorials on <a href=http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm>levels and curves.</a> The two sections are under "Putting It All Together" a little down the page.<BR><BR>

 

Other tidbits I can offer:<BR><BR>

 

-Your scans will probably look terrible until they are adjusted either by you or automatically by Photoshop or your scanning software. There is nothing wrong with this, and you are not "fixing" a bad negative...your scanner sensor just reacts to the light differently than photographic paper would.<BR><BR>

 

-Contrary to some common advice, for a total newbie I'd advise scanning in black and white. After you are getting decent results, then you can scan in color and learn to deal with the different channels etc. I'd say the two processes are roughly analogous to processing B&W film vs. processing color film, in terms of complexity. Just my opinion...I'm sure others feel differently.<BR><BR>

 

-Read up on resolution as it relates to your intended use. Surprisingly, resolution above about 300 DPI adds no value to an inkjet print, so scanning at very high resolutions may waste time and disk space if that's your final product. That means that you can get a 9X9 inch print from a 2.25 inch square negative from a scan at only 1200 DPI (that's a 4X enlargement, so 4 X 300 = 1200.) Also, realize that the max resolution given by the scanner manufacturer is often meaningless. Max usable resolution for a typical model may say 4800 on the box but actually be in the 2400 range, for example.

I can't help you this time, but I can pass along a little trick that has worked well for me. Like most everyone else here, I try to keep a pen or pencil in my kit to make notes on my film. And also like everyone else here, I often find myself without pen, pencil, or time to make notes. So what I do in those cases is use my fingernail to scratch a little hashmark in the paper lining of the roll I've just removed (I use 120...will this work for 135?) It doesn't take much, and it does rely on a certain amount of memory on my part, but I frequently bring home four or five rolls, each with the corresponding number of hashmarks, and I can then reconstruct what was what based on the order they were shot. Alternately, I may use one hashmark for film shot at 400, two for 1000, three for 1600, etc.

 

Be careful not to dig too deep into the paper, obviously.

Pete, not intending to detract from your point in any way, but we all know that the spy in the gloomy room also pulls over the desk lamp with the flexible goose neck and the green glass shade, to properly illuminate his work.

Thanks for the replies so far.

 

Gary, your suggestion is pretty much what I had in mind. I'm going to try some thicker cork board, to take up just a bit more depth on the screw and to give the studs a little bit more material to sink into. The situation with those studs is that they fit well within the plate on the frame (so no additional plate is required,) but the existing cork is smaller than that, so the studs grip it but can easily slip off onto the bare metal with just a little twisting. For those not familiar with this camera, the studs I'm talking about are just four little metal nubs that give the camera something to sit on if you set in on the base, so it's not wobbling on the knob in the center.

 

Edward: interestingly, when I searched Google for a Stroboframe anti-rotation plate, I found a discussion on photo.net covering this very problem (I had searched before but found nothing relevant.) The suggestions in that thread were about the same as mentioned above.

 

Cheers,

Scott

Hey folks...

 

I just bought one of the simple flip-up Stroboframes for use with my Mat-124.

Does anyone have any suggestions for mounting the camera to the bracket? The

bracket has a thin cork surface, and the standard thumb screw at the bottom. It

works well enough to take some test shots, but for carrying around there are two

issues that make it a little unsteady: 1) the cork is very thin and is just the

right dimension to BARELY accommodate the four studs on the bottom of the

camera...and when a stud slips off the cork after a while, the camera wobbles

all over the place, and 2) the threaded portion of the screw appears to "bottom

out" in the fitting on the camera, so when the screw is as tight as possible, it

is just barely gripping the camera to the frame. It can't go any tighter,

because the screw can't go further into the hole.

 

Are there any additional gadgets I can get to make it work better? Over all,

I'm happy with the frame and flash (my first foray into flash photography,) but

I need to iron out these details. My hunch is to replace the cork with

something slightly thicker and wider, but I want to get some other opinions.

 

Cheers,

Scott

Alejandro...<BR><BR>

 

You said, <i>Now I am desperate to enlarge some copies...I wonder if there are any kind of affordable scanner to transfer my 120 negatives to my PC ...</i><BR><BR>

 

I have a 4490 that I use for all of my 120 film. <BR><BR>

 

Since you used the word "affordable" (and also "desperate,") I think either of the two scanners you mentioned will hold you over--with nice results--until you can either set up a lab or research and select an expensive, dedicated film scanner.

Kelly, I really enjoyed your post! I'll take 2 of those Rolleis at $152, please.

 

In another thread several weeks ago someone said he was considering using his TLR for shooting sports, and had come up with a great idea: a quick-and-dirty "sport finder" that he could just look through at arm's length. He asked if anyone had considered this, and if so, how they had constructed it. I (and a few others) enjoyed introducing him to that feature of his ancient camera.

 

Cheers,

Scott

I'm not sure what process you use, but mine is simple B&W film, and all I worry about temp-wise is the developer. Here's how I do it (assuming at least some dilution with water:)

 

- Put all of my measured concentrate (100 or 200ml or whatever) in a graduate, then add water to give me half of my final total volume. For example, I usually use 1000ml of developer, so I add enough water to my concentrate to give me 500ml.

 

- Take the temp of that solution with a thermometer, and figure out how many degrees high or low it is.

 

- In another graduate, use trial-and-error to get water to a temperature the same number of degrees in the opposite direction. For example, if I want the final solution to be 20C, and the first half is 18C -- two degrees colder --, then I make the second half 22C -- two degrees hotter. What makes this easy is that I don't really care about the volume yet...I just slop a bunch of hot or cold water in until it's right.

 

- When the second batch is to the right temp (that is, a couple degrees high or low as required,) I pour it into my first solution until I have the desired total. Since I am adding an equal volume at a temp in the opposite direction, they should balance out to the desired development temp.

 

This method may not work for your process--I just use tap water, for example, so getting cold or hot is not difficult--but it is quick and efficient for me. I figure that with dev times 7-9 minutes, temperature change during the process will be negligible as long as the room is comfortable enough for me to work in.

 

For fixer and wash, I just dip a finger in the water and make sure it's within a few degrees of standard room temperature.

 

Did I mention I don't work for a museum or archive?

 

Cheers,

Scott

1. I'll throw in with the HP5 Plus group.

 

2. I think it's only fair that you green light a new bike for your husband.

Simon...<BR><BR>

 

Congratulations on the girlfriend.

 

<BR><BR>I also have a MAT-124, and I've been happy with this <a href="http://www.pricegrabber.com/rating_getprodrev.php/product_id=764695/id_type=M/">Sekonic L-208 Twin Mate.</a> It cost a bit under $100, is about the size of a silver dollar, and does all the basics (including incident and reflected readings.) I've used it both handheld and mounted on the shoe. It's the only light meter I've ever owned, so I can't offer much in the way of comparison, but I haven't regretted the choice.<BR><BR>

 

By the way, I also found a battery for the built-in light meter after a bit of searching online.

Tom, if you decide on a 124G, you may also want to consider a 124 [non-G.] In fact, I recommend that you get one of those instead. I won't pretend to be an authority, but when I was pondering the same question about a year ago, I learned that there is very little difference between the two, yet the 124 can be had for quite a bit less than the 124G. Aside from some external cosmetics, apparently the only difference is that the 124G has gold electrical contacts, and also has (according to current lore) a LESS reliable winding system.

 

I've had a MAT-124 for about a year now and love everything about it. Before buying a 124G over a 124, ask yourself what you are getting for the extra cost.

Um, I have no reason to believe that my Google is more accurate than yours, but does <a href="http://www.scanner-drivers.com/drivers/214/214905.htm">this</a> work?

Your darkroom should be so dark that when you turn the lights out, you can't see the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=123614&is=REG&addedTroughType=search">changing bag</a> you bought for less than $20.