warren_williams

<p>Jeff<br> Thanks fro your response but I've been told the R3000 uses cartridges connected tot eh actual print heads by tubes. If this is true I don't think cleaning around the cartridge seat would help. You see why I'm at a loss.</p>

<p>I had some difficulty in installing a photo black cartridge and had to install another new one. Since I did I've been getting black streaks on my prints. Should I try repeated nozzle cleaning or would this make thing worse. My nozzle jet prints indicate they are not clogged. I'm printing on a canson fine art semi gloss paper. Would increasing the print head gap help?<br> Don't know what to do.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks Rodeo Joe - a great idea. I'm going to give it a try if I can locate my old soldering gun somewhere....</p>

<p>I own a D800e and already had the 10 pin connector replaced once. I frequently use the camera on tripods and have been using the time delay setting to release the shutter but don't like living with the delay. I am hesitant to use a remote release and constantly unplugging it. Would it be feasible to buy the WR10 and leave the WR a10 unit plugged in more or less permanently. Part of my concern is will the A10 unit take pulling the camera in and out of my bag. Does anyone have another approach to releasing the camera shutter? </p>

<p>In order from good to best - Fuji with the 65mm, a Plaubel w67 with a superb 55 Nikkor, a Brooks or Plaubel superwide with a 47mm Super Angulon or a Hasselblad SWC with the legendary 38mm biogon. All are expensive but many can be sold for what will pay for them after you get back. The biggest attraction of the Hasselblad is its compact size and 12 shots between roll changes - in the down side it's expensive and the square format is not everyone's favorite. As you may have guessed it is mine.</p>

<p>I bought a grab bag of accessories on ebay from an estate and the filter in the picture was included. The threaded end measures about 36mm and the wider end measures about 41mm. I had a summitar and it took this type of tapered filter but I don't remember the size and was wondering if other Leitz lenses also used this "tapered mount of different sizes. I don't currently have a summitar and wanted to sell the lens but wasn't sure it was for the summitar.</p><div></div>

<p>If one was go the digital camera/slide copy route shouldn't they be able to take multiple exposures for shadow and highlight values and use HDR software to get a fairly impressive tonal range in the final combined image?</p>

<p>The Fuji x Pro 1 (and perhaps other Fuji x bodies) allows 1:1 in camera and the zoom lenses have vibration control but the experience of shooting is going to be worlds different from the Hassy even if the end results may be as good. Their wide angle zoom (10-24) is a killer lens and when shot at 1:1 is equal to about a 38-60 range on 6x6. I also have and love the SWC - a great light weight alternative which might fit you needs but again the shooting experience is very different from the 500 series. I'm unsure how well it would work with a digital back.</p>

<p>Fuji xbody, 10-25 & 18-55</p>

<p>I used a 75mm Shift for several years to get a medium format version of the 35mm Nikon PC I had used. It worked for single family home sized buildings to control foreground but taller buildings, 3 story and above, requires getting back too far - often not possible in urban areas. Don't underestimate how big & heavy the Pentax/75 combo is. A Nikon 800 series with the 24 pce is somewhat lighter and significantly wider and the results are comparable (but the rig is much more expensive).</p>

<p>Thanks for the help. I used a local custom lab which I've been happy with over the years but recently messed up with a roll of film so they may be slipping.<br> John & Barry - Most of the exposures were at 1/200 but some were at 1/500 (none at 1000 that I remember) but the camera is new to me so I don't know if the speeds are on target. Probably worth a more rigorous test with some transparency film to see how they are.<br> Looks like I need more experimentation.</p>

<p>another frame</p><div></div>

<p>Some more images</p><div></div>

<p>I just had my first roll (Kodak BW400) processed and scanned through my new iiif. Most if not all images have stripes which are much more pronounced in the bottom half of the image. Is this a processing problem or is there an issue with the camera Shutter?)? All ideas are welcome.</p><div></div>

<p>Linsey<br> I'm still a little concerned that you want to take a SLR into remote field conditions for prolonged periods of time. How gentle will field conditions permit you to be and how much do you think environmental conditions may be extreme? Most if not all medium format slr's are complex beasts and not all that rugged compared to legendary workhorses like the Nikon F or even the old Speed Graphic. When you release the shutter on many MF slr's, a surprising number of thing happen in very rapid sequence and if any one of the steps fails, the camera can't be used. This is tied to the fact that most of these systems are getting oldish - mechanics fall out of tolerance and alignment, and electronics degrade. <br> In terms of MF dependability, TLR's have an advantage with many fewer moving parts. Rollei made a close focusing attachment called the rolleinar which allowed closer focusing and somewhat compensated for parallax but I don't know if it would work for you. Mamiya made a very tough series of interchangeable lens (but heavy) TLR's with bellows which may focus as closely as you want but parallax is still an issue. The Pentax 6x7 uses an electronic focal plane shutter (simpler system than between the lens shutters) and had a pretty good reputation for ruggedness and reliability but no one would ever call it light weight. <br> Having said all that I understand you point about needing bust level portraits and needing to frame accurately. As far as I am aware the medium format camera hasn't been made which does what you want to do. If you work is going to be in remote areas, photographers who have done this type of work in the past have used 35mm rangefinders or slr's , thrown an extra body in their bag for backup and lived with the limitations of the smaller format. Of course if you are going to be accessible to urban areas with repair shops or have Fed EX available to them you may be only out of commission with the MF stuff for a couple of weeks if it breaks. I would want two lenses, if one lens breaks at least you can still photograph wit the other.<br> It sounds like an exciting project, and I don't want you to end up depending on digital if your heart is in film. FWIW If you want digital, the current Fuji X system is capable of amazing results in a very compact package - there isn't really a need to "wait" for full frame which will be bigger and heavier. </p>

<p>To Alexander O who said<br> "so just <a id="itxthook1" href="/medium-format-photography-forum/00dITU?start=20" rel="nofollow">answer<img id="itxthook1icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a> the question or don't answer at all, but it serves no purpose to start preaching a system that was explicitly rejected."<br> Are these "rules" for responding published somewhere or just your opinion?</p>

<p>Let me get this straight - you want to go on a two year backpacking trip with a heavy old and/or electronic camera that may be impossible to find a repair shop for. And you want a style of camera - SLR's - notorious for their undependable qualities. Sounds like a plan to me.</p>

<p>You should look at, and read about, the work of Marcel Duchamp. He beautifully got to the heart of the matter by taking a printed drawing of a pipe and writing under it (in French) "this is not a pipe" i.e. its a lithograph of a drawing of a pipe. </p>

<p>Nothing but good experiences with B&H.</p>

<p>Both the L and the Agfa could be interesting cameras to use. Neither has a rangefinder which shouldn't present much of a problem for landscapes and street work if you use fast film and small apertures for max depth of field. The L has a good through the lens meter visible when looking through an auxiliary viewfinder a nice feature making it the quicker of the two but the 35mm Jupiter may not fit on the body (big rear lens element) restricting you to 50mm affordable lens. The Agfa is a whole different beast - larger, slower and only 8 photos per shot so more expensive to run. This may be good forcing you to be more contemplative per shot. A nice alternative is the Zeiss Nettar which gives you 12 square images.<br> As a student , you might be looking for an alternate experience to a digital SLR and I would think the Nettar or the Agfa would be "more different". Another advantage is that you could mess with chemical printing and the 120 film could even yield decent contact prints.</p> <p>Good luck</p>

<p>I don't think as many pros would have abandoned medium format it they felt they were giving up perceived quality on the size print they were shooting for (as I said up to 24'X36"). There are some reasons to shoot with medium format such a you like the experience or the feel of a particular camera (I love the feel of the SWC). Increased quality over full frame digital isn't one of them. The original post wanted increased quality - for the wide range of types of photography he listed, digital full frame would be a better (if perhaps more expensive) choice in terms of weight and flexibility.</p>

<p>I hate to be the voice of doom but there is a reason the all this medium format professional gear is now going for pennies on the dollar. Beginning about 5 years ago, full frame digital equaled or surpassed medium format for most uses this side of blowing up to 24" x 36". A full frame Canon would give you the quality you are looking for and be as light weight and flexible as your current system.<br> Others have said it but I will repeat it - medium format is either very heavy (RB/RZ & Pentax) or very expensive (Hasselblad). A cheap flexible alternative is Bronica but very dependent on electronics which may not age well. My personal favorite medium format is a Hasselblad SWC and the Fuji rangefinders but both are light because they have non-interchangeable lenses. They do what they do very well but are limited. As a life long medium format fan stating with a Rollei in the 1960's, the format has ended up being a specialty item I use as an adjunct to my Nikon 800 system.</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments. I actually have been processing b&w since 1962 but these days I feel its easier to pay someone else to develop and scan than to do it myself (usually). I've been very happy with the lab I've used and up to now I've only had one problem with them. Both these facts are why I posted the question. I have some old film that I've kept in a freezer but I've always assumed that bad old film yielded high background fog not a very very faint image so when the lab said "old film" it just didn't seem right. The good news is that the images are all "reshootable".</p>

<p>I just got a roll of 120 Tmax 100 back and the images are there but barely visible. Since the numbers and "KODAK" lettering along the side is also barely visible, I assume it isn't an exposure problem. The lab suggested old film, but my experience with old film is high background fog but not barely there images. I'm betting old or exhausted developer. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>I've worked for 25 years for a transit company and had a job that takes me near tracks frequently. We have to receive annual safety training and have a mantra drilled into us " expect a train on any track in any direction at any time". Another fun fact - 32 pounds - the combined weight of the recoverable body parts when hit by a high speed train. Particularly with electric trains, they are silent and you can't hear them coming. Finally, in our organization it is often the experienced workers who get complacent who get killed. Be afraid and stay alive around tracks.</p>