joshx

Hey Gene, where do you develop your color film? It looks great. Or it could be the photographer... Nah, what was the name of that place? ;)

As usual, excellent photos. Thanks for sharing.

LOL @ Gene and John Wilson. Thanks fellas, I needed that.

Gene, I am surprised you posted that last photo without commentary. Perhaps it is too easy to mock, and therefore beneath you. ;)

 

My brother bought me a pair of pants like those for Christmas last year. In fact, he buys me pants like those almost every year for Christmas. It upsets my mom.

Amazing.

Nice photos Stuart. Keep 'em coming.

Wicked. That first photo looks like some that I've seen at galleries here in NYC by "artists". How retro of them.

I have a Medalist II that I sent to Ken Ruth at Bald Mountain. He converted it to 120 (both spools, mind you) and it works brilliantly. It appears that he did mill out the chambers to fit the wider 120 spool, and possibly modified the film winder to fit a 120 spool. It is tight to get a 120 spool into the take-up side (it's easier to insert one end at a time, and do so at an angle, rather than try to force it straight in). I highly recommend his service, by the way.

 

It was costly though; costly enough that after the fact it occurred to me that I could've bought a used Fuji 690 for only $200-300 more. (I'm not sure how the lenses would compare, but I've heard good things about the Fujis.) But, if you are willing to do the conversion yourself, or find a skilled machinist willing to take on the challenge cheaply, then it would be worth it. Of course, respooling your own film is the cheapest option. I just use this camera enough and value my spare time enough that I paid for the conversion.

 

The images from this camera are amazing. I really couldn't say enough good things about the lens. Regardless of what option you pursue, you will not regret purchasing and using this camera.

Last night I saw a gentleman in Times Square with a Rolleiflex around his neck. My fiance, who is only tangentially interested in photography, exclaimed, "Did you see his camera?!"

 

How could I miss such a beauty? (The camera, not the guy.)

Wow, 25 cents for a roll of 120 film? If that were a 1926 booklet (the last year that camera was produced), then that is the equivalent to $2.85 today (for only 6 photos, of course).

 

The price of film hasn't really changed, has it?

Zenit, I just thought it was a big white tube sock and a little lens distortion.

 

Mike, I know it would sell because I would buy one. :)

Who hasn't used a camera while seated, only to have their legs/feet show up in the photo? I know I have. Thanks Gene.

Nice shots Gene. I particularly like the first, and the shot of the dunes on the beach.

 

Do you develop all of your film (regardless of type) in HC110(b)?

Minh, did you modify this to use 120 film? If so, very cool.

Gene, that photo looking up the stairs is fairly creepy, in a good way. Something about the perspective in the second to last photo (large room with sink) seems very Alice in Wonderland to me. Like it's a photo of a scale model. Thanks for sharing.

LOL at Andre. I made a similar mistake and bought a Moskva-5.<P>

I was at Columbus Circle in NYC with my Kodak Medalist II (old fully manual 6x9 RF) and tripod and wanted to photograph a statue. I set up the tripod, attached the camera, composed my shot carefully, metered my subject with my 35mm SLR, set the shutter speed, set the aperture, actually remembered to remove the lens cap, waited until some kids got out of the way, and CLICK! took the photo. Imagine my mirth when I realized that I never actually <i>focused</i> the camera on the statue.

Gene, I really dig the third to last photo. Something about the light falloff, out of focus corners and distant trees, and yet the sharp foreground grass, really appeals to me.

Like Ron said. I use Sprint Developer (D76/ID11 1:1 equivalent) and am very happy with it.

Alec,

 

I haven't had a chance to try LF yet, but I am very interested in moving in that direction. I signed up for your mailing list and look forward to meeting you in February!

A polarizer will filter out UV light too, so both are unnecessary. Also, there really is no need for a UV filter indoors, unless you want to protect your lens.

Ole, I have no idea where exactly the components were made, as it is a Burke and James lens, and my understanding is that they bought stocks of photo gear and rebranded it with their house name. The lens is a 14-inch f/5.6 anastigmat barrel lens with mounting flange. The serial number on the lens is TT287892.<P>

I do not know when it was made or what it was made for. I suspect it was an aerial camera lens. But that guess is only based on <a href="http://hosting.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00996q&tag=">this thread</a>. (I haven't yet tried examining the front and rear lens elements more closely.)<P>

I do know that the circle of illumination is ridiculous: I 'mounted' it on a 14.5"x17.25" cardboard box and only the corners appeared to be in shadow when a viewing screen was in place. And that was wide open focused at infinity! What the usable image circle is I don't know, as I haven't built my 12x20 yet. ;)

Michael, I just flipped through my copy of "The Negative" and didn't exactly see what John was asking for; at least not in a simple way. It is a great reference book, in my opinion.

 

John, see if you can find the Kodak book "Black-and-White Darkroom Techniques" in your library. I don't know if it is still printed (I saw it as recently as 2 years ago in B&H), but it's fairly short, aimed at beginners, and covers the basics. There are lots of pictures of 'problem' negatives and what the causes were, which definitely helped me in troubleshooting when I started developing my own B&W film.

 

Good luck.

Carter, I'm not sure how helpful this may be, but are you using the same volume of developer for 645 as you are for the 35mm? I shoot PanF+ on both 35mm and 120, develop both in Sprint Standard (D76 1:1 equivalent), use Patterson tanks, and see no difference in the technical quality of the negative. I do use more developer for 120, but that is because of the height of 120 film and therefore the amount of developer needed to keep the reel submerged, and not because of square inches of film involved. Hope you figure it out.

Well done Patrick. It's always nice to see a classic camera get exercised with great results.

I had a similar situation. The rollers had the *smallest* amount of corrosion which managed to leave long scratches because they also did not roll so well.

 

I had sent the camera out for a CLA and asked that this be taken care of, and it was, so I can't offer any do-it-yourself advice in the event that the rollers are the problem.

 

However, I once 'repaired' a camera where some obvious corrosion/scratches in the metal was causing scratches in the film. If you are sure there is no corrosion on your rollers, and they spin easily enough, then try this: the aluminum piece that you suspect may be the problem should be able to be covered up with a piece of scotch tape. Run a roll through and see if there are scratches. If not, then that was your problem. How you proceed to fix it is up to you (to sand or not to sand).