ben_hutcherson

I've played with polarizers a decent amount in B&W. Even though they will lower localized contrast "hot spots" by eliminating reflections, they can also increase it by doing things like better separating foliage or water from its background. Think, just for example, of a plant against a concrete wall. The plant will tend to appear overall darker and will be better separated(tonally) from the background. Of course, as you said it also takes a lot of character from the foliage and a compelling composition of a plant against a concrete wall can require a decent amount of effort :) .

Beautiful photo and beautiful "A", Bill. John Twist is fond of describing the MGA as being a "car with curves in places where most cars don't have places." IMO, it's up there with the Big Healey among the most beautiful sports cars of all time. I love my B, but As are truly something special and I can't wait to have mine on the road.

Sandy, the MG nut in me would appreciate seeing it(I have far too many interests, but MGs are among them). I'm in Kentucky, and there aren't a LOT of them around here but we were fortunate enough to get the 4-year All-Register National Meeting in Louisville last summer. Just as a quick field spotting guide- All TCs are RHD TDs look similar but US ones tend to be LHD TFs have the headlights directly on the front fenders rather than on a "bridge" between the fender and grille as on the TD and earlier. These are some quick iPhone snaps, but I figure since they're old cars they're still okay on the Classic Camera forum :) TF next to an MGB GT V8. This V8 MIGHT have been one of the half dozen models LHD V8s exported to the US, or might just be a well done conversion. Either would be possible at this show. '73 and later MGBs(both roadsters and GTs) don't require a huge amount of work to put in a Rover V8, although the steering column on LHD models presents some clearance problems not present on RHD cars. Personally, I'd like to have a V8 one of these days, but will probably import a "real" one from England and just live with it being RHD. I think the car in the background is a PA. Nice looking Magnette ZA An Australian(knock-down kit) Mk 1 MGB GT that was shipped to South America and then driven up the Pan American highway to make it to the show. This car has been all around the world. Me in line behind a beauty of a TD. There's also a nice mineral blue MGC-GT up there under the porch. MG Guru John Twist working on my car.

The effect of various colored filters depends on the colors of your subject and also the spectral response of the film you're using(albeit most pan films are pretty similar). In bright sunlight and a well-defined sky, anything in the yellow to red range will-to varying extents-increase contrast in the sky and can also increase contrast in foliage. Virtually any colored filter will increase contrast in certain scenes and decrease it in others. Heck, it's common to see different effects across a scene depending on just what elements are there. If I'm trying to go "light" I'll often put a dark orange filter on, while if I'm carrying filters I'll often carry light yellow, dark red, and green. If you want a filter for protection, get a clear, UV, or skylight filter. Pick your colored filters based on the scene and how you want to represent it.

I guess it's a course of different strokes for different folks. I use almost nothing but stainless for B&W roll film(I reluctantly use plastic for color, although stainless would likely be fine). With that said, I keep a variety of reels on hand and I find I can often load tightly curled film onto plastic easier than I can stainless. One other trick I've done is to load it with the emulsion out. I've found that "reverse curling" it can help soften the curls somewhat in the development process.

That's alright-you can't have everything :) . I guess having one is good enough for me, although it will be two once I get an engine built and my body artist(I refuse to call him a "body man" or "panel beater" as you might say in the UK) gets my MGA rust-bucket perfect. Here was an attempt with a Speed in the evening with a storm rolling in. It was taken on expired Velvia 50.

Looks nice, but I have to admit an aversion to having things "dangling" off my camera. The old lens cap retainers that every amateur photographer in the 70s and 80s use to buy were bad enough. I have a straps from the 70s and 80s with elastic bands designed to hold film cans, although admittedly I don't use them. I usually find my pockets more convenient :) . Admittedly, though, I've had funny looks pulling foil-wrapped 120 out of my pockets due to their apparent resemblance to a female sanitary product. Then again, I get even funnier looks when I'm shooting black powder out of shot guns as I like to clean black powder residue at the range as such products are an inexpensive, disposable, and absorbent item that can fit both 12 and 16 gauge shotgun barrels almost perfectly.

My last Rolleiflex cost about as much as 3 Holgas. The Tessar type lens is not up to even 1970s standards for quality, but it's still pretty darn good and looks really good around f/8. Even wide open, it's not bad if you ignore some loss of sharpness in the corners. About the only thing it doesn't handle that gracefully is high contrast situations, where it ends to lose a decent bit of contrast and resolution as a result. It's 70 years old, is still light tight, and works perfectly. BTW, I've never quite understood the thing about medium format being difficult to find or process. If you're fortunate to have a decent camera store nearby, they probably stock at least SOME emulsions. My local carries most of the Kodak and Ilford emulsions available in 120, and if you're serious about film do yourself a favor and order from one of the two big New York stores or from Freestyle. These three places sell enough film that you'll most likely get fresher film than you'll find at your local shop. As for processing-each B&W film is unique enough that I can't imagine sending it to a commercial lab that's going to run everything in D76 for 7 minutes or whatever other developer they're using. Aside from the difference in films, different developers, dilutions, and agitations are all going to change the character of the negative. If you don't want to do color yourself, it's really not that hard. I have a local lab that will do C-41 for $4.50(no prints) and E6 for $10.50, both on-site. Unless there's one drug store that's holding out, I think they're the only lab that develops film on-site in town. Failing that, drop it in the send off box at Wal-Mart and you'll get it back in a week or two at a pretty reasonable price(I think $6-7 for E6). It's not much different from sending off 35mm, except for the fact that it takes a bit longer since Wal-Mart sends all the "special" stuff to Dwayne's photo.

It's also called an F4, and everything is controlled by knobs and switches unlike every DSLR(Df excepted).

I don't have an F with a plain prism but have a Photomic and just tacked a $45 F FTN onto a KEH order today(couldn't pass it up). They have their quirks, but ultimately they are quite likeable cameras Along those same lines, my main New F-1 came to me with pretty significant brass showing on the corner. I sent it to Ken Oikawa, the top F-1 repairman in the country for service, and it came back to me perfect but with the corners touched up. The paint wasn't totally dry and rubbed off on my hands, so I just took some rubbing alcohol and wiped it right off. The camera looks just like it should now-perfect inside, but like it's been around the world on the outside. As a side note, I'm disappointed at the lack of MGs in your photos :) . I'd have expected better from a car show in Britain :) . In addition, the photo of the Jag reminds me of something that always amuses me about British sports cars. In a country known for being cold and rainy, the weather protection is difficult to install and not especially tight. My MGB has the "luxury" of roll up windows(as opposed to side curtains) and a hood(top in America) that's reasonably water tight, but putting the top down is a 10 minute affair and putting it back up takes probably 15 minutes.

I've been mentioning this for a couple of weeks on here, but it seems to be unanswered. For me, it seems to happen after I've had the site open for ~12h or so. This is one of the sites that I just keep open on my computer and refresh, and it's rare that I shut my computer down at all(I often run 30+ days at a time). It's an annoyance, and no other Xenforo-site I visit has this problem. Logging off and back on fixes it, but there again it's a royal pain and makes the site unusable when it happens. BTW, for anyone reading this, I'll just repeat my general info Mac OSX Sierra, up to date, Firefox 53.

Rare 1872 model Waltham(massaged a bit to hide dial damage)

I have a similar complement of lenses as you-65, 90, 127, 150, and 250. Some of mine will trip as they should, while others are "sluggish." Ultimately, I find testing on the body to be the best way to test the shutter. It's easiest if you just remove the film back completely, but flipping the multiple exposure lever works also. Since these are mechanical shutters, I use a Calumet shutter speed tester to check lenses. Most of mine are within 1/3 stop at all speeds, but a couple are pretty far off(esp. at lower speeds).

Looks like you got some good results, so congratulations! One thing I didn't mention but always have issues with is the amount of curl-sometimes I have to fight them to get them on the reel. It's equally as bad after drying. Given how curly even fresh Efke was, I can't imagine how it is when expired. I unearthed a roll of Efke 50 the other day that I'll dust off one of these days. As much as I fussed about Efke, I did actually shoot a fair bit of it. At one time, they were the only supplier of 2x3 sheets although Foma/Arista sell it now. I shot a decent amount of Efke 25 in 35mm-I'm not sure why I never tried any in 120. I miss it now.

Looks like a nice, solid camera. Did you make sure that the film was all the way on the take up spool and use lick and stick tab to secure the backing paper end(be sure you tuck the end under)? I guess I take this stuff for granted, but I've never had a roll spontaneously unroll when I was taking it out of the camera. On SLRs, I usually pull the insert out and then pull out the take-up spool before sealing it up. BTW, tucking the tab and then licking and sticking becomes habit when you shoot a lot of MF, but it can get some funny looks out in public also :) . At least with Fuji you just have to stick the tab.

I have three that I'll probably use this weekend: A Nikon F with 1/3 a roll of Tri-X in it that I need to finish off A Canonflex RM that I just picked up this week-I'll probably dig out some expired Tri-X or maybe spool off some of the TMAX 100 that's been sitting in a bulk loader for far too long. I don't have any R mount lenses, but I have some FL lenses with the A/M collar that I think will work on the camera(heck, I think you can use a breech lock FD lens if you lock the stop down lever). The meter works and from limited Sunny 16 testing it's close, so I'll see what happens Finally, my Bronica S2a hasn't been used lately(the lure of the 6x7s from my RB67 has been too tempting), so it might get some attention with some Ektar 100. If I'm feeling adventurous, I'll trek out to one of my favorite sites with it and probably either my Speed Graphic or a B&J Field Camera.

If you want to speed things up, there are cheap and plentiful 7450-based upgrades for your Yikes! that will make a noticeable difference. The 7450 series processors have on-die L2 cache and an external L3 cache interface. It's overall a more efficient packaging than the 7400 with external L2 cache that shipped in the Yikes!. I have a Sonnet 1ghz/1mb L3 in a G3 minitower, albeit this particular upgrade holds a premium still. The 700 and 800mhz versions are much more affordable. The G3 beige series, G3 blue and white, and Yikes! all use the same ZIF socket and with some caveats processor upgrades are interchangeable across all three models. In fact the Yikes! is more or less a G3 B&W without the firmware block that prevents it from booting with a G4 installed and also without the ADB port present on the B&W(the solder pads are there-the physical port just isn't).

The diagonal of 4x5 is 6.3" or 162mm. This is indeed an important number to keep in mind when lens shopping, but realistically I'm looking for lenses that have image circles substantially larger than this(it's an important enough value that it's usually prominent in the lens specs). As an example, the well regarded Nikkor-W 150mm f/5.6 is listed with an infinity image circle of 174mm wide open and 210mm at f/22. Since LF lenses aren't used wide open all that often, the latter is a more important number. In any case, that guides me on how much I'm going to be able to get out of the lens in terms of movement. Also, within reason, bigger is better as the quality typically starts to degrade at the edges of the circle so ideally I want something that gives me "room to spare" on the movements. All of that is irrelevant on your typical MF camera, though, as we can safely assume that any quality maker has provided more than enough image circle to fully cover the frame and to minimize wide-open vignetting as much as realistically possible. On the subject of the long angle, I'll also mention that even in portraiture I'd consider it more important than the short angle at least in the 645-6x9 range. Peoples' faces are longer than wider, so if taking a head shot you'll usually be fine on the short angle at the 2:3 aspect ratio or less. This is even more true when you start including more of the person's body since, again, most people are taller than they are wide.

I have no experience with the Mamiya 7, but I've experienced my fair share of light leaks and other issues. The leaks you show with the bright patch at the bottom that tapers to a(sort of) point look to me like a classical case of back to body seal having issues. I've never held a 7 in my hands, so I don't know if it uses foam or a labyrinth(the c. 1990 Pro SD switched to labyrinth seals on the back, and since the Mamiya 7 was introduced around the same time I'd expect the same). If it's foam, the easy answer is to replace the foam. Jon Goodman sells pre-cut foam kits-I just bought a bunch of them, including some RB series kits(the body, rotating back, and Pro S backs all are separate kits) and if the 7 has foam he most likely can make it. If it's a labyrinth type seal, I'd take a very close look at the back-make sure it's not bent or warped and make sure there aren't any "ears" or other issues at the edge. Based on what you show, you'll want to look toward the top right of the film gate.

Alright, I'm going to jump and say based on some quick testing that the ring probably IS your problem. My 90mm K/L is usually on my Pro SD and it's rock solid. When I pulled the spacer ring off, it's fairly floppy around the mount. I also tried the same with my 127mm pre-C. With no ring, it flops all over the place. With the ring installed, it's not as tight as the 90mm or my other K/L lenses, but still has very, very little slop. Both lenses are good on my Pro-S without the ring installed. The 90mm has no perceptible looseness, while the 127mm is very slight-about the same as on a Pro-SD body with the ring. The rings are often stated to be for stopping light leaks around the lens, but based on your question and my quick experiments, it seems that it's also for mechanical tightness. I've seen rings on Ebay, but to me the price is a bit steep at $30-40 each. I think I might have paid $125 or so for my 90mm with both caps and the ring included(KEH bargain grade). At the moment, I have 4 lenses for my RBs-two K/Ls, one C, and one Pre-C(that reminds me that I need to go grab the 150mm SF that the camera store is holding for me). I also have both a Pro-S and Pro-SD body. This means that I need to keep the rings in mind depending on the body I'm using. I suspect they wouldn't be that difficult to machine(a piece of nylon would probably work every bit as well as the metal/rubber ones) but I also suspect that a heavy O-ring of the correct size would provide much the same function. That's something I need to try-$5 for 100 O-rings from McMaster Carr seems a much better deal than $30 for the official Mamiya piece :)

Just to check the obvious-does your 90mm have the spacer ring on it?

I agree with this to a large extent. My first adventures into MF were burning up a LOT of film in either a Rolleiflex or Rolleicord(I know I went through at least two 20 roll boxes of Provia along with who knows how much Velvia, Tri-X, and some other sldie and color negative thrown in along the way). I have a 75mm on both cameras(I was low budget back in the day, so had 3.5 Tessar/Xenars) and worked only with it. I still managed some great photos, or maybe at least passable ones :) When I got my first job, I decided it was time to "graduate" to an SLR but bought my Bronica SQ-a initially with only an 80mm and used it that way for a long time. The most exciting thing to me was that I had a lens that was a half stop faster. In fact, that's still the only lens I have for it, although I'm eyeing a 40mm. I have other systems where I have wider and longer lenses. Even though I have a TON of 35mm primes, I tend to have a "3 lens maximum" rule when I go out. My usual kit is a 20mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, and 135mm f/2. Depending on specific situations, the 20mm sometimes loses out in favor of the 24mm f/2, and I might bump the 135mm to a 200mm 2.8 or if I anticipate macro work might drop down to the 100mm Macro. Of course, if I'm anticipating being close to the car the list might expand, and if I trek very far or have a specific goal in mind I might drop down to two or even a single prime. My original serious interest in photography arose from a trip to France in high school. I bought a Canon A-1 and a couple of lenses(mostly off brand, since I didn't know/appreciate how cheap and how much better Canon primes were vs. 80s 3rd party lenses), and hauled them all over with me. I had pretty much everything from 21mm to 200mm covered. After a half a day, most of the stuff stayed in the hotel room. I spent the rest of the trip with the A-1, a 50mm 1.8 hanging around my neck, and a few rolls of film stuffed in my pockets. I didn't find it particularly limiting, and it forced me to work with what I had.

That sort of baffles me that it wouldn't work in SL. I have a Coolscan V, which admittedly is USB and not Firewire. I was given it in exchange for my old mac "expertise"(I've coughed up some rare G4 parts from my personal stash to keep a mission-critical computer at work going). The person who gave it to me was running it only using the Nikon software with SL on an Intel Mini. I run my V700 over Firewire, but there again I'm running it directly from Leopard using either Epson Scan or Vuescan. I also find the slow preview comment on Vuescan interesting. Under the "advanced options" one of the things you can do is set the preview resolution. I usually do 400dpi or so on medium format, as it's more than enough to guide your cropping and color adjustments. Like I said, I have no issues using a G5, but I am mentioning that there SHOULD be other options if you want to use something newer. BTW, the V700 is a great 35mm/slide scanner and a great LF scanner. I rarely use the former feature since it's easier, faster, and better on the Coolscan V-about the only time I do is if I want to load up a bunch of slides and do them in a batch(like if I'm making a PPT of someone else's slideshow). The MF holders are terrible, and this is a pretty universal criticism. There's an aftermarket holder that I plan on buying one of these days.

The only time comparing diagonals makes sense-at least to me-is when you have the same aspect ratio. Comparing them on APS-C DSLRs to 35mm or 4x5 and 8x10 would be examples of that. Even at that, though, the horizontal dimension(or the vertical dimension) works just as well. i.e. a 300mm lens on 8x10 covers the same as a 150mm on 4x5.

First of all, I'm envious of your LS-8000 for $100. They usually still bring in the low 4 figure range. I won't look down on you for using a G5, as my main scanning platform is a dual 2.7 G5. With that said, you are not married to that as Vuescan will run on the newest computers today. It takes roughly an hour to scan and process a 4x5 at 6200 DPI on my Epson V700(using Digital ICE) with the dual 2.7. A faster computer won't shorten the scanning speed itself as it's mostly a function of the scanner, but it can shorten the processing time. The Nikon software is great(I have a Coolscan V) and a Mac in the 2010-2011 range running OS X Snow Leopard can still use it and will be a significant speed bump.