ben_hutcherson

Wow, this is an old thread. To me, when comparing focal lengths the primary thing that matters is the equivalent angle of view in the long dimension. At least with the way I photograph, it's the dimension that almost exclusively dictates how I'm framing whether I'm shooting in a horizontal or vertical aspect ratio. To that end, in 6x7 I will interchangeably use either a 90mm or 127mm as my "standard" focal length. 90mm is a bit wider than 50mm(about 45mm or so if I recall), while a 127mm is roughly 58mm. On an RB67, as much as an oxymoron as this may be, I prefer the 127mm as a "walk around." Even though I find it a bit constraining(granted I've also used 55s and 58s in 35mm in the same role), weight considerations ultimately win out and my pre-C 127mm is probably half the weight of my K/L 90mm. Since lens weight was brought up, it's also worth remembering that RB/RZ lenses are heavier out of necessity than an otherwise 100% comparable lens for a GS-1, Pentax 67, or even Mamiya 7. The reason for that is that the RB/RZ lenses have to cover 7x7 at a minimum, while the others only have to cover 6x7.

The spastic refresh problem is still here for me. If I log out and close the site then reopen, it will disappear for a few hours. I am not using an iOS device-as I said I'm using up-to-date Firefox 53.0.3 on OS X 10.12.4(I need to do an update, but it's not more than a couple of weeks out of date). I find it hard to believe that the olive designation on the previous page meaning "feature, not a bug" can be correct. In any case, it makes me reluctant to log on.

I have a couple of Watsons kicking around, so I'm familiar with the open/close the light trap procedure. In fact, when I used a decent amount of bulk film I use to only open and close the loading flap of the loader in the dark so that I didn't have to worry about losing a few frames at the end of the roll. In any case, I haven't really played with the film anymore other than taking a piece and trying to tear. I used a piece of acetate film as a "control." The stuff in the bulk loader was VERY hard to tear and when it did I was left with a jagged edge and plastic "fringes." It was nothing like acetate film.

If I were looking for caffeine, my inclination would be to use No-Doz, which(in the US) falls under FDA regulations as a medicine and contain a known 200mg of caffeine per tablets. Even at that, I tend to use reagent grade chemicals, but I realize that's easier for me to say and do than it is for a lot of other folks. I'll also synthesize things if there's an easy way to do so, although that can be a different story. I can also easily assess both whether or not I have the desired reagent and the purity(and do further work to purify it if needed). Again, not everyone has access to the tools to do that. I love the in-situ synthesis of p-aminophenol in your formula for Rodinal, also. BTW, I wrote a teaching lab experiment this year on quantifying the amount of caffeine in various beverages by GC-MS. I can tell you that we had two different kinds of instant coffee in the mix(although brewed coffee is far more common in the US than instant coffee) and both showed different levels of caffeine. Of course, it's also all over the place for brewed coffees, with decaf being on the low end at 10-20mg per 8 oz. and some especially potent ones being over 100mg/8oz. I can only assume that the since the caffeine in the instant coffee is converted to caffeinic acid(I'll have to double check the formulation so see exactly how that's done-I don't have time to look it up now) it's done in such a way that caffeine is in excess. Still, I'm in agreement that I'd prefer something repeatable.

Now you tell me :) If I have time, I may make up another batch using the potassium salts. BTW, I used pure acetaminophen since I had it on hand and didn't want to deal with fillers or crushing tablets. Also, I did look up the mechanism on base-catalyzed hydrolysis of amides to satisfy myself that it happens. I did that not out of distrust of what you say, but just my chemist curiosity getting the better of me. I'd have gone straight for the p-aminophenol had I had some on hand(I have o and m, but not p), but the acetaminophen seemed viable. BTW, sodium acetate does have a distinct vinegar-type odor, but at the same time I'm not surprised that it's "hidden" in a solution like this. I'm going to take an IR of what I made up the other day, although I don't know how much information I'll get out of it with water as the solvent.

I can't tell you from first hand experience, but the 40mm Zenzanon brings higher prices than the Nikkor and I've been told it's better. Lenses are not at all interchangeable between the "Classic" mount(Z/D, S, S2, C, EC, etc) and the SQ series. Classic lenses have no means of focusing without the use of the helical in the camera body. The SQ cameras are more "500 like" in that they use in-lens leaf shutters, but the shutters are electronically controlled Seiko units. About the only thing the two cameras have in common is the manufacturer. BTW, the ETR and GS-1 are operationally very similar to the SQ, although parts are not interchangeable between these systems.

I agree that it's hard to know which you prefer without having used them. In my case, I've had immersive experiences in both OSs and while I'm certainly not a Windows dummy I still much prefer OS X(or macOS as it's called now). My first month with OS X, I was lost and about ready to pitch the computer out the window more than once. Among other things, I've come to realize that, when in doubt, drag and drop is usually worth a try. I appreciate the fact that with many settings, system preferences actually illustrates what they do or otherwise checking the box makes them happen immediately so you can see the effect. System Preferences won't LET you do anything that will drastically mess up your computer. If you need to change things beyond what it allows, you have to do them from terminal and often elevate your privileges to be able to do it. Just don't tell your non-computer-savvy friends to type sudo rm -rf in terminal :) . BTW, Macs are not immune to malware and the like, but one advantage of having a Unix-based OS is that by default you don't have access to the deep underpinnings of the system(called the root user or root access). That makes it difficult for stuff to burrow as deeply as it does in Windows, and consequently is also easier to remove.

Here's my take- I shoot a lot of 35mm film, but when it comes down to it and I want quality, I grab medium or large format. Either would serve you well, but since you already have some good quality 35mm equipment my personal inclination would be to go with the Hasseblad. With that said, you need to keep in mind that medium format tends to be more slow and deliberate than 35mm. Although Hasselblads can and have been handheld for years, you'll want to use a tripod for the best results. You are looking at a VAST difference in size between a medium format SLR and a 35mm rangefinder, with the former being probably as heavy as if not heavier than an F3+MD4+longish lens and the latter being light and small. The ergonomics of a Hasselblad(and most other MF SLRs) are quite different than 35mm cameras. A Hasselbad gives you 12 exposures per roll(we'll discount 220 since Fuji discontinued the last one a few months ago). Of course, you can buy and carry multiple film backs or even just inserts that are pre-loaded, but otherwise most MF SLRs are a bit more clunky to load than 35mm cameras. When you finish a roll, you pull it out, fold the backing paper under, then either lick and stick the retaining sticker(Kodak, Ilford) or peel and stick it(Fuji). To load a fresh roll, you pull out the insert, move the empty spool to the take-up side, put the fresh spool on the feed side, feed the backing paper around the pressure plate, hook it on the take up spool, advance the backing paper until the arrows line up with the index in the camera, and the put it back together and crank until the camera stops cranking. It gets faster with practice, but there again there's a reason why folks will often have a couple of film backs(of course that also lets you easily switch film types). The standard finder for 6x6 and larger SLRs, along with TLRs, is the waist level finder. Basically, this is just a hood(almost always with a pop-up loupe) that fits around the focusing screen to shield it from light. It's large enough in medium format that looking at the bare screen is generally more than sufficient, although I almost always use the magnifier to make sure focus is dead on. WLFs give an image that is upright but inverted right to left. Some folks find this difficult to use, although with a bit of practice it doesn't bother me(at least it's not upside down like a view camera :) ). There are prisms for the Hasselblad and virtually all other MF SLR systems, but they are heavy and are also often fairly dim. If I do use a prism, I prefer a 45º to a 90º-both are available for most systems. Also, I'm not sure about the specifics for Hasselbad, but you can get basic TTL metered prisms for most cameras. Bear in mind that every Hasselblad 500-series lens has its own shutter, and especially if you buy older chrome bodied lenses you'll likely need to budget in having every one of them serviced. There again, this is typical of MF cameras, albeit with some notable exceptions. I would still vote for the Hasselbad. I just say all of the above to warn you that the Leica is going to be a more "comfortable" camera for you to use coming from digital and an F3.

I've done a bit of research on it, and I'm finding suggestions for low-dilution Rodinal and a few other developers to process it for normal contrast. From my recollection, Technidol is fairly high contrast albeit also quite sharp. Just by taking the loader apart in the dark and feeling, there's probably 50-75 feet still there, so if it is Tech Pan I think it's well worth salvaging.

I played with it some last night, and still don't know what I have. It does have a bluish color to it, so that matches up. I also remember thinking that it feels more like sheet film than acetate roll film, which would also match up(since sheet films are on polyester). In any case, I took two snips and couldn't get anything of value out of them. I'd just mixed some D76 and it was still hot, so for the first clip I did a couple ounces of straight D76(in a Nikkor tank) and shook it vigorously for about a minute and a half. I know that's all proper processing techniques out the window, but I just wanted edge markings. I'd guess it the temperature was around 40ºC, so development should have been short. That one came out black. I then did TMAX at 1:4 for 5 minutes(low end of suggested time for Tech Pan in TMAX) with proper agitation although admittedly it wasn't on a reel. It didn't clear when I fixed it(I double checked my fixer with a leader) but left me with a yellow emulsion reminiscent of color negative film. The base side had a sort of dark purple/blue iridescent look to it. So, I don't know where I'm at on it. My first clip was about 5 inches to make sure I was getting film out of the magazine and not the exposed end, and then the second one was three inches(I left it in the changing bag and didn't open the loader between them). I'll open it up and see what the "fresh" unprocessed film looked like.

I use Terminal in OS X probably once every other week on average. There are times when I'm playing with an old computer and am trying to make OS X do things it's not supposed to do, or otherwise access something that has been "dumbed down" out of OS X. As an example, the new Disk Utility that came out with 10.11 is an unmitigated disaster, and although all the functions of the old one are there many can only be accessed through Terminal. As for Windows 3.1-I'm the scientific instrument specialist in the chemistry department at a research university. We have an early 90s Nicolet Magna 560 FT-IR and Raman that was given to us a while by GE back but was mothballed and I don't think ever put into service. This is a superb instrument, and would be a real asset to the department as we don't currently have a bulk Raman instrument. As it sits, the instrument has several damaged parts from poor storage. Glass is opaque in the mid-IR region. To get around that, MOST of the optics are front-surfaced parabolic mirrors but a few are made of potassium bromide. Humidity has destroyed the potassium bromide optics, and I have to get the department to cough up $3K to replace them(there's no repairing). Once I have the instrument functional, I focus on upgrading the computer, but from my perspective there's no point in doing that until I actually have a working instrument. I can do all the set up and calibration from Win 3.11 and in fact I'd leave it there indefinitely were it not for the fact that floppy disks and 8mm tapes don't fly for other users when it comes to getting data off. The person I'm working with on parts tells me that the newest version of the software that will work with this instrument does not work reliably with anything newer than Windows XP. There again, the interface card also limits how new of a computer I have. BTW, this instrument would probably be in excess of $100,000 to replace, so buy a new one isn't an option especially with a budget cut edict from the president.

Thanks guys. I'll swing by the shop tomorrow if I get a chance and pick up one or two to play with. Truth be told I'm a bit sour on bulk film as at least with Tri-X the savings seem minimal at best. I have been shooting a decent amount of FP4+ recently so that I have at least one B&W film I can standardize across 35mm, 120, and 4x5(and it's the closest match for my beloved Plus-X). From what I remember, Ilford's bulk prices are a bit more economical than Kodak. In any case, I have a Watson kicking around with some TMX that the sticker says I loaded in March of '07. I know it's not at its best by any means, but I think that it would be enough to tell me if the cartridge is working correctly. I was also given another Watson yesterday that has some unknown film in it. The person who gave it to me-most unusually for him-doesn't remember what it is and even more unusually didn't write the details on it. Even so, given that he's big into microscopy, there's a decent chance it's Tech Pan. I don't want to waste THAT film until I have a chance to clip a few inches and look at the edge markings. If it's not Tech Pan(or something else special) I can waste it, but if it is Tech Pan I definitely want to use it carefully and smartly.

I became a Mac user in 2012. I was working on my literature seminar in graduate school when my 18 month old Toshiba laptop decided to turn off and not turn back on. The problem was a terribly corrupted Windows install. I was in a bit of a bind with two weeks to go, and really didn't have time to rebuild the Windows install from scratch. Fortunately, at least my lit seminar work and papers were intact and I was able to pull them off with some external SATA cables. A friend lent me his "retired' 2008 aluminum MacBook, and although I fought it a lot I managed to get my seminar finished. I passed, and the day after went to the Apple store and plunked down the cash for a new MacBook Pro(late 2011 13"). I've been a Mac convert since then. As part of my job, I use both Windows and Unix(real Unix, not Linux) for various tasks, albeit I do a lot more with Windows. Heck, I've been trying to repair an IR spectrophotometer, and the computer operating it is running Windows 3.11. Someone was there when I powered it on for the first time, and they were amazed when I hit the DOS prompt and just typed "win" without thinking. In any case, assuming I can get work to cough up the $3K or so for parts that it's going to require(I can make a good case) the next step is to upgrade the computer, OS, and operating software(the last is the difficult part). I require an ISA slot since $800 for a PCI interface card on top of everything else isn't going to fly, and need to run Win 2K or XP if I want people to use the thing(I USB need mass storage support so folks can get their data off easily). Fortunately, I ran across a dual P3 with ISA this afternoon, so that should serve me well. As more or less a full time Mac user, though, I get frustrated sometimes trying to do things in Windows. I used every version between 3.1 and Windows 7 full time at some point or another(with the exception of ME) so can USUALLY figure stuff out. I can also find my way around the DOS prompt pretty well, although I have to remind myself to use commands like dir and del rather than ls and rm :) . I can figure most anything out, but it always seems like such a relief to go back to a Mac.

I made up what was called Rodinal from a recipe I found online yesterday. The one I found called for the use of 15g acetaminophen(tv. 250mL). Virtually all other formulae I find list P-Aminophenol HCl as the developing agent instead of acetaminophen. Acetaminophen is an amide of p-Aminophenol, although I don't THINK heated basic conditions would necessarily hydrate the amide bond. I guess that if I smell acetic acid in the finished developer, that would give me my answer. A quick IR would also tell me if there's still an amide present, or probably even more obviously if acetic acid is present in any significant amount. The commercial formula I found calls for 20g of p-aminophenol HCl in a t.v. of 1L. The stoichiometric equivalent to that in acetominophen would be 21g, so it MIGHT imply that the conversion in the formula I used was incomplete. In any case, assuming I have time, I have some experimenting to do.

I honestly haven't used the O, so can't answer that. I speak only from experience with the H. In the old days, more elements were a nightmare for flare and ghosting. That's a lot of the reason why you see so many Triotars and Tessars(and their equivalents from other makers). Both of these designs have four glass to air surfaces total, which makes flare a lot easier to control without coatings or even with only basic coatings. You didn't really start seeing 5 element and more lenses(like Planars) until coatings became practical. There was a lot of movement in coating technology in the 1960s, so I suspect that the later lens compensates for having more elements by improved coating. BTW, if you really want a wide angle, there's both a Nikkor and a Zenzanon 40mm available for the S-series. The Zenzanon is a bit newer, but also harder to find and more expensive from what I've seen. I still need to get a 40mm of some sort, but have to admit that there's a lot of appeal in getting the SQ-mount Zenzanon since it's about as expensive as the Nikkor S mount.

I'm sort of pleading ignorance and also talking out my rear, but you'll want to double check on using your F-100 with IR film. Some newer cameras use IR for indexing and other purposes, and can fog or otherwise mess up IR films. I'm not sure if that's the case with the F-100 or not. I've been doing all of my IR photography with an F3, but there's nothing particularly special about that camera. IF the F100 does have the IR problem, I might suggest picking up an F4 for ~$150. With some limitations, it will work with your newer lenses. It won't activate VR, and G lenses will only work in "P" and "S."

From what I've seen, the Nikkor-H is the easier of the two to find. I have one, and it's been a great performer for me(I don't have any scans handy). With that said, it is an absolute flare monster. The correct hood for the lens is quite large and is heavy square metal. It's a substantial piece of kit, but IMO it's a necessity with this lens. Unless you're shooting in overcast conditions, you'll likely find it to have fairly low contrast without the hood. Even with the hood, you'll of course want to avoid shooting into the sun. Even the best lenses of this era didn't do this anywhere near what modern lenses can do.

I was digging at my favorite local camera shop the other day and came across a dozen or so of reloadable Nikon branded cassettes-most of them still in their little black Nikon container. I remember reading about this sort of set-up in the F manual, and wanted to try some. With that said, I wasn't sure if they were the same for the F as for the rangefinders, and the shop owner wasn't sure either. He said he KNEW they would work in rangefinders, but wasn't sure about the F. Does anyone know if the two are the same? If not, are there any tell-tales to distinguish the F cassettes from the rangefinder ones?

Thanks for the response. I don't feel any play when I mount the lens on either of my bodies. One is a Pro-S and the other a Pro-SD and I'm using it with the adapter ring installed or removed as appropriate. Also, the K/L lenses don't have the switches for MLU like C and earlier lenses-there is only a cable release socket to activate MLU. I didn't see any issues in the pins.

Would you PM me? Thanks, Ben

The modern films don't have the sensitivity of the old HIE. I've experimented some with the Rollei in 35mm. With a deep red filter(#25 or #29) it more or less looks like a standard panachromatic film shot through those same filters at that range. You really need a full blown IR filter, and don't cheap out with an Ebay Special. Get the Hoya R72 or B+W equivalent-they're not cheap, but will serve you well whether using film or digital. It was kind of painful for me, as in 12 years of fairly serious photography I don't think I've ever bought a new filter-lately I've been picking at the local camera shop that has a card catalog with thousands of filters in it. In any case, I have metered the Rollei film at ASA 6 without the filter in a Nikon F3. Depending on where/what I'm doing I will sometimes remove the filter, compose, focus, meter, put the filter back on, move to the IR index mark, and shoot. As I get to know a scene, I'll often skip meter, will zone focus, and just eyeball the composition. In bright sun, I can generally shoot at 1/125 at anywhere from f/1.8 to f/2.8 or so. Bright sun is really where you want to shoot IR anyway, whether film or digitial.

Okay, we're set now. I don't know what I'd done, but apparently trying to use MLU messed something up. I hooked my double cable release to the MLU socket and the body shutter release, then pushed it and everything worked correctly. I did it a few more times, then pulled it off and the shutter continued working correctly with just the body release.

Well, some quick playing around shows that the issue is in the lens, and it's not working at any shutter speed. Even 1s just "clicks" closed and doesn't activate the timer. All my others are fine. I don't THINK that this lens has had any issues-I make it a point to check out leaf shutter lenses and see if they at least seem close when I get them. I'm wondering if I inadvertently tripped some other setting when I was trying to get MLU to work the other day-I guess I'll dig through the manual.

I've had my RB for a few weeks, but I'm finally getting around to playing with it. I'm using a Pro-SD body, and for the initial experiments I used a 90mm K/L that I bought from KEH. I loaded up a roll of in-date Tri-X in a Pro-S back and walked around my backyard exposing it per Sunny 16. I MOSTLY had the shutter at 1/400, but took it down to 1/250(and not lower since I was hand holding). Yes, the dark slide was out, and as best as I could tell everything looked/sounded like it was working correctly. I know from previous testing that the shutter opens and closes. In any case, I developed the roll in D76, and it was blank. The frame markings and some light leaks(I know I need to fix those) developed, but there was NO density in the frame area. I looked it over with a fine toothed comb and there's nothing there. Any ideas of what could be going on?

You're missing a processor transition in there :)