ben_hutcherson

FWIW, I'm handling 4x5 scans at 6200 ppi on a PowerMac G5(dual 2.7ghz, early 2005). I'd be tempted to take a serious look at your current upgrade paths for your 2010 Mac Pro(4,1). At a minimum, consider putting in an SSD. If yours is a dual processor model, you have a LOT of RAM slots to throw RAM at it. You still have your fair share in the SP models, and you can pretty inexpensively get it to 32gb of RAM. Processor upgrades are also a possibility in these. I think there are some quirks at least with dual processor models and needing lidless processors(but another part of me thinks that might be peculiar to the 4,1 which is nearly identical-I'd have to check). Processors will run a few hundred dollars, but both adding cores and increasing the clock speed can help the computer a fair bit. FWIW, I'm still using a 2006 Mac Pro(1,1) at work on a daily basis. With an SSD and 16gb of RAM, it's pleasantly fast in daily usage although does show its age when its pushed(i.e. if I try to do an lens correction on a 4x5 scan-my 2012 MBP is faster). I have upgraded that computer to dual quad core 3.0ghz processors, although they are quite an old generation. I worked on a "trash can" not too long ago at work. I upgraded the RAM and installed an OWC 2TB drive. It really is an elegant design. I pulled the top off of it and paused to let the owner appreciate just how beautifully laid out the interior is. For the stuff that CAN be upgraded, it's also amazingly easy to access. BTW, I've read the interview linked above a few times. What I took away from it was that Apple had basically painted themselves into a thermal corner with the design and the lower TDP GPUs they expected never materialized. The machine isn't bad, per se, it's just that Apple can't go any further with it(it's the G4 Cube all over again in more ways than one). In all honesty, as much as I love the Mac Pros they really have always been built as workstations and a lot of the features that run up the price(registered ECC RAM, etc) are overkill for even the heaviest photo and even video work. If I felt the need for a new Mac desktop, my inclination would be to max out a 27" iMac. I think that would do you for quite a while. BTW, I've not found my 2012 MBP to be deficient even when I dump a few hundred RAW files into Lightroom. The only thing where it IS noticeably a bit slow is, again, when I'm handling 100mb 4x5 scans in Photoshop.

My mention of cameras wasn't intended to be all inclusive-it most certainly is.

As said, it will work in the sense that it it will physically fit. I've not done it other than test fitting, but I also wonder if the eye relief/focus will be correct with the difference in distance between the bottom of the prism and the focusing screen. The focus itself won't be off, but I suspect it might make the finder blurry. I have to say, though, that the AE prism would drive me crazy even on the original F-1. It's not even my favorite prism on the New F-1-I have one body with an AE prism and one with standard(ironically, my standard prism is on my LA Olympic model, which is much more difficult than the AE version of this finder-yes mine does have the gold lettering) and I prefer the size and handling of the standard finder. With that said, at least it does have an accessory shoe(it won't function as a hot shoe as the contacts aren't there) something otherwise lacking on the original F-1.

I will also stick by defining it as a camera that does not require a battery to function. A battery for a light meter is okay. Just to hit some big ones, that gives us Leicas, most 1970s and earlier SLRs(including the big boys like the Canon F-1 and Nikon F/F2), Rolleiflexes, Hasselblads(500), Bronica Z/D/S cameras, and a huge laundry list of others. There are some cameras that have limited functionality without a battery, or can take on functions like automatic exposure with one installed. For me to consider something manual, I'd want to look at the extent of battery-less functionality. I will say that I don't think having one "emergency" mechanical shutter speed(Nikon F3, Bronica SQ) makes a camera mechanical. I can think of two Canons that meet the "limited functionality" criteria. With batteries installed, the EF is a shutter priority camera electronically timed speeds out to 30s. Take the batteries out and you have an all mechanical body that is fully functional from 1s to 1/1000. Similarly, the New F-1 is an aperture priority AE camera(without a motor drive) with a battery installed, and with electronically timed shutter speeds from 1/60 to 8s. With the battery physically removed from the camera(an important step) it is functional from 1/90 to 1/2000(and B). The contemporary Nikon F3 has one mechanical shutter speed that can be fired without batteries-1/80.

I do not particularly care for the meter displays on older Nikon SLRs. The moving needle ones are okay, but I don't like the LED ones. Of the F series, the F3 is probably my least favorite with the(hard to see) +- in the top left LCD to show correct exposure. By contrast, I consider the meter display on the New F-1 to be what a manual light meter SHOULD be. The aperture scale is shown on the right side of the viewfinder, and a "lollipop" indicates the currently selected aperture on the lens. When the meter is activated, a second needle shows what the meter thinks the correct aperture is(based on the ISO and shutter speed). If you agree, just line up the meter needle and lollipop. If you don't agree, you can easily see just how much you are underexposing or overexposing. In addition, unlike the F3, you can set the camera to illuminate the meter window for a few seconds when you half press the shutter button(there's no three handed pushing the little button on top of the finder that's not that bright anyway). Quite a few other Canon cameras, including the original F-1 and the FTb, use the same general type of meter but don't show an aperture scale. You can still judge the amount of overexposure or underexposure by the spacing between the two.

I'm in agreement on this likely being a problem with the lens board or focusing mechanism. It's been a while since I've taken one off a Rolleiflex, but as I recall the last time I did I went to some effort to keep the two focusing rails in alignment while I had the board off. I don't recall what it was exactly. Having one be a tooth or two off would, IMO, produce exactly the effect you are seeing. The way I'd probably check it is to rack the focus in to infinity and then using a feeler gauge to measure the gap between the body and the focus board. Check the left side and find a gauge that is "sticky" in the gap, and then move to the other side and see if that gauge fits with some slop(or if it won't go in). Alternatively, you can rack the focus all the way out and measure the gap between the board and the body with a caliper or micrometer on both sides. Again, it's been a while since I've had one apart but seem to recall the focusing rails being a bit above the taking lens. You can follow a straight line out from under the focus knob to roughly locate them. I'd take measurements at these two points. Also, don't underestimate the value of putting a piece of ground glass on the focus plane, locking the shutter open at "B", and then looking at the focus carefully under a loupe. Compare this to what you see on the top focusing screen, and see if they are different.

I wonder how the hard line IUPAC "chemist"(who, if I've found the right person in Scifinder is actually a Chemical Engineer, not a chemist) in this thread would feel about using the IUPAC name for Vitamin B-12...

Looks like it was my mistake when the list was written. I'm surprised it's gone 10 years without being challenged.

1600 is correct. Either I'll claim credit for the mistake when I wrote that list in 2007, or someone has edited it in the mean time :) I'll fix it.

And, while we're at it, what is your field?

How is "Ferric Hexaferocyanate" in any way CLOSE to a proper name for the compound? You don't even specify the correct cation. If you can't see why this is a problem, I can't help you. Sorry, I'm done also but it doesn't change the fact that you are chastising incorrect naming and in doing so referred to a TOTALLY different compound. And I'm speaking as a real world, working chemist who reads literature on a daily basis. Again, you're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to change this.

What am I missing in your claiming you never used this completely incorrect name? Here it is in black and white in your post. BTW, it still goes back to the point that potassium ferricyanide is a ubiquitous enough name that the compound is listed as such in chemical catalogs and on bottles as the primary name. BTW, just a little while ago I was talking to a tenured inorganic chemist who has been at this for 40 years. His exact words were "I never publish the IUPAC name of a compound, and no one else does either." That may be a bit of hyperbole, but none the less in my research I've found the use of IUPAC names to be the exception in literature rather than the rule. Trust me also that as someone who recently earned an advanced degree in chemistry, I've read a LOT of recent literature. That's true even in top journals like JACS and Angewante Chemie. You can preach from the rooftops all you want that classical and common names should be abolished, but you are fighting a losing battle among the chemistry community at large.

You shouldn't see any difference between your current Rolleicord and the older example you're considering.

So, how is "ferric hexacyanoferrate" is in any way an IUPAC name for the compound known commonly as "Potassium ferricyanide." I don't see you referring to the presence of a potassium at all. In addition, as I said, in the name you provided you are guilty of using a classical name for an Iron(III) ion. Using cumbersome IUPAC names in literature, especially large molecules, is not terribly common. Even when organic(or inorganic) chemists submit a previously unknown compound they will often only give the IUPAC name as part of the record of the compound(along with things like spectral data) and then refer to it by an abbreviation.

That name is totally incorrect-the cation is potassium, not Iron(III) and even if it were correct you'd be guilty of using a classical name to indicate the oxidation state of the cation. Aside from that, the IUPAC name for the anion you gave is meaningless because you do not indicate the oxidation state of the iron. To be correct, you need to call it hexacyanoferrate(III). Otherwise, you could either be referring to either the anions classically known as ferricyanide or ferrocyanide. Granted it can be inferred from the cation. As I said, ferricyanide is still a commonly accepted name for the this particular cation under discussion, and you will find it all over the place in literature. Classical names are still quite common, and in fact Langmuir seems to be taking no issues with my exclusive use of classical names in a recently submitted paper.

I live and breathe chemistry. I have a masters in analytical chemistry. In my full time job in the chemistry department at a large research university, I split my time as a bench chemist mostly doing lab preps for teaching labs(along with frequent "special projects" that involve developing new experiments, synthesizing unavailable or expensive chemicals, or the like) and as the scientific specialist for my department. I also teach general chemistry when I get the chance. Sorry to ramble a bit, but needless to say I enjoy chemistry :) . Darkroom work is a natural extension of that.

With the proper credentials, most any chemical can be obtained. KCN has its place in research labs. I bought some in March, and as I mentioned have a specific real-world use for it. I have the proper credentials, however, and also didn't purchase it for personal use. Photographers Formulary doesn't carry it, and I doubt any member of the general public can get it. BTW, let's not get too picky about chemical names. If we are going to be sticklers for names, the only correct way to name a chemical is using the IUPAC name. In that case, we should call K3Fe(CN)6 potassium hexacyanoferrate(III). Potassium ferricyanide is an older systematic name, but those names(particularly the ones which use ic/ous to indicate the oxidation state of a metal) are now technically obsolete. They are still widely used even in literature and of course are understood. I'd say most "chemically fluent" people would recognize the ferricyanide ion much more readily than the IUPAC name.

Don't forget that Prussian Blue can be formed from mixing K3Fe(CN)6 and ferric ammonium citrate and then exposing the mixture to UV light. If you coat that on paper and let it dry, you can make the traditional cyanotype print or a blueprint. BTW, Prussian Blue is used to treat certain types of heavy metal poisoning. I have a work friend who very nearly died of thallium poisoning before they found out what it was(strange set of circumstances, as he had worked with thallium in the past but wasn't actively working with it). Once they figured it out, the treatment was huge doses of Prussian Blue-I want to say on the order of several grams a day-until his blood level had dropped to safe levels.

On the basis of models alone, your Rolleiflex V(if that's indeed what you have) should have a 5-element Planar or Xenotar taking lens, while the Rolleicord at best had a 4-element Tessar or Xenar taking lens. If I'm getting mixed up on my models, it's possible that you have a Tessar/Xenar on your 'Flex, but I don't think that would be correct on one that late. Tessar type lenses are not in and of themselves bad lenses-in fact I have quite a few of them in both medium and large format. They tend to be soft in the corners wide open, but will sharpen up when stopped down. The 5 element Planar type lenses(which I think is pretty universal now on most 80mm 2.8s for MF even if they are not made by Zeiss) corrects some of the deficiencies of the Tessar. Rollei in general put excellent glass on their cameras, and if you find the Planar/Xenotar on your example to be a bad performer I'd question if you just have a bad example or it's been serviced by someone who doesn't know what they're doing. After all, an 80mm 2.8 Planar on a Rolleiflex is fundamentally the same lens as an 80mm 500-series lens(and I have found that Schneider Rolleis are often better than their Zeiss equivalents). I've never compared them side by side, but I'd expect the 3.5 Planar to be an even better performer than the 2.8. There again, if it's been messed with, all bets are off. I've had a couple of Rolleicords, and still have a Va(second to last model). They're great cameras, and I find them optically equal to earlier Tessar/Xenar 'Flexes. Again, Tessars can be great but you need to have them to 5.6 or f/8 before they really start to shine.

Potassium ferricyanide is virtually impossible to convert to a CN- ion and is pretty low down on the list of toxicity. In my position at work, I have some responsibility for the chemistry teaching labs and as part of that actively liason with the hazardous waste coordinator. We moved our freshman teaching labs a couple of years ago to having two waste disposal drums. Each drum is 55 gallons, with one marked for acides/heavy metals and the other marked for bases. Initially, the base drums were marked "Bases and cyanides" because an acidic cyanide solution can release HCN. The problem was that we have an experiment where we use potassium ferricyanide, and another where we use potassium thiocyanate in a nitric acid solutions . The TAs were directing their students to put both of these in the base drum and as a consequence our base drums were coming out with very low pH(and I could talk to them until I was blue in the face without changing their minds). I finally had the waste coordinator take "Cyanide" off the label as we don't use cyanides in lower level teaching labs. In fact, the only use we have for KCN(barring research lab use) is to do something called a Kaiser test, which tests for the completion of a peptide coupling reaction. It's a very dilute solution, and we use a small quantity in one upper level experiment where the students synthesize peptides. I use about 300mg every couple of years, and the bottle otherwise stays locked in a cabinet in my office(not in general stockroom circulation).

In the distant past, KCN was used as a fixer for wet plate processes. Thiosulfates are now the preferred fixer, whether sodium thiosulfate(hypo) or ammonium thiosulfate(rapid fixer). AFAIK, either of these will also work fine for wet plates. I'd be interested to see how film would react to a KCN fixer...I'd be tempted to try it if not for the fact that I really, really don't like handling cyanides.

I agree that using only a small part of a 4x5 sheet seems a terrible waste. At the same time, if you want to shoot sheet film, there are a lot of practical arguments for using 4x5 vs. 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 even if you only use a portion of the sheet. For one thing, the cost difference to me is small enough to not even think about. A quick scan of Freestyle's site found four 2 1/4x 3 1/4 emulsions, Arista 100, Arista 400, FP4+, and HP5+. A 50 sheet box of 2x3 of the Arista films is $31.49 for ASA 100 and $34.69 for ASA 400. 50 sheet boxes of those same emulsions in 4x5 are $35.69 and $38.89 respectively. With Ilford products, the difference is even smaller. A 25 sheet box of 2x3 FP4+ or HP5+ is $34.99 while the same emulsions in 4x5 are $35.99(FP4+) and $35.59(HP5+). The second thing to consider is that 4x5 is by far and a way the most popular sheet film format, and for that reason the emulsion selection for it is greater than for any other sheet film size. A good portion of the emulsions available in 120 are also available in 4x5. The big stand-outs for me that aren't available are Tri-X 400, Velvia 50(in the US, although you can get it from Japan) and Portra 800. BTW, you can get Tri-X in 4x5(and 8x10)-it's just Tri-X Professional 320. It's a different film with somewhat less contrast and a longer "toe" than the TX400 that we all know and love. Kodak use to make it in 220, but I think they discontinued it in 2012-I have some in my freezer that I've been working through before I crack open the box of 4x5 also sitting there. My first sheet film camera was a Miniature Crown Graphic. I shot a decent amount of film in it, but ultimately it became a shelf ornament as my 4x5 Speed Graphic is many times more practical. I have to admit that I love the size of the Miniature, though. As said, 4x5 cameras are relatively inexpensive and widely available. I have two-the Speed Graphic and an old Burke & James wooden field camera. The Speed was around $500(135mm Raptar in a Graphic shutter), and I paid $200 for the B&J with a pleasantly nice 7.5" lens whose maker I don't recall on it. Graphic lens boards are not too difficult to find, although I've had to make my own for the B&J(when I get time I'm going to try making one that will hold a Pacemaker Graphic board).

The name Automat bugs me. A proper Automat has two lenses and uses 120 film. I've known Automats. Automats are friends of mine. These, sir, are no Automats. :)

I'm not sure if I have any options on a lower wattage bulb. The 23c is probably one of the most ubiquitous enlargers in the US, at least for folks who do medium format(and 35mm) and even then the bulbs aren't super easy to find. A friend in the UK who is a light bulb collector lead me to some current production bulbs(Eiko, maybe) that work fine. I think he said, though, that the bulb was being over-driven dramatically as it's specced for 90V or so. My guess would be that this is done to get more output in the blue/UV region of the spectrum where papers are more sensitive. I think the rated lifetime in an enlarger is something like 50 hours, which of course for someone like me is a really, really long time. I might try running it through a Variac and see if I can get the output down. Tungsten lamps are almost perfect black body emitters, so even if I shift the spectrum down(which happens when you lower the voltage) I'll still get some blue out of it. I hadn't thought of that, though-thanks for the suggestion.

I'm not sure if you'll find anyone who likes the stock Epson medium format holders. Here is one next to the Canon 2400f that I bought brand new in January of 2011 for around $200. My Canon holder originally came with a black card like you describe, something which I've unfortunately misplaced. I bought my V700 used(and it wasn't cheap at that) and I suspect that such a card might have been included. It certainly helps on the Canon, which is why I 'm using an index card in the photo. Here's a close-up of the Canon. Notice the two "hooks" for the film and the relatively wide ledge. I've never had a problem with it intruding into the image area. Compare that to the Epson. It sometimes takes me 5 minutes to get a cupped strip loaded, where it would have taken 30 seconds on the Canon. Fortunately, the 4x5 holders are quite good IMO When I get serious about getting a good MF scan, though, I often have to do this I'm not showing any mounting fluid here, since it's a messy job and I wanted to just show this for demo purposes. Aztec sells high quality wet mounting products, but I make do with spectroscopic grade Heptane and a sheet of optical glass. It's supposed to be easier to work the bubbles out when you're using mylar, but again I didn't want to buy the Aztek get to get the correct quality. I can usually do well on one frame at a time with glass, although I have to remount each subsequent frame.