ben_hutcherson

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.

Thanks. It looks like I may have to do some work on it to get it usable for me, but I don't mind for what I'm paying for it. You're not joking about modern papers being fast. I've been developing film for years, but am relatively new to printing. So far I've been sticking with Ilford RC papers developed in Dektol. With a normal density 6x6 in my Beseler 23c, I'm often tossing in NDs to get the exposure time to something reasonable on an 8x10, and that's true even with a pretty dramatic crop. I'm not picky enough to be bothered by the sharpness loss from putting the lens to f/22 on an 8x10, but even doing that I was printing something not too long ago where the longest I could get the exposure without an ND was 6 seconds. I tried shooting paper negatives in 4x5, but never even got close on the exposure and gave up in favor of cheap film :) . Then I finally just decided to use good film to learn(FP4+ mostly) and save the cheap film for experimenting.

With regard to metol: It's expensive to buy known quality(ACS grade or even technical grade) from the chemical suppliers. It's reasonable from Photographer's Formulary, but it's still not cheap. It's also really surprising how expensive it is when you compare the cost to hydroquinone, which is the other active developer in a lot of our favorite commercial chemistry. With that said, if you look at something simple like D76 the amount of metol required vs. hydroquinione is tiny. I've gone hunting for related compounds that I can use as chemical precursors to metol. Granted, one of my criteria is whether or not I have a small amount on hand to experiment with, but even that's not easy. Something like 4-aminophenol would be an easy precursor.

Does anyone use one of these? I've sort of been halfway looking for one, and had a deal for the "big daddy" Duplex Super Deluxe come my way. I don't have it yet, but I know it's a bit of a beast and overkill for my bathroom-darkroom(spare bathroom primarily used for printing). Still, though, I couldn't pass this one up. Just as a couple of questions: 1. I know that the filters are there to block out some of the extraneous spectral lines from the LPS lamps. The one I'm getting has a cracked lens. Is this a cause for concern, or should I be hunting for replacements? 2. Are these ortho film safe? I know that as a general rule ortho is safe under red, but I've just ordered a box of Ilford 4x5 ortho. Since I'm a bit blind on it, I'd like to watch it develop and being able to use it under this light would be a big help.

c. 1865. One of the finest in the world when made.

I'm not sure about a rotary finder. As you probably know(if I haven't said it 100 times in the thread...sorry for being repetitive) the RB67 has a rotating back. That makes it easy to change orientation. Most "Hasselblad like" MF SLRs don't rotate very well, and I'd hate to try and use a WLF sideways. 645 cameras are usually light enough even with a prism that they're not terrible to rotate to change orientations. As the format size increases, so does the corresponding prism. The 45º prism I have for the S2a weighs a little over a pound, and the metered prism I have for the RB67 weighs 2lbs. I don't know the specs on a GS-1 prism, but it's hard to get around the fact that you need a lot of glass to make a prism that big and it's going to be heavy. Although MF prisms tend to be a bit dim, I'd actually welcome a porroprism like what's used on a lot of cheap DSLRs just to cut down weight.

I'm not adverse to doing it-heck I'm a chemist and love doing it. With that said, I mostly use D76 and it's less expensive for me to buy it than make it. Most recently, I did mix some B&W reversal chemistry to develop Scala. I followed the published Ilford reversal process, which involves modifying off the shelf developers and mixing a sulfuric acid/potassium permanganate bleach. That's the closest I've done lately.

Just speaking for myself, I wouldn't want colloidon dripping in any of my Rolleiflexes. I've played around very little with wet plate processes(I've done both glass plate and tintype) with mixed results, but I use plate holders to expose them. 4x5 plate holders are easy to find, abeit I did find one 2x3 holder covered in dust in the back of my favorite shop. 2x3 is a nice size and the cameras tend to be a lot less expensive than 4x5s. Heck, you should be able to plug a Graflok spring back from a miniature Speed/Crown graphic on an RB67 and have a "modern" camera that you can use and actually get reasonably sized images.

I agree about handling as many as possible. With that said, I didn't say that the GS-1 is a dud-truth be told I can't say either way. I am a big Bronica fan, though, and would probably buy one if it came along for the right price. Once again, I'll just mention that my chief criticism is how difficult accessories for the system are to find. I know this wasn't an issue when they were new, but with Bronica long gone it's a big consideration if you want to move beyond a standard focal length lens and have more than one back. Even SQ accessories are starting to get thin on the ground, and there were a LOT more SQs sold than GS-1s.

Andy, I like the colors I see in the shot. They are punchy but at the same time not over the top like my beloved Velvia. Even though I shoot a ton of Velvia, IMO what you showed would not have been a good use for it while it looks great on the Ektar. I've used it some in 35mm, and it reminds me a lot of the now discontinued 400UC that I loved. As for scanning color negatives-the software that comes with any scanner capable of scanning negatives as well as any 3rd party software will invert the colors and deal with the orange mask with no issue. You won't even see it on the screen unless you tell the scan software that you're scanning a slide. With that said, one of the issues with C-41 has always been that there's no standard for the exact color and intensity of the mask. Nikon Scan and Epson Scan do a good job handling it automatically. Vuescan has profiles for a lot of Kodak and Fuji films, but they are drastically outdated(great for scanning old negatives, not so great if you're shooting modern emulsions). It also does well on "generic" settings. With that said, I find that selecting an older Kodak profile for a film similar to the one I'm scanning will generally get me pretty darn close.

1.65 million will make it a 2.8E. The 2.8E is not as desirable as the 2.8F, but still a great camera and the condition overall looks good. Price wise, I think it would be a steal at $400 USD and a slow mover at $700. That should give you some idea. The lens can make some difference also, with Zeiss lenses typically carrying a premium(although the Schneider lenses are often better). I'd expect a Zeiss lens at the higher end of that price range. I know you said it has sentimental value, something which I understand very much, but PM me if the numbers above overcome your sentimental value :)

I've heard a rule of thumb of 1 stop per decade. I don't know how valid that is. I've been shooting my expired Velvia at box speed, and I don't think Ektapan even has an official box speed. So, take that for what it's worth.

Thanks-I actually have some of both in my shopping cart at B&H. I just need to wait for payday :) . I could go ahead and order them, but don't have an unmanageable amount of 6x7s at this point(and all are still uncut/sleeved) so I'll wait until I can afford to pile some other stuff on my order. My 120 and 35mm Tri-X stash is getting uncomfortably low, I'm all out of C-41 in 120(I like to at least keep some on hand, and have yet to shoot any 120 Ektar) and I'm really itching to try some of the Ilford ortho film...my experience with some ancient Kodak Graphic Arts film has been...less than satisfactory. While I'm at it, I should toss in some some Rollei IR film(or maybe try the Ilford stuff).

I have a V700, which is the "big brother" to the V600. I bought the V700 because I need to scan 4x5(or maybe 8x10 at some point in the future) which the V700 can do. Epson makes great scanners. My single biggest complaint about the V700 at least is the MF film holder, which IMO provides way too little support. My cheap Canon 2400F has a better MF holder-the rails are a tiny bit wider(not enough to intrude on the film) and it has two "clips" at the end to hold the film in place. In fact, I'm considering buying one of these Holders and Products for the Epson V700 V750 V750-M (no connection, not even as a customer) as they get good reviews. I also even occasionally wet scan MF if I'm dealing with a badly bowed negative, although wet scanning is a pain in the rear and I usually end up remounting a couple of times to get all the bubbles out.

Thanks for this information, although it's sort of a non-issue for me now since I'm actually PX625s in the camera. The local Radio Shack closed last Friday and they were selling "grab bags" for $25. I swept all the specialty batteries off the shelf(by swept I mean I just put my hand at the back of the rack and pushed them into my bag). All told, I managed to get about 30 PX28s/2CR1/3Ns, which of course are common camera batteries and a probably in the hundreds of SR76s/LR44s(which a lot of other makers use). I even managed to squeeze in a rechargeable for my DSLR. All told, I had 391 separate items with a retail value of $1400...and that isn't an accurate battery count since most of the SR76s were in 3-count packages and the 675s were in 8 or 16. In any case, I know that the EF can use alkaline 625s, so I pulled some out of my stash and stuck them in. Unfortunately, I've run into a few issues with the camera after playing with it for a day. First of all, the electronic shutter speeds don't work. The camera will indicate correct exposure, but they all fire at 1s. I understand that this is a common problem. Second, after playing with it for a little while I found that the mirror doesn't go down at 1/1000. If I push the stopdown lever, it will drop, but that's the only way to get it going. I need to decide if I want to return it or send it to Mr. Oikawa and see if he can straighten it out. I still haven't sent my F-1n(on which the meter decided to die) but I may stick this in the box when I send that camera. The worst he can do is say it's not repairable. The one I bought is very nice cosmetically, and for $50(total investment) I think I'd still come out alright to have a known good body.

I agree that 1990 is not that old. I have been playing with some Ektapan lately that expired in 1980, and presumably was refrigerated/frozen. It's taken me some trial and error to dial in both the exposure and the developer to both get decent images and tame the contrast. I've been told that this was intended to be a slide duplicating film(hence the "Ekta" in the name despite being B&W) so the contrast is a bit high to begin with. I've settled on ASA 50 and D76 1:2 for about 12 minutes. The only issue I've run into with that concentration is that D76 can "run out of steam" so to speak and I often only get good results if I develop two sheets in 16 oz.(16 oz. of 1:1 is normally fine for four sheets). I've been through various 1990s vintage Plus-X in 35mm, and generally either shoot it at box speed or perhaps at ASA100 and develop normally. I see no issues other than slightly increased grain vs. my newer stock of the film. I have some Velvia sheets that expired in 1996/1997. I shot them at box speed also and develop normally-they've been fine but then I have a pretty good history on the film and it's always been frozen.

Along those same lines, if I'm using a camera with a good "match needle" type meter I'm unlikely to use any auto settings that may be present on the camera. Along those same lines, I like a real moving meter needle so that I can see just how far off I am by the deflection of the needle(not just a +/-/correct indicator). I'll certainly use an LED or LCD, though. Although this is ancient technology, I was taking pictures at a Mother's Day breakfast my church had yesterday. I was using Tri-X in an F-2 with a DP-1 prism(first generation metered prism for this camera). I have a lot of experience photographing this particular room, as I was there documenting it when they built it and have photographed I have no idea how many events in every lighting condition imaginable with about every type of camera imaginable. That runs from Rolleiflexes to Digital P&Ss, iPhones, and DSLRs(although probably the bulk has been with 35mm SLRs). In any case, I set the shutter speed to 1/125 and took a couple of quick meter readings around the room to get an idea of what aperture I needed for various spots then just went to work without paying much attention to the meter. One of the particular challenges of this room is that one wall is entirely windows, and either the buffet line is set up along it or if there's some sort of "head table" it will be there. On a bright day, it will throw off any meter no matter how good, and sometimes the typical +/-2 exposure comp. dial isn't close to enough to get you right. Yesterday, I kept the exposure where I was when turned around without my back to the windows when I was facing them and the negatives looked good. Unfortunately, I get a bit annoyed at having to twiddle dials on a "modern camera" to get the exposure where I want. IMO, Nikon got it right on the F4. I've never played with a Df, and although I've heard mixed things on them I'd really like to give one a try.

What's not to love about a pocketable MF rangefinder? The Mamiya 6 gets the edge over the 7 for the greater number of exposures per roll and the collapsing lens. There are enough compact 35mm cameras out there now. Some of them are pretty darn good and not that old either-I don't see there really being a shortage of them. A "real"(i.e. not Holga) compact MF camera is something I really long for.

Personally, I'm saving my money at the moment for a Fuji GS645. I'd buy up a Mamiya 6 in a heartbeat if I could afford one.

When I bought my view camera, the shop sold me some monstrosity of a tripod that the owner said was "overkill for 4x5 but will get you to 8x10". It's old American made aluminum and is about 4 feet long folded. It probably also weighs 20lbs. I'm 6'2" and am stretching to see the ground glass if I extend the legs fully. Fortunately, for MF it's just about right for a WLF without extending the legs. I don't like raising the center column on any tripod, but this one is still okay even with an RB67. I have to admit that even with a 4x5 field camera, that tripod stays in the car and my Tiltall goes with me. I get very sharp results with 6x6 on the Tiltall and the mirror dampening is good enough on the RB67 that I don't worry about it even though I'm probably pushing the weight limits. I can also do okay with the Speed Graphic on it. A wooden field camera is actually okay with it even though it doesn't dampen vibrations as well as I like.

Although I don't use it that often, modern "P" modes that let you cycle through shutter/aperture combinations don't really bother me that much. As much as I love the F4, I don't use the P modes on it since you only get "P" and "Ph". I've also never used it on my A-1(and I've never owned an AE-1P). I have, however, used it on the T90 which allows you to scroll through the combos. On my bottom of the barrel DRebel, I can do the same so I have used P mode. The(uncoupled) meter prism on my RB67 just has a dial that you spin to center the needle and it just gives you all the combinations that match its meter reading. The one mode which I avoid is "green box" mode, as it gives you no control. The various specialty modes are okay for what they do, but I'll still take complete control. I had an interesting conversation with someone at work the other day. She has a consumer level Nikon DSLR(nothing wrong with that-as I said I use a Rebel XS, the cheapest you could get when I got it) and I was walking around with a Nikon F Photomic. She was asking me about manual exposure as she wants to "learn how to use it", and I launched into an explanation about how the Photomic really isn't that great of a meter and you have to use your own judgement about whether or not it's right and also know how to compensate for filters. Her face glazed over, and after realizing that I'd gone into "ramble" mode and apologized I found out that "manual" to her is getting out of "green box" mode(or whatever the Nikon equivalent is).

I go back and forth on whether I like the T90 or the New F-1 better. At the end of the day, I usually end up back at the New F-1, but it's still a tough call. I can't skip the original F-1 and F-1n also. Since I've acquired some Nikons lately also, I have to say that to me the New F-1 kicks the butt of the contemporary F3. That's not to say that the F-3 isn't a great camera(it is) with some great features lacking in the F-1(MLU, anyone?) and a film advance lever to die for, but the New F-1 just feels so much more "natural" to me. In any case, I can guarantee that the EF is going to get some use when it gets here. BTW, the Radio Shack in town is in final stage liquidation and was selling "grab bags." I raided the specialty battery shelf, and all told picked up 391 separate items(several of which were multi-packs of batteries) with a normal retail price of $1400 for $26.50 with tax. Along with a bunch of PX-28As(I cleaned out the 2CR1/3Ns, which are the lithium PX-28As, at $1.10 each last week), I picked up several alkaline 625s. One of the beauties of the EF is that it's perfectly content with any voltage battery as long as it's enough to power the meter. AFAIK, it's the only Canon using a 625 battery for which this is the case. I did pick up about 40 #675s for all my other "need a mercury battery" cameras. In any case, I just checked the freezer and it looks like I need to order some more Tri-X. Both the 35mm and 120 shelves are getting a bit thin.

Fair enough, Dan. Even a miniature Crown will give you some view camera experience and of course isn't too difficult to adapt to roll film. From what I've seen, these are probably the best 6xX format view-ish cameras around in terms of available accessories. The only direct comparison I can make on focusing is to my 4x5 Speed, something which I don't find that much different. I know you once admonished me for complaining about how dark the GG of the Speed Graphic is, and truth be told you were right. With a loupe and even a make-shift dark cloth(like a dark jacket) it's not terrible.

I bought my first "real" camera, an A-1, in 2005 and have since been a big FD system fan. Although I have been absent for a while, I was a moderator on this forum for several years. In the time, I've owned(and still own) lenses ranging from the 20mm 2.8 to the 400mm 4.5 and a lot of great lenses in between. There are still a lot I'd like to have(55mm 1.2 asp., 85mm 1.2L, and 14mm to name a few) , but my attention has been focused more on medium and large format equipment lately. I've also owned virtually every FD body along the way. I've never had a (working)T50 or T80 but have no desire to, and never got around to buying an AE-1P. There's one camera that has always intrigued me, though, but the prices in the past sort of scared me off. That camera is the EF. For those not in the know, this was a 1970 shutter priority SLR-as far as I know it was the first AE camera made not counting the rare Servo EE finder for the F-1(yes, I've had one of those). I've never seen one in person, bu superficially it looks like a cross between an F-1 and an FTb with the AE-1 shutter speed dial thrown in. One of the other big selling points of the camera, though, is the vertical Copal Square shutter. The general "venetian blind" design became common in the late 1980s and continues to this day in DSLRs, but at the time it was quite novel. My grandfather had a Konica AutoReflex TC with this feature(I now have the camera), something which he praised endlessly. Earlier this evening, I was able to win a nice EF on Ebay for $50 shipped. I'm excited about the camera, and will of course report back once I have it.

Fibers are one of the reasons why I started insisting on plastic mounts years ago. Even fresh out of the box, paper mounts make your slides filthy. I haven't used Dwayne's in a while, but the last time I did they were still using paper(I now use a local lab that does use plastic). In any case, as others have said the get as much as you can with a bulb blower and use Pec-12 if the film is especially dirty. Use latex or nitrile gloves-cotton darkroom gloves will just make things worse. And, at the end of the day, you may have to give in and spend some time with the spot healing brush in Photoshop to get them all. Granted with Cibachrome now dead, you can't wet print slides, but one of the things I've come to really appreciate is that at least at modest print sizes wet printing is a lot more forgiving of film imperfections than scanning.