ben_hutcherson

I don't want to sidetrack this into a disagreement, but here at 37º I find it pretty darn well consistent year round, and my Minolta incident meter says so also. These days, I don't even use cameras with built in meters all that often, and I'm often calculating filter factor and sometimes even bellow factors in my head on Velvia 50(one of the most unforgiving films around these days). I use a meter whenever I can(and I find it a practical necessity near dusk) but none the less in mid-day sun I can get a well-exposed transparency with nothing but sunny 16. Also, as I said, I use it as a quick calibration standard for built in meters, although I'm careful to use a gray card or in a pinch some foliage. Most modern negative films have enough latitude that the difference between "perfect" sunny 16 and whatever influence you might see can be easily absorbed. The above is well outside any error that might come from using "rule of thumb" exposures.

I'm looking for the above. I'm interested in pretty much any quantity and any expiration date, but my price per roll/sheet will increase for newer stock, larger quantities, and guaranteed storage.

I personally long for Plus-X, and what I have will hopefully last me a while(I just wish I could find sheets). FP4+ is a decent enough substitute, but it's still not Plus-X. That reminds me that I should put up a WTB on the LFP forum... In any case, my only experience with FX32 was some frozen expired stock that I picked up in a big lot on Ebay a while back. I shot one roll and loved it, but after some deliberation I elected to sell the rest of my stock. I knew I probably wouldn't find any more at a reasonable price, and the money I got from it bought some other good film. Have you tried Pan F? I don't have a lot of experience with it, but it is a nice fine-grained film. I had high hopes when I bought a bunch of Efke 25 a while back, but I found a fussy film with relatively large grain and with more curl from fresh stock than I get from 20 year old Kodak.

This is probably a debate that will never end, but I learned the basics of exposure on film and I'm glad I did. It's true that you don't get instant gratification(although around 2005 when I first took an interest in photography there were a half dozen one-hour C-41 labs within a half mile of me if I wanted results fast) but it also made sure that you took your time to get it right. In any case, I agree that the above is 3 or 4 under, which is why I requested a photo of the negative. When I'm playing with older cameras, I often compare their meters to other cameras, but also do a sunny 16 "spot check." It's worth it as a film photographer to know this trick, and at least get a snap shot of whether or not your meter is accurate in bright light. I had an F2/DP-1, for example, that with ASA 400 film would indicate a correct exposure of 1/2000 and f/16 in a sunny 16 situation. That was my first indication, but it also read 3-4 stops high in every other situation so I knew that meter was off by a whole lot. BTW, I don't suggest this for a variety of reasons, but I put a few drops of carbon tetrachloride down in the metering mechanism and worked everything together well. That brought it to reading correctly. I don't suggest using carbon tet at all(I have the correct facilities to handle it), and I don't suggest attempting DIY repairs on meters unless you're comfortable with precision mechanisms(I'm a watchmaker). A bad F4 will probably need a trip to Nikon(if they still service them) or an independent tech to make it work correctly.

Fair point about the contact sheet size(which should correspond to the amount of developer required). With that said, 135-36 won't QUITE fit on an 8x10 contact sheet, or at least not with print file pages. The standard PrintFile page is meant to contact print to 8x10, and as you mentioned a roll of 120 and four 4x5s fit perfectly. For 35mm, the 5-frame pages will print to 8x10 but will only fit 35 frames. Of course, if we want to split hairs, the holes in 35mm probably make up for the surface area of at least one frame :) .

Interesting...I've been known to do 2x35mm or 1x220 in 16 oz of D76 1:1. The contrast is a bit slower than 1x35mm in straight D76(8oz) but I actually sort of prefer it. Of course, I use the data corresponding to increased time for the 1:1 dilution, but I haven't adjusted for the volume of film. I think offhand that a roll of 220 has about the same area as 2x36 35mm. 220 and 35mmx36 are roughly the same length(6ft or so) and I know the 220 is twice as wide so I suspect the area is similar. I also regularly do 4x 4x5 in 16 oz. of 1:1. I'm too lazy to compare area wise how that translates to other formats, but again I like the results.

At least in this particular instance, I have to disagree with that. Even the old Fuji Superia 1600 didn't have grain anywhere near that bad. When color negative film is underexposed and processed normally, the resulting "thin" negatives will tend to amplify grain as you simply have fewer grains(or more appropriate dye clouds) in the negatives with which to work. The above example looks to me like it is definitely a couple of stops under its rated ISO.

I know I only mentioned my preference for using plastic for permanganate bleaches. I'm actively using this process now, which is why I mentioned it. I'm not sure how dichromate came into the discussion. I can make dichromate bleaches easily enough, but permanaganate is a lot nicer/easier to dispose of at home. At work, I just dump dichromates into a jug or can labeled "Cr6+"(depeding on whether it's a solution or solid) and then make a call and it goes away safely and easily, but I don't have that luxury at home. All of that aside, bleaches must be oxidizing agents. Developers are by their nature reducing agents-they reduce Ag+ to Ag0 to form the image(whether or not that's the final thing you see). Bleaches have to turn the Ag0 into a soluable Ag+, making them, by nature, oxidizing agents. Again, I like plastic just for my own peace of mind. BTW, my reals do get a bit "scummy", but I tend to just soak them in hot water and scrub them in a tooth brush at the end of every developing session. This gets gelatin, left over photochemicals, and left over rinse agent from them before it has a chance to build up and be a problem. I do that with stainless and plastic plastic both. Granted I've found that stainless is more tolerant of being dirty than plastic, but a dirty stainless reel can still give you fits if it has something big enough to "catch" the film when you're feeding it on.

Back when I did some event photography, I had the advantage of spending a lot of time in the same venues. I often knew exposures off the top of my head before setting foot in. If I didn't I'd discreetly take some meter readings ahead of time. Basically, I'd then just tweak the exposure as needed-i.e. if I knew one corner of a church was two stops darker than the alter I'd just fix it as needed. Chances are, the alter isn't going to change through the course of a ceremony. The last time I got strong armed into doing an event(anniversary, not a wedding) the couple wanted "real" black and white which for me means grabbing an MF SLR and a bunch of Tri-X. Forget auto exposure-I don't have an MF camera with a built in meter. Fortunately, it was in my church's fellowship hall where, again, I know the exposures backwards and forwards, upside down and right side up also depending on the time of day. Even though I had my Minolta spot meter in my pocket, all I used it for was just to wander around before folks started arriving and make sure my memory was still correct. Had we ventured outside, I'd have gone with the meter behind my eyes and also adding in the filter factor(with B&W pan films, I'm always going to use a filter outdoors and of course have to take that into account. Fortunately, this even was a lot more laid back than a wedding and the couple was thrilled with the photos I gave them(I didn't print anything-they got scans and negatives). Since I did it as a favor, I also only charged them for the film+chemistry. Even so, it was enough to make me say "never again" :) . My point though is that you learn. If I have auto exposure, I tend toward shutter priority but also am constantly thinking if a given exposure makes sense. Depending on the body, sometimes it's easier to just switch to manual mode than to dial in exposure compensation or use AE lock to get the exposure correct. Granted if I'm not using digital I'll use negative film, which does afford me some lattitude(although the best prints tend to come from correctly exposed or POSSIBLY slightly overexposed negatives).

Since my Plus-X stock continues to age(although I'm probably not running out soon), I tend to shoot it at ASA 100 :) I've been using a lot of FP4+ lately(I don't have any medium format or sheet PX), and if it bothers you that much you probably won't notice any difference if you run it at EI 100. Heck, I shoot it at EI 200 all the time and aside from extending my development time a bit I don't see much difference. The speed is what it is. The same could be asked of FX32, K64, E64T, or any other partial-stop films.

To do that, set the dial on top to the green "A." Then, you can pick the aperture on the shutter ring(provided that you have any sort of AI lens) and the exposure will be correct. If you see "HI" in the viewfinder, you need to close the aperture down more, while if you see "Lo" you need to open it up. Try using it like, with the ASA set to DX(and the other settings I suggested-metering to matrix, of of course exposure compensation to zero) and see how things look. BTW, any chance you could post a photo of your negatives? Just holding a strip against a white background on your monitor and snapping it with any kind of digital P&S(including a cell camera) is fine.

My first camera was an A-1(although I now mostly use F-1s and T90s) so you and I have similar backgrounds. For the fewest headaches, just set the dial to DX and go from there. Only change it if you have a solid reason to do otherwise, or if like me and shooting Scala 160 or some other film that's not coded. I'm still not following what you mean by setting the "shutter speed and exposure." If you are in manual mode, you'll generally set the shutter speed or aperture, then adjust the aperture until you get the "correct" indication in the viewfinder. Coming from a Canon background, I tend to use mine in shutter priority(S) mode. With the mode dial set to S, the aperture ring gets set to the smallest aperture(many newer lenses have a lock to keep it there) then you pick a shutter speed and the camera will pick the correct aperture. This is no different from how your AE-1 worked, except that there's not a dedicated auto exposure position on the aperture ring.

By the way, here my typical "grab and go" settings on my camera. Sorry for the low quality-I just picked mine up and took some iPhone photos of it. The only thing I changed for this was setting the ISO dial to DX since it's currently loaded with one of the few films on the market that is NOT DX coded.

First of all, for the two program settings to work(P and Ph) the lens must be set to its smallest aperture. I think the shutter speed dial can be anywhere, but I don't use the program modes so don't recall on those. You may need to have the shutter speed dial at "A". For manual, you need to adjust the shutter and aperture ring until you get the null indication in the viewfinder. I'm a bit confused about your comment on "setting the shutter speed and exposure." If you've selected an aperture, the ONLY things you can do to get the exposure correct are to change the shutter speed and aperture. Also, if you've not used film cameras before, you might be best to stick to the P, S, and A modes. Just to check all the other things... 1. Is your film speed set correctly? MOST film(I can think of a few exceptions) is DX-coded, which means the camera sets it correctly based on electrical codes on the side of the film canister. On the F4, the film speed dial(under the rewind crank) has a setting for DX coding or and can be over-ridden by setting a film speed on this dial. Be sure it matches the film you're using, and ideally leave it at "DX" unless you're using non-coded film or intentionally want to push/pull the film(don't do this until you know your way around film). 2. Make sure the exposure compensation dial hasn't been disloged from the "0" setting. 3. I like center weighted averaging, but for most uses you'll probably get the best results if you use matrix metering. The metering mode is set by a dial on the side of the prism above the shutter speed dial. Push the lever all the way forward for matrix metering. 4. This is very unlikely, but there is exposure compensation built into the prism to account for different focusing screens. This is a setting you normally wouldn't touch, but it's possible that someone has messed with it in the past. For the standard "B" screen(matte screen with a pair of brackets in the center to indicate the AF area) you should have this set to zero. If's viewable from a small window on the underside of the prism, and adjusted by removing the prism and turning a certain spot with a screwdriver. Check the manual for this. Those are the things that come immediately to mind. Also, what type of film are you using and is it expired? I use expired film all the time, but you have to know its limitations. Consumer color negative film that has an unknown history and may have been stored poorly can show reduced sensitivity and color shifts. This may explain the problem you're having. Also, I get the impression that you may not have a lot of experience with film. I LOVE my F4-in fact for a Canon guy it's the only Nikon body that I've truly fallen in love with and it may be my favorite film SLR just for general use. With that said, I come from using film cameras that entirely knob and dial based. I feel right at home using it(aside from the fact that everything is backwards relative to Canons :) ) but the camera has a LOT of different switches, knobs, and dials. It's easy to change something you don't intend to. BTW, there are zero issues using an F4 with an AI lens. The camera will do everything correctly in every exposure mode except focus(which of course you have to do yourself). The only lenses that require extra steps are non-AI lenses.

The metering is external, not TTL. It meters via a CdS cell above the lens and facing out, not inside the prism as in later meters. Focusing and composing are done at full aperture-the lens uses the metering prong to tell the meter where the aperture is set.

That's been my experience as well. You can slide the prong to any position via the slider on the front(in fact the manual tells you to do this to meter for lenses without a coupling prong) but if you slide it all the way over with the lens set to 5.6 it clicks into place pretty easily. I just wish that I could keep all of these things straight :) . My F2/DP-1 does need it at 5.6, while on my Nikkormat FTn I have to remember to push the prong all the way over and I think it wants the lens at 5.6 for mounting. BTW, I did have to do a bit of light service on mine as I found that follower would pop out of the prong at either end as it was a bit sluggish to move up and down. I ended up giving it a good cleaning a small amount of grease(I used the same Moebius grease I use on watch mainsprings and keyless works) and it works perfectly now. I know the non-TTL meter has its limitations, but it's accurate enough at least for Tri-X and the camera is certainly a talking point. I may even brave a roll of slide film in it. From what I've seen, a nice pre-AI 50mm 1.4 seems to run $75-125 depending on condition, so I think I did alright at $175 for the full kit. I've never been a Nikon guy(I'm still an ardent Canon FD user for 35mm), but went on a bit of a binge not too long ago with the F-series bodies, as I've always liked them. I now have all up through an F4, and am debating about an F5. I feel like the F4 and earlier are better for MF lenses, though, and if I'm going to buy some AF lenses I'd rather put the money toward the EOS mount. All of that aside, I've always admired these older F-series bodies and I'm glad to finally get a chance to play with them.

The rules of optics don't change with the camera support. With that said, shooting an f/1.4 wide open vs. shooting it at f/5.6 will give you better results if the smaller aperture results in a shutter speed where you will likely see the effects of motion blur. When handholding AE cameras, I tend to prefer shutter priority, and even with manual cameras I tend to work in a shutter priority mindset. What I mean by that is I pick a shutter speed that I think will give satisfactory results and then let the aperture fall where it may. I will modify that if I end up needing more deptof field. Of course, now that I'm working a lot more in medium and large format on a tripod, I take a bit of a different approach, but that's where I go for handholding. Even with large format, I tend to try and use movements to get my desired depth of field rather than going down to f22 or smaller(all of my LF lenses go to at least f/45).

That is true, but I don't always crop to a rectangular format. I bought my first MF camera, a Rolleicord Va, in 2007, and have shot a lot of what I think are compelling compositions that work as squares but lose something when cropped to a rectangular format. Also, I've never been big on prisms in MF, and going back to my TLR days(I still use a Rolleiflex sometimes) I feel strange with anything other than a WLF. I do have a 45º prism for my S2a, but it's dim and adds enough weight to the camera that it stays at home. I'm okay with 6x7 on a rotating back, but I don't want to deal with rotating the whole camera like you have to do on many 645s.

That makes sense-thanks. Like I said, the rear window on the back of the prism DOES correctly register the aperture regardless unless it's set to something smaller than f/22. I'm guessing that when these prisms came out, none of the lenses made in the mount went that far down.

Fair enough on the metal clip on the inside, although I'm careful with making sure it's washed as thoroughly as I can. Perhaps I should give my reels and tank a dunk in nitric acid(I'm fortunate enough to be able to be able to get strong, concentrated acids easily) but I don't want them spending extended times in there. The KMnO4/H2SO4 bleach is a powerful oxidizer, and ultimately I'd rather take a chance on ruining a $5 Yankee reel than a $30 Nikkor reel.

I've read the thing online about setting the maximum aperture on the ASA dial, but again I can't find anything in the manual about it First Edition Nikon F Photomic Instruction Manual – 1962 Mine does have the additional numbers on the ASA dial, but page 10 of the above manual indicates that those are used to set the filter factor, not the maximum aperture of the lens. I do have the incident and tele/spot attachment. I guess maybe I'm overthinking it.

Thanks-sounds like the SQ lens is at least a fair bit lighter than the Hasselblad, and certainly small enough that I won't mind hauling it around. Part of me is also reluctant to sink a lot more money into the S2a. I have it because the owner of my favorite local shop told me about getting it in and when he told me the price, I bought it before it even went out for sale. I picked up an S2a, a C, two 75mm, a 50mm, 135mm, 150mm, the rare hood for the 50mm, a full extension tube set, the tilt/shift macro bellow, and a handful of other rare odds and ends for $300. I should unload the Nikon to Bronica adapters, since I neither have any Nikon bayonet rangefinder lenses nor the correct Bronica bodies to fit them. Everything works fine and the optics are phenomenal, but I know that these bodies are a bit "quirky", have a lot going on, and there aren't many people who want to touch them. Thanks for the info on lenses in other systems. I'm NOT a fisheye guy, so those are out. ETR series systems are cheap enough that I could easily justify buying a body for the wide lenses, even though I'm not a big 645 fan.

I just thought I'd update folks here about the legendary repairman, Mr. Ken Oikawa out of California. The light meter in my F-1n has recently stopped working, and I called and had a nice conversation with Mr. Oikawa a few weeks ago. He is still very much in the repair business, and was happy to take my camera for repair. It's currently on its way to him. I'll report back when it's back, but it's great that we still have a wonderful resource in this fine gentleman for those of us who still like these cameras. He serviced my main F-1N several years ago and it continues to work perfectly. I'm probably going to send it back to him for a 10-year tune up(even though it scarcely needs it) along with my other New F-1.

Jim, What I'm referring to is the fact that the Photomic finder seems to correctly index the maximum aperture without having to do the aperture ring dance. My best direct comparison of stuff I own is on the F2 DP1, where twisting the lens to the maximum and minimum aperture activates a sort of spring loaded mechanism and the maximum aperture then shows through a window in the front of the prism and(presumably) it meters correctly. The original Photomic doesn't seem to require this-it just reads the maximum aperture correctly regardless of the lens installed. I'm wondering if there's a step I'm missing in this, as it seems strange that the earliest metered camera could accomplish this while later cameras required "teaching" the camera the maximum aperture. I've read the manual and it makes no mention other than installing the lens and setting the lens speed(plus a page of doing exposure compensations through the ASA dial depending on the filter factor and/or whether or not one of the metering attachments is installed).

One last thing-there is only one common way to power the New F-1 via anything other than an internal battery. If you use the Ni-Cd pack on the motor drive, there is a cable which replaces the battery door and allows you to power the camera from the battery pack. These aren't super common, but do show up. Back about 10 years ago, I rebuilt a couple and sold them on Ebay. I have one I rebuilt for myself that's still going strong. I hate to make a C vs. N comparison and overall I consider the New F-1 a better camera than the contemporary F3, one thing I do have to give Nikon credit for is that the MD-4 for the F3 will automatically power the body when attached.