john_henderson1

MORE RESOLUTION!

<p>

Rise is nice, too.

I took a quick look at Kodak's data sheets. They have a

blue-sensitive film, and a green-sensitive film, called X-ray B and

X-ray G, respectively. I didn't look for an equivalent ISO speed. As

far as spectral response, they'll record daylight images, but they are

not panchromatic.

I have a friend who got a digital camera two years ago. He's always

at events snapping pictures. As I am with my Minolta. I come back

with an album full of prints for my friends to pass around, and extra

prints for people to put in their albums, or frames. Hardly anyone

has ever seen any of the pictures my friend has taken with his

digital. They go home with him and are downloaded to his computer

where they stay.

<p>

Picture TAKING might be easier and cheaper for the low-end consumer,

but actually doing anything with them is a hassle.

I should have said, "The calculator on Marko's web site," instead of

"Marko's calculator." Marko credits Michael Gillett with writing the

calculator.

On-line calculators!? Good grief! Has everyone gone berserk?

<p>

The equation for hyperfocal distance is simply:

<p>

h = f*f/(c*N)

<p>

where f is the focal length of the lens, N is the f-number, and c is

the diameter of the circle of confusion (CoC). Use the same units,

e.g., millimeters for f, c, and h. If you get the answer, h, in mm,

divide by 304.8 to get feet.

<p>

The only thing to argue about here is the choice of c. Marko's

calculator above uses 0.3mm for 8x10, although I think that 0.2mm is a

more common choice (and 0.1mm for 4x5, 0.025 for 35mm, etc.).

<p>

I'll try not to start my rant about why you'd go to a larger format

and then allow a larger CoC.

Hey, Doremus, I don't care what other people think, I've got a Mozart

painting and I love it! ;)

I also use white lithium grease - got a can from the auto parts

store. It's what I read to use in several sources on camera repair.

<p>

I understand that the "WD" in "WD-40" stands for "water dispersant."

On bicycles, it is often recommended to use WD-40 to clean off parts

BEFORE lubing or greasing - not as a lubricant itself. I don't

believe that it leaves much of a lubricant behind.

<p>

BTW, I struggled for some time to find a solvent that evaporates

quickly, doesn't leave residue, and doesn't damage paint and plastics

for use in cleaning old camera mecahnisms. Most of the stuff I read

in books are no longer available or require special handling and

disposal. A camera repairman finally recommended camp stove fuel.

Works great for me, but use at your own risk.

My brother, the artist, asked me, the electrical engineer, what RIP is. He was looking at large format printers on Epson's web site and said they recommend this thing, but no where on their web site do they define it. I took a look myself, and found references to it, but never a definition.

It's apparently some item of software that runs as some sort of printer driver or server.

Can somebody explain it to a simpleton such as me?

My employer has Ebony's web site locked out. They must think it is a

naughty place.

<p>

Is it?

That's bizarre.

<p>

I was going to suggest that it is the film holder, but since you see

it on the ground glass, that rules that out.

<p>

That seems to be kind of a weird problem for a lens.

<p>

I'm not familiar with the Fujis. Do they have a little anti-rotation

mounting screw on the mounting surface of the front element like my

Schneider has? This screw is meant to go through a small hole in the

lens board to keep the lens from rotating. Many people just take it

out. If you have a screw like that sandwiched between the front

element and lens board, your lens axis might not be normal to the film

plane.

<p>

Go in a dark room, but a light bulb in the back, and see if any light

is leaking around the lens/lens board interface.

<p>

Are you able to adjust focus and get a sharp image along the normally

fuzzy part?

<p>

I think using two different camera would rule this out, too, but are

you sure that everything is zeroed correctly? Sounds like you might

have a tiny bit of lens swing.

The good news is that the $1000 of Polaroids would serve you no

purpose whatsoever. The polaroid film will have different reciprocity

failure characteristics than the negative/positive film that you'd

use.

The M mode switches in an additional gear train to delay the opening

of the shutter. Most likely, it is just gummed up and needs a

cleaning.

<p>

If the shutter fires correctly otherwise, and you don't use bulbs,

then don't worry about it.

How does a throw-out bearing that is being held motionless wear out?

Pushing the clutch in and out twice to put the car in neutral and take

it back out would wear the bearing twice as much as pushing it in once

and holding it.

<p>

I've never heard of putting the car in neutral while at a stop.

Film-sized envelopes? Put a pair in each envelope. I've seen

envelopes for 4x5.

You're going to have difficulty making the individual images line up.

<p>

Think about all you see projected on a sphere like in a planetarium or

an Omnimax theater, with your lens nodal point at the center. Note

that your film is a flat plane. Basically, the sphere is projected

onto the plane. When you rotate the camera, even being careful to

rotate around the nodal point, the overlapping areas are not going to

map to the plane identically, and therefore, you can't lay the flat

images side-by-side and have them line up.

<p>

The answer to question #3 is, to get perfect alignment, you can only

use an infinitesimally thin vertical line down the center of your

image. That is not a very encouraging answer, since you'll need an

infinite number of images. However...

<p>

If you digitize the images, you can merge them in a computer using

merging software. These programs effectively project the images back

onto the sphere (or cylinder) and merge them there, and then project

them back onto a longer, flat plane. Most of the instructions I've

seen suggest 30-50% overlap between images.

<p>

One of the most useful sites I've found is <a

href="http://www.panoguide.com/"> Panoguide</a>. They include reviews

of available software.

<p>

The one piece of software that is free and easy to use is <a

href="http://www.pixaround.com/"> Pixmaker Lite</a>. It may be

limiting for more sophisticated projects, but is something that is

very easy to learn to use when starting with panoramas.

To add to Jim's comment, I had a stand-alone HEPA filter unit (got it

at Sears) that I got to filter out dust in my apartment because of

dust allergies, but I let it run in my "darkroom" before I use it for

loading holders or printing.

<p>

If you have a dedicated darkroom, you might want to get a <$100 unit

and let it run in there all the time. Might improve your health, too.

I got tan lines all over my body. The funniest ones are the ones of

my face from my bike helmet straps. They don't seem to affect my

shooting at all! I've never had a subject complain about my tan

lines.

I think that if you have prints made of your pictures, you can

dispense with the transparency adapter. If you stick with the

application that you're talking about, you don't need a direct scan

from the negative.

<p>

And if you scan an 8x10" print, you only need 150 dpi to make a

1500x1200 pixel image, which would fill most computer screens.

The manufacturing code might give more info - it's stamped on the

bottom of the focussing rail. It gives the month and year of

manufacture. The code is described somewhere on graflex.org.

<p>

And if you decide to discard the rangefinder, I'd kill to get the

little parallax adjusting screw that is missing from my rangefinder,

rendering it useless. (It is something like a #4-80 where normal #4's

are a 40 pitch.) ;)

With a name like Gavin Walker, you'd think he could build his own

camera!

<p>

Oh...excuse me. I was thinking, "Galvin."

Struan,

<p>

Thanks for the info. I've been wondering what the proper method for

affixing and Aero-Ektar to the cat was.

Be sure that the tank, lids, tops and reels are all very dry before

loading. The streak may be some residual water that rolled across the

film before processing began. Also, be sure to pour the chemicals in

very quickly and begin agitation as quickly as possible.

...And "fish" is plural if you're referring to a number of them of

unspecified species, but you use "fishes" to refer to multiple

species. Or something like that.

<p>

And "cow" can either refer to the species, <i>or</i> refer only to the

female of the species "cattle." Interestingly, there is no singular

form of "cattle."

Hello, experts,

<p>

A coworker's mother-in-law found a stash of old film that she'd been carrying from home to home over the last 30 years. There is 126, 127, and 620 rolls. Some of them were clearly Kodak Verichrome Pan, but there was some mystery film, too.

<p>

One 126 cartridge has the following on it:

<p>

"Famous Brand 126 Color Film - For Daylight or Blue Flash"

<p>

"Process G 25 - Made in Belgium - BD 365"

<p>

"CAUTION: This film can only be processed on our special equipment for exclusive triple-print ® Process."

<p>

"Mail film and $4.25 to: Nat. Hdq., Box 7529, Phila., Pa."

<p>

Obviously, that is color film and some odd-ball process. There are also some 620 rolls from the same company. The licky label says,

<p>

"CAUTION: This film can only be processed on our special equipment for the exclusive 36 picture process.

<p>

"If you have lost your envelope, send $2 and film to: Nat'l. Hdqrs., Box 7529, Phila., Pa. 19701."

<p>

There are NO other markings on the paper backing except "620 Exposed" and the frame numbers. Nothing says it's color.

<p>

Since the rolls holds 12 square pictures, I'm thinking that the "36 print process" is the same as the color triple-print process (12 exp. x R+G+B?.

<p>

Not wanting to spend and fortune for professional processing, and understanding that I may completely mess them up, he asked if I'd like to give them a shot. Thinking that this G25 may be an obselete process, I processed on roll of the 620 in XTOL, following Kodak's instructions for Verichrome Pan with a 2 stop push. I got images. They're not great in contrast, so next roll, I'll push some more, but they were actually better than the old Verichrome I processed without pushing. The fog wasn't really bad, either.

<p>

So, can anyone tell me more about what this film is I have? Has anybody else purposely (or maybe accidently and recorded his results) cross-processed color film in B&W chemistry to get B&W images?