kenneth_rowin

People have mentioned HC110 dilutions G and H as more dilute

alternatives to the standard dilution B. These require longer times

which would be useful as some film/temp combinations listed in the

Kodak info sheet are rather short. However Kodak only lists

dilutions A-F, and the Massive Film Developing Chart only has

dilution B. Where can I find recommended times for these dilute

alternatives?

I've never heard of film being X-rayed on arrival anywhere. Some years ago when I requested hand checking of film in Rome's International Airport I was shown the business end of an Uzi and with this still pointed at me, made to show a rather surly guard that each roll of film was indeed a roll of film. Since that time I have not requested hand checking of film, but have trusted the scanners. Thus far no problems, including a recent trip to China which involved 5 scans (2 international and 3 Chinese domestic) without any damage to 100 and 400 speed films.

Mike - 6'4" or not, people don't necessarily liked to be photographed. Having been glared at and hassled on many occasions for shooting on the street, I have learned to be polite and back off if someone is offended by my camera. We don't need any headlines in the Daily News about dead photographers.

As shooting pictures of bridges is illegal, I walked over to a cop directing traffic near the 59th St. Bridge last summer and asked him if I could take pictures of the Bridge. "Sure" he said, "you don't look like a terrorist." I'm not sure that the rest of New York's Finest will be so accomodating (nor so discerning)

I have used local water with chlorine from several locations in the northeast for 20 years without any difficulties. I generally run some test rolls with a new film and generally make up fresh buffered D-76 as listed in "The Darkroom Cookbook". I use distilled water from the local pharmacy for the final rinse with Photoflo (as it comes in the same container as does their generic "Spring Water" I am suspicious that it is really just tap water)

I started making my own developers using the "spoon" equivalents (rather than weighing everything) and find that it takes only slightly longer than mixing from powders. The individual chemicals seem to have a longer shelf life than the commercial packages that I was purchasing - so I have not been disappointed as I commonly was when I opened a new package of D-76 only to find out that it was spoiled. Other than the time I returned from a trip with 52 rolls of 120 film it really has not been a bother to mix the stuff.

What's with all the leaking tanks? I've been using the Patterson tanks for years without any leaks. But you have to remember to "burp" the tank by pushing down the center as you seal the last spot of the top. This seems to seal the top down tightly and prevents leaks.

I am starting to restore an old Kodak 5x7 that was in the window of

a photo shop that has gone out of business. As it was a south

facing window, the bellows is shot and the finish on the wood and

brass is gone.

I am in the process of ordering a new bellows. The wood needs a bit

of sanding, some stain and some clear varnish. But its the brass

that has me tearing my hair out.

1 - Some of the brass nobs appear fixed on their shafts. The ends

of the shafts appear to have been blunted to prevent the knobs from

being removed. Do I have to grind down the tips of the shafts to

remove them or is there an easier way?

2 - The flat pieces seem to do best with a bit of silver polish and

then lots and lots of Brasso and elbow grease. They are gleeming

after this treatment. But what of the knobs with their grooves and

indentations? Is there a way of dipping them to remove the

oxidation and dirt?

3 - And then there are the tiny screws. They need to be polished as

well. Any thoughts or tricks. A Dremel tool with a polishing wheel?

Thanks for any help.

Ken R.

I was there last fall and thought that Mills Lake and Fern Lake were 2 of the nicer hikes that I did. Fern Lake had fog and snow in September - I couldn't see the mountains behind the lake - but got fine shots with a lot of "atmosphere".

After 9/11 the authorities were prohibiting photography on and around

many of NYC bridges including bridges such as the Brooklyn Bridge

that have pedestrian walkways. A number of people have posted their

bad experiences in the past. Does anyone know whether this

prohibition is still in effect?

A comment on the 45mm lens. I used it extensively on a trip to Glacier N. P. and found that for most photos the view through the main viewfinder was the same as the view thru the auxillary finder for "non-critical" views. As it was a fairly good aproximation of the view I left home the auxillary finder during the second half of the trip and found that I was more than satified with the images. I like the information conveyed in the viewfinder and found that not having that in the auxillary finder was more of a loss than the slight imprecision of where the edge would be while using the main viewfinder.

The Bronica RF645 is indeed vertically oriented with full information available to the left of the image in the viewfinder. Great for portraits with either the 65mm or the 100mm lens. Because it is basically shaped like a giant 35mm camera, turning on its side to take a "landscape" is no more difficult than turning a 35mm to take a "portrait".

I have been very pleased with my RF645 with the 45mm, 65mm and 100mm lenses purchased this spring. A minor problem with the battery door cover caused me to loose my batteries & so not have a usable camera during a hike - corrected by Bronica. The 100mm lens focuses to about 4.5 feet (although the last focus mark is 6 feet) and is fine to use for head and shoulders portraits. All of the lenses are sharp and a pleasure to use.

Some may find AA's work pedestrian, but all of us have been influenced by it, the true sign of his importance to contemporary photography. Debates on whether he was the single most influencial photographer are ridiculous, as he would make any top 10 list.

Szarnarski may not like AA's big prints at this time, but he certainly did in 1979 at the MOMA show, as the giant prints are what I remember best about the show. Maybe like all of us, his tastes have changed over time, but again it would be pointless to debate whether that change is for the better or worse. Change is change.

Adams may not have liked New York, but he came East to get Steiglitz's blessing on his work. Us Easterners may not have ready access to Yosemite, but with 4 million visitors per year, you can be sure that many are from the East. Many are drawn to the parks because of AA's photographs. This too is AA's legacy, and while it may make the parks too crowded for some, viewing or communing with "Nature" is why they were established, and why AA fought for them.

So far, I am very happy with the camera and the 45mm & 65mm lenses. The viewfinder seems fine to me, even with glasses, without any problems finding or reading the very complete, non-obtrusive display. The lenses have yielded very contrasty, flare free, superb negatives - although I too would have liked slightly different focal lengths. Even the flash seems excellent, although I have only used this a bit, and look forward to experimenting with this further. In summary, I am very pleased with the camera and lenses, and look forward to the 100mm lens. Sure there are compromises here, but overall Bronica seems to have produced a great camera.

While the Bronica RF645 is not as light as a folder, is has interchangable lenses. It is smaller than most of the 645 SLRs that are available. Not much data out there, but reviews have been mostly favorable (see MF equipment reviews on Photo.net).

Well, the Bronica website (www.tamron.com) finally has the official

announcement of the 100mm lens for the RF645. However, there is no

mention of a change to the viewfinder, nor do they say what they plan

to do for those who own the camera (perhaps with the 135mm from

Europe) in terms of the finder. Any plans for a RF645II? Any other

information out there?

I recently gave a friend a "vintage" print of the Manhattan skyline with the Twin Towers that I took in 1979. Several requests for prints came in based on this one photo. It took me less than 2 minutes to locate the negative which I was able to use and to make matching prints. Yet I can't read 5 1/2 floppies from 8 years ago because that format is obsolete. NASA had to get some tape readers from a museum to look at data that it stored away in the 1970's. The same will happen to all of the digital files that people have. The pro shooting a catalog on digital doesn't care because once the catalog is done, it's rarely needed. How many requests does the bride make for a 11x14 print 10 years later? Yet, if I print for an exhibit, I often need old stuff. Therefore I'll stick with film for now, at least until they don't make variable contrast paper anymore.

No experience with the camera, but I received an e-mail from a Bronica spokesperson who said that a 100mm lens should be available this spring (2002).

I flew from Newark to Salt Lake City and back in late October with lots of Tmax100 and FP4. As 2 hours was barely enough time (we finally got to the security gate 1h 45m after arriving at the terminal) I put the bag through the X-ray machine. I didn't feel like wasting time arguing with guys that were holding M-16's. Almost all the film has now been developed and thus far I have seen no fogging. Even so, next time I'm going to FedEx the film.

There seems to be tremendous interest in this camera, with many people holding off on making a purchase (myself included) because of the problems with the lens. It seems rather odd. No matter what changes are made to the lens, the base length of the rangefinder remains the same with the same focus problems for any lens of that focal length. Yet we keep hearing about mechanical problems of the lens itself, which seems even stranger in view of Bronica and Tamron's long experience as lens manufacturers.

 

Some say that the design of lenses for rangefinders is simpler than for SLR's as you don't have to worry about the rear elements getting in the way of the mirror. Some say that there are "special" needs for rangefinder lenses which are more complex than for SLR's. If we look at the recent multitude of fine lenses brought out under the Voightlander name for their Bessa R & L cameras, it would seem to be a less complex task to bring out rangefinder lenses (at least for 35mm.

The camera with lens is heavy, but usable. I've hiked quite a bit with mine in several National Parks and never thought of leaving it behind, even after eight to ten miles on the trail. The results are worth it, compared to 35mm.

But, there are some limitations: the 55mm lens has a lot of flare, and I've not been able to locate the proper lens hood for it, you have to carry a separate depth of field table (which is never available when you need it) and using the focus numbers on the side of the camera for depth of field settings is vague at best. My wife has never gotten used to the left-right reversal of the viewfinder and has trouble holding it steady (but she is only an occational user of the camera).

They seem to be having problems with the 135mm lens for the Bronica

RF645. The lens has been eliminated from the most recent ad in

Shutterbug. This seems rather strange. Why should this lens be so

difficult to produce? Or is the problem with the rangefinder

linkage? Any information? Will they be bringing out a similar lens

(150mm?) in the future?

I have a related question concerning the camera. The reviews I've seen and the one comment from someone who actually used the camera, all involved a few rolls of film. Is it rugged enough to use on a daily basis? I'm concerned about all of the buttons and controls on the back (rather than on the top of the camera)- if used day in, day out on a long trip will they break? Any experience with more than one days handling of this camera?

For sunny days, I use a moderate speed film - Tmax100, Delta100 or FP4+. On cloudy days the 400 speed films will help you hand hold steadily. For a moonlight shot, the moderate speed films with a tripod are fine. I've been using Xtol 1:3 with good results.

 

One point, a lot of in camera meters will be fooled by a scene that is mostly white and will lead to underexposed negatives. An incident light meter, a grey card with the in-camera meter, or even the "sunny f/16 rule" would probably serve you better.

Is there any information available on pricing or availability? In the recent issue of Shutterbug they basically digest the Tamron/Bronica press release (see Tamron.com) without giving any new details.