bernard_lazareff

<p>Now for the back side. I have annotated potentially relevant elements:</p> <ol> <li>Leafsprings, one pair along each of the long sides;</li> <li>Protrusions from the wall, one pair on each of the long sides;</li> <li>Cylindrical rivet heads(?), one pair on each of the short sides;</li> <li>Dual piano wire springs, one on each of the short sides.</li> </ol> <p>What parts play a role, and which role, in holding the GG, with the image plane at the right place? Thank you in advance for relevant information.</p><div></div>

<p>I have this Exa I hopefully to be put up for sale at a local charity. But the waist-level viewfinder appears to be missing the ground glass. Procuring the missing part is not economically viable. But I have some more recent reflex cameras, some beyond repair, from which I might steal a fresnel/groundglass. Or I could cut a piece of plain ground glass, but the luminosity might be poor. Either way it will not be historically correct.<br> I have two closely related questions to the knowledgeable persons (hmm who could that be?) on this forum:</p> <ul> <li>how is the fixation of the GG arranged in that Exa I v/f?</li> <li>how is the GG image plane mechanically defined?</li> </ul> <p>I attach two pictures: one from the top side to help identify the model, the other from the back side. </p> <div></div>

<p>Keep in mind the distinction between:</p> <ol> <li>Market, or resale value;</li> <li>Usage (or sentimental, or whatever) value to owner</li> </ol> <p>That (2) has been significantly larger than (1) for most film cameras since ~10 years has been a blessing for many of us; do not forget that same difference when comes the time to do some minor maintenance to restore (2). </p>

<p>Nice to have undertaken those tests. But...<br> If you want to decide whether there are (small) differences between various combinations, and which differences, you MUST:</p> <ol> <li>Use the <em><strong>same scene</strong></em> for all combinations</li> <li>Ask the opinion of "naive" observers that <em><strong>do not know which is which</strong></em> when they evaluate the qualities of the prints (sharpness, grain, whatever)</li> </ol> <p> </p>

<p>I recommend as last stage Photo-Flo (at recommended dilution) prepared with water known to be free from particles, be that filtered water, or distilled water, or whatever is safe in that respect. If your water is hard filtering is not an option (drying marks); use distilled water for last step. The tensio-active action of Photo-flo allows you NOT to wipe the film. First hold the film almost horizontal for a minute or so, before hanging it. That way, and with Photo-flo helping the free flow of water, any remaining particles (should'nt be if the water was clean) will collect at the edge. And should any particle remain:<br> One residual speck of grit on film = one spot on image. Same speck + wiping = one scratch on image. Take your choice. </p>

<blockquote> <p>Says who?</p> </blockquote> <blockquote> <p>If you don't think what I have suggested works, you are blind.</p> </blockquote> <p>You could have made better use of the bandwidth by stating what were for the pictures (and yes they both look sharp) you link to:</p> <ul> <li>negative size</li> <li>dpi (at negative) of files as shown</li> </ul> <p> Just to be clear, I also feel the V700 is too often dismissed just because it is a flatbed. But I prefer to argue on a factual basis than to throw around implications re: the disabilities of other party. </p>

<p>@ peter carter: not sure that you gain from scanning at 6400dpi; the V700's optical resolution is about 2500dpi, and scanning at 3200dpi extracts all the available information; that is based on my personal slant-edge MTF tests. Furterhmore, scanning at 6400 increases scan time and file size considerably. Especially if saving in raw tiff in order to profile outside the scanner software.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Does the scanner change it's focal point between scanning film where it is raised with the holder vs. a print where it sits on the glass?</p> </blockquote> <p>The V700 has different focus points (different lenses, actually) when scanning the full format of the glass plate (against the glass) or smaller formats (4x5", 120, 135) in a holder, a few mm above the glass, as determined by the holder. That is for the V700. Other models I don't own, won't say. </p> <blockquote> <p>If so, how would a machinist scale help as described above to determine optimum focal point?</p> </blockquote> <p>Imagine the "0" of the machinist scale is resting on the glass and a 5-mm block lifts the end of the scale at the 200mm mark. Scan this objet, making sure the scanner (if a V700/800) is in the "film holder" configuration. See which scale marking is sharpest, or center of sharp zone. Apply proportion: e.g. if the middle at "100mm" is sharpest, optimum focus is at (100/200)*5=2.5mm from glass. </p>

<p>Ray,a few pieces of advice from my experience with my V700.<br> The focus adjust needs to be done just once. Edward Ingold's suggestion of using a slanting machinist scale looks good. Alternate methods I've used: maximize jpeg file size when repeatedly scanning same small crop area; use slant edge MTF.<br> Once the focus is right, you need sharpening to get the most out of your V700. That is not "cheating", there is information present at spatial freqs where the MTF has started to drop. Specifically, I found that scanning at 3200dpi, USM parameters radius 1.0, 100% are close to optimum (and easy to remember!). 3200 dpi is probably overkill for MF; scan @ 3200, USM, then downsample to 1600 (or 2400, or whatever). Scanning directly at 1600dpi carries the risk of grain aliasing. <br> I bought the betterscanning holder, do not regret that purchase. Bought at framing store some lightly frosted glass (a.k.a. anti-glare glass), cut to size to use in the betterscanning holder as AN glass. I scan with emulsion down, apply mirror in scanning soft. <br> Good luck</p>

<blockquote> <p>I'll confer with the advice to get the best quality USB cable.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1. I once had recurring crashes of Vuescan+V700. Ed Hamrick blamed the USB cable. Half-convinced, I bought a good (HP) cable, which eliminated the problem. </p>

<p>JayDann,<br> Glad I could help. Concerning the "convergence of parallel lines", leveling the camera might lead to include in the frame elements you don't need, and excluding some you would like to have. Maybe you could use the poor man's front rise, in a hybrid workflow. I have used for that purpose a panorama stitching software... applied to just one picture. Import the picture, then re-define the projection, or the position of the horizon. In effect a re-projection from one film plane to another.<br> I used for this PTGui; possibly the free clone Hugin also works for this. Some image editing software propose a tool to "straighten verticals" but when I tried, it was not geometrically correct, as the correct transform also includes a non-uniform vertical stretch/shrink. Possibly the current PS is better in that respect. This should probably be limited to mild corrections, otherwise the loss of resolution in stretched parts will be inacceptable.</p>

<p>Rick,<br> Thank you for this informative post and for the pictures, nice as usual. How would you compare this camera with, say, a Vito B? </p>

<p>I use a GS645W. No issues with the meter (inside the v/f), including slide film. As concerns distortion, I take it that you mean curvature, as convergence of parallel lines is inherent in the projection to the film plane. I have not noticed any distortion. The viewfinder does have strong barrel distortion, consider it just as an aid for framing. But the picture itself looks to me reasonably rectilinear. You can judge for yourself from these:<br /> https://www.dropbox.com/s/5auxutrnvnyl3oj/03-2013-Chili2-05-1MW.jpg?dl=0<br />https://www.dropbox.com/s/mea2lllzjo8tn1c/09-2013-Chili3-06-1MW.jpg?dl=0<br /> the first one being "old colonial building", sort of. <br /> Good luck.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The "Shut off Display" switch is turned on.<br /> Page 53 of instruction manual - "<strong>Cancelling the Viewfinder Display</strong>".</p> </blockquote> <p>@ Gus Lazzari: Thank you for responding; But I cannot find the manual that you are quoting. I found:<br /> http://www.canonfd.org/manuals/ae-1program.pdf<br /> the best reproduction quality among several otherwise identical copies available on the Web. On page 36 (that is the pdf numbering; the original page numbering does not appear), I see (attached image)<br /> Meaning that, besides half-pressing the shutter release, there is an <em>alternate</em> way to <em>display</em> the v/f info. But (a) the v/f info should appear anyway when half-pressing the shutter release (which it does not); (b) I coud see no mention of a "Shut off Display" switch. Seems we are not reading the same manual. Could it be that you are referring to the Canon <strong>A-1</strong> that <em>does</em> have such a switch? <br /> Anyway, coming Tuesday, I'll have the opprotunity to take a second look at the camera having the manual at hand, and double-check</p><div></div>

<p>@ Stephen Lewis. Will try to check. Checking exposure in Program or shutter priority mode is an interesting challenge.<br> @ Ed Kubacki, Rick Janes. Other than exposure display, v/f works OK.</p>

<p>Canon AE-1 Program to be sold at local charity. I have put new battery. Shutter works, but no display in viewfinder. As it stands, I have to put it up for sale as "manual only".<br> Is this a Known Issue?<br> Advice welcome. Thank you.</p>

<p>Well made images, congratulations.<br> Plus, even though my reason tells me the on-screen resolution does not allow such a statement, my eyes tell me theat your images look sharp. Difficult to explain. </p>

<p>Nice pictures as usual, Rick. Some time ago I posted on this same forum a question about the odd filter interface for the pro-tessars, and received useful information (thank you all!). So I now have a Super-B, 35/3.2 and 85/4 pro-tessars, yellow and green-yellow S60 filters. And i since then realized that the Super-Ikonta 531 uses the same trick of a male thread disguised as a knurled ring.<br> Your post gives me a motivation to take my Contaflex out of the closet (no shelf queens here).</p>

<blockquote> <p>There are a lot of good ideas here, but I think an effective way to troubleshoot would be to run a roll halfway through the camera (taking photos) then rewind.</p> </blockquote> <p>+1. More economical than using two rolls. <br> DO NOT use a squeegee. Final photo-flo in de-ionized water. Unload from spiral (make sure your hands are clean); hold diagonally for ~30s so that water collects near edge, then hang in dust-free (and draft-free) place. </p>

<p>http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63614<br> http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97798</p>

<p>Supposedly you shoot MF for improved (over 35mm) image resolution. So, either:</p> <ol> <li>You use a film like PanF, because of expected low grain and high resolution. If you aim for better sharpness (or whatever, we're not discussing semantics) than 35mm, the rule governing hand-held shutter speed should be <em>more</em> stringent than for 35mm. This practically dictates the use of a tripod.</li> <li>You don't want to be bothered by a tripod. Then use a 400 iso film. You won't lose on grain, because it's invisible up to at least 8x10" prints. And you will gain on blur at 1/100 handheld. And you will gain on tonal range, especially useful for outdoors sunny pictures. </li> </ol>

<p>Larry, stunning picture you show. Can you please give some technical information besides the Nikon F "light tight box"? Lens? Film? Development?<br> Thank you. </p>

<p>@ <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2085864">Frank P.</a> Thank you for sharing this information. I currently operate an LS-2000 under Win7-32; and have 11 months left to decide for the free Win10 upgrade.</p> <blockquote> <p>SCSI isn't a problem with any windows as long as you have the adapter for your computer.</p> </blockquote> <p>... including the driver for that adapter. Which is why I stay with 32-bit windows so I can use my Tekram 315 adapter. Unless somehone here can indicate me an SCSI adapter that is affordable, available, and has a 64-bit driver that works with Win10. </p>

<blockquote> <p>If you really want to get serious about the "classic" cameras of old, might I suggest trying Ebay seller Certo6.</p> </blockquote> <p>Opinions vary concerning that seller. Make sure you do your homework (google) before making your decision. </p>

<p>Thank you Marc. Entertaining <em>and</em> interesting. I won't, however, start to build my own underwater housing.</p>