daniel_jansen

<p>That is what i'm trying to find out; what are the specs for the qf30? I found a retailer that listed the wk120hd flash tube as an equivalent to the qf30 and ordered one. The flash, which I just aqquired without a tube, is working in every other respect and thinks it has tripped when you push the test button but puts out no light.<br /> I have no info on minimum watts or volts for the tube I purchased.</p>

<p>The t2 is rated at 150ws.</p>

<p>Can anyone tell me how many watts the QF30 replacement tube is rated for? I have tried a 400ws tube and it will not fire. Is there cause to believe the flash head is the problem or do I definitely need different tube?</p>

<p>At : Jay Davidson<br /> The response to your question about depth of field is wrong. The D.O.F scales are not affected by sensor size. A given lens has the same depth of field regardless of which camera or sensor it is mounted in front of. The issue with D.O.F arises from the fact that wide angle lenses have a greater depth of field than telephoto lenses and, smaller sensors require a wider lens to achieve equivalent angles of view.</p>

<p>Good guess considering that you can't see that the other end is closed. Found this in the shop where I work and nobody seemed to know where it came from or what it was. Today I found in the same vicinity, a quality control inspection certificate for a "DI illuminator" manufactured by Zenit. So it is probably an infrared light for cheapo night-vision. Can anyone think of a good use for this? super long range tv remote?</p>

<p><a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v65/jdhogg/temp/?action=view&current=Photo2.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/jdhogg/temp/Photo2.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a> <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v65/jdhogg/temp/?action=view&current=Photo3.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v65/jdhogg/temp/Photo3.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" /> </a><br>

Picky picky.</p>

<p><img src="https://photos-1.dropbox.com/i/o/m2shN65GabDeoeQI7UyxogiY8W9JmkmCV6mtrB9ap1U" alt="" /> <img src="https://photos-1.dropbox.com/i/o/VSLfB7alNRwojScu7SWCJGb5STUVb4vMMbAFGYA1AvM" alt="" /></p>

<p>Sorry about the crappy pictures. This thing appears to fit a hot shoe but when mounted on a camera the center contact does not always fit the center contact on all cameras, the shoe is too long. There is a lens in the open end that screws in and out for focus perhaps, but does not unscrew completely. behind the lens is what appears to be a jumbo LED. I cannot find any way to open it except for unscrewing the shoe base which reveals a single wire from the center pin into the device.</p>

 

Thank you very much for the help

I have a roll of film that is said to have been fogged before processing but also appears to have been under

processed as fixing and bleaching brought some transparency to an otherwise opaque film. I did a short bath of

both but decided to halt when I noticed the images were positives in some areas of the strip.

 

Any advice? Can I over- bleach or fix?

So it is a relatively recent feature?

It's hard enough to find good info on current digital backs, but near impossible for the discontinued ones. Can

someone inform me as to whether any digital backs have a "live view" feature when tethered?

I dunno, I was shooting inside an abandoned boiler house with some shots including an open door to the outside. I exposed for 200 and I have lots of detail in the shadows and in the highlights. I could feasibly expose for either outdoors or the shadows indoors. I'll give 100 a try though.

 

Anyway, regardless of diafine's faults, the issue was probably with the either the water content preventing absorption of solution A into the emulsion or trace amounts of solution B preventing development beyond the surface of the emulsion.

You are right about pushing, in this case I have four other negs from the same location that were processed with diafine which came out great. The film I used is Arista 100, and even with the high silver content emulsion that diafine is said to work best with, I only use a one stop push. (need a scanner so I can share)

After enlargement it appears that the negatives are somewhat under-developed. If I were to do it again I would try a longer time in the A solution, perhaps 30 minutes to an hour followed by the normal 3 minutes in B.

Need more information.

 

Is your light meter inaccurate, broken, or do you suspect that this particular lighting situation might confuse it?

 

What is your model's complection?

For future reference: I washed / soaked two sheets in four changes for a total of 1 and 1/2 hours.

Results: They are fine! Although since I'm using a unicolor drum (manually) all of the washing caused one of the sheets to pop out of the tracks and sit edge to edge on the other sheet and was not fully submerged through part or all of the process. That one has streaks, but the other came out as expected.

Thanks Mr. Dressler, that is a relief. So there should not be enough B left to spoil the A?

One thing I am curious about is, if I should try stand developing in A or the normal process. I also am thinking that I might have to dump the A afterwards.

Despite the fact that I have A and B scrawled all over the bottles, I managed to

put solution B in first. I am currently trying to wash out the B with a few long

soakings. Any advice?

I decided to order a 150mm Fuji lens from KEH. I got the ysarex with a broken camera attached for $20, it has decent coverage by my estimation but I have not tested it with film, so investing $100 would be risky. I need this , my first large format camera, ready for photography class soon.

 

In regards to cleaning solvent, I could not find the blade wash that was recommended by Dean and I opted for non-chlorinated brake cleaner. I do not recommend this for this application because it does not allow soaking and appears to leave residue upon the shutter and aperture blades.

 

Upon further drying it seems that the shutter's behavior is significantly different. Now the blades often open when cocking and the resistance of the cocking spring is either very strong or very weak. I suspect that, when stiff, the cocking lever is moving the timing. Oh well, now that I'm not afraid of breaking it, I get to learn how this thing works.

Thanks for the help guys. I see now that my money would be better invested in a more appropriate lens. For the sake of clarity, would this lens need to be shimmed if used in another model of shutter or can you simply screw them all the way in as with the original?

I have an old lens from a polaroid with the prontor SVS. with the help of Noah

and Dean, and also through other posts (which I should have found first), I was

able to disassemble it and attempt to clean it. Well, despite washing out a lot

of dirt and grease, it still hangs in the open position. So my question is

this; is it possible to mount this in another shutter without modifications? How

standard are these designs?

 

I should mention that I will be using tis on a monorail so larger controls and a

preview lever would be ideal, but I'll take what I can get (cheap).

O.k. I got the front ring off with a rubber stopper and the front element out. There is one more lens or pair of lenses to go. I'm unsure of what to do next, I don't want to do any damage. Do I use a spanner on the two holes that are were under the front ring?

 

Thanks again for the help.

Good ideas! I am definitely going to play around with the mat board idea. I have a continuously replenished supply of small scraps under my school's mat cutter.