tom_overton

<p>I've been a fan of Jim's for some time. I love the variety of focus and contrast in his images. It's partly because of him that I find myself lurking around looking for odd bits of glass. (and appropriate gear to make them sing)</p>

I can't answer that, but I bet Jimmy Koh can. www.kohscamera.com. At worst, a new darkslide would be $20-30.

Jimmy has helped me out of a bind more than once.

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

<edit> just checked... Jimmy's SQ-Ai darkslides are $20.

Thanks for the info... I will take this under advisement. I had forgotten that the RB finder would have to take

into account the ability to rotate the back. Still, it may be a more economical alternative to KEH. (I always get

hit pretty hard with import duties to Canada from KEH.)

 

Cheers,

 

Tom

Oops... that header is supposed to read RB67...

 

Sheesh.

 

Tom

I hope this is not too stupid a question.

 

I've been looking for some time for a WLF for my Bronica GS-1, but they are rare and ridiculously expensive.

(I've even gone so far as to fashion one out of cardboard, with surprisingly good results... well, adequate,

anyway ) I have an opportunity to pick up an RB67 finder for a fraction of the cost of the Bronica. What are the

chances that this would fit or could be adapted to fit my GS-1?

 

__________________

 

Cheers,

 

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

Oh yeah... the dark slide. It's easy to forget that it's there (though the Hassy shouldn't fire with it in) and it's easy to forget where you put it when you take it out. (the voice of experience)

Hi Tim;

 

Ok, I'm not even

close to being an

expert here, and

I've never shot a

Hasselblad, but I

can offer a little

amateur advice from

my experience. I

shot something in

the neighbourhood of

60,000 digital

images before

returning to film a

few years back. My

digital experience

was good training,

but for me film is

the real thing. I

know that is

inviting argument,

but it is simply an

opinion. Every

photographer finds

the tools that

insipire them most.

 

Working with MF

cameras really

forces you to slow

down your process.

To me, that is a

positive thing; you

get to experience

your shooting

experience in a way

you don't with

smaller, faster

formats. You might

be able to get some

pretty good shots

hand-held, but I

would recommend a

sturdy tripod.

 

I haven't loaded a

Hassy, but I know

that some MF cameras

can be a little

tricky just getting

the film in the

camera. If you have

questions, make them

show you how it's

done before you

leave the store.

Improperly loaded

film is the quickest

way to a bad

shooting experince.

(that and leaving

your freshly loaded

camera on the roof

of your car when you

drive away.)

 

Secondly, compared

to your DSLR, you

will find 5omm

fairly wide. I

forget exactly what

the ratios are

between 35mm and MF,

but it seems to me

that a "normal" lens

for MF is between 80

and 100mm. (I get a

fairly good aspect

with 100mm with my

Bronica GS-1)

 

Third... if you're

not used to spot

metering, I wouldn't

recommend it for

your first MF

experience. A simple

reflective or

incident meter will

give you a good

general exposure in

the majority of

cases. Spot metering

can really help

fine-tune the

process, but it can

really frustrate you

as well.

 

For the really long

exposures required

for star trails, use

the "Time" setting

rather than bulb. (I

assume that is a

feature on a Hassy.)

Bulb uses battery

power and can be

really draining.

Time is a mechanical

function, even on

electronic shutters.

A good colour film

will give you good

results with star

trails. You will

really be able to

discern the colours

of the different

stars. (ok... now I

have to get out and

shoot some stars

again)

 

I won't try to

convince you that

film is better than

digital. It is in my

opinion, but you

really have do

decide whether it is

right for you or

not. You will hear

lots of arguments

pro and con for each

format. Try to tune

that noise out and

focus on your

shooting.

 

Enjoy!

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

Oh, yeah... let us

know how it goes.

I meter SFX at ISO 6 and have had really good results to date. I've used both TTL and hand-held metering (35mm and 120) and notice little if any difference. Of course, the 120 shows a much finer grain when enlarged, but that is to be expected. As for focusing, I try to focus about 5% closer than my subject. I don't know if this is technically correct, but as I shoot at f16-22 I'm still pretty well within the acceptable DOF.

 

Cheers,

Tom

I did see one really nice shop called Katsumido Camera in Ginza last August. Lots of nice Leica and Rolleiflex TLRs. I wasn't really looking to buy, and it is a good thing, as it seems prices were a little high. Sorry I can't be more specific than that, but I know it was more than I could imagine spending at the time.

 

Cheers,

Tom

 

Just checked... there's this thread from a couple of years back: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ESky

Thanks, Mike and Dennis. That was going to be my next step. I'm thinking that when you combine the razor-thin DOF of macro photography with the already difficult focusing of IR, you'd have to be a pretty patient photographer to get consistent results.

 

Thanks again,

Tom

I'll post this here, but it may probably be better suited to one of the other

threads.

 

I printed a bunch of contact sheets last night. (is anyone else as far behind as

I am?)

 

My first roll of Ilford SFX has some really good shots, a couple of near misses

and some "what the Hell???" Focus is generally good, but apparently SFX is not

very compatible with my Rolleinar. Makes sense... the closer you are, the more

critical the focus... IR focuses on a different focal plane, so you pretty much

have to know what you're doing. I don't.

 

I know that many SLR lenses have an IR focusing mark, but I don't know if that

is the issue here. As I said most of the shots were well focused; it's just the

couple that I did with the Rolleinar that are off. Any hints?

 

BTW, I was shooting with a Rolleinar 2, if that makes any difference.

 

Cheers,

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

http://tomoverton.images.googlepages.com

I've had pretty good service from Jimmy Koh. www.kohscamera.com. Again, they're not exactly cheap, but these days I tend to prefer service to economy. I have only dealt with him online, but I understand his shop is pretty far east of the city. (address in North Bellmore) If you're downtown, B&H is only a short walk to 9th and 34th. In my opinion, B&H is a must-see experience. Up the stairs to the Used Dept. is a much saner pace and lots of great gear... but as Bruce says, not cheap.

 

Good luck.

 

Tom

I agree with Eric. If your LEDs are lighting or flickering, your battery should be fine.

Yup, that's it. I consider it a... um... feature of Holga photography.

This happens from time to time with my Rolleiflex 3.5f For some reason, the pressure plate catches the tab and often tears it in half. Like you, it has never been serious enough to affect the roll, but I am a little baffled by it.

My basic practice with this is 30 seconds in the first minute and then three inversions every thirty seconds, tapping the bottom to dislodge any bubbles on the emulsion. Pretty basic stuff, though lately I've gone to using dilution-h for everything but the really slow films.

 

Cheers.

I am speechless. Absolutely beautiful. This camera deserves cotton glove treatment. Yes it is yours, but it belongs to future generations.

Over on... um, another forum, there is a discussion regarding Kodak Velox film from 1947. The pictures posted in that thread were remarkably clear, with little fogging. It was suggested that adding benzotriazole (anti-fog) to the developer would help clear any fogging.

 

In my own experience, using Kodachrome 25 with an expiry date of 1998, the film performed quite well. At most, I would say that this film has lost about 1/2 stop of speed. My guess is that your film is just fine.

 

Cheers,

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

Thanks, Johnny;

 

Between www.mrpinhole.com and www.pinhole.cz I have pretty much come up with the numbers I need. According to my figures, with a pinhole of .75mm, I will be working with an aperture of f373. Peanuts, I say! :)

 

I got my test ready to go before bed last night. (about 3:00 AM... don't ask) and woke to about four hours of rain this morning. By the time I moved my setup outdoors, it was about 10:30 AM. It's mostly clear, so I'll let it sit for most of the day and see what I get.

 

Thanks again,

 

 

__________________

 

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

 

When all is said and done, more is usually said than done.

Hi folks;

 

Just a quick question while I try some experiments here... Has anyone had

experience/success in combining pinhole photography with the cyanotype process?

I imagine it must work, though the exposures might be astronomically long. Given

that a contact print "new" cyanotype prints out in 2-3 minutes in full sun, how

would you calculate exposure times for pinholes? (I have calculated that for the

dimensions I am using for my experiments that the optimal pinhole for

conventional paper is ~.75mm)

 

Any tips would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

__________________

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

 

When all is said and done, more is usually said than done.

If you're not dealing with a lot of film, you can ask them to use their chemical sniffer on your film. I do this with all my high speed films. Some security personnel get annoyed with this, though. I had to practically beg some kid not to open a HIE canister in Osaka yesterday. (... or was it the day before? The 14th, whenever that was...jet lag)

 

Even with films up to 400 ASA, I have never seen fogging from airport scanners though. Maybe I'm just lucky.