jeff glass

<p>Well, I'm not completely new here, but I rarely visit and I've decided to change that. I'm an amateur, for sure, but completely passionate and obsessed with photography for the last five to seven years. This happened to me late in life, this obssession, and I'm not sure how, because I've always been a word guy. <br>

Now, though, I'm an image guy.<br>

I shoot film about 95% of the time, primarly 120 and 135 and my interest is in art photography and the miraculous in the mundane. I decided to visit photo.net more often because I need more help with scanning my film.<br>

I live in Austin, Texas.<br>

I have a phlog, called "Glasseye" that is fairly new. But I recently posted a new installment of a regular feature I call Name That Film: <a href="http://www.jeffglassphoto.com/phlog/">www.jeffglassphoto.com/phlog/</a><br>

Check it out and guess the film from which my homemade image was taken. <br>

Thanks, and I look forward to getting a butt load of help from you guys.<br>

Jeff Glass<br>

<a href="http://www.jeffglassphoto.com">www.jeffglassphoto.com</a><br>

<a href="http://www.jeffglassphoto.com/phlog/">www.jeffglassphoto.com/phlog/</a></p>

 

<p>An honest seller tells me his lens (90mm tele elmarit 2.8) has appearance of oil on the aperture blades but says this is irrelevant bcs. "the aperture is not spring loaded" on a rangefinder.<br>

What does this mean and is he correct? If the price is right is there any reason to avoid such a lens? <br>

He says there may be a slight haze on an inner element also, seen thru a lupe. Should I stay away from this even if it's a bargain price? <br>

Anyone have an idea how difficult/expensive it is to have one of these cleaned internally?</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Jeff Glass<br>

<a href="http://www.jeffglassphoto.com">Website</a><br>

<a href="http://www.jeffglassphoto.com/phlog/">Phlog</a></p>

<p>Has anyone used one of these sites or any other to create a web site? <br /><br />I'm interested in seeing examples if so.<br /><br />I'm in a free trial period on two of them and am finding it a challenge to make the site look the way I want it to.<br /><br />Any other recommendations for sites that give easy tools for creating the site, as well as hosting?<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />Jeff</p>

<p>Rick says:<br>

Well my 2 cents say all this talk about what is superior or not could better have been spent on taking photographs. Use what you feel comfortable with and what gives you the quality that is acceptable to you.<br>

This is true to some extent. BUT one thing that is lurking in the (underexposed) shadows of this discussion is the fact that maybe in 10 years, maybe sooner, maybe later, those of us who love film (color neg's convenience and ease and computerlessness, and b&w neg's darkroom wonders and computerlessness and Kodachrome -- say no more!) MAY NOT BE ABLE to use what we love because it may be gone. <br>

And we all know that part of the reason for that will be that many folks, even casual snapshooters, have been duped about the ease and cheapness of digital. THAT is one very good reason to push back against the untrue digital propaganda (not the truth that for many, digital is best) and to support film with our money and enthusiasm. <br>

If, of course, anyone is still reading this thread :).<br>

Jeff Glass </p>

Thanks much, Dave and Lummi, I'm glad I don't have to send it back, I love these big negs.

Well, no lens hood was used and, as you can see from the photo of a few frames, it's not a vignette. Thanks anyway.

Well, this is strange, but perhaps it's normal.

 

Each frame taken by my newly acquired Bronica SqAi is tapered, for lack of a better word. ( I was going to attach a photo but seem to be unable to do

so. Did this change recently?) The top and bottom sides of the frame are straight and normal, but the two vertical sides have a tiny outward curve at

the very corner to meet the horizontal sides. Weird.

 

Is this normal or is there an issue here?

 

I'll try to post a photo when I figure that out.

 

I searched this forum and APUG and googled but found nothing. Sorry if this is duh-mb.

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff Glass<div></div>

Thanks for the responses.

 

Chris: well, it turns out that 10% is almost exactly 1 minute so I'll try that.

 

Michael: I'm using Tri-X 400, 135.

Assuming I've done all film speed and maximum black print time tests correctly

 

Then, a Development time test, where I print a Zone VIII negative shot at proper speed, exposed in

enlarger for proper time, half of the print covered at exposure.

 

Result: no density visible on Zone VIII side compared to unexposed fixed-out paper white.

 

Assuming the conclusion is I need to shorten development (that is correct, right?) how much

should I adjust devlpt time down for the first re-try?

 

the guide I'm using says 1 minute, but shouldn't it be a percentage of your total development time

(which is 9:45 in D-76 1:1 at 68)?

 

Should I adjust down 20%? 10% 30%???

 

thanks for any help.

 

Jeff Glass

Marc Rochkind:

 

Have you personally used scancafe? All good?

Jim Horton: How was your experience with ScanCafe?

 

jeff Glass

Thanks for the pointers and the measurements richard and Mark.

 

Looks like this cap is a Bay II/2.

 

JG

I bought a Rollei TLR mirror lens cap that is not Bay I size, the size I need. I want to figure out what

size this one is so I can get it to someone who can use it.

 

Can anyone tell me how to figure out the size of this lens cap. It is official Rollei/F&H but has no other

markings on it.

 

Thanks

 

Jeff Glass

wow, what the heck is that in that lens, is that a chip out of the front element?

 

This has been very informative for me. Would you guys say that there is really a

consensus on this? Sounds like there has to be some pretty devastating damage to affect

images.

 

The steel wool scrubbed front coating on a lens I bought on ebay is what got me started

on this. I sent that one back (along with the Rolleicord it was attached to) and got another

with the aforementioned minor rub marks. The negatives I processed today seem to

confirm that it has no effect on images.

 

Thanks for the comments. Anyone else?

 

Jeff Glass

I'm interested in getting opinions on whether some (maybe 6 to 10) small fine scratches/or cleaning

marks on an older Rolleicord V lens will affect image quality.

 

The marks are not visible unless you look through the lens with a bright light shining through its wide

open aperture. Again, they are fine and fairly small.

 

I have not noticed anything in my negs, but I don't have a clean Rolleicord V to compare it with.

 

I suspect there will be little impact but am interested in hearing from more experienced MF

photographers.

 

Thanks for advice.

 

Jeff Glass

By the way the sample image above simply does not do justice to the sorry state this lens

was in. I can't believe a lens with that much "fuzz" could produce sharpness and contrast

up to its potential.

Interesting discussion and thanks for the advice. I am now just looking at Rolleicords at a

dealer. A bit more than the big ebay "bargains" but more reliable, with warranty etc. I

think I'll be saving ebay for special situations or items that are not over 40 years old.

I recently received a Rolleiflex 3.5 T, which I bought on eBay for a reasonable

price, allegedly in "very good" condition. However, on examination the taking

lens was covered with fine scratches, a couple of larger scratches, and a

veritable snow storm of fine pricks in the coating or something similar.

(Fungus?). The person I bought it from was good enough to accept a return and

refund my money.

 

My question is: is this simply the kind of condition I should expect from a 50-

year-old camera? A couple of photos of the lens are attached. I am not

familiar with this camera format and am unsure whether this particular lens

would have delivered acceptable results. I assumed not and asked for a refund

which the seller was kind enough to accept.

 

Any comments? I need to decide whether to continue to shop for TLR's on eBay

or look for alternatives elsewhere. Are there any other places where Rolleis

are available for reasonable prices?

 

(I know it is buyer beware on eBay but, ironically, both attached photos were

taken with a Nikon telephoto lens that I bought on eBay that was an excellent

condition as advertised.)

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff Glass<div></div>

I recently bought a Rolleiflex 3.5 T with a prism finder. Do you guys know if a waist level viewfinder is

available for this model? I'm searching but having some problems finding one. Serial # of camera is

2116872.

 

There's one at Adorama, but I'm not sure how to determine if it's compatible:

 

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20272519.html?searchinfo=rolleiflex&item_no=1

 

They're closed today.

 

I assumed when I bought it (it's not here yet) that the viewfinders were interchangeable. Was I correct?

 

Thanks for any advice. I want to try both finders and make up my mind about which I prefer.

Wei who:

 

How exactly did you clean white stuff out? (this is all I have seen in my F100).

 

If I send it in for repair, do you guys recommend sending it to Nikon only? I have a qualified repair shop in here in Austin, precision camera.

 

Thanks

Jeez, you guys are scarin' me! I, of course, tossed the bad battery and have no proof it was an Energizer, although it was.

 

Thanks for the responses.

 

Have you guys ever had this problem yourselves?

 

Jeff

An alkaline battery in my F100 appears to have exploded/ The camera seems to work fine, but when I

replaced the alkalines with lithiums and opened it up last night (to replace the battery carrier) there was

more white powdery corrosion in the battery compartment. The lithium batteries were, however, clean.

 

How do I clean this up inside the compartment without hurting the camera?

 

Is there a danger of this corrosion causing serious damage?

 

Thanks,

 

Jeff Glass

Thanks, Ed

Hey, thanks for the analysis and answers. Very helpful.

 

I'm sticking with flare for the time being: although I have no idea what the right angle shading could have been. I was using an older 20mm f/2.8D, which is certainly susceptible to flare.

 

Is there an efficient definitive way to test a camera for light leaks? This is an older F100 that I bought used and have not had CLA'd.

 

I AM glad to be reassured it's not a development issue.

 

Thanks again.

I did process them. In a Paterson 2 reel tank which I loaded in a changing bag. This only

appears on 4 frames where the flare is very severe, all other frames do not show this

artifact. If it were a light leak, seems like it would not be limited to 4 frames in a row

(frame numbers 5-8 on the roll) not at the very beginning.

 

A camera leak also seems unlikely based on this doesn't it?

 

Thanks for your response. What do you think?<div></div>