nathancraver

When I was in the Navy, I had to perform a few emergency reclaimations (EREC) where aircraft avionics components had

been soaked in sea water, which is obviously much worse than river water. The first thing you do is immerse the

component in deionized water and flush several times to get contaminants out. After the flushing with water, the next

step is to soak the unit in 90% pure isopropyl alcohol. The alcohol will help get any remaining water out. After about a

few days of drying, we would reinstall the component and op check it. The alcohol shouldn't affect the seals or any glue

in the camera, but you may want to ask a camera repair person or the manufacturer first.

I have only owned one of the higher end epson printers, and I sold it due to the fact that it didn't get used very much since

I often needed prints larger than the printer was capable of, so the head did clog a few times. Since then, I have had all

of my printing done locally.

 

Just a thought though, wouldn't it help to keep the heads clean if you just made a small print, maybe a 4x5" that uses

each of the inks once every few days? I would think that would keep fresh ink in the nozzles and not use very much ink

at all, I would presume much less than a head cleaning session. I know that storage is a different story, but for periodic

use, this might help.

That's a good idea using a laser. What would be really nice is to make a laser that mounts to the flash shoe and has a

remote (wired) button that is pressed to turn the laser on and off. The button could be stuck to the front of the camera, or

the top using a double sided adhesive. Maybe something like a tactical laser used on rifles, but with a hot shoe mount instead of a picatinny rail mount. Many of those come with a remote switch. I'm going to have to research this further.

 

One thing that I do is to not directly focus with the image in the patch, but to use the top or bottom edge of the patch and

align the image in the patch with what's above or below the patch. My new Zeiss Ikon's patch is so bright that sometimes

it's hard to see the normal image, so this method helps a lot. It's pretty much the same method as using a split image

screen on an SLR. Obviously this only really works with a camera that has a well defined patch, it won't work on a Canonet or Olympus.

My favorite combination is T-Max 400 shot at 200 and developed with HC-110 dilution H (1 part developer to 63 parts

water). I get great tonality and its also great for handheld photography, especially if you shoot a camera that has a top

shutter speed of 1/1000 (Leicas, Pentax medium format, Mamiya 645 etc.). I also like Tri-X 400 in HC-110 and in Rodinal.

HC-110 is probably the most versatile developer out there and it lasts forever as a concentrate, which is great if you don't

develop very often. D76 is great, but it will go bad over time unless you use it all up, though I have had bottles of stock

solution last for about 6 months in a glass bottle with any air space filled with the gas from a duster can. Rodinal also

lasts a very long time as a concentrate. The only thing about Rodinal is it isn't exactly suited for all films and can

accentuate grain, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do like Rodinal with FP4 and Tri-X, but have never been able to

get good results with HP5.

I like Rodinal a lot with Tri-X 400 shot at 200, but when I shoot it at 400 or higher, I use HC-110, mainly because I haven't

bothered to try Rodinal at higher ISOs yet. I also use Rodinal with FP4 for 4x5 sheet film (shot at 100). The last batch of

sheets I developed, I mistakenly had some TMax 100 mixed in with the FP4 and they turned out great, though the TMax

could have used another 30 to 45 seconds to boost contrast, but they print just fine. I tried semi-stand development (1

hour with two inversions at the half hour mark) with the FP4 once in Rodinal diluted to 1+100, but they ended up way

overdeveloped. Good thing they were just BS test shots. Next time, I'll try stand development with HC-110.

I have a Hasselblad 2000FC/M and a few CF lenses which I took out today. I realized after about 8 shots on the first roll that I had the

body set to Bulb instead of C while the lens was set to leaf shutter speeds. I tripped the mirror up-lock for most of the shots, then held the

release down long enough to complete the exposures, all of which were 1/60 or faster. I have a few days before I can get back home and

develop the film. I am wondering if the shots would have been wasted or not, since I will have the opportunity to go back and re-shoot for

the next few days.

 

Thank you,

Nathan

I haven't shot TMAX 400 in 4x5, but I shoot quite a bit of it in 35mm and 120, as well as TMAX 100 in 4x5. I started off with D-76, then

TMAX, and now use HC-110 for pretty much everything except Tri-X, which I use Rodinal. HC-110 has become my favorite developer for

several reasons, one of which is the incredible shelf life. I always use dilution H (1+63) and have always loved the results. I also like the

way TMAX 400 looks when shot at ASA 200, better shadow detail, slightly less grain.

This is definitely a light leak since the areas beyond the frame are exposed. If it's a light leak in the camera, it will likely

either be at the very top or very bottom of the film door, probably from either bad seals or the door not being closed all the

way. The only way I can think of checking for a light leak inside the camera would be to place a small battery powered

light inside the camera, close it up, and take into a dark room and look all over the camera for light leaking out. The only

thing is, since 120 film has a paper backing, it would be hard for there to be even streaks across the film. I don't have a

Rollei, but my Yashica Mat is similar, and after looking at it, I'm not sure now. I could see this possibly happening with

220 where there is no paper backing, but with 120, this is odd. Is it possible the tank has a light leak?

I have a C330F with 80mm S lens that needs CLA. Any recommendations for good service, possibly in the southeastern U.S. (I live in

Georgia)? The higher shutter speeds are off. I tested them and this is what I get: 1/500 = 210, 1/250 = 180, 1/125 = 110. If I can get the

1/500 back up into the high 1/300 or 1/400 range, I think I'll be good to go.

Did you try mounting the back to the camera and see if you can put the dark slide back in?

The 645 Pro TL is a great camera. I'm not sure what your photographic background is, but learning how to properly

meter is critical with film, if for no other reason than to prevent bracketing everything and wasting precious film. I never

use auto exposure with film. Learning the Zone Sytem is definitely a must. The super quick and easy way for general

outdoor photography for metering is to half squeeze the shutter release while pointing at the grass, or a fairly pale street

(not newly paved dark asphalt). The meter will start flashing a number, or two numbers. If its flashing one number, say

250, then turn the shutter speed dial to 250 and shoot all day until the lighting changes (you move from shooting in

sunlight to shooting in shadows). If your subject is in sunlight, meter off grass or street in the sunlight, if your subject is in

the shade, meter off grass or street in the shade.

 

If the meter is flashing two numbers, say 125 and 250, that means the desired speed is between those two. Select the

higher speed, 250, if there is mostly sunlit areas in the shot, select 125 if there are a lot of shadows in the shot. I do this

quite a bit (with the metering mode set to S for spot metering), but there are many situations where this method doesn't

work because the lighting is too tricky. This is again a good reason to learn the Zone System. If you are serious about

shooting film, let alone medium format, really learning manual exposure will not only teach you a lot, but will help you

make the most of it.

 

One thing I would recommend would be practicing this method a lot with a digital camera, set to spot metering, and

manual exposure mode. The Mamiya's meter is very accurate, but the real benefit is to learning the method, and digital

makes that super easy because you get instant feedback. It will become second nature if you practice enough.

Many people in Japan speak enough English to get around, but it is definitely worthwhile to learn some essential

Japanese. When I first arrived in Japan, a few friends and myself got lost in the train system and didn't know how to get

back to base. An older Japanese gentleman saw us studying the train map and could tell we were lost. He asked us

where we were trying to go, we tol him the base's closest station. He rode with us through all the train changes to our

final stop. When we offered to reimburse him for the train tickets, he kindly refused. That's what kind of people live in

that wonderful country.

They definitely need to check out Kamakura and Kyoto, two very historic and beautiful cities loaded with temples, shrines,

sword shops, and gorgeous old buildings.

I was stationed in Japan for over 3 years. I absolutely love that country. The crime rate in Japan is extremely low.

Unfortunately, a large majority of crime in Japan is committed by American military. It's about as worry free as any place I

have ever been. I would go backpacking there without a second's hesitation.

My Mamiya 645 ProTL and Pentax 67II have a black velvet type coating inside. I just bought some, going to glue it to a

card cut to shape, then double sided tape to the inside.

<p>This is why I'm thinking that the issue is due to internal reflections. I have a light pointed at the wall, not at the camera, and the camera is at about a 45 degree angle to the wall. This is with a 60mm CF T* lens with the hood on. Keep in mind, this is just a crappy indoor light, not a bright sky or the sun.<br>

<a href="/photo/17712520">http://www.photo.net/photo/17712520</a></p>

<p>They were scanned by the lab that developed the film, and other shots on the roll which do not have such harsh side lighting, do not have this same overexposure.</p>

<p>Here is a color shot, Ektar, that was processed by the lab. The sky seems to suddenly get a little too bright on the left side. With the two little triangles on the left edge of the negative, that would indicate that this is the side opposite of the dark slide slot. The sun is coming in from the left, but the right side of the film back received the overexposure. This shot was hand held, no mirror uplock.<br>

<a href="/photo/17712471">http://www.photo.net/photo/17712471</a></p>

<p>Any ideas on how the edges of the film could receive more development than the center on film developed from this camera and not others, even when I have processed two rolls of film at the same time, one from the Blad and one from my Mamiya, and this only occurred on the Blad film? And yes, I am 100% positive that there was more than enough developer in the tank for both rolls. Also, if you look carefully at the image of the negative, at the very far edges on both sides near the top, the overexposure is not there for the last few millimeters, like a shadow was cast on the film. If this was consistent across an entire roll, then I would definitely say that this could be a processing issue, but on this, and other rolls, I have consecutive bracketed shots that this issue is very apparent, then the next shot, in a different location, is perfectly even and does not have this issue. There are only 5 shots on this roll that have this issue, the others are perfectly fine, as with other rolls. It appears it's worst when there is significant side lighting in the scene, such as the bridge shot. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. I'm pretty sure I just figured it out. I took the camera into the darkroom, lens off, back on, and shined a very bright light all around with the mirror up locked and shutter open. The back is light tight, so is the dark slide slot. I saw light coming in from the sides of the mirror through the waist level finder, which would make sense since most of these shots were with the camera on the tripod and the mirror was up (I was using the leaf shutter on all of these. I bet if I had folded the hood down before triggering the pre-release, or using the focal plane shutter, the shots would have been perfect. <br /> I am new to the Hasselblad system. Is it common practice to fold the WLF down before pre-release, or do I have bad light seals around the mirror?</p>

<p>Here is a print and in inverted picture of the negative, I took this shot while the negs were drying. The light parts near the bottom of the neg are reflections. I have carefully looked at the film I have shot with the camera and there are no instances of fogging beyond the frame border. I showed these pics to a guy at the camera store I bought it from, he said it looked like a development issue as well. I develop this film exactly the way I develop film I've shot with my other medium format cameras and have never had this issue. I have stopped using the little agitator rod for the initial 30 seconds and now I go straight to inversion, but it made no difference. Some negatives are worse than others, some on one side, some on both sides. <br /> For the record, I am using a Paterson tank, HC-110, T-Max 100 and 400, and also Rodinal with Tri-X 400.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17711944">http://www.photo.net/photo/17711944</a><br>

<a href="/photo/17711943">http://www.photo.net/photo/17711943</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have the Mamiya 645 Pro TL, 645 AFDII, and C330. The C330 is a great camera and is fun to shoot with. The Pro TL is also a wonderful camera with great, inexpensive lenses (I also have a Lensbaby for it). I'm actually going to be selling my AFDII (which is also a wonderful camera, but the lenses are much more expensive) in favor of the Pro TL. I like the fact that I can easily reconfigure the Pro TL several different ways, waist level finder vs. AE prism, left hand grip and winder crank vs. motor drive grip, or no grip at all, depending on what I feel like. You would definitely not be disappointed, just avoid the Mamiya 645 Super, they were plagued with electronics issues. </p>

<p>I bought Hasselblad 2000FC/M fairly recently and I love this camera! I have noticed that the left and right sides of the negatives seem to get overexposed sometimes, depending on lighting conditions. Sometimes it's only on one side, sometimes both. The overexposure does not go beyond the frame edges, so it's not a light leak in the back itself. I have noticed this on both backs I have. It also occurs regardless of whether I use the leaf shutter or the focal plane shutter, but does seem to get worse the longer the exposure is. I have shined a light down into the WLF with the back removed to see if light could somehow be making it past the mirror when it's up, but I see no light coming through. I have also done the same with the lens removed, back on, mirror up and locked, and shine a light around where the back mounts to the body and see nothing. I'm thinking this is due to internal reflections off the side walls of the camera body. The black paint in there is in perfect condition. The camera has that foam coating on the bottom, and since the underside of the mirror has such a rough and irregular shape, the tops and bottoms of the frames never get the overexposure.</p>

<p> Has anyone ever cut some sort of adhesive backed fabric, like thin felt or something similar and stick it to the sides to reduce reflections? Asides from making sure the fabric is clear of the curtain path and mirror pivot points, would there be any reason not to do this. I love this camera and want to get the most out of it.</p>

<p>I regularly shoot T-Max 100 at ISO 200 and have never had any issues. I do this with both 35mm and 120 mainly to reduce the need for using a tripod as I prefer to shoot handheld. I have also shot TMX at 400 in 120 with great results. When I shoot TMX at 200, I develop with HC-110 (which is what I use almost all the time anyway) in dilution H (1:64, which is the dilution I always use for HC-110) at 70 deg. F (21 C), for 11 minutes, 30 seconds of agitation to start, then 2 inversions at every minute. This is the same routine I use for ISO 100 and have not seen a need to alter development for a one stop push. The dynamic range of the film is sufficient enough (for me) to not require any change in development, and, if needed, I compensate for contrast with split grade printing.</p>

I am left handed and left eye dominant. I write, draw, and shoot left handed, but I most often use tools with my right hand.

I have never had an issue with cameras, except one. I used to have a Mamiya RZ67 with the left-handed grip. As much

as I loved that camera, I didn't likes shooting handheld with it, which I prefer to do whenever possible/practical. Not only

because it is a large and somewhat cumbersome camera to carry, but the left handed grip was just unnatural to me and I

could never get used to it. I really wish they had made a right handed grip with the shutter release built in and a way to

put the fine focus knob on the left. I would still own it if that were true. Instead, I traded it for a Pentax 67II and I couldn't

be happier. Honestly, since I focus with my left hand, I think I am more in tune with manual focusing than if I had to focus

with my right.