tom_bowling1664874721

"Are you any where near Stratford, Worcester or Cheltenham?" are you about to disappear into the Brummie triangle? Seriously, Dick has offered you the best advice of all your correspondents. A second hard disk (40 gbyte?) configured as a scratch drive will be the most cost effective way of speeding up Photoshop. Good luck

Answering Jeff Abelson, I'm sorry, I don't want to nit-pick, but there are no degrees of true. Something either is or it isn't true. Which is not to say that I'm not interested in scanning slides on the 2450. Which film were you using, Jeff? I had best results with agfa colour slide. Kodak didn't work at all well for me.

jm

The only problem is the 3M stuff isn't archival.

1. No. 2. It has a 120 film holder 3. definitely negs

http://www.teamworkphoto.com/helio.htm

Not all flexes. My T is exactly the same as a 'cord. I have both.

Absolutely. Just grind off any extra material until it fits.

Prophot in Paris do better prices than the UK on 120 film. www.prophot.com. They do pretty well every 120 film available.

The seller describes it as a Carl Zeiss Xenotar. Enough said.

You may well make a new mistake next time, but I can't guaruntee to have done it first! Good luck!

Just passing water through the tank results in a largely laminar flow>>

What does that mean? Sorry to display my ignorance but I bet I'm not alone.

American readers might like to know that Ilford developed this washing technique during a drought in England. That's right, a drought in England. It works just fine, though you might want to use distilled water for the last fill.

It's got to be a folding 6X6 plus shoe leather zoom, hasn't it?

I think the two lightest 6x6 cameras I have are a Voigtlander Perkeo from the 1950s and a Franka Solida II, same era. Both fold up to nothing much and weigh not much. If you use Tri-X or colour neg film you can leave the light meter at home too. Just guess using the icons on the box. You won't be far out. If you want slides you can get a belt fitting light meter. I'm rather envious, having worked out I was in the same position 25 years ago!

Mine used to do this from time to time and it was invariably operator failure (!). Let's hope yours is too. When you say the lock isn't on to which are you referring. There are two. Do you mean the bar down the side which locks the shutter release or the circular lock on the side of the body for lens changing? Can you take the lens off and fire it seperately? If so the mechanical connections to the shutter-lever from the body firing-button are very simple. Work your way through them one at a time.

But Nietzsche wouldn't tune in for the Hassleblad shopping channel, anch sometimes we get pretty close to that.

Wayne, you mean to say Americans don't all live like that? This will be the source of some surprise in England.

<<You will need a Maxwell Viewing Screen to brighten up the image. >>

This is what people who've bought screens like to put about. You don't 'need' one and there are plenty of people who've bought entire Rolleiflex T's for not much more than $120!

I know most of you know this, but some may not. If you take the picture with a camera with no movements and you get converging lines you can correct them on any good enlarger by swinging either the negative plane or the paper plane or both. Obviously you need enough depth of field on your negative to make sure it's all in focus anyway and you're goung to have to be patient printing because the printing lens will probably need to be stepped right down. I used to do it all the time but have now given up because Photoshop has such good convergence correction capabilities. But that's another subject.

I have a C330f - no problem with a sticky back, but I want to relate a bit of legendary Mamiya toughness. A couple of weeks ago I was loading my car, walking in and out of the house and carrying a load of stuff at once. Stupidly, the Mamiya was on top and doubly stupidly, I dropped it when I was at the kerbside. It fell and hit the angle of the kerb, falling hard enough to make a cut in the fake-leather case. Damage to the camera? A scratch. I couldn't believe it!

Jeremy,

I have one of these with the black (later) lenses. On mine you can trip the shutter as many times as you want off the camera, it shouldn't make any difference. Are you sure there's not something else interfering on the camera?

Tom,

You can print the 6 x 9. It makes surprisingly acceptable contacts. When I was a little kid in the 50s street portrait photographers almost exclusively sold 6 x 6 or 6 x 9. They used to stand on the pavement between the Tower of London and the Thames and take walking pictures of people, then hand out tickets so you could buy the finished article.

Gary, You are exactly right of course and I'd misunderstood you. It's surprising how easy that is to do on bulletin boards.

Best wishes

John

Ps I own a Rolleiflex T and a Mamiya 330F. Today I couldn't resist picking up an absolutely perfect Rolleicord for £100 ($150) in a dealers, including Rolleinar, shade & 2 filters. Of course the Xenar lens is just the Schneider version of the Tessar. But let's not tell everyone!

pps my wife will kill me.

Richard,

We are not worthy.

I hope he can get a Tessar or similar design lens for $200. It seems a bit improbable to me unless you move onto folding cameras of the 1950s or are willing to accept Russian cameras. I'm intrigued by the idea of 'Tessar or better'. What would the 'better' be? Best suggestion of all was made by someone above. Squeeze the budget and buy a Rolleicord.

Have you tried blotting paper? You change the sheet against your print pretty often until it's quite dry, then you can leave books on top of a big pad of blotting paper (containing the print!) until it's room dry - I hesitate to say absolutely dry because so many people with a science background post on here.