j king

If you like the style, try:

 

http://www.electricedge.com/gordy_s_straps/index.htm

 

I bought one for a 6x6 folder and it works just fine. No scratching with the string attach version.

I'm using the Arista for both the interpositive and the negative. LC-1 at 2:2:6, 7 minutes gave me a very smooth interpositive on the film. I had a maximum density of 1 or 1.2, comparing to a step wedge. the highlights ranged from .2 to .4 density. I've made negatives from this interpositive - the peak density ranged from 1.9 to 1.1, by varying time in the developer. I'm using dilute Ilford Multigrade - it's what I have , rather than mix up another batch of LC-1. It seems to work, but developing the Arista in it is a much faster thing than LC-1.

I'm currently making (I'm in the darkroom at the moment), 5x7 and 8x10 interpositives with APHS film. I'm using David Soemarko's LC-1 developer, diluted 2:2:8 and it is working quite well. Google LC-1. It uses sodium bisulfate to make the developer less active rather than large dilutions of normal developers. It works, without exhausting, as a one-shot, 600ml per 8x10, but it really can't be stretched beyond that

Try removing the cable release. I have a KO200 and a KO Rapid. With both I do not use a cable release with the grip. Left index finger presses the shutter. To me it seems I have a better grip on the camera just moving my index finger for the shutter release.

 

I've also used it with a tripod QR mount on the side and bottom - no grip. If I was going to use it primarily hand held, I'd prefer using the grip - much less fatigue.

The color is definately getting better, but to me it still looks like a PS'd print. I know with my cyanotypes, the highlights in the negatives are very compressed, so I can get print of a light bulb with detail in the filament and glass detail. Also, cyanotypes are usually printed on watercolor paper, and even hot press paper has a bit of texture, so I'd experiment with that.

http://www.filmrescue.com/sample.php

5x7 Ansco. I don't know that they are any more available than Korona lens boards.

 

If you have the tools to cut up a larger board, why not try getting some high quality plywood & cut your own? Since I started, I've cut boards for the 5x7 Ansco, 4x5 and 2x3 Speed Graphics. It is not really very hard.

I don't believe that the optical formula ever changed. The exterior design changed - Metal to rubber focusing ring, and other minor changes from non-AI to AIS.

The previous replies demonstate both it's quantative virutes and faults, and photographic benefits. I haven't used a 35/2, but I wil state that if I had to sell all my Nikon lenses (ranging from 24-180mm) but one, this would be my last one. (105/2.5 would be my second lens, if that tells you anything about what I like about my lenses).

 

It is considerably heavier than an f/2 lens. If your main use for the lens is backpacking and daylight photography, I'd think twice about the 1.4 - that is the only time when I've regretted having the 1.4. But for low light, selective focus, smooth background - it is a great lens.

 

 

 

KEH has a bargin 35/1.4 for $254 - $395 for 'ratty' sounds rather extreme. The have an 'excellent' for $399.

1) watt-seconds

2) No it doesn't really matter ;).

Not that I know of :(

 

CSS is gone, and the nearest pro labs that I know of doing it are in Manchester. I ran several rolls through Image 4 a few months ago. As an aside, they stated that their E6 volume was relatively stable, compared to large drops in the last couple of years due to people going digital.

 

I've also used Premier Photographic, but not in a few years, and I don't know what their E6 situation is.

Search for a 'Rolleifix'. That is probably what you are looking for.

 

I think it is an essential accessory for Rolleflex tripod use.

Please read the original thread. I was the original poster. Since January, I have tried 3-4 emails to his address, giving payment info that he could verify + a request for issues that he stated he had published and I should have gotten. I was totally ignored.

 

About a month ago, my last email to him stated that if he did not respond I would try publicly. Since I had no response from him, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt that for some reason, the public email address was not effective in reaching him. I was looking for other ways to reach him. The replies have shown that I am far from the only person in this situation.

 

Since he got my money, he has published 3 issues. I initially recieved an issue that was two issues back from the one that was current!!, then nothing. If he has had time to publish several newsletters and numerous columns, he certainly should have had time to deal with pesky subscribers and get them what he owed them.

 

Samuel, I agree that his writing abilites are quite good, the content can vary in quality, but honestly, that is to be expected in a shoestring operation - look at View Camera - I'm not going to criticize him on that point. My requests for information have been quite civil.

 

If someone didn't respond to you in 9 months and was evidently delivering to others what you had contracted hime to deliver to you, what would you do?

 

The fact that this seems to be a pattern of his business behavior is really his problem. It is his reputation that is being wrecked, one angry subscriber at a time. A reputation is a hard thing to regain once lost.

A good overview of UV light sources is at:

 

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Light/light.html

 

I am currently using 20W UV bulbs (F20T12/BL). The bulbs are about 6"(150mm) from the print frame and my "new" cyanotype exposures are about 15 min. If the bulbs were placed closer together - they are curently on 2.5" (6.2cm) centers - they could be closer to the print while maintaining even light intensity. That would cut print times.

OK, it took me a while to be comfortable with my TLR (3.5E), but I eventually settled in to the following, which works smoothly for me:

 

Left hand: Thumb on top of focus knob, index finger below. Other fingers on the bottom supporting the camera.

 

Right hand: Thumb on back of camera, on the low range exposure guide. Index finger on the shutter release. Other fingers below the camera.

 

When I am making a photo, the camera weight to be supported mostly by the right hand ( I am right handed), easily focusing with the left hand. when winding, I shift the weight to the left hand, and move the right hand to the winding crank. That is probably far more awkward an explaination than the actual action. The camera is actually cradled by 7 fingers, not the palm of a hand. I initially held the camera in my right palm, requiring a major shift when winding, but migrated to the method above.

 

If you think I knew how I held a TLR before this question, let's be honest, how many people are holding a TLR in front of their monitor, trying to figure out how they actually hold it ;)

The KO film backs take a 'firm' film advance motion. You may think you are beating up on the camera, but practice - You will get better at it. One thing I did with each magazine is run a roll of film( same roll, actually), with the lens off. Advance each frame firmly, and mark the edges of the exposed film with a sharpie. Any spacing problems become evident. Practice a bit before you decide it is the film back.

 

The film advance mechanism is the one thing on the camera that often needs some work after a few decades. There are people who rebuild them and specialize in KO repair.

 

 

Some resources are www.koni-omega.org, and www.medfmt.8k.com. The Medium format site has a huge page of Koni info that is worth the long read.

Will 120 film be around? Yes. Will Kodak/Agfa/Ilford/Fuji be making a wide range of films? I'd guess no/no/yes/yes.

 

If there is a market, however small, someone will find a way to make a profit by servicing it. It will probably not be Kodak or their ilk, but in many film sizes, the 'major' companies have already abandoned the market. The smaller companies are moving in. I understand there is a growth in ULF camera sales - a TINY market compared to 120 cameras, and there are film suppliers for these huge cameras.

I would keep the film out of direct sunlight if possible, but a light proof bag should not be necessary. I normally keep exposed rolls in room light for days to a couple of weeks until I process them, and I've never seen a problem under those conditions.

 

The only roll where I ever saw a problem in direct sunlight is a Maco IR roll, which I accidentlly had out in the sun for 10-15 minutes. The last few frames had a faint, but identifiable image of the frame numbers from the backing paper! After that I kept the Maco rolls in shade, and had no more problems.

What range of focal lengths do you use(35mm equiv)? Your choice for cheap MF varies a bit based on that info.

Richard,

 

I used a fair amount of Press 800 a few years ago, pushed one, sometimes two stops. I believe it is just their normal consumer 800 speed film.

 

The lab I used gave an extra 30 seconds in the developer per stop push. I found that rating the film at 1000-1250 for a 1 stop push and about 1600 for a 2 stop push gave me the best results for that processing.

 

A 2 stop push gave a very thin negative at EI3200 that looked pretty bad. In general I'd push the film as little as possible. The second stop push bought far less benefit than the first stop did. NPZ should have less grain, but I have no experience with pushing that film.

www.srbfilm.co.uk

In Manual mode, the EV dial changes your meter reading only.

 

To show this, first set an exposure in manual mode with no meter compensation, getting a "-+" reading on the meter. Move the dial and note that the meter changes to a "+" or "-". You have to make the adjustments to get the exposure back to "-+". Your shutter speed choices are only those on the dial.

Try an auto parts store for an air storage tank & fill it up at work, since you can get a supply there. It shouldn't cost more than a can or two of the air you are using now.

Photo.net has been going through server bandwidth/capacity issues for years (probably forever). One key fact I have picked out of those discussions is that the traffic and capacity problems are overwhelmingly driven by images, not "content". The content alone could be handled for far lower costs than photo.net currently has. I'm not primarily here for the photos or critiques, I go here for the content and discussions. I don't subscribe because I don't feel like subsidizing other peoples photo storage needs.

 

If photo.net had gone with a two tier subscriber model, something like $5-10 to support forums, but with no or extremely limited photo/critique capacity, and $25 for a full subscription, I'd have supported it by now. Whatever its flaws, photo.net is by far the best broad scoped, general photo info site in existence, and nicely complements more specialized groups.

 

I don't mind the ads, in concept or practice. With the dollars it needs to raise, the ads will have to be more intrusive than on sites that are able to function only with "sponsors". It's just a consequence of the choices made.

For the F3, have you looked at the H-series of screens. They are essentially a full screen microprism, optimized for a range of focal lengths.

 

Their advantage in a low light, quickly moving environment is that you can use the microprism to focus anywhere on the screen, so you don't have to focus with the center of the screen, then re-compose.