rjjackson

November 3, 2009

hi john,

it's great that most of the M mount lenses can use one or another set of filters and i wish the screwmount lenses had the same convenience. that's exactly why i'm working on a system for the barnack cameras and screwmount lenses to use a single filter stack and hood. just to go for a walk, i carry lenses that require 40mmx0.5, 41mmx0.5, and 39mmx0.5.

also, the main advantage is a reversible screw-in hood so that the collapsible lenses can remain compact when not in use.

rj

November 3, 2009

michael -- are you a fan of dave stamey? your image 05050709016.jpg is awsome.

November 3, 2009

hi all --

i have been carrying my barnack lately along with a few lenses but i have found that the wide assortment of filter and hood accessories is a bit cumbersome. i am curious how many of you share this problem and what solutions you have come up with?

i would like to develop a system that uses step-up rings and a single filter and hood thread size to allow me to carry just one modern filter stack and one or two hoods (depending on focal length). i have the chance to design and manufacture such a system and could make it available if there is wide interest, but i would like to learn a little more about what you guys would find useful. here is a list of my initial requirements for this system: -- stay in tune with barnackian motivation to keep it light and small. -- single filter size, compact as possible (probably 46mm). -- hoods should not block RF windows (vented as well as about 55mm max diameter). -- hoods should be reversible and mount securely when reversed (to keep the camera compact). there are many lenses i would like to include in the system, each with its own not-so-common to extremely-rare filter/hood system: 50/2 summicron, summitar, summarit, canon (with 40mm x 0.5 thread), perhaps elmar. (i don't have any 35mm or 28mm leitz screwmount glass, so i am less familiar with their complications, but i guess they would need regular 36mm or 39mm screw in filters). the two main problems here are how to avoid vignette with the 35mm lenses (especially the canon 35/2!) and how to create a fast and convenient reversible lens hood that doesn't protrude when not in use. my first idea was to create a step up adapter ring that had a bayonet for the hood, similar to modern designs, but i just don't see a way to guarantee that the thread-mounted bayonet locks in the right place for each lens. my second idea was to create a male to male step up ring that would allow me to mount the filters in reverse, then to create a female thread lens hood that just screws on to the filter either forward or reversed. this solution keeps the filter very close to the lens and keeps the hood secure and compact when not in use. this idea has two limitations. it would make using a polarizer even more challenging since they are not designed to be mounted in reverse and it would require that one filter be mounted to keep the hood in place (hardly a dissadvantage, though). what are your thoughts about such a system?

October 10, 2009

one more.

October 10, 2009

35/2 (type 1)

even cooler with b/w. not sure why i had color film in my camera on this foggy winter evening but seems to work here.

August 22, 2009

edward, thanks for some ideas.

i usually check for particles in the chemistry. the d76 is clear and clean, the fixer was mixed fresh from stock (though not the newest bottle). i always make stock with distilled water but make my working solution with tap water. maybe i'll change this to distilled. i'll try again with everything fresh, i even bought new fixer, but it'd be nice to understand what caused this. i've never had a problem with 2 month old developer before and even have used far older stock than that for test strips with no problems.

by incomplete coverage, do you mean that the developer didn't reach all of the emulsion? it's possible that my tap introduces lots of bubbles during my rinse but i shake it up several times and give a good agitation with taps for bubbles. if anything, i worry that i'm over agitating.

let's suppose bubbles form in the gelatin and burst at some point -- can you think of something that might be creating these bubbles?

here's a snap from the digi of the surface of the emulsion, showing that indeed they are pocks and not particulates suspended in the emulsion.

http://rjjackson.com/images/pocks2.jpg

August 22, 2009

hi, i have a problem with some films that have little pockmarks or perhaps "pinholes" in the emulsion. it looks like the gelatin is just missing, as if some insect ate it or some acid was poured on it and burned little holes in it. i have never seen this problem before and it just occurred on two films very badly and a few others as well but more slightly. i'll give more details below. one film was p-x, the other hp5+, both stored and carried in different conditions, though possibly subjected to heat around 40 degrees for a day or so (but not left in a car). the chemistry is d-76 mixed about 2 months ago and stored in air tight bottles until i used it a few days ago. the fixer was 1:9 ilford rapid. the first bath of development got fresh fixer and showed no problems. the second two batches showed problems and got fixer once and twice used, the second one being replenished with about 25ml to 1 liter. not all the films in the second and third batches were affected the same way and films in the same tank were affected differently. two different films/processing days got the marks very badly. one was processed alone (p-x), the other (hp5) processed with a roll of 5222 in the tank (which shows almost no damage). the other films from the second and third batches of fixer use show very slight pockmarks, i even didn't notice on them until looking with a loupe (and they appear only rarely and very small), but in any event they are present in the second and third fixer batch and not in the first. i have some hypotheses but i'd like you guys to look over my workflow to see if you can isolate some problem i'm not seeing. 1. oversoaked gelatin, either during presoak or in fixer? 2. over agitation during bath or in fixer? 3. high temperature differential between development and rinsing bath (perhaps 5 degrees sudden change)? 4. perhaps a combination of 1 and 2? 5. d-76 went bad? 6. heat damage? here is a detailed description of my workflow: --stock chemicals stored in freshly emptied waterbottles (stored in dark closet temp, 25 degrees). --to make working solution, mixed with tap water that has been frozen and thawed in ice bucket to produce 1:1 working solutions (usually comes out at 15 degrees, then i put it in bucket of warm water to slowly bring it up to 19 degrees). --film is loaded in clean tanks. --presoak films in tap water while mixing solution (between 2 and 5 minutes, 3 or 4 rinses). --development starts at 19 degrees and usually finishes around 22 degrees (dev times usually between 10 and 15 minutes). --agitation continuous for 30 seconds for push and 60 seconds for pull, plus two inversions per minute. --no stop bath, two quick rinses in tap water (about 24 degrees). --fixer stored in closet (working solution 1:9, about 25 degrees). --fix for between 5 and 10 minutes (10 if i am tied up with a second batch, shoot for 5) --rinse in tap water for not less than 10 minutes, sometimes 15 or 20. --add some flow agent, agitate and soak for about 30 seconds --dump water and add distilled water, agitate for 1 minute --dump and add 2nd bath distilled water, let sit for 1 to 3 minutes --shake films off in the reels, disassemble reel and hang to dry --no use of squeegee or at any time do i touch the emulsion. here is a scan from one negative showing the pockmarks (100% crop from 6x6 neg scanned at 1800 dpi). i want to emphasize that these are not dust spots but holes in the gelatin: http://rjjackson.com/images/pocks.jpg i would be grateful for any help on where to start sorting out this problem. rj

May 15, 2009

a good polarizer or ND filter? extension tube for macro work? softbox set for the flash? a second flash? (hey, you could just give the voucher to me :)

May 5, 2009

i have shot with two of the rolleis, but none of the contaxes. without having used the contax, i'd opt for the c/y system because of the broader lens selection and more robust body. i think your options for adapting the lens to other brands is better with the c/y mount anyway.

May 4, 2009

megan,

it will work with a very short focal length. one limitation will be that as the area of your film/paper gets smaller the resolution diminishes. another challenge will be to expose for long enough and get as sharp an image as possible (assuming you want to expose while wearing the jewelry). you can find creative ways to work around these or to incorporate them into your image. you could enlarge the negative to such an extent that the grain is as much a part of the image as the shapes they form...

if you're just scaling the whole thing down, perhaps you could build into the piece some tiny feet and a tiny shutter so you can hold the camera stable on a table or something while making the exposure.

rj

April 23, 2009

hi,the zenith 3m slr, freakin ugly camera :), takes 39mm mount. my guess is some kind of extention tube, perhaps for copy work, that allows temporary access to something behind the lens without having to remove it. maybe to stop the lens down? forced mirror lockup? perhaps it was a one off custom piece for someone. maybe it's a 360 degree stereo pinhole adapter :) such handmade gear is not uncommon out here. i have a couple friends with whole boxes full of custom turned bits. nobody will ever know what for. some, it would seem, turned just for the sake of turning some metal.rj

April 23, 2009

hi sarah,

i would like to add just one thing to think about. it's important to know what you are exposing for. since you're shooting film, i'll describe one way to use your meter.

if it's a bright sunny day, but your main subject is sitting in the shade under a giant tree, your averaging meter will give you an exposure appropriate for the bright sun and perhaps leave the shady area a bit too dark. so for your subject under the tree, you may want to compensate by increasing the exposure a stop or two. this may overexpose bright highlights but the target will look just right. alternatively, if the clouds are your main target and you don't care what's under the trees, then you may want to under expose a stop or two to make nice latitude in the clouds.

in these high contrast scenes, your meter can trick you, so you have to be a bit careful and know what your intended subject is and how your meter works (specifically, the angle it measures). one solution is to take a different meter reading from the dark area of a high contrast scene, a second reading from the light area, and work out an appropriate balance between them.

rj

April 23, 2009

finn,

yes. check out pinhole.cz -- he's got a great calculator to convert your exposures based on a reading from f-22. you'll need to know the aperture rather precisely, though, to be sure. after making some pineholes that i'm happy with, i tested them in sunny conditions with different exposures and sorted out my own converstion factor with the pinehole.cz calculater used as a starting point. i think eventually you won't have to meter anymore if you use the same pinhole, focal length, and paper: a couple minutes for sun, a few more for cloudy days, and so on.

my favorite handheld meter is the seconic l-208. goes everywhere and i can rely on it when i don't want to carry a spot. the digisix looks good and gossen makes solid meters, though i haven't tried their digisix yet.

April 22, 2009

hi dennis,

this looks like a pretty cool find. i agree that it might contain significant historical value and should be handed carefully. it was clearly assembled by a caring photographer but based on the samples i'm not convinced that they are propaganda or even "professional" images. photos from the 30's used for publication would most likely have been shot on view cameras to correct perspective. these appear to have been shot on a 6x9 folding camera, the equivailant of a high quality snapshot.

but this could make them even more valuable since they may contain images so far unseen. i have acquired over the years a few such period collections. i think it's great to find these things as sets because it shows how one person was involved in an important event. it seems very unlikely that you will identify the individual photographer, but i bet with some research you could find out what sort of person shot them and his motivation.

anyway, i just wanted to say, cool stuff. i hope something comes out of it. lex's suggestion for posting a collection of the scans is a good idea, even if you don't find the photographer, but at least to make them public. if you need help editing or anything, i'd be happy to do what i can.

rj

April 2, 2009

boy, clay, you're right. i forgot to adjust (or "flaw" as some might have it) for many more things. we should add the expense of quick drying agent plus distilled water for a 3 stage rinse. not to mention the expense of waiting 6 months for a shop to restock chemistry.... at 100/hr over 6 months it gets very expensive. i must be saving about $20,051.35 -- when adjusted for time and resources -- by developing two rolls ;)

</sarcasm>

look, sorry if i came across as a bit strong. the original ":)" was evidence that i was being tongue in cheek. i realize it's not fair to be sarcastic when discussing beginning developing techniques so i'll tone it down.

let me recant my original post and just add an anecdote that i have been developing two 120 hp5+ rolls in id-11 1:1 13 mins two inversions per minute single use for a very long time. the results are always the same: good shadows and contrast, prints or scans easily, never overlaps or touches. i can rely on this method when i shoot for a client and the time and resources saved by doubling up are tremendous when added up. however, i don't suggest doing this without practice loading and confidence in getting it right. i am sure that others feel differently about their methodology. the key is to experiment and see what works best for you.

by the way, clay, i'd love to see what happens with your experiment. i wonder if you'll need longer exposures due to the density of the base? i have shot on some x-ray film that has emulsion on both sides but i can't really see much of a difference and i suspect that only a single side was exposed.

rj

April 1, 2009

jordan,

the c220 is a terrific camera and the 80/2.8 lens is stunning and the coating it has will produce nice colors. you'll have to work hard to make your images look deteriorated.

i am writing to suggest that you give the parallax issue a second thought. on the c220, the ground glass has two lines that indicate the border of your frame at approximate focusing distances. the graph i think you mention on the side of the camera tells you where your parallax correction needs to be. i can say for close pictures, anything less than a few feet, this will be a serious concern, or else you will cut off the tops of heads. this isn't a problem, just an extra step to think about when composing your shot. eventually you'll develop a habit of compensating. just keep it in mind when considering the two cameras (i still highly recommend a c220, but perhaps for sentimental reasons).

also, i really think you should consider a lubitel 166, not as a replacement of a c220 but as a supplement. the 166 is so small and light that you won't even know it's in your bag, especially in comparison to a c220, which is a bit heavy and bulky (although not unwieldy). plus i doubt you'd have to worry much about taking some tools to the pressure plate to adjust your plane of focus.

good luck in your search!

rj

April 1, 2009

<div>

00Sw3G-120953784.jpg.a931d74b99ba812c59cba7ea50268b02.jpg

</div>

March 31, 2009

wow, such a hot topic -- two films or one :) i like the suggestion to "follow the instructions". that surely sounds like the best way to create art. to do what you are told. be consistent. experiment not with our ancient law.

and anyway, joseph, your math doesn't work everywhere. in my neck of the woods id-11 is $10 per liter -- when i can find it. economy applies to more than just the pennies, but also, as scott said, to time and resources. by your calculation, the fiscal economy is $1.25 per roll plus 30 minutes of my time which i bill at $100/hour. so, indeed, the savings is $51.25 when i develop two rolls of 120 per reel designed for developing 220. plus i get the bonus of having more consistent results (if that's really a benefit i'm still not sure) because they are developed exactly the same way.

i am glad though that you interpolated my description as a quest for perfection. indeed, this is my goal.

March 30, 2009

i routinely develop two rolls of 120 on a single reel by carefully taping the second film to the first. it must be parallel and the corners flush or it will get stuck on its way in. if you didn't have them taped together, the film could have overlapped and failed to develop or fix, as you describe. two films per roll shouldn't be a problem since the reels are designed for developing 220. if you're new to med format, you should practice taping them together several times so you can do it without touching the film very much or getting stuck. also, keep the paper dry in case you have to take the second film off and start over.

i usually dilute and reuse once on the same day. it's also possible to reuse stock solution several times at different occasions with adjustment to time but to be more consistent i avoid this.

March 29, 2009

steve,

i've been thinking about your question for several days. i can't exactly agree that medium format on the whole lacks this 3d look. for sure, many lenses do not have it, just as many on 35mm do not. but a few lenses i have tried produced images that really jump. teh 150mm sonnar, 80mm mamiya tlr, and bronica rf645 65mm lens come to mind. i haven't tried many of the more exotic ones but a super angulon i have now has been interesting to work with.

i wonder, though, perhaps MF has a different appeal? it's a bit odd thinking about how to quantify these perceptions. it's even more elusive than the bokeh discussions. anyway, i'm interested in what you discover so please post the results of your investigation.

rj

March 29, 2009

jordan,

i agree with the advice so far, an older TLR or folder would come close to this aesthetic, i think. also consider a lubitel 166: cheap, super light, and they seem to have special lenses, neither soft nor sharp.

rj

March 27, 2009

parker? huh. try a waterman. its black chased hard rubber has a 3d look that none other has ;)

March 27, 2009

i think between 500 and 700 px (on the longest side) is ok. someone with determination could still make at least a small print from these, though. i mentioned above that i give clients images ready for printing. well, my reasoning for this is that the print they make ultimately reflects upon me so i want what they show people to be the best possible. i give only images that are edited properly and finished and for printing. (usually i provide a set of prints free, since it's a small part of the cost.) this just seems to make everyone happy and saves me from worrying too much. others of course may disagree.

March 26, 2009

i think the tool you need is the rectangular marquee selection tool. this lets you make selections in a fixed aspect ratio. once the tool is selected, thenn in the top of the photoshop window you'll see an option for "style". in this pull down menu, select "fixed aspect ratio" then type in the ratio you desire. this will leave the dpi alone -- really you don't have to bother with dpi until you print. (if you're not printing, export raw at 300 dpi and forget about it.) once you've used the marquee tool to select something in the same aspect ratio as you want, just select image > crop, and you'll have cropped the image.

the second issue for changing the pixel dimensions is that for horizontal and vertical shots you'll have to run two separate batches or rotate one of them so they are all the same direction. then you run a batch to change image size to the specified width, say, 900px wide.

feel free to email me if you need more help.

rj

March 26, 2009

hey maybe you need some ww1 era wristwatches to go along with the rest of the gear? i have a couple and when i wear them people say how modern they look :) don't forget fountain pens from the era, as well, to record your adventures. when the obsession moves on from optics you'll really be in trouble.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by rjjackson