tibz

Note for those attempting this: on my 250mm FE lens the winding cam has a spring attached to it that seems to release when you remove the rear bayonet plate. You'll likely require a spanner to remove the rear lens assembly to properly reattach said spring, so ensure you have the correct tools on hand (or can wait for them to arrive without the use of your lens). If reassembled without attaching the spring properly it can jam up the cameras, so exercise caution. I was able to get the lens off the camera after some fiddling but be careful -- on the 201F it seems to attempt to trip the lens and then "give up" after waiting a period or upon removal of the battery and reinstallation. Upon completion of a repair procedure it's probably best to attempt to trip and wind the lens off of the camera before reattaching.

FYI for those interested in FE lenses it seems that the parts on various FE lenses are in fact interchangable. According to the service manual Hasselblad F => FE upgrade kits included a standard set of electronics (in addition to the lens-specific encoder rings and other parts), and the upgrade kits allowed the installer to configure the electronic boards by bridging the solder pads to set the maximum aperture. This likely means it's possible to swap the boards between lenses. They don't seem exorbitantly complex in and of themselves so it may be possible to fabricate a replacement PCB. Has me curious :)

I sorted out the lens.<br /> For those who wish to follow:<br /> <br /> 1. unscrew the front name ring with a rubber tool. There are no notches for a tool, you must use a rubber tool.<br /> <br /> 2. once the name ring is removed, you see 6 screws. Take them out; they have been thread-locked in. Now you can remove the bayonet hood.<br /> <br /> 3. now unscrew the front lens group.<br /> <br /> 4. to get to the iris assembly, start at the rear. Take off the bayonet flange (8 screws).<br /> <br /> 5. now take out the FE electronics stage, another 8 screws. Let the wires hang<br /> <br /> 6. find a copper flat lockring, and remove it. It is very thin.<br /> <br /> 7. remove the iris activation sleeve - carefully slide it out.<br /> <br /> 8. you will see three large silver screws that hold the rear lens assembly to the mount. Remove them, and take out the rear lens group with the iris.<br /> <br /> 9. The iris is in a case, and you can see the three screws that hold the cover. Remove it and you have full access to the iris blades for cleaning. My blades were covered in oil, causing the sluggish movement.<br /> <br /> Note the order and nesting of the blades - there are two sets of 5 blades, the upper form the iris hole, the lower form the auxiliary coverage for the blades.<br /> <br /> Despite the description, it is a very straightforward task, far easier than a C/CF series lens.<br /> <br /> Vick<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> On 21/11/2013 10:57 PM, Vick Ko wrote:

<blockquote cite="mid:BLU0-SMTP58719B84F21A43A2C452058CE00@phx.gbl">Anyone know how to tear down a 150mm f2.8 FE? <br /> <br /> Mine has a sluggish shutter. <br /> <br /> Is that front name ring glued on? <br /> <br /> I know how to tear down a CF lens; their front ring does not seem to be glued in, just tight. <br /> <br /> Thanks <br /> Vick <br /> </blockquote>

This may be true for some developers but not for the Kodak RA-RT replenisher, used without starter. I have run sensitometric and visual comparisons to the high temperature developer with identical results. Ron Mowery, a deceased Kodak engineer (Photo Engineer over on APUG-Photrio website) discovered the ability of the RA-RT replenisher to produce excellent results at room temperature sometime after he retired, and endorsed its use, and many printers on that site have use it, although Kodak itself has never promoted this capability.

 

It is true that the C-41 process must be used at the correct temperature to avoid crossover.

I used to run room temp RA4 with some help from Ron way back in 2009. I would sneak into the school darkroom and shut off the safe light. It's not terribly difficult; the main downside is you only get one grade of paper these days. Easiest with a dichro head but can be done with stacking CMY color filters.

FYI the Fuji paper DOES NOT work at room temp, but the Kodak paper does. I still have a stack of well expired Kodak sheets of Endura glossy. I've been meaning to try it again at some point.

Scanning color negative film is quite difficult to do properly. Color slide film can be drum scanned for best results but that's pricey. To be honest real prints just look better than scans to me.

<p>That depends on why you use film. Personally, I use film because it isn't a distraction. I'm not looking at the LCD and twiddling with exposure compensation all day. Film also costs money which helps to refine the feet photographing instinct that comes with digital photography. Those mothers who pop up the flash on their D5000 and click the shutter button 15 times on one image can become a nuisance, and film prevents me from becoming that annoying person. I also like how easy and cheap it is to make prints off of film, especially large shiny 16x20s.</p>

<p>If you want a film forum visit APUG.</p>

<p>It is the ability to shoot at the larger apertures like f 1.4 that makes these lenses so valuable. An F1.4 lens costs more because there's more glass in there to make it work, and the optical glass is expensive.</p>

<p>The difference between those two results will be the level of sharpness. Generally speaking a prime lens is sharper than a zoom, but there are exceptions with some heavy pro zooms today.</p>

<p>The safest films are coated on glass plates from Collodion and Silver Nitrate.</p>

<p>The film industry has taken a hit recently, if you haven't noticed. Fuji's slide films are holding strong, as are Kodak's negative films. Kodak's slide and fuji's negative OTOH are taking a beating. Merciless beating.</p>

<p>Personally the worst hit I've seen is the RA4 paper division where us darkroom workers have lost all of our cut papers to "digital" versions with the exception of the Ultra Endura. Thank heavens I have a fridge full of Supra Endura...</p>

<p>If you want cheap film you can find it. NYC discount has been pretty good. I personally solve the problem by shooting less but that doesn't help Kodak.</p>

<p>You would have to load it onto the funky reels and backing paper that accompany the format. This works best with unperforated 35mm film because you expose over the perforations. In short, it's doable, but not fun to do more than once.</p>

<p>You can buy prepackaged 828 film at B&H for the handsome sum of $12 a roll. If you want it, it's there.</p>

<p>Today I enlarged a few more of the 35mm shots to 11x14. People don't believe they're from 35mm negatives. The grain is finer (and harder to grain focus) than 100 speed B+W 120 film enlarged to the same size. The colors are great, the grain is fine, the process is simple. I don't need 120. Of course I'll still buy it though :D</p>

<p>They certainly came through for us when they released this by "popular demand."</p>

<p>Just my thoughts: I recently grabbed a Fuji Quicksnap for some fun shooting on my trip a few weeks back. As recommended by the infamous Ken Rockwell, it's a really fun camera. The results are surprisingly good, given that it is a plastic lens with 400 speed film. It's simple, so it makes you think about composition. It's light and easy to carry as well. I just thought it would be interesting to put down the heavy beast of my N80 and use a simple camera for a change. What do y'all think? Do you like simple cameras too?<br>

<img src="http://sites.google.com/site/px14mercury/Home/family.jpg" alt="Fuji Quicksnap shot from recent trip" width="300" /></p>

<p>And hey, we all need time to screw around here and there. That one wasn't taken by me, but you get the point. I've given up on digital for a while now, and this offers me a similar level of convenience with size. It's very pocketable. I have decided to make it a goal of using it more often, and hopefully take good pictures with it. It would certainly prove a point :D</p>