paulcooklin1

<p>It's unlikely to be the glass, it's internal.<br>

Epson charged 120 GBP and sent it back but the problem remains intermittently. I got a refund.<br>

I see it most with 120 film, not 35mm.</p>

<p>Hello - Is it on the film itself or just the digital scans. This happened to me but it was from my scanner. It had to go back for repair and it still sometimes occurs. (Epson V750pro).</p>

<p>Why, what have you heard to make you think Kodak will stop making Tri-X?</p>

<p>Try this: http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/8x10inch/fi_8x10_1_imp_2#p1</p>

<p>Luis - I bought an Arax 60 a few years ago. Good camera for the money. The lens range is very good, I had the 80mm which is very sharp. Unfortunately it broke when my cat pulled the bag off a high shelf but otherwise it was a well made camera.</p>

<p>Zaki - I use a few MF lenses on my Canon and there is a different look about them. You could argue for the price of the adapter you get to make use of the Hasselblad lenses and get a different look/focal length for each which you mght not already have, but whether its worth the price of the adapter, thats for you to decide.<br>

I might get one myself :)</p>

<p>Hi Alex - you'll probably get a different answer from everyone who replies, but here's my workflow.<br>

I scan every MF neg using 48 bit colour, even bw.<br>

My target output is 2400/3200 dpi at the original neg size which gives around 5000 - 7000 pixel images, longest side. You will need to check what the optimum output is from your scanner, I would imagine it could cope with 2400/3200 dpi easily.<br>

I dont adjust the colours in Lightroom, I shoot film and specific emulsions because of their colour pallet.<br>

I don't know about your neg holders, mine came with my Epson V750 and allow me to keep the borders. Are you sure there's not a setting to 'crop' on your scanning software, it's on mine so I turned it off.<br>

The flatter the negs the better the scan. So the anti-newton glass would at least help with this.</p>

 

<p>Hi Rashed - I have a Hasselblad 500cm and an Arax 60 with the 80mm Arsat.The Arax is the same as the Kiev in most respects.<br>

The Arax is a very good all round camera with good optics. It costs maybe 1/5 of the Hasselblad but is more than 1/5 of the quality. You have to pay 5 times the price to get maybe a 'little' extra quality and the look of the Hasselblad and Zeiss glass. <br /><br />They are not the same systems on lots of levels but for the money the Arax and its lineup of lenses is very good.<br>

If you want lots of lenses I would recommend investing in the Kiev/Arax because the glass is much cheaper and still excellent quality. If you were just going to buy one body and a standard 80mm lens I would say go for the Hasselblad.</p>

<p>Hello - I currently have a Hasselblad 500cm and a couple of lenses but am looking for an AF body. The contax 645 seems to be top of the tree (arguably) out of the others and there would be the advantage of being able to use my current Hasselblad lenses, albeit without AF but would I get AF confirmation using the required adapter.<br>

Thank you.<br>

Paul.</p>

<p>Thanks Charles - I did read the PDF. I'll go with 1:1 and see how I get on.</p>

<p>Hi - Ive been getting my tri-x 400 developed at a lab for some time. They use xtol and Im guessing they use stock replenisher solution. I like the results and would like to try Xtol myself at home. I normally develop most films with rodinal but Im not as happy with rodinal as I am with the labs xtol with tri-x.<br>

Ive read on the massive dev chart that there are many dilutions which I could use. I would like to know what are the differences between, lets say, stock and 1:9 or 1:1 etc, other than economy. Will there be a noticeable change and if so, what are the charecteristics of the different dilutions.<br>

Many thanks.<br>

Paul.</p>

<p>I think you've got it covered but do some tests before you go though by running a few rolls of film through all the different backs/lenses etc to ensure all the kit works together so you're 100% sure. I would also recommend a second body. <br />I went to Cuba and dropped my Hasselblad. The front shade smashed and the mirror sticks every once in a while but other than that I was quite lucky.<br />I would recommend carrying everything on the plane with you as you have suggested. I would take as many backs as you want to carry, more the better. You can always leave one or 2 at the place you're staying and simply travel light on trips out if needed. Better to have too much than not enough given the distance!<br />Have a good trip.</p>

<p>The trouble I found when I went to Venice was that a lot of the shots I wanted I couldn't get to on foot or they were high up etc...and therfore needed the zoom. It really depends on what you plan on shooting. The bottom line is whatever lens you take you will make the best of it and shoot with that in mind. There are shots for 'all' lenses but I would still take a longer and short lens personally.</p>

<p>A lot of these were shot with a 24-105 L lens (Canon) in 35mm at the longer end.<br>

http://paulcooklin.photoshelter.com/gallery/Venice-Italy-Monochrome/G0000IC6hYNZV6KY/P0000NDgZIk1Nkgs<br>

http://paulcooklin.photoshelter.com/gallery/Venice-Italy-Colour/G0000s5t0pO62wNs/P0000Z3B8wcBGQi8</p>

<p>Without the zoom I would have got very different images. Not better or worse, just different.</p>

<p>I would take the 50 and 150 because when I went with a Canon 24-105 L I shot a lot at 105 or thereabouts due to buildings and distance etc. Take all 3, you will regret leaving any of them behind when you're there....leave behind a few pairs of socks instead.</p>

<p>I use Panf a lot and prefer it over Delta 100, although both are great films. I get good results with a red filter using Panf and developed in Rodinal. As for 'fine grain', both have fine grain. Delta is a newer emulsion which has T-grain technology (tighter, more uniform grain) while PanF shows more traditional grain characteristics. In 120 formats grain is not an issue. By sharp do you mean 'acutance'? If so, Rodinal is a high acutance developer. You can increase contrast with a red filter which will also bring out clouds etc.<br>

You can see some examples here: http://www.paulcooklin.com</p>

<p>Fixed!<br>

I took it apart and found that the cover was upside down which meant of course it was back to front too. By that I mean instead of the catch being nearest the sensor it was at the other end and therefore the release mechanism wasn't able to 'release'.<br>

At least I think I now have it the correct way. It works which is the main thing although I might take the spring out altogether.<br>

Many thanks to all who replied!!</p>

<p>Thank you, Q.G. I'll have a go at that later.</p>

<p>Thank you Al, I believe Im doing the right thing by trying to slide the button to one side, but it's not moving.</p>

<p>Hi Anatola - Im sure everyone will have a different view on this but my view is that you should first choose a film that you like (for your reasons) and then decide what developer you like best with that film. Otherwise, as you pointed out, you will spend so much time doing tests and not long enough on each emulsion combo to really know what the film can do.<br>

That's not to say you shouldn't experiment; I enjoy trying different film emulsions as much as the next person but given your scenario, I would stick and work with one to get the most from it before trying too many others.<br>

I sometimes search Flickr for film emulsions and development chemical times/combos to see the 'general' mood/feel/look of a film. Naturally this is just ball park and you wont necessarily know if any post digital treatment has been applied to images on Flickr (unless stated).<br>

Rodinal would be a good place to start, assuming you like its look with your chosen film, mainly because a) it's cheap b) it has a long shelf life c) good value.</p>

<p>Hope that helps.<br>

I liked the book! How lucky you are to have gone to Eton, nice one!<br>

Here's mine: www.paulcooklin.com</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hello Julien - I have the same problem. Mind occurred after I dropped the camera. I would be interested to hear if there's a simple fix without CLA.</p>

<p>Hi Dirk - I like matte prints under glass...I find glossy too reflective...but it's all down to personal taste..could you not get a sample done on both, smaller sized, on a cheaper material than Lambda?</p>

<p>Thanks Stephen/Paul, but David is in the US and Im in the UK. Do you know of a good UK based CLA service, or should I still send to David regardless.</p>

<p>Hi - I dropped my Hasselblad 500cm back in February and ever since then its gets stuck on every 20 or so frames.<br>

Id like to send it off to be CLA'd but would like to know where I should send it in the UK. Where would you recommend.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Paul.</p>

<p>...one thing, there's a small screw to the top left, should this be loosened?</p>

<p>Ken - yep, thats what Ive been pushing/sliding...no joy.<br>

Thanks.</p>