michael_canter

There is a theory that an acceptable correction can be expressed as a percentage of focal length . I recall an article in a trade magazine (aimed at forensic photographers) a while ago about this effect, something along the lines of adding .5% or 1% to the extension. It was accompanied by sample photos using both a standard 105 Micro-Nikkor and the 105 UV-Nikkor. Its probably correct and for super critical (high magnification macro or other limited depth of field) work it's worthwhile, but in my experiences (events & landscape) the error was hidden by the depth of field.

I, too, prefer to use a TLR (Rollie) or a rangefinder camera (Leica) for IR as I find it damn hard to focus through a Wratten 87 filter.

Kodak makes a one litre kit just for this: the "T-Max 100 Direct Positive" developing kit. It handily contains a first developer, a conditioner, a potassium dichromate bleach (that also "fogs" the unbleached emulsion) and a second developer. Just add fixer & you're in business. I looked into the Photographer's Formulary direct positive kit and was turned off by their requirement to manually re-exposed the emulsion in between the bleach & second developer. Sprint also makes suitable prepackaged chemistry but even the smallest size it is sold in is far to big for my limited use.

The directions supplied by Kodak apply to T-Max 100 & Tech Pan, but I've had good results with other films. My only complaints are: I don't shoot enough to make the kit cost effective (it can process up to 12 rolls of 120 per liter), and (both my Kodak and a colleaque's Scala) B&W slides have a frustrating habit of melting under projection (at least with the two projectors we've used).

Good luck

M

I was astonished when one of my coworkers brought his copy in to the office.

I was even more astonished to find one (unsolicited) in my own mailbox. I don't know how the postal clerk managed to fit it in-I couldn't get it OUT!

I've never seen an uncoated Yashica lens of any vintage, although they may (and probably do) exist. If you are ever able to see and compare anyone's uncoated lens side by side with a coated version (and preferably compare both single and multicoated versions, too) you will be able to recognize the differences with a quick and totally unscientific visual examination.

<p>

The 124G model was the last of the family (manufactured from the middle 1970's to the early '80's) and I suspect (but can't prove) that, in keeping with the contemporary technology, all examples will be multicoated. My personal 'Mat (an EM model) is older than I am but is still going strong and takes great pictures, even with whatever coating technology was used in the mid 1950's.

Although I've shot only a few (10-12) rolls, so far I've had good results from this film. It does not have quite the extended range of the Kodak HIE. My exposures through a #87 filter were blank, but #23 and #29 filters look good. I use an incident meter and bracket my exposures between EI 32 and 50 (with no adjustment for the filters) and have been processing it exactly the same as Kodak Plus-X (a trick I stumbled into a while ago that has saved me from endless and tiresome explanations at my local lab).

Works for me.

Good luck.

Ahh, the elusive 9x9 resurfaces...

I think this is the "Holy Grail" of Rollies. A few years ago I saw an

excellent book on the history of Rollie that mentioned this camera.

Sorry now that I didn't buy it. I'll try to remember the title or author.

Yes, you may use older lenses (and old film inserts) with hte newer bodies. However, viewfinders, focussing screens and winders are not interchangable.

<p>

good luck.

I noticed the "Unanswered Questions" list is now a >25k download and includes some real mouldy oldies. While I'm not suggesting that any specific question(s) need deleting, I wanted to know if there is an official policy on purging old topics.

It may help to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I note you recently assited at a pro shoot. I think thats a very good idea. I suggest you try to do a lot of that, especially with different photogs. You will get experience with a lot of different gear & techniques. This will help you to evolve your own style & make better informed equipment purchases. You have a big advantage by being in/near NYC, one of the most active pro markets in the world. If you are sharp you can gain a great education (and get paid while learning).

<p>

The closest continuous light to daylight are HMI lights. They are incredible, both in performance and price. Most people can't justify buying them but you should be able to rent them easily.

<p>

BTW, the "blue" photo floods are officially rated @ 4800K. They work ok for prints (if the lab fiddles a bit) but are not close enough to true daylight for chromes (depending on your quality standards).

I'm surprised no one has answered this yet. The process names you have are perfectly current. They refer to processing different types of materiel. C 41 is for processing colour negs, E 6 for processing most slides (with the major exception of Kodachrome) and RA 4 is for processing prints from negs. There are others, too, such as Ilfochrome (one of the most popular methods for making prints from slides). Although C41, E6 & RA4 were developed (sorry) and named by Eastman, they have become common terms for compatable chemicals from many vendors. Different vendors offer alternative time/temperature relationships as well as the number of chemical steps within each process. In the camera shop near where I work they stock Kodak and Tetenal (distributed in the US by Jobo) versions of these process, and can special order others. I advise you to contact the manufacturers directly & ask for copies of the directions (and Materiel Saftey Data Sheets) for the processes you are most interested in.

<p>

Good luck.

M

<p>

ps. Learning colour processing made me a much better B&W tech.

I had the same problem a couple of years ago & (not being too

technically inclined) took my nicads to a local electronics shop where

they gave me a quote on rebuilding them (apparently it takes special

welding equipment to avoid damage to tne new cells) and then they

showed me a "generic" dryfit replacement for about half of the cost

of an original Metz dryfit. It weighs a bit more than the nicad but

works like a dream & is much easier to live with. Simply change

the switch inside the battery door from the "nicad" to

the "dryfit" setting.

<p>

Good luck,

M

I believe that all the "i" class bodies share the same SCA adaptor

which your dealer can order from Bronica rather than from Metz

(Bogen here in the US).

I've used the T-Max 100 Direct Positive developing kit with very

good results even when using other film types. The key is a test

roll as the effective index seems to increase, sometimes by quite

a bit.

<p>

Only complaint: I shoot so seldom and so few rolls that the chemistry

goes bad on me. I feel bad getting only 2 or 3 rolls out of a kit that

is capable of a dozen (especially at about US$30.00/quart).

Look into the Gitzo Carbon Fiber tripods. There are now three sizes

to choose from & are tops in the strenght/weight ratio.

I'm sorry but I think Venu P. has missed the point (Dan has not

specified what focal length El-Nikkor he has).

<p>

Remember that, compared to any 80, the 60 WA will give 25% greater

magnification at the same column height. If you specialise in very

large prints this could be a significant advantage. Beyond that I'm

not qualified to comment.

Many of us oldtimers (we oldimers? is that correct?) would loop a small

elastic band from the sync selector lever to the self timer

lever to prevent accidental changing off the "X" position

You may be reinventing the wheel. Check out the "Palflash" products

available fron the Cooke company in Canada. They have some very

interesting stuff for high speed work, although I don't recall

anything exactly as you describe.

I own a variety of filters (B+W, Hasselblad, Zeiss (Softar), Tiffen,

Kenko, & more), including some Tiffens that are older than I am (I

inherited them from my dad). I have no complaints with any of my

GLASS filters in METAL mounts. (I have had problems with plastic

(resin, acrylic) filters and really cheap plastic mounting rings.)

I've found that multicoating can make a difference, especially on

light coloured filters. I've had no consistent or repeatable trouble

with flare with any single brand of filter, although I have had a

(Hasselblad) polariser delaminate. It is interesting to note that

while most Tiffen filters are made in their own factory in New York,

their Circular Polariser is made by a subcontractor in Japan.

<p>

The "liquid in glass" story is interesting (I was taught to not

believe anything that you hear and only half of what you see) but it

is true that some filters (particularly subtle colours) have been made

by sandwiching Wratten gels between two sheets of optical glass.

<p>

One possible advantage to Heliopan & B+W filters are their brass mounts

which may be less prone to jamming when stacked or used with adaptors.

Again, I've never personally had that problem (touch wood...).

There are probably close to 100 soft focus filters on the market today. Many reputable manufacturers offer a considerable variety. (Tiffen alone offers 5 grades each of their "SF/X", "Pro Mist" and "Warm Soft".) Some dealers will have deeper inventories than others and most will let you "try before you buy".

<p>

I advise you to borrow as many as you can and test, test, test! For a while Tiffen "Hollywood EFX" dealers had sample packs to lend out (for a nominal charge, sometimes free) just for testing. Don't rule out the smaller brand names. Try everything you can find as only you can decide what look you want.

<p>

Good luck.