chris_raney1

<p>My M4-P appears to be scratching my film. When I look at my negatives under indirect light with my loupe I see several lateral bands that have appeared in my prints. Just tonight I had to shelve a negative because of one particularly long line that was maddeningly visible in a large patch of shadow detail.</p>

<p>I've been making small, resin coated snaps for my students, so I've been able to ignore this problem. And sometimes it doesn't seem to appear in my prints. But close inspection of all of my negatives out of this camera reveal these long scratches. From what I can see these bands don't appear in my scanned negatives. But now that I'm energized into making some serious, fiber-based prints once again I have this problem staring me in the face.</p>

<p>I don't bulk load, and I never open a plastic film bottle until I'm ready to load film. And the film I've retrieved from the camera always gets snapped into the empty bottle. I open my film cassettes with a bottle opener and load my film reels in the darkroom. My only contact with the film is on the edges. </p>

<p>I shoot Tri-X exclusively. Is it possible this is a manufacturing problem? I know this appears extremely unlikely, but wouldn't running film through a camera for years have the effect of honing down whatever places in the camera the film contacts?</p>

<p>No doubt I'm looking at another expensive tear-down and a CLA to boot? I just sent this camera off last year for a CLA and a minor repair (someone in LA, I believe).</p>

<p>Oops...sorry.</p>

<p>Sorry, David. I don't know what that means. And hell, I'm here to learn, so tell me.</p>

<p>I have a Tele-Elmarit, f2.8 90 that I simply love. Let me see if I can find a shot amongst my negatives I can scan for you. So far I've been very pleased with this lens. It was an Ebay purchase a couple of years ago and I sat wringing my hands until it came in from Singapore. It's clean as a whistle.</p>

<p>I agree with most of the advice you've been given, especially Bruce's when he said leave your camera in the bag until you're ready to shoot. I just got back from spending a week there and I shot my Leica with a 35mm lens, which I never changed. I also bought all of my film up there and then shipped it back home since I didn't want to run the risk of having my film fogged by TSA scanners (a subsequent 'test' I performed with once, twice, and an unexposed roll of film didn't reveal <em>any </em>fogging from their machines...not that I still trust them).</p>

<p>Like Thomas, I'm large, though at 58 I'm not nearly as imposing as I once was. My security back-up when I travel is a Giotto monopod with a Manfrotto ball head that I carry everywhere. Pull out the last section and there's my name and phone number engraved in the barrel just in case I get too drunk to remember where I left it. But seriously, Joao, I would suggest you carry a good monopod for those times that you'll need a steady rest for those long exposures. A tripod is nice, but even the smallest are bulky and cumbersome. I took one along, and used it only once. And if you get stalked having that monopod in your hand looks all the world like you're carrying a club. The police sometimes eye me when they see me carrying that thing. But once they see the camera bag they don't bother. I've carried it in Europe as well. And if you had to use it as a weapon it would be formidable.</p>

<p>Where are you staying? If you're looking for cheap digs I suggest the HI New York youth hostel. I stayed 6 days and spent less than two-hundred bucks. I suppose I could have stayed at the elder hostel for the same price, but who wants to camp out with the walker crowd when you can possibly see some Amazon lose her towel in the hallway as she minces her way back to her room from the showers? (No, I don't photograph indoors there. I have no desire to get killed).</p>

<p>I'm convinced that film scanners will be with us for quite some time yet. As long as there are great film cameras out there, there will also be the need to convert their images to digital. Besides, not only are many people rushing to scan the old photographs they find in granny's attic--perhaps thinking the prints are perishable--they're also discovering they'll have a need to scan whatever negatives they recover. I know it's an idiotic thing predicting the longevity of any particular technology, but as long as film Leicas, Rolleiflexes, Contaxes, Bronicas, Nikons, et al still exist in working order, and are maintained with the occasional CLA and a few replacement parts, the lot of them will remain as precious and functional as good quality guns. Can you ever imagine a time when a film Leica will be nothing more than a museum relic with no existing film to feed into it? Sorry, I usually wait until I'm well into my scotch during happy hour before I wax philosophically. This was coffee-powered... </p>

<p>To answer Arthur's question: No, I don't underdevelop for scanning. Hell, I'm still fumbling with this electronic gizmo on this end. But I have to tell you, compared to that Artescan thing I picked up on Ebay a couple of years ago this V600 is a breeze to use, but man, it takes its time doing it.</p>

<p>Since I live in a hot climate, I develop tropically. I've spent years adding sodium sulfate to my scratch-made D-76 to keep the emulsion from swelling. About a year ago I discovered the miracle of divided film development, and now I develop in David Vestal's divided D-76 formula. Gone are the need for sodium sulfate, and an acid stop bath. I rarely overdevelop, and I'm still getting that wonderful shadow detail out of my beloved Tri-X that I dearly love.</p>

<p>BTW, all of those photos I have up on flickr were taken with the 35mm Summicron attached. I never took it off to put on the Tele-Elmarit. Both lenses are fitted with B+W made K2 yellow filters which I never take off. </p>

<p>Youse guys are a lot of help! Keep talking and I'll keep learning.</p>

<p>Jesus, Baccante takes a while to load, and when she shows up she's grainy. Trust me, go to Flickr and give a look-see to the rest of the images and you'll see it's better than it looks (corrupting Mark Twain here, sorry).</p>

<p>

<p>Now I need advice about uploading. Lay it on me, please.</p>

<p>Over the last couple of years I've begged, cajoled and whined my way for information about bodies, lenses, scanners and the like. I've been gifted with a wealth of information, and I've even added a bit of my own on other forums to the tune of film development and useful chemical solutions (never said I was humble, unless it's in an area where I yet have no established knowledge).</p>

<p>So I've been shooting my M4-P for two years now, coupled to either a beautiful 35mm Summicron ASPH or a darling little Tele-Elmarit 90mm. And just recently I've purchased an Epson V600 scanner...what a joy!</p>

<p>So now putting my money where my mouth is, I'm open for comments. I've never uploaded pics to this site before, so if I fail in my efforts just go to Flickr and look me up at teacherraney@yahoo.com.</p>

<p>Have at me.</p><div></div>

<p>I'd suggest whipping up your own hypo eliminator from bulk sodium sulfite and sodium bisulfite. The former is the base chemical for my D-76 and is a common ingredient in most of my other photo chemicals. I believe I paid $40 for <em>50 pounds</em> of the stuff. That's enough to last me a lifetime. I'd suggest you keep buying PermaWash if you wish to go broke.</p>

<p>Once you discover your favorite formulas I'd suggest purchasing your common chemicals in bulk and whipping up fresh solutions whenever needed. I shoot Tri-X and develop it in divided D-76 because where I live in the U.S. 68 degrees Fahrenheit is considered freezing, and nearly impossible to maintain throughout the film developing process. (If you don't already own them you must purchase Anchell's <em>The Darkroom Cookbook</em> , and <em>The Film Developing Cookbook</em> ).</p>

<p>The only proprietary chemicals I purchase are Kodak's F-5 powered fixer, Photo-Flo and Rapid Selenium Toner. My developer essentials, metol, hydroquinone, and phenidone I purchase from Photographer's Formulary. Some years ago I found a pound of Kodak's Anti-Fog #1 (benzotriazole) at a camera swap. I think I have enough to last me for life.</p>

<p>Everything else: the sodium sulfite, sodium thiosulfate, sodium sulfate, acetic acid, sodium citrate, sodium carbonate, et al are bought in bulk from my local chemical supplier. Borax (a laundry detergent!) is found in the grocery store; sodium hydroxide (old fashioned drain cleaner) is bought in a hardware store. With just this handful of chemicals along with the developers mentioned above I can make a virtually unlimited number of film and paper developers, fixer-types, stop baths...you name it.</p>

<p>You're also going to need a good, gram scale for measurement. I have a refurbished triple beam I've had for a while and I simply love it. For the same price as new triple beam you can purchase a gram/grain scale from a shooting catalog. Chemical supply places will probably charge you more for the same instrument. Your initial investment might appear high but trust me, if you run through film quickly you'll recoup your investment in no time. Get online and purchase some brown glass bottle, because the plastic ones are crap. And always, <em>always </em> use either latex or nitrile gloves.</p>

<p>In the U. S. you can purchase <em>Twenty Mule Team Borax</em> right off the grocer's shelf. It's sold as a laundry detergent but it's nothing more than pure borax. I purchased a box years ago and I've been using it in my divided D-76 solutions for years now.</p>

<p>I came back from one of my annual NYC trips with my Tri-X 120 fogged. I was assured by TSA that their machines would not do that sort of thing with lower ASA films. I don't believe them, and I never will.<br>

If you take fresh film with you they'll take it out of the containers and run a wiper thingie (looks for all the world like a Preparation-H pad!) over it and then stick it in a machine to detect explosives. Doesn't matter whether or not you fall between the profiling cracks, they'll treat you and your film as if you're a potential terrorist.<br>

My solution is to burn all my film the day before I leave. I then UPS everything back to my home address. I also never travel with more than two or three rolls of film, opting to go to B&H and purchase what I need while I'm in the city.<br>

A wise man once said to me that film is cheap, but opportunities are not. With that in mind, I do not trust anyone who might potentially ruin my exposed film.</p>

<p>Mr. Rojas, et al, forgive me if I sound a bit condescending, but good photography--though secondary--is a form of art. Why in the world would you concern yourself with such technical nonsense as to whether or not your pricey camera properly 'auto focuses' for you? If you're looking for some sort of magical device that makes aesthetic decisions for you, good luck.</p>

<p>I'm a black and white film photographer, and the only 'automated' decision I allow any piece of equipment to suggest to me is the exposure setting read by my hand-held light meter. But focusing, depth of field and the actual exposure settings are determined by me as I spin my f-stop and exposure-time setting rings.</p>

<p>"I know there should be a lot of <strong>technique</strong> involved as well as <strong>expertise</strong> , but I wonder if it is risky to loose that moment relaying only on manual focus."</p>

<p>Without correcting your grammar allow me to say simply this: no pushing of a button will ever engage enough whirrling gagetry that will make you an artist, sir. Losing a thousand moments until you learn how to anticipate that one perfect moment IS what will make a photographic artist of you.</p>

<p>You've given me food for thought, Nee. I already have a terrific 35mm Summicron ASPH and a pristine Tele-Elmarit 90. And of course my purpose for that extra stop and for that focal length would be to shoot it wide-open with slow film for outdoor, candid portraits, and for night shooting with Tri-X. I did snap that lens on my camera at that local shop and took a couple of quick snaps of the employees, wide-open, of course. Sure, the edges were soft, but I actually liked the look, even under damned florescent light. </p>

<p>Seeing the version 1 lenses often eclipsing the prices of the early version 2s on Ebay certainly has the sinister appearance that collectors are on the loose. But are the early version 2s--wide-open--that much more desirable than the version 1s?</p>

<p>Now I'm stumped. I posted weeks earlier asking about the advisability of purchasing a very clean version 1 lens from my local camera store. At its near-thousand dollar asking price I was warned by my betters here on this site to steer clear, not so much from the early version of this lens but from the obvious over-pricing of a 50yr old, second rate product.</p>

<p>Is this really the case? Now I'm discovering that even version 1, 50mm M Summiluxes are selling at a dear price on Ebay. What gives? Are these old chrome lenses suddenly scarce? To state my case once again: I'm looking for a low-light Leica lens (not interested in after-market product...at all), and since I'll be shooting this lens wide open at night my need for other f-stops are irrelevant, and easily covered by my other lenses.</p>

<p>I know Leica lenses have always sold for a dear price--the expression you get what you pay for comes to mind--and therefore even years of occasional use followed by decades of storage finds many of these lenses in surprisingly good shape. (Still wondering why I'm only looking for Leica glass?). </p>

<p>But have the version 1s, produced for only two years, suddenly become some sort of tantric, bokeh masterpieces?</p>

<p>What to do? And no: This poor school teacher would more likely spring for a good used car than for a modern aspheric version.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm still debating whether or not to spring for a version 1 at my local camera store. Tell me what you've learned using this lens, Raid.</p>

<p>I actually did take some pics inside the shop with this lens wide open. Sorry, still don't have a functioning scanner or I'd upload an image. I was impressed with the images it got.</p>

<p>Something I forgot to mention...this owner will allow me to lay-away this lens. I purchased into my Leica system last year when I was flush with cash from working summer school. Now that the year is in full swing this nickle-and-dime approach is the only way I'll achievable the goal of having a Summilux in my camera bag in time for Spring Break in Manhattan.</p>

<p>And yeah, I know. The second version of this lens can be had on eBay for this price, or less. But there is something to be said about actually fondling an expensive item before one plops down the money.</p>

<p>I've been combing through the forum posts attempting to piece together the story of just how desirable, or undesirable, the earliest version of this lens is. My local camera shop has one of these little doggies in the window I've been drooling over for quite some time. It appears very clean and not extensively used, and according to my Pots (or is it Putz?) book it was manufactured in 1959, the lens's introductory year. I know they discontinued this design after only two production years, but most certainly this original design must have its merits.</p>

<p>I'm interested in a low-light lens for night shooting. And since I'll be using this lens wide-open most of the time its reputed lack of contrast won't present a problem for me. As with my 90mm Tele-Elmarit and 35mm Summicron ASPH I'll screw a K-2 equivalent filter on its nose and leave it there.</p>

<p>But from what I've been reading using filters and hoods in combination sometimes presents a problem with this early Summilux. Is there much truth to this rumor? </p>

<p>And please, for those of you kind enough to respond to this post don't attempt to steer me toward any other manufacturer of camera lens. For me it's Leica precision and quality, or nothing.</p>

<p>And no...for those of you who would ask, a used ASPH version of this lens is just not within range of my budget. But is this clean, 50 yr old lens worth the shop owner's thousand-dollar asking price?</p>

 

<p>I suppose, Jason, for those who have trouble feeding it into the spool that would make sense. I should disclose also that my darkroom isn't just dark, it's completely light-proof, so I haven't had to use a film bag (for those who have to use them) with all of its sweaty difficulties and fumbling inconvience. I'm able to load and develop sheet film in the open because the room is pitch dark. So loading 35mm film reels in such surroundings requires little effort.</p>

<p>I can't believe how much wild advice you're receiving here. The relevant truth is that a simple bottle opener--church key--is the way I've always opened my 35mm cassettes.<br>

<br /> Assuming you're right-handed, simply invert the cassette so the protruding spool is down, gently squeeze the film slot to relieve some of the tension on the end cap, then gently pry the end cap upwards. Don't pry it all the way up; turn it about 90 degrees and finally pry the cap off. But please don't attempt to pry an end cap off with either your bare hands or a thumbnail or you'll risk cutting yourself or breaking that nail. Nothing like a little blood on your film to ruin your day.<br>

<br /> I have always pulled the leader back into the cassette when I rewind film. That way if I don't have time to label it at least I know it's exposed film.<br>

<br /> If you're shooting color then retrieving the film leader makes sense and will perhaps save you a little money if your processor charges extra for that sort of thing (I wouldn't know, I don't do color). But fooling with a film retriever with a disposable film cassette you're going to process yourself strikes me as a waste of time and just silly as hell.</p>

<p>As already mentioned, pre-soaking swells the emulsion rendering it more receptive to the developing agents, eliminates bubbling problems and has the added benefit of rinsing off any dust that might have fallen on the film during reel loading. Years ago I quickly outgrew the sweaty, fumbling confinement of the loading bag for a light-tight darkroom, where I now load film out in the open. Dust is a problem, and more than once I've noticed dust motes glued to developed film emulsions. No more. I actually find that developing times can be shortened with a minute or so pre-soak.</p>

<p>I'm prudent enought to be convinced that I shouldn't even bother attempting my own repair. Now, how about an update of reputable Leica repair places where I can send my camera.</p>

<p>My M4-P has locked up on me. On this last roll of film the shutter would not trip unless I released the button. This happened several times. It also became a little grindy when I attempted to advance the film. I've been using an Abrahamson winder with it, and though I was zipping along rather speedily I certainly wasn't forcing anything. Now the camera will simply not advance, though I was able to harvest the film out of it.<br>

I know, this usally calls for a CLA, and perhaps even a shutter repair at one of the many facilities scattered throughout the world. But hell, I'm a handy guy; the shutter curtains haven't torn away and when I rattle the camera I don't hear the jingle of loose teeth stripped off steel gears, so I'm of the opinion that my problem isn't as horrible as it first appears, and might easily be something I can tackle (I even drilled out, fabricated, and replaced a camera lug, so I ain't afraid of much).<br>

My first question is where on Earth might I locate a factory repair manual? My second question is do one of you intrepid oldsters have a video out there that shows exactly how to tear this puppy down for a look-see?</p>

<p>Undiluted particles in the solution? Sounds like it wasn't mixed properly. I use distilled water and I whip up my D-76d from scratch.<br>

The solution is absolutely as clear as a bell they day after it's cooled down.</p>

In Generation Kill the reporter is carrying an M6 Panda.