jim_meisenbach2

OK, a + for stand development. I use HC-110 1+120. My first few tries with stand were disappointing, but in the last year or so, it really has worked quite well. I think my fine tuning will consist of shorter times at room temperature. My film has been UFX 400, both 35 and 120. "Ornello" at Digital Truth has been putting stand development down, as has Rodeo Joe. I agree: unless you need absolute perfection in every roll because your living depends on it, experiment to your heart's content. If HC-110 stand was good enough for

St. Ansel, I guess it is good enough for me.

Jim

Thanks again for all replies.

Orsetto refers to a body focus screen issue with the ec. don't know what this is. educate me, please.

thanks

jim

Martin:

seems to be a remarkably capable little camera. I assume it is a 16mm film type. perfect for the type of photography you posted pix of.

Jim

Bronica S2A was my first real MF camera. Bought it to use in wedding photography. Performed quite well, no problems. Unfortunately, somebody else wanted it too. Replaced it with a Bronica EC. It also has performed flawlessly for at least 20 years.

Had to have 6x7 so bought a GS-1 w/ AE prism. Another very good performer, easier for me to handle w/o grip. Also have a Rollei tlr, which I have not gotten along with ergonomically. My advice is to handle as many different types of MF as possible, and buy the one you feel most comfortable with. Price is a personal matter. As I said, the EC has gone a long time with no problems, in spite of its rather bazaar mirror system, You are the one who will have to balance everything out. Best of luck.

Jim

I am not a big fan of Rodinal, either, but I do like to use stand development if I feel the need for it. I use HC 110 1:120 per some recommendations I stumbled on somewhere. My film of choice for the past couple of years has Ultrafine Extreme 400, mostly in 120. I find that I have had to pare my time back to about 40' in a Paterson two-reel tank. My working solution is well over the capacity of my tank, but considering the minute amount of developer used, its ok. Has anybody else out there used HC 110 stand?

Jim

All, thanks for insights. I really have no problem with my normal lens, although my Planar on my 2.8f may be just a bit sharper. I have owned , in the past, (until they were stolen) a 2,8 50 that was tack-sharp, and a 200 that was just so-so. The 2.8 50 seemed a bit sharper than the 3.5 50 I bought to replace it. I am now down to one lens and a Vivitar doubler that I use occasionally for close-up stuff. I do really like the 18 inch minimum focusing distance with the 75. Again, thanks for the info.

Jim

I have had a Bronica EC for many years. It is equipped with the PC 75mm Nikkor, which performs ok. Only this year I learned that there was a different Nikkor 75 with the prefix HC. Searched the internet but was not able to turn up anything on this lens, other than it is "highly desireable" on ebay. Can anyone fill me in on the differences between these lenses, and is the HC worth the pursuit?

Thankyou for any info.

Jim

<p>Rick:<br>

Nice post on an interesting camera. I used an S2A for several years when I did weddings. I usually got some stares when I took photos during the ceremony, for the pistol shawt sound of the shutter. I did try a prism for awhile, but I think it doubled the weight of the camera, and was quite dim. Along with the normal 75mm, I also had a wide and telephoto. With a Vivitar doubler, I had quite an arsenal. The whole outfit was stolen from my car. Went to 35mm after that. Several years later, bought a GS 1, and then an EC. Got the EC because I liked the close focusing capabilities with the standard 75. (same for S2A). That would be 18". All in all, very rugged, capable, low maintenance equipment. Yours looks especially nice.<br>

Jim </p>

<p>Fernando:<br>

Hope you are still using your SL-26. Trying to convert my Rollei to use 35mm, but haven't resolved the little silver feeler that controls the film advance and shutter-cocking. Have you found a work-around for this?<br>

Jim </p>

<p>Hi Steve:<br>

There is always Certo6, of course, who will do the whole overhaul for you, for around $185. I have often been tempted to take this route, but weighing the cost/benefit ratio, I just can't bring my self to do it. Was recently given an Argoflex 40 tlr, which seems to be a pretty good piece. Not pocketable, but light and sturdy. I can respool 120 onto 620 in about 2 minutes, but I do have a limited number of 620 spools. <br>

If I had the cash, I would probably redo my Kodak Duo Series II first, before my Speedex.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>don't know that kentmere puts out a 120 film, but the extreme in 120 has a backing paper identical to ilfords. possible ilford is coating a base to somebodys specification, and using ilford backing as part of the deal? also box is very similar to ilfords, supporting Alains statement.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Mike:<br>

Have not used this film from Freestyle, but wonder if it is the same as the "Extreme" films recently introduced by Ultrafineonline. They are 100-speed in 35mm and 400 speed in 120. Having a tough time dialing them in, and they do not appear to be of same quality finish wise as Kodak, Ilford, Fuji. <br>

Jim</p>

<p>Why are you rating them at ei 1000?<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Chauncey:<br>

If memory serves me correct, (and it seems at 71 it likes to take vacations, there have been some postings of photos taken with the Monitor. Obviously, it is a very capable lens, especially the four element special. Never had a whole lot luck with mine, as I am a poor guesser of distance, and the shrapnel that went through my bellows did not help either. Let us know how your bellows resto goes.<br>

Jim </p>

<p>Gary:<br>

If you haven't gotten one already, will gladly send you the viewfinder assembly off my 620. I think the lens is riveted in, I didn't look at it that closely. Only two screws hold the assembly on.'<br>

Jim.</p>

<p>Gary:<br>

I think I gave some bad info on the top lever: when it is moved, it actually allows you to fire the shutter with the shutter button on the right top side. I stick by my advice about straightening the lever connected to the lens. If you modify it, it won't line up with lens/transverse bar. I believe Kodak or Nagel over-engineered this mechanism and scrimped on a proper bellows. Your lens appears to be in the proper position.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Gary:<br>

Never had a 616, but I do have a Monitor 620 with No. 1 Supermatic shutter. Comparing linkage on mine with your photograph, that particular piece is correctly shaped. Don't straighten it!<br>

Do check to see if you have a little lever on the top deck to the left of the view-finder that slides left to right.<br>

On mine, the left side says wind, right is 1-8. I believe this is what actually sets the shutter. Haven't used it in many years, as shutter failed, many pinholes in bellows. Hope this helps.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Steve:<br>

You say that eventually you intend to process your own black and white. My suggestion is do it now. D-76/Tri-X would be the best combo to start with. There are numerous tutorials online to walk you through the process. Tri-X is the most forgiving, and will give you results at least as equal to those of Acros, T-Max 100, or Delta 100. Chromogenics are OK, but never gave me the "look" I was after.<br>

Anyway, I guess I enjoy the total process. from tripping the shutter to printing wet. Frustrating at times, but my successes and failures are mine, not some lab's.<br>

Jim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>James:<br>

I remember Photophile quite well. I subscribed to it for several years. If I remember correctly, Gately was an electrical engineer, and owned his own business. Probably Photophile was a self-fulfilling project for him.<br>

I most distinctly remember that he had an on-going debate going with contributing authors about what dilution of D-76 was best; he was convinced that 1:3 was the best all-round. <br>

He did have some interesting articles, was quite professional, and centered more on darkroom work, as I remember. My interest waned, though, when he upped his subscription price substantially. I was raising my six kids at the time.<br>

They were good reference material, and I went back to them often. Unfortunately, they were lost during the move to our present home. Quite upsetting. But along came the internet, and the world was made right once more.<br>

Jim</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Rick:<br>

Great picks from a 110. I have an autopack 270 which did a pretty good job. Unfortunately J-batteries are no longer available, that I know of. Anybody know of a sub?<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Juan:<br>

had one these many years ago. worked for two weeks, then quit. i did not know it, but they had a history of many electrical gremlins. an amazing camera while it worked; but then...<br>

rollei apparently put it on the market without a rigorous field test. the later model, the 3000, was far more reliable, i heard.<br>

sorry i'm not much help here. only a heads-up.<br>

Jim </p>

<p>am i to assume that my subscription has expired then after receiving a yellow eyes?<br>

jim</p>

<p>Hey, Dave. Say it aint so! Several years have gone by since I started this thread, and here you come, hands outstretched, saying send me some money, and i'll send you issue 21. i'm sorry, but i must vent. we subscribers have been jacked around for years with promises and excuses, and you have the nerve to ask for money for a non-existant issue,(it appears) that MAY be sent if you get enough money..Sorry, pal. If it hits the newstand, i'll peruse it, and buy it, if it warrents 30 bucks. i am sure it will be a quality piece, if it materializes, but for that kind of bread, i want to see it first. Then, maybe.<br>

Jim M.</p>

<p>from the murky depths of my memory, I seem to recall that the old Koni-Omegas had a pressure plate in the back that actually clamped down on the film at some time prior to expsure. That is about all I can recall about them. To me that would insure film flatness, along with the leaf shutter and a "rapid wind" pull/push film advance, should meet most criteria.<br>

Jim</p>