AJG

A hard working spider on our back porch: My usual Pentax K 5 w/50-200

I don't know if they would still have what you need for your Metz flashes, but I used to use (and trust) Paramount PC cables for my Vivitars as well my my studio strobes when I was still using PC cables and optical slaves for multiple flashes.

I would be surprised if it worked for 24 x 36 mm 35 mm slides which are a lot bigger than the 6 x 8 mm size of a 16 mm frame. I would expect a lot of vignetting if you did mount on a Carousel projector. Buhl made lots of after market, specialized lenses for projectors, both for slides and movies. If you saw a projector in a really large auditorium that required a long focal length it would frequently have a Buhl lens since Kodak didn't make them.

If the OP wanted a useful answer he might have shared all of the parameters of his problem...

Glenn has it--you need a recessed board for your Cambo to use this lens, especially if you want to use any camera movements with it. A bag bellows would also be helpful for movements with wide angle lenses on 4x5.

Bridge construction continues... Pentax K 5, 50-200 Pentax zoom

Milkweed Pods w/snail--Pentax K 5 w/ 50-200 Pentax lens

That orange one looks theft proof to me...

I also have had really good results with the primitive Vivitar flashes, 285 HV model in my case. My Pentax dedicated AF540FGZ II flashes are sometimes fine with TTL flash but often over or under expose by a lot (1-2 stops), seemingly arbitrarily. I like their manual control (power from full to 1/256), quick recycling and good build quality, but the Pentax TTL exposure system leaves a lot to be desired. So I'm not surprised that your ancient Metz flashes are working well for you.

Some nice work--as for the reversal from right to left, it is easy in Photoshop and other programs to flip the files to make them correct.

Just after sunset tonight--Pentax K 5 w/50-200 Pentax zoom

Good question--many people are optimistic by nature about things like this, so I'm sure the film sells better with that ISO 3200 rating than it would with an honest 1000. I long ago learned that pushing film through longer developing times or higher energy developers increased contrast rather than increasing sensitivity, since that is built in when the film is made. I haven't used this film, but I am old enough to have tried Kodak 2475 Recording Film that was originally made for law enforcement/surveillance purposes. It may have been adequate for evidence purposes in a court of law but it wasn't my aesthetic choice with its prominent grain.

Then the meter linkage of the t/c must not be functioning correctly.

A Canon FTb should have a mechanical connection between the lens and the camera body for the light meter. There will be less light coming through due to the teleconverter, so there must be a problem with the converter not communicating with the camera if the lens otherwise works well on its own. The t/c may be "new in box" but it is probably at least 30 years old, so dried out lubricants, possibly?

I took a look at some of your images and noticed that the exterior shots looked good but the interiors have problems with green. I think that Chuck Foreman hit on the answer--fluorescent lights. If the light source was fluorescent then you got exactly what I would have expected with a daylight balanced color transparency film that was processed correctly. Your choices: look into some magenta filtration to correct the color, shoot with flash to overpower the fluorescent lights or replace the fluorescent tubes with high quality daylight equivalent ones. Don't expect these to be cheap or available at your local hardware store. Note also that fluorescent tubes age and change color over their lifespan, so even if you get the model number off the tube and look for the camera filter that should correct it you may still have inaccurate color, although most likely much better than the images you posted.

For $1000 or so your friend should be able to get a decent used APS-C DSLR with a couple of lenses, especially since both Nikon and Canon have written off SLRs in favor of mirrorless cameras with their new lenses. I have been a satisfied Pentax user for many years, starting with film MX and LX bodies and continuing with Pentax for digital since I already had a large collection of lenses that I could continue to use. I don't know how common Pentax is in Europe so they may be hard to find along with lenses, but anything from the K-5 and later is certainly good quality and performs fairly well at 1600 or 3200 ISO so maybe your friend can ditch the flash and put that money toward another lens. I am not a fan of Pentax TTL flash and have found it to be inconsistent with exposures on K 5, K 3 and K 1 bodies with a variety of Pentax and non-Pentax lenses, so I think the problem is with the flash/camera system software itself. I have generally found the camera metering system to be quite accurate for continuous light, so this was a surprise for me. Another plus for Pentax DLRs over the entry level Nikon and Canon cameras that I have played with is the viewfinder, which is much brighter and more contrasty for easier manual focusing. Pentax stuck with solid glass pentaprisms while the other brands usually went with pentamirrors which are dimmer and much harder to see through in my experience. The last downside for Pentax, especially older bodies, is autofocusing. It tends to be slower than other brands. This hasn't mattered for me since most of my work is in a studio and I am using manual focus 99% of the time, but if your friend is shooting sports then Nikon or Canon will probably be a better bet.

I can't speak to the specifics of your issue, but in the early 2000's when I was still shooting some film my then local lab began to have a problem with Fuji Provia and Astia running noticeably magenta. I finally got the owner to confess to lower business leading to fewer rolls and keeping batches of chemistry around longer than he should have. I haven't used Ektachrome in decades so I don't know how it reacts to over age chemistry but it wouldn't surprise me if this is the problem. Other PN members who know a lot more about E 6 processing than I do will hopefully weigh in to answer your question.

Bridge construction near our house: Pentax K 5 w/50-200 Pentax zoom

My 4x5 holders are a bit newer. I have always numbered the holders and the dark slides to be able to chase down any problems with a particular holder or its dark slide by making some notes as I shoot. One of the things I most appreciate about digital is metadata...

Or just get a decent gated flash meter and skip the math. Your calculations will work but my Sekonic L 718 from the 1990's has performed this work successfully many times for me in a couple of seconds.

Don't worry--nobody's going to call the art police! Photography is still an unlicensed profession, and when it comes to post processing less is frequently more in terms of aesthetic value.

A picture of it might be helpful.

Sidewalk Life--Pentax K5 w/50-200 Pentax zoom lens:

For commercial work I do as much as I need to so that clients are happy. This usually isn't too much since most of my commercial work happens in my studio and I have control over lighting, etc., and I come from a background of shooting large format transparency film which is far less forgiving than any digital camera that I have used. I don't shoot a lot of digital for personal work since I prefer film cameras for that, but when I do I still shoot raw since I'm used to doing that and I want to have as much quality available as possible if I'm really happy with something. I agree with PapaTango that Photoshop makes possible things that were impossible in a wet darkroom, but I still prefer the look of a B&W silver print to most of the inkjet prints that I see. This is my personal prejudice, I know, and others will certainly feel differently.

My reply to equipment "experts" is usually: show me the prints. This isn't the kindest response, but if the prints show me something good then I am willing to listen to the gear talk. Needless to say, this hasn't happened often.