AJG

<p>You may ultimately want two meters--I use a Sekonic L 718 all the time in my studio with flash units, and I have a 5 degree spot attachment that they made that I sometimes use to balance out exposures when I'm shooting products on my plexiglass shooting table. But for B&W large format landscape work, I have long used a Soligor 1 degree spot meter which is ideal for Zone system work. Both of these can be found easily on the used market, although the 5 degree attachment for the Sekonic L 718 will be hard to find. Before I bought the Soligor, I also used to drag along my 35 mm SLR with a 200 mm lens for a "spot meter", but the Soligor worked a lot better.</p>

<p>Bethe--which raw format do you use? I switched to using DNG as soon as Pentax made that choice available, and have been very happy with it. I compared it with the proprietary Pentax PEF and couldn't see any difference, but I did foresee that I might wind up with orphan raw files and trusted an open source Adobe format more than something that could disappear if Pentax decided not to continue supporting it. I am pretty sure that DNG files will open in CS5, even if they are coming from a newer camera. By the way, I initially resisted the CC idea also, but have come to see that the $10/month actually works out fairly well for me, since I was doing every other Photoshop update any way.</p>

<p>I would wait a while--I just got a new iMac about a month ago, and I've had more OS and software glitches with this computer than I have ever had with all of my other Mac desktops and laptops combined.</p>

<p>I have a Zeiss #440 universal finder for 21, 35,50,85 and 135 lenses, and one of the things I most like about it is the ability to use it without my glasses--it has enough diopter correction built in so that I can see well through it. Of course, this won't help see the shutter speed, f/stop and depth of field settings! The 440 also has parallax correction available so that you can avoid cutting off heads in close ups--Zeiss only claimed accuracy to 6 feet for the built in 50 m finder.</p>

<p>My experience with my K3 has been excellent so far with in camera JPEG files, although I mostly shoot RAW for other reasons.</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply--unfortunately, the 475B, which I recently purchased is not identical to the 3236, and further searching via your link doesn't lead anywhere.</p>

<p>I have a Bogen 3236 tripod that has served me well for 15+ years. A couple of months ago the bottom plug for the center column loosened up and fell off and the shims for the center column also fell out. I contacted the importer but they say that they no longer have parts for this. I think I have all of the plastic shims for the column, but I have no idea how to reassemble the tripod. Does anyone know if there is a repair manual out there somewhere for this, or if there is a repair service other than the importer? I bought the equivalent new version, but it doesn't extend as high and doesn't have the right lug for a shoulder strap--one of the reasons I bought the 3236 in the first place, so I would like to repair this one if I can since it is otherwise in good condition. </p>

<p>Having owned Pentax DSLRs since the original istD, I would agree that the K3 is a great advance over the K20. For me, the slightly smaller size of the the k5/k3 is more comfortable in my hands, but obviously everybody is different and bigger vs. smaller is a personal decision. I still remember going from the istD to the K10--it was an enormous improvement in every respect. Portraits with the istD were a big challenge--you could take 5 raw files and you then waited 45 seconds before you could take another picture since the buffer was small and wrote slowly to the card. Part of this too is getting used to new control positions and settings--it will get easier with more use. Enjoy the K3--show us some pictures!</p>

<p>As someone who replaced uncoated flash tubes, I can say from experience that some papers and fabrics do indeed reflect significant UV from sources like this. Some films were less sensitive than others, and I'm sure that some digital cameras may be better than others, but UV coated flash tubes should be a minimum requirement for any photographer purchasing lighting equipment for lighting art work.</p>

<p>In addition to the light source (+1 for flash, I photograph a lot of quilts professionally, and that's what I use) the reflector quality matters also. If you want to see the stitching, don't use soft light. I use the standard 80 degree hard light reflectors that come with my White Lightning X series flash units. Also, when I photograph quilts I use silk pins and pin them to homosote panels attached to the wall of my studio. Most quilters want perfect rectangles and straight lines; most quilts are not perfectly rectangular... For an appropriate background, I use various shades of gray seamless paper. Good luck on your project!</p>

<p>Actually, I think this is just a poor photograph of the lens. When I blew up the image a bit it looks exactly like my Zeiss-Opton 135 Sonnar for my Contax. The latch is just obscured by the glare, so it is probably intact. Good luck on your auction.</p>

<p>There will be an expiration date on the box for storage at normal room temperature, so refrigerating it will extend it beyond that somewhat. When I used Polaroid a lot it was primarily for testing for 4x5 transparency film, so I cared about getting as technically perfect an image as I could to show a client, the result being that I went through it fairly quickly and rarely had out of date materials around. If you're less concerned with absolute technical perfection, then it will probably still work well past the date on the box. I have seen Polaroid materials ruined by freezing, but I have never tried the Fuji B&W or color after freezing, so it might be OK to do that if you're trying to make sure you still have film to shoot if Fuji stops making it.</p>

<p>This is pretty good over all--to nitpick a bit, there is glare on the screen in the seating area, and the red light from the exit signs changing the color balance in that area of the room. Solution: add additional lighting in that area so that you can use a faster shutter speed to control the amount of red light from the sign, so that it still reads as on but isn't a big source of light in the picture. As for the screen, if they're paying you enough you could shoot that as separate image and lay that in as a layer in Photoshop.</p>

<p>HC 110 is a good liquid concentrate film developer, and PermaWash is a good liquid concentrate hypo clearing agent. There are others as well, but these are products that I have 30+ years with reliable results. Incidentally, TF4 might eliminate the need for stop bath, but any fixer still needs to be washed out of film or paper.</p>

<p>Just be sure that you don't freeze any of it--that destroys the chemistry. Refrigeration is fine, and will extend the lifespan.</p>

<p>I would only add to Jim's link that the instructions are for a different model back than mine. The dark slide on mine pulls out from the right side of the camera (from the back) rather than from the bottom as these instructions show. I think the one shown in the OP's second link is more similar to mine.</p>

<p>The first back you linked to looks like it might be for a Mamiya RB/RZ or 645 series, not a Universal. The second link looks like it should work on a Universal as the two lugs are how the M adapter for Mamiya roll film backs attaches, and how the Polaroid back attaches. The timer looks like an add-on, and I definitely don't have one on the Mamiya adapted Polaroid 405 that I have for my Universal. A built in timer would certainly be useful though.</p>

<p>The meter, when it works, is surprisingly good. Mine isn't working now, but when I took a trip to Peru in 1987 with my 3.5E and Kodachrome 120 (available for a couple of years in the late 1980's) I used the meter to determine exposure with great success. It doesn't add any significant size and weight, and I guess I have always been a sucker for that Gossen row of bubbles. My other 3.5E didn't have a meter and just had a black plastic slug in the slot where the meter goes--you'll just have to make that aesthetic choice. As for the 35 mm counter, I have one on a 2.8D and I would cheerfully get rid of it, but the repair tech who did a CLA for me didn't have any parts, so that wasn't possible. Replacement parts might be an issue, although someone like Harry Fleenor probably has a lot of "donor" cameras around for the purpose.</p>

<p>In all of the hundreds of rolls of film I have run through my two Rollei 3.5 E cameras, I have never had the experience you have described with the self timer going off at the end of the roll. They are great cameras with great lenses ( I have my Planar version still, sold my Xenotar version a few years ago since I don't use it for commercial work any more) and well worth a CLA to be able to use reliably. Good luck!</p>

<p>I had a 110 A years ago when you could still buy film for it--it isn't a 6x9 Zeiss Ikonta in terms of size and weight, but it was possible to use it hand held, although I found the shutter release placement a bit awkward. As for the lenses, I would have my doubts about the 127 Ysarex covering 4x5 to the corners, but I could be wrong.</p>

<p>I have used a 35 f/2 A series on my Pentax DSLRs and like it quite a bit for those times when I need f/2. It's worth looking for A series versus M or earlier K mount for manual focus because the metering works a lot better than the "instant stop down" method used for the older lenses. If you want to spend more, the new 35 mm f/2.8 Macro is a great lens--compact, well built, very sharp, and focusing down to 1:1. There is newer weather resistant version, so the first version might be available used for a decent price.</p>

<p>Two comments: perspective is determined by distance, not lens focal length. The 50 appears to be a "longer" focal length on APS-C cameras because the chip is smaller than 35 mm film and you have to be farther away to take in the same amount of subject than you would with a film camera, so the comparison with a 76 mm lens on film is valid. <br> Second, I used to own two of the linked 135 mm lenses for theater work when I did that on both B&W and slide film. They were both good on film, but I found them to be especially flare prone on digital, as was the 35-105 f/3.5 A series zoom. You might like the effect, but don't backlight anything unless you like lens flare.</p>

<p>Wouter is correct that it is easy to add this through Bridge/Photoshop, but you should be aware that if you (or someone else) does a Save For Web in Photoshop that metadata can get stripped out. </p>

<p>I used rubbing alcohol on a soft cloth for cleaning every 2 or 3 packs of film with my 405 backs on 4x5 and medium format. It worked well and didn't leave moisture behind.</p>

<p>Nikon lenses are designed for 35 mm film/full frame digital or APS-C digital which are much smaller than the 6x4.5 format of the Pentax, so they wouldn't cover out to the edge of the frame. Also, the film to lens mount distance is longer so the Nikon lenses couldn't focus to infinity. So this wouldn't work except for some extreme close up work where the lens coverage might be adequate and the longer film to lens mount distance would be a necessity.</p>