AJG

<p>I used to have one of these and found the performance to be excellent for both close and distant subjects. The only reason I don't still have it is because I also own a Pentax 85 f/1.8, and I no longer needed both of them. I prefer the slightly greater size and weight of the f/1.8 on my Pentax K5, but optically they are both great.</p>

<p>Thanks for all of the responses--I'm not interested in transmitting raw files this way, only being able to show the results of lighting and changes on a large screen quickly. Can anyone recommend an HDMI (camera connection) to MacBook Air (Thunderbolt) cable? It would be helpful if it could be 15' or more. My current camera is a Pentax K5, and I don't really need to upgrade to a K3 for any other reasons.<br> Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Does anyone have experience with the Pentax K3 and the FLU card for wireless connection to a computer? I am teaching a class on studio lighting this fall and would love to be able to show immediate results via computer/projector without a connecting cord. Important questions: Does the system work reliably at reasonable distances (15' or less)? Is it difficult to set up? Is battery life long enough for a 4 hour class? Can the camera be controlled from the computer, especially exposure settings?<br> Any information from photographers who have used this would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>The meter will give you a Zone V reading by itself. In the example you cite, to get the bush to Zone IV, you need to cut the amount of light in half, hence setting the shutter to 1/125 instead of 1/60. As Bill C. says, you could then develop the film for less time to bring the face back to Zone VI. With black and white film, you have to give enough exposure to get shadow detail, but cutting back on developing time has more effect on highlights. You are correct that the Zone system doesn't give a photographer miraculous powers to change the relative brightness of objects in a scene. What it does give you is a way to anticipate what a print will look like and to then alter exposure and/or developing to create the final image that you want. Changing development times to suit particular images is much easier with sheet film or roll film cameras with interchangeable backs, where you can use an entire roll that requires a particular development time, but the concepts involved are still valuable even if you are working with a single 35 mm camera.</p>

<p>For less money you should be able to find a Calumet roll film back similar to the Sinar that Ellis mentioned. They come mostly in 6x7 size, although they also made 6x9 and 6x12. The Sinar is certainly better made, but I used 2 of the Calumets for 20+ years with no serious problems. Removing and replacing the ground glass will get old pretty fast, what with the possibilities for inadvertently moving the camera and dropping (and breaking!) the ground glass. You should be able to find one for less than the cost of the Mamiya back adapter you linked to.</p>

<p>The selenium meter on my Contax IIIA works quite well, and I use it along with 30+ years of experience... In low light I reach for my Sekonic L 718 incident meter which is a lot more sensitive.</p>

<p>My solution for years has been Volvo wagons. I also travel with a lot of lighting, mostly local with a longer trip or two each year somewhere on the east coast , and I too have gone from 4x5 to digital so the film transport and the massive Calumet case with my Toyo 45G and 6 lenses have been swapped out for a smaller bag for DSLRs and lenses. 9' rolls of seamless will fit inside the V-70, and I get 30mpg on the highway. It has also been a comfortable , quiet and reliable car. I am fortunate to have an extraordinary independent repair shop who also sells used Volvos where I live, since repairing these cars isn't cheap.</p>

<p>Derek, I feel your pain! I have continued to use DVDs as well as a RAID hard drive for backup, along with another separate set of hard drives for my images. Since I am a professional and people have a reasonable expectation that they can come back to me months or years later to get files, I feel that I have to make sure as best I can that files will be there and be useable when the need arises. So far, knock on wood, I haven't had any major back up failures that I couldn't cope with, and on a couple of occasions I have been grateful to have the DVD back up. Some people keep talking about the cloud, but the terabytes of images I have and the internet connection I can afford make that unrealistic.</p>

<p>My students regularly use the smaller Patterson tanks (for 1 120 reel or 2 35 mm reels) with only one 35 mm reel and enough chemistry for that and seem to have no chronic problems with streaking from inversion agitation, so 1 120 reel in the larger tank with 500 ml of chemistry shouldn't be a problem. Obviously, it would make sense to experiment with an unimportant roll of film to make sure.</p>

<p>Is it a Triotar (Zeiss) or a Trinar (Rodenstock)? In either case, this is likely to be lens designed for 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 (6x6 cm.) and probably wouldn't cover 4x5 very well at the corners unless you are making very small prints. </p>

<p>I just had a look at your work that you have posted on Photonet, and my question would be what you aren't happy with that your current equipment produces. Your images look good, and I wouldn't change camera systems based on what I see. If you already have two or three matching bodies and a variety of lenses for them along with flash for when you need it, I would stick with what you have and make money with it!</p>

<p>Do you own lenses for either camera? If you already have good lenses for a particular system and/or are familiar with controls, etc., I would stick with that system. Either camera is certainly capable of high quality work, although everybody has their preferences.</p>

<p>I haven't used the Photoflex umbrellas, but I have used the Photogenic 60" for years. I have found them to be quite durable, and haven't had much of a problem with bent spokes. I did mange to wear one out after 10+ years, but that didn't seem unreasonable to me given the level of use.</p>

<p>Richard--my Mamiya is a Universal which doesn't have any back movements, but I have a lot of experience with using swing/tilt, etc. with a 4x5. Practically speaking, compensating for close up exposure is important with larger formats but compensating for movements generally isn't. As you may be aware, non retrofocus wide angle lenses like the ones for the Mamiya typically have some issues with evenness of illumination at the edges of the field, and this is exacerbated by extreme shifts. Back tilt shouldn't effect this much, if at all. As to your original question: I use an incident meter in the studio and a spot meter for landscape work. I don't really worry about camera movements when I calculate exposure because it hasn't been a problem. Hope that helps.</p>

<p>I have an attachment for my Sekonic L 718 incident/flash meter that is made for ground glass readings, but I haven't ever used it much since I found to be cumbersome to actually figure out how to get accurate readings with it. My interest was in compensating for bellows extension for close ups with a 4x5, but I found it easier to use a chip at the subject position and a ruler that Calumet used to sell that read out directly in exposure compensation. I doubt that a meter reading of the ground glass will be that helpful for what you want to do.</p>

<p>Open the cartridge, but keep the film on the spindle so that you don't have 5 1/2 feet of film erupting around your darkroom or changing bag. It is much easier (in my experience) to load a steel reel if the film is spooling off of the plastic spool.</p>

<p>I owned a Pentax K10, and it was for its time quite a good camera. Be aware that you will need a specific charger for that battery, since current Pentax batteries and chargers (K7 and later) are different. The lens I used the most for it (and still own and use with my k5's) is a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8, and as a general purpose sharp lens I would recommend it. Mine is the first version that takes 67 mm filters, there is a later version that takes bigger filters and may be improved optically although I have no complaints about mine. Good luck with the camera!</p>

<p>Lex--I agree with you that the pictures aren't that great, but Rochester is a much more interesting place than they would suggest. Also, from what I have seen as a full time photographer for the last 25 years, I think that the problems at Kodak had more to do with poor top management than with a lack of talented and dynamic people at lower levels of the company.</p>

<p>The Omega 120 also interested me--I owned one for a while, although without the fabulous flash attachment! With mine, I found that the finder was a little optimistic about how much I actually got on film, and I eventually sold it to another photographer who wanted to move up to medium format. Negatives were sharp, though, and it really was surprisingly light compared to comparable cameras like the Mamiya Press series and the later Koni-Omegas. </p>

<p>The easiest way to figure exposure factors is the formula M+1 squared. At a 1:1 ratio that means you need 4x the exposure that your hand held meter indicates since your magnification (1) plus 1 equals 2, and 2 squared equals 4. Calumet used to sell a kit for large format that consisted of a target and a special ruler with exposure factors, but you can make your own by figuring it out or consulting a table. On the DOF question, I would make sure that the most important area was in focus and experiment with your lens to see how bad the diffraction is when you stop down. Like most things in photography there will be trade offs, and you will have to decide what looks best for your own work.</p>

<p>Gina--any Pentax bayonet mount lens will work on their DSLRs, but focusing will still be manual and metering can be a bit of a challenge depending on which mount it is. The initial K and M series can be metered with a button that will stop down the lens to take a reading. This isn't always that accurate in my experience. A series lenses (there will be a capital A past f/22 and a lock button) for later Pentax film models with more auto exposure modes meter at full aperture and with good accuracy. Even with manual focus, however, you can set the camera to beep when it is in focus, which you might find helpful. The in camera stabilization will also work with older lenses, but you will have to set the camera to the focal length you are using, which you will be prompted to do when you turn the camera on. Good luck!</p>

<p>You're right, a leaf shutter wouldn't produce that kind of pattern. From your description it can't be the amount of chemistry, and in any case when I see this with my students it shows as a fuzzy line where some chemistry gets to the film during agitation. I've just had a look at my Rollei 3.5E and 2.8 D and I can't see anything that could come loose and somehow block the light to create the lines that you're getting. Could you show us some negatives, including the edges? Maybe there will be something there that might tell us what the problem is. </p>

<p>What kind of camera? This doesn't look like processing to me. If it is a focal plane shutter, it may be misbehaving.</p>

<p>Harry--I'm sorry to hear you have acquired several paper weights rather than functioning light meters. My suggestion was to carefully check out the seller's feedback and to insure that there are return privileges in case of problems. I have two Sekonic flash meters--a 518 purchased in 1987 and a 718 bought about 10 years later. They both still work like new and all I have had to do is to replace batteries and re-zero them after dropping them, something I've only done a couple of times. If someone bought them from me (no, they're not for sale) I would expect them to work for a long time without issues. <br> I agree with you that there are some eBay sellers who either don't know much about what they are selling or are pretending to be ignorant so that they can fob off a non-functional item. It is also usually pretty clear that this is what they are doing from what they write or don't write in their descriptions. My favorites include people who are selling old 1930's Contax RF cameras and claim that "everything turns smoothly..." except that the shutter doesn't work, or the ones who list Russian Zeiss knock-offs as the exact equivalents of Sonnars or Summicrons. If only...</p>

<p>People have a variety of experiences with eBay--mine as a buyer have been about 99% positive. Check return privileges and seller ratings carefully and you will probably be fine</p>