glen_h

The small/medium/large format developed over the years as descriptions for film cameras. I don't know that it makes sense to use the same names for the same size frames in digital photography. Are we really expecting some day 8 inch by 10 inch silicon sensors? The cost of making film, not counting packaging, is pretty much proportional to area. For silicon sensors, cost grows much faster than area, as they increase. One answer is to use a whole new description system. We already have DX and FX, so need new descriptors for larger and larger sizes. I won't try to come up with new names for them, though. In any case, I do wonder about the discussion of TLRs, which started here.

My first Nikon is (I still have it) the FM. But more recently I have bid low on too many Goodwill auctions, and sometimes win. I do have a Nikkormat FTN, but I more often use the FT3. That is, the AI version. The FT3 seems like practice for the FM, and one of the early AI cameras. They weren't made for very long, though aren't all that hard to find. AI lenses aren't all that hard to find for low prices. One of my best lens bargains it the Nikon AI 80-200/4.5 zoom for $11. This is a push-pull zoom, though it always seems backward, that you push to zoom out, and pull to zoom in. Though more often I use the Nikkor D AF 24-120 3.5/5.6. Not the newest 24-120, but works fine for $75.

That makes sense, and I never thought about that before. I have known about the Beseler Topcon 53mm lens for a long time, but never why. Then I was 10, I inherited much of my grandfather's photographic equipment, and especially darkroom equipment. But not the Auto 100, which was sold to my uncle. A few years ago, I got an Auto 100 from Goodwill. One thing about it, is how easy the lens comes off. Just barely touch the lens release, and you have it in your hand. (Hopefully not on the floor.)

The AI 35/2.0 is (I still have it) the first Nikon lens I ever bought, along with my new FM. I believe it still works fine, with no aperture problems, now 45 years later. I don't use it all that often, but sometimes ...

I don't know about simulated rangefinder, but I did see a Nikon Zfc in a store. It looks amazingly like a rangefinder of years ago, though as far as I know, isn't. The Zf doesn't look quite as much like a rangefinder, though does have some old camera look.

Google image search finds this one: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/93590498477296522/ which doesn't say where it came from. Google image search is pretty good at finding a lot of places from outdoor pictures. I have used it on both my pictures, and those posted here, usually in No Words. Easiest is to do "copy image link" in the browser, and then paste it into the appropriate box. OK, Google image search has a "See exact matches" link. Most of the time, I don't want that, but for this, I suppose so. It finds many exact matches, though I didn't figure out which is the original one.

Optical digital printers use a scanning laser beam across the paper. If you look at the data sheet for Fuji Crystal Archive, there is reciprocity data for microsecond to tens of seconds. I suppose there is a lens in the laser system, but it only has to work well for a beam through the center. Also common are dye sublimation printers, which as well as I know use tiny resistors (heaters) across the width of the paper. No lens between the bits and the paper. I still haven't been using it much, but I do still have my Kodak Carousel from years ago, along with a more recent 2.5 inch lens. That an fill up a screen in a smaller room. Otherwise, as noted, slides do look nice digitized and viewed on a large screen HDTV. And negatives can be scanned and viewed, without the need for a print.

That is for the new plastic tanks. (That is, newer than I am.) The older ones used a plastic apron to keep the film from touching. And then a metal weight disk to keep it from floating. Then ones I knew were actually Kodak, unlike tanks with reels that I know. In high school, I had one of those for 116, when I didn't have a 116 tank. (I now have both plastic reel and metal reel for 116.) And, finally after wondering for many years, now have a real Nikor 122 tank and reel. It even has the loading guide.

I don't know about the rest of the question, but this one is easy to explain. Kodak used to put it in their data sheets for fast film. Leaf shutters overexpose at small apertures. The times are based on the shutter opening all the way, and then closing all the way. That is, based on the average opening with the lens at full aperture. At small aperture, it is all the way open earlier, and closed later. (Consider looking through the lens while it is opening and closing.) Have you done any developing of other films, or developers? Other than you might want a little more agitation, it seems fine to me. "Rock the casserole slightly" might not be enough. You want to be sure new developer gets to the film. It might splash at the top, but barely move at the bottom. For paper developing, it is usual to actually move the sheet through the liquid. Otherwise, rock just a little less than to splash out. There should be a good sized wave moving across. But to be sure for one shot, use print tongs and really move the sheet around. You could also try a Unidrum, or something like that, which does almost continuous agitation. The 8x10 Unidrum will hold four 4x5 sheets.

I finally got a Nikor 122 tank and reel. And it even has the loading guide. When I first learned about Nikor 35mm tanks from my grandfather 55 years ago, he told me to use the guide the first few times, and then I would get used to the feel. And that is what I did. The result is that I lost the guide many years ago, but still have the same tank. (I inherited it from him not so much later, after he told me about it.) I have some rolls of VP122, and a camera or two to use it with.

The first SLR I knew, was a Canon Pellix he bought in 1968, when I was 10. I then most of the time got to use his Canon VI rangefinder, including 7th and 8th grade yearbook photography. The QL system is nice, though it seems that it didn't catch on. Otherwise, I recommend a FED or Zorky to practice bottom loading for a reasonable price, compared to usual Leica prices.

For the loading end, it is designed to match the spool in the camera. More specifically, it is designed to match the spool in bottom loading cameras like Leica. Cameras like the Canon SLRs from the 1960's with QL will load a cut off end just fine. But most have a slot just right for the tongue on the roll. For bottom loading cameras, you need a longer tongue, like they used to make. When you put the film in the camera, only the bottom side needs to get around the sprockets. As you wind, the other end will approach, and then line up with its sprockets. That is, with the right kind of tongue. A few years ago, I was loading a Zorki with modern film, and did manage to wiggle it enough to get in. If you want to know about the other end, ask again.

I tend to go for 90 seconds, somewhat independent of temperature, though hopefully not a lot different from 68F/20C. That is, I make test prints and adjust exposure for 90 seconds. Less diluted should decrease the time, but getting accurate time will be harder. Well, the tradition is that print development goes to completion. A little more time won't make so much difference, as it does for film. The contact printing papers I remember, like Velox, are 1:00 in Dektol. If you are really in a hurry, I would get a stabilization processor and chemistry.

Print developing, unlike film, is designed to go to completion. Usual is Dektol 1:2 for 1 or 1.5 minutes, depending on the paper. If you see a print developing too fast, it doesn't hurt to take it out early, but as noted the results will be poor. But letting it develop until completely black is even worse. That does leave the question if different dilutions, and corresponding time. Less than one minute is hard to time accurately.

In the background, the Millennium Bridge, London.

I keep forgetting which way it rotates pictures.

Taken with a GoPro Hero2.

Haleakala National Park, Maui, HI