ernie_gec

I regularly use T-max film & process normally with T-max developer at

75 degrees - 6.5 minutes 1-4 dilution. For reduced contrast I've

normally reduced development times, but am wondering if this developer

can be used as a "compensating" solution with this film. ie. higher

dilutions/longer times,reduced agitation intervals.

 

I'd appreciate any feedback on whether this is possible, and if so,

what the temperature/time/dilution/agitation factors are for -1 and -2

development.

 

Thanks in advance.

"the screen is not made by Hasselblad with the proper frame (with screws) for 500C, it's necessary a customization by the tecnician."

 

In fact the screens installed are the exact same. The technicians simply remove the metal frame that holds the 2 sandwiched components of the screen together & install them in the camera. You could do that part yourself, with care. The technician is recommended in order to align the focus as part of the installation. Thats hard to do yourself without experience & the right tool.

Mr. Fleischer is a good man who always contributes much on these threads. His company obligations also compel him to sing the praises of new products. The problem with zeiss lenses is that they are all so good, even the older ones, that few consumers feel the need to ditch them for newer ones, thus affecting current sales. There is strong pressure therefore to magnify the slightest improvements & call them "revolutionary."

 

Would Mr. Felischer be willing to stake his reputation on a a/b comparison between equivalent pictures taken with silver "C" single coated lenses and the most current versions of the same thing? Not "into the sun" shots; just normal photos with proper lens shades?

 

He might be able to do it, but I'd bet only with much squinting and umming & awing. And then as to whether the newer lenses provide a superior aesthetic... well thats another debate again.

Do you have the dark slide in the back when you try to attach it? The dark slide must be in the back when removing or attaching.

I'm with Daniel.

 

Here's what this sort of discussion can lead to...

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-17.shtml

Unless there are different 42165 versions, I don't think your pictures show the screen you want, for the reason that the 4 black lines are visibly painted on. I have an older, non-acute matt screen that looks the same as your picture. The 42165 screen that I have does not easily show the 4 hatch lines unless it's installed. The lines are actually grooves cut in the acrylic underlayer & hard to see unless the light reflected from the mirror (lens mounted) illuminates them. I hope any of this makes sense...

 

Ernie

"-on the top and bottom of each frame, there are some arrow triangle shapes coming out of the image frame."

 

 

I have never seen this in a well adjusted back. In conjunction with your odd spacing problem, I have to think the light seals are shot & need replacing... no big deal; happens to all backs at some point.

Gerald:

 

If you seriously believe a vertical crop of a medium format square is virtually identical to a 35 mm. in print quality you really don't know what you're talking about. I don't mean this unkindly, but a "645" print vs. 35mm print enlarged to 11 by 14, for example, is transparently distinguishable.

If you are using a beseler condenser setup with a diffusion-plate-above-the-negative-carrier, the results should be identical to cold light in terms of print quality. The practical problem, aside from heat as mentioned above, is that you'll really increase your print times dramatically. I tried it, despaired, & got a cold light.

I would guess the problem is moisture. The metal frame around the screen sandwiches together 2 plates, an acrylic under layer & glass upper layer. If moisture gets in there that is what it looks like.

 

The problem with taking the screen apart is that you end up destroying the frame fit in the process.

One thing it is definitely not is "separation." The sandwich of acrylic & glas plates are not optically bonded like lens elements. They are simply held together by the bracket & screws. Take the screws off & the sandwich falls apart.

 

Moisture between the plates could do what you describe. Was the camera exposed to moisture?

Ditto the above.

One thing to remember is that the Hassie screens, (old version & acute matte, are a sandwich of 2 components, a glass upper plate (closest to your eye) and an acrylic (or some sort of plastic) layer into which the fresnel grooves are impressed. Most dust & debris accumulates on the upper glass side. This can easily & safely be cleared away, as the above poster suggests, with air, and also with the same techniques you'd use to clean lens surfaces.

 

The well known caution about the delicacy of the screens is particularly valid to the under side, in the body. But since this is also best protected from the elements, it shouldn't be a big source of dust accumulation. In other words, you can be a little more robust in your cleaning methods on the upper glass plate.

Barry:

 

Just curious... presuming you've had experience with the Acute Matte screens as well as the newer "D" upgrade, can you comment on what, if any, differences there are between these two screens?

Spoke too soon...

 

My proxars say "B57", my B&W filters say "50", but the mounts ARE identical in every way.

I don't understand what George is talking about.

 

The "Bay 50" series of bayonet mount filters for the older lenses are all marked on the actual filter as "B57." Both descriptions refer to the same thing. The "bay 50" reference is just a popular shorthand.

One other consideration...

 

Most 35 mm flash units throw a rectangular beam, suited to the format. When used on square medium format it is common to find the bottom margin of the negative underexposed.

Michael:

 

Easy on the preachy sanctimony... Richard was clearly being facetious.

The new cameras do not allow the advance lever to be replaced, (at least not by the user.)

Not a total answer, but I've found that fiber prints tend to curl much less if dried in a high humidity environment. Fast drying seems to promote aggressive curling.

Gerald:

 

"universal" is a different word that "same." In time you'll learn to read more carefully.

I agree with everything Q.G. wrote, but can't understand what pracrtical purpose these green figures ever served, given the universal problem of reciprocity failure at these times. The worst thing anyone could do is rely on them as aids to exposure determination.

Ben:

 

If you're talking about Hasselblad here, and I guess you are, I can't imagine the lens release button on the body being a problem in accidentally releasing lenses. These things require a pretty firm push in to allow rotation and release of the lens... this is weird.

One of the problems with using a level is that the base must be levelled before the following stages are addressed. Not a huge deal, but there is a MUCH easier and faster and more accurate way.

 

Get 2 pieces of mirror, each about 4 by 8 inches. Leave one alone. On the other, take a razor & carefully scrape a small circle, about the diameter of a pencil, down to bare glass at one end of the mirror, about 2 inches in on the narrow end.

 

When scraped & cleaned, take this mirror and insert it into the negative stage of the enarger, with the mirror surface facing down, and with the clear glass "hole" end protruding from one side or the other. Place the other mirror, facing up, on the enarger base.

 

Now take your eye and peering through the small hole, orient the bottom mirror till you can clearly see the small scraped hole reflected back at you off of the mirror lying on the negative stage.

 

ANY misalignment will show up as a long trail of reflected "holes" going off into infinity. This rig is way more accurate than any level & easier to use.

 

For the lens stage, simply push the upper mirror up against the lens (it will not touch the glass) & repeat the experiment.

 

Good luck

Sorry: I am talking about Hasselblad...