ernie_gec

There seems to be little difference in length between the Bay 50

plastic lens shades marked 150 vs. 80.

 

In the interest of keeping baggage to a minimum, have any of you

"gotten away" with using the 150 shade on the 80mm lens?

 

Thanks.

For many the real aim is to attract the best babes.

The "speed up" part of the release cycle allows for a small advantage in reducing the time between pushing of the shutter and recording of the image. Wildi's book claims that the total release cycle on this camera takes about 1/25th of a second. The pre-release completes most of the time consuming activity like mirror swing etc, thus reducing that 1/25th to something less.

I agree that the above post is likely the problem, but it can also

happen if your lens plane is out of parallel to the negative stage.

If this is a problem, your lens may not have sufficient covering power

to handle it & darkening will occur as you describe.

Ok: I'm in a quarrelsome mood & figure my philosophical rantings are

as valid as the next guys.

 

<p>

 

I think A.A. had it wrong with his famous "the negative is the score,

the print is the performance" analogy. Actually, the

photographic subject is the score, & the final photograph is the

performance. It is a distinction with a difference.

 

<p>

 

The great musical "scores" of Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms continue

to live on & provide listeners with emotional pleasure because

they convey scale, excitement, proportion and melodic beauty at the

highest level of human achievement. And yet these famous works are

regularly tortured by amateurs, labored over by aspiring students &

occasionally performed with insight by an accomplished few.

 

<p>

 

Does this mean that we ought to abandon these works for original or

undiscovered genius? Should newness & originality be the test of

musical validity?

 

<p>

 

I hope not.

 

<p>

 

The fact is, these landmark tourist traps are nature's equivalent to

Mahler's grand symphonies. They are huge, dramatic exceptions to the

more frequently flat(ish) & unevenful landscape of the rest of the

planet. They draw tourbusses, not because A.A. "was here" but because

everyone looking at them for the first time gasps in wonder &

immediately thinks "I gotta get a picture of this."

 

<p>

 

But like the 6th grader sawing away on a violin, the majority efforts

are feeble & weak. There aren't many Heifetz & Horowitz level

"performers" amongst us. This doesn't reduce the depth or beauty of

the visual "score." It doesn't mean that we should all abandon these

sites & look for undiscoved beauty.

 

<p>

 

We continue to "play" the "greats" because they are aesthetically &

emotionally satisfying. Even though I'll never stand at centre stage

in XYZ music hall playing Mendelssohn's violin concerto, I can tell

you that scraping away at that score, at home, on my violin, fills me

with tremendous pleasure, and makes me listen in awe when I hear it

performed by one of the greats. And when any of us has a go at Half

Dome with our photographic instrument, we're not mindlessly following

A.A. because we can't think of anything better to photograph (well,

not always). We're lining up with our tripods because the vista out

front is breathtakingly, stunningly beautiful. This is a "score" of

unusual merit. It's why A.A. stood there, & countless thousands

BEFORE him.

 

<p>

 

It's true that beauty is everywhere & we should look for it in places

other than the usual spots. But lets not be surprised when 300 years

from now violin students are still playing Mendelssohn & Beethoven &

Bach.

 

<p>

 

I feel better.

Just my opinion, but if you intend to use flash as the principal light source you would get no practical advantage from using mirror lockup, except for the fractionally speedier response time from when your brain says "shoot" to when the shutter cycles.

 

The duration of most flashes is more than 500th of a second, even at max output. Mirror vibration etc. should be pretty unimportant at those kinds of speeds.

Chris:

 

The generally accepted view is that an equal sized area of negative, say, 1 square centimeter, will be sharper and capable of better enlargement in the smaller format. This is due mainly to the superior film flatness of 35 mm. and the often better lenses. However, the lesser enargement ratios required for identically sized pictures make medium format win hands down every time.

Diego:

 

Are you sure you're talking about shutter blades and not aperture blades? If you can "look through the lens" I assume the shutter is cocked. In this state you shouldn't be able to see any shutter blades. The aperture blades, on the other hand, are usually just visible through the front of the lens, at fully open aperture.

One possibility that comes to mind could occur if your camera is at an age where the foam material around & under the viewing screen has started to decay. It falls off in bits & pieces, and can be attracted to the film through static "cling" when the rear shutter opens upon firing of the main shutter.

 

Take a toothpick or something like that & gently probe this foam. If it is too old it will be brittle & flake away easily.

 

Good luck

Are you saying that the act of removing the insert from the shell tears off the leader, or that the leader is somehow peeled away/disconnected from the roll because of inadequate adhesive?

The toning of negatives is especially useful as a

replacement for +1 expanded development. Instead of developing to +1,

(which can result in unwanted grain in small format negatives intended

for large printing) develop normally & tone in selenium as one of the

posters suggested above & achieve an equivalent +1 contrast increase

without any increase in grain size. My impression is that the

negative cannot be toned "too much." It will reach maximum effect and

then no more. This maximum is roughly equivalent to +1 development.

Archival benefits are a bonus.

"Nothing," is what those of us with time to read this thread have to

do...

Get the most expensive & prestigious brand you can. The world of high fashion is transparently cluttered with poseurs, wannabees, pretenders & credibility in that world comes at least as much from "image" as substance.

Philip:

 

There is no question but that too much of the negative often goes missing in the lab. It's infuriating to see a proof that clips off more than 1/8th of an inch all around the negative. This may be a necessary byproduct of automation, but it means the "proof" is an incomplete reflection of what was photographed.

Dave:

 

<p>

 

Out of fascination, can you remember what the length of exposure was

under "sunny 16" conditions?

I'm no expert, but I use Tmax a lot & it DEFINITELY feels harder to hand crank through the Hassy than any other film I use. Not gear bustin harder, but more resistance for sure.

Pete A: DUMKOPF!!!! Ze lens ess German, No?

 

Peter R: I'm sure you're absolutely right. My source was the 500C manual, where referring to M-synchronization states; "In M-synchronization, the shutter closes the flash firing circuit slightly before it is fully open to catch the flash at maximum intensity."

 

Vat ees going on heer?

Pierre:

 

The full answer is that the "V" setting is the self timer mechanism. To activate it move the small tab to the left of the VXM lever up & at the same time move the VXM lever to the V setting. If the shutter is cocked it will stay there until the shutter is tripped, subsequently buzz away for about 8 seconds & cycle the shutter. If the shutter is not cocked when you move the lever over to "V" it will, upon release, buzz away for about 8 seconds without incident.

 

The X setting is for electric flash as the previous poster mentioned, and the M setting is for "Class M" flash bulbs, which reach peak light output more slowly than electronic flash and thus at that setting trip the circuit a bit before the lens reaches maximum retraction of the shutter blades.

 

Good luck.

The high frequency sound producing devices don't work.

There is no question but that light fall-off toward the edges is a

fact of enlarging. But is it not equally true that the same

phenomenon occurs in the camera? If so, the "thinner" densities of

the emulsion edges will allow more light to pass upon enlarging,

exactly where there is less light passing through the negative; in

other words a self correcting effect.

In my view, all of the various mathematical calculations of DOF, while interesting, are useless in helping you decide how to place the critical focus & apperture combination for any particular shot.

 

Acceptable depth of field is influenced by factors such as final print size, diffraction at small appertures affecting sharpness & contrast, focal length of lens, etc.

 

If you are pushing the envelope and absolutely need the greatest depth of field then choose the smallest f stop at the hyperfocal, but understand that infinity will not be as sharp as it would be had you placed your focus there, nor will the nearest objects.

Hello all:

 

<p>

 

I've been working with T max 100 film for a while now & have 2 questions to put to experienced users:

 

<p>

 

1. It appears to me that the traditional advice about using yellow filtration to improve contrast between clouds & sky is not as valid with this film. Even without filtration I get good separation of densities. This would suggest that the film is much less blue light sensitive than older emulsions. Any thoughts?

 

<p>

 

2. The difference in print highlight separation comparing condenser to cold light sources is not nearly as dramatic as one would assume. Is this because thin emulsion films don't have as much "calier" effect sensitivity or because the cold light advantage is overblown?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance.

You think you got glow? Hasselblads (Gods own camera) not only create

pictures that glow, the lenses themselves actually glow. You can use

them as night lights.

A Hasselblad tech told me that storing the lenses with the shutters relaxed will only marginally extend the useful life of the mainspring.

 

I guess your approach will be dictated by how often you intend to service your lenses. A pro who has equipment CLA'd every couple of years won't worry about it. If you're intending to maximize the interval between service, trip the shutters.

All of the things you mention can have an effect... why don't you

describe your experience with particular working methods & give

everyone a better sense of what may be troubling you.