a._branson

<p>I will try the pre-soak. Do you run the light-tight container under tap water for the pre-soak, or do you just add distilled water and agitate it? I assume you do that as the first step of the process, just before adding the developer?<br>

I don't use the Ilford Method...after I fix the film, I take off the top, run it under running tap water for 2 minutes, then hypo clear for one minute, then run under tap water again for 2 minutes (during which I add wetting agent for the last 30 seconds) then I do a final rinse in distilled water. </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses thus far. The only thing I could think of based on your responses is that I added the wetting agent directly into the container with the film reel as water was flowing from the tap. I squeezed two or three drops directly into the container. I did not, as Neil suggested, prepare a solution of wetting agent and water prior to adding it to the film container. I will do that for my next roll.<br>

I will also prepare all of my chemicals with distilled water, to minimize the film's exposure to tap water minerals. </p>

<p>and here is the upper left section (enlarged) of the photo above</p><div></div>

<p>Here is another sample</p><div></div>

<p>This past weekend, I shot several rolls of 120 film with the hasselblad 500c/m and two lenses, the 80mm C and the 250mm C. The shots were mostly long exposures at night, ranging from 2 minutes to 5 minutes. After developing the negatives and scanning them on the Nikon 9000 ED, I've noticed several stains, for lack of a better term, on many of them. I haven't a clue what they are from. In all cases, I used a polarizer filter. Then for some of the images, I stacked a 10-stop ND filter and a 6-stop ND filter on as well. I have tried to post images that depict the problem. I am careful in developing the film, and rinse the negs off with distilled water and hypo-clear. I don't know whether it is a development issue, or perhaps something with my camera, or lenses, or even the scanner, though I think the scanner is fine. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on what might be causing this, as it has effectively ruined my entire week's work and, more significantly, leads me to believe I may need to make some costly replacements of my gear. Thank you. </p><div></div>

<p>How image looks after printing on 3880</p><div></div>

<p>I purchased an Epson 3880 a few months back, which I use mostly for printing black and white negatives that I have scanned into my computer. Tonight, however, I tried printing photos from my digital camera, and the resulting print is way off, appearing almost like an inversion of the actual image. I even went back to printing some of my regular black and white film work, and they have been affected too. I will post an example below. I must have altered the settings somehow, but I can't figure out what I am doing wrong. If anyone has any suggestions I would be happy to hear them. Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Michael, CLA is what I meant, not CLE...proof that it's probably time for one! I will send the camera and backs to a repair shop, but I just thought it was odd that I had been getting 11 shots per roll of film, and then all of a sudden the spacing of my last roll changed and I got 7 shots. I've had a few very minor light leaks as well, so at this point it's time for a CLA. </p>

<p>I've been having a problem with my Hasselblad 500 C/M. I bought the camera about 2 years ago from KEH. The last roll I shot, I got only 7 exposures on the roll of 120 film. I didn't notice there was a problem until I developed the film and saw that the spacing between each image was about 1 to 1.5 inches, much greater than the spacing I had previously been getting with this particular camera and back. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what caused this, and is this a problem with the camera or the back (I am guessing the latter?). At this point, would your advice be to take the entire camera and back in for a CLE? My final question is whether lenses, like the camera and back, require a CLE every 12 months? </p>

Kevin,

I find myself in the same camp as you...tempted by the Leica. I currently own the FM3A and the Bessa R2A, but I am

thinking of selling the latter to finance (part of) an M7. The Bessa is nice and compact, but as several of the other

commenters have noted, you may as well go for the Leica, because you'll be eyeing it until you're holding it! I am also

intrigued by the Zeiss Ikon, and its viewfinder is supposedly as good if not better than any of the M's. One thing which,

depending on what you shoot, might shift your sights to an M7 over an M6 is the aperture priority of the M7. I do a lot of

street shooting and for me that feature might be the difference between getting the shot or fiddling with the controls and

missing it by a second. Maybe I just need to work on my technique :)

 

Good luck, and if you are insane, then I confess I am right there with you. And happy about it.

I can't fault Canon for making available THREE different 50mm lenses. I bought the 1.8, with the understanding that it

might offer less quality both optically and build-wise. I was pleasantly surprised. But the point for me here is all about

consumer choice. I can't understand how anyone can say Canon should not sell the 1.8. Not everybody is able to/wants

to spend $300+ for the 1.4. Canon is doing us a favor by giving us such choice, and like anything else the price should be

a rough guide for our expectations. I tend to think if Canon only offered the 1.4 we'd be complaining that there is too little

choice. Anyways, as a predominantly film shooter, I only wish the future held as much selection as the digital world does!

Thanks very much!

Thank you, Q.G., your responses are always helpful. Now I recall reading how there were about 2,000 SWC/M's produced

with the older Synchro Compur shutters between 1980 and 1982 before they switched to Prontor shutters.

 

My question then is whether there is a way to know which shutter a particular SWC/M contains. Is there a way to know

what year it was produced? I just want to know exactly what to ask for when I call KEH. Thanks again.

I have been eyeing the Hasselblad SWC/M for awhile now, but there is one

thing that I would like to be sure of before purchasing it. I have read several

comments on this site and others which say not to purchase the older models

where the lens is a "C synchro compur" shutter because parts for that lens are

sparse or nonexistent should it break. It is my understanding that in order to get

the newer "CF" shutter you must purchase one of the SWC/M cameras which

came out in 1982, or a later version. I ask this because KEH currently has quite

a few models for sale which it identifies as "Super Wide C" but I assume those

contain the old shutter, and that the new shutters will be found only in the

models designated SWC/M, the 903SWC or the 905SWC?

 

Also, do all SWC/M versions contain the T-multicoating layer, and if not would

you recommend getting it?

 

Thanks very much.

<p>"Giving something away once in a while isn't going to kill you...."</p>

<p>But it will kill everyone else. </p>

<p>I am a lawyer, but I feel much more comfortable telling people I am a photographer. Why? Because in my opinion, there is everything to respect about a person who chooses their pursuits -- especially today -- not based on what will bring them money or respect, but what will bring them personal satisfaction. I realize your question is more along the lines of "do you feel comfortable ascribing the title 'photographer' to yourself." And I am comfortable with that title. Not because I think I have attained some mastery of the art of photography, but because for me, being a "photographer" is about possessing a curiosity about things I don't know much about. It's about being open to the world around me, and therefore being open to an evolving sense of how I fit into that world (and who I am).</p>

<p>I suppose anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer, and that is the short answer. But for me, being a photographer is about developing a sort of intellect, openness and appreciation for subtleties that I think is sadly lost on many people today. That's why I'm proud to say I am a photographer -- not because of the quality of my photographs, but because of the thinking that, I hope, goes into them.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your responses so far. Robert, there are no streaks outside of the image area on the negative, they are contained within the image area. I've found these streaks on prints from two separate labs, so perhaps it's not a problem with the lab either. I wouldn't mind taking the camera into a reputable repair shop somewhere in New York if anyone knows of any, I'm just hesitant to continue shooting with the camera until I know I can get a proper exposure without these streaks. </p>

<p>I have developed a number of rolls of film I've taken with a Hasselblad 500 C/M I purchased from KEH a few months back. In some of the prints, there are streaks of light that I do not believe are from faulty developing or printing (these streaks are on the negatives too so the problem is definitely not the printing). I have included three samples below. I notice the streaks on lighter prints such as these. I would appreciate any direction as to what this might be caused by, and what the proper fix is. Any suggestions as to where to have it repaired in NYC would be appreciated as well. Thanks.<br>

<img src="http://www.adamgarelick.com/1.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="493" /><img src="http://www.adamgarelick.com/2.jpg" alt="" /><img src="http://www.adamgarelick.com/3.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Thanks for all your suggestions. Robert, thank you for the video, and after reading what you wrote I believe I did not advance the film sufficiently so that the black arrow on the film paper lined up with the red arrow on the clip. I am guessing that perhaps I had the spindle on the correct side after all, but maybe the film just didn't catch on the spindle and so it was unable to advance. I've tried loading it again (and made sure the film was securely on the spindle before replacing the insert in the back) and hope this roll will go off without a hitch. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I recently picked up my FM3A again, which I bought in '05 and have shot about 10 rolls of film with. It is a wonderful camera. Just holding it in your hands, you notice how small, thin and relatively lightweight it is, especially compared to the Digital SLR's of today. Moreover, it is a joy to be able to use a relatively new camera (the FM3A was produced from 2001 to 2006) that doesn't have all of the electronic gadgets and capabilities that bludgeon us in every facet of our lives today. For all the ease of digital, the FM3A reminds me that it is important to be excited by the process of photography, not just the end result image. I'd recommend you pick one up if you're considering it, you won't be disappointed. It is pure. </p>

<p>I just shot my second roll of film with my Hasselblad 500CM and, to my dismay, I noticed that when I took the film out, it didn't appear to have been exposed (the film still showed the yellow side, not the white side that says "exposed film"). I later realized that after shooting my first roll of film, I didn't move the spool over. So my question is this -- Even though the counter went from 0 to 12, I am assuming that I have screwed up royally and there will be nothing on this roll of film? Is that true? And if so, can/should I use this roll of film again, or should I just throw it out? This is pretty annoying, since I stood out and made these 12 exposures in 15 degree weather. But if I have made the mistake I think I did, I'll surely never forget to move the spool over after each roll of film.</p>

<p>I received my first Hasselblad in the mail today, and am very excited to use it. It is the 500CM with 80mm C lens. I just loaded my first roll of film and noticed that the film consumption indicator is solid red. From what I understand, however, the indicator should be completely gray when you first load the film, and then should gradually turn more and more red as you shoot the roll. My question is, have I loaded the film wrong, or is there perhaps another explanation as to why the consumption indicator is already a solid red before I even took a picture? Has this happened to anybody?</p>

<p>I was interested in other photographers' techniques for capturing candid images of people on the street. I have always been intrigued by street photography, particularly candid shots where knowledge of the camera does not influence behavior, etc. But I often find myself trigger-shy for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the pictures I want to take can perhaps be invasive, and the mere fact that someone sees me with a camera can be enough to ruin the candidness of the moment. </p>

<p>Although I have a 70-200 mm telephoto lens, I rarely use it for street photography because it draws too much attention. Instead, I have been walking around with a 50 mm lens attached to a shutter release which is in my jacket pocket. It's an interesting way to "shoot from the hip," and I've gotten some decent images from it so far, but many of the images are unuseable due to blur or poor framing (it's hard when you're not looking through the viewfinder!)</p>

<p>I know Walker Evans published a book of subway photographs in which he placed his camera in a bag, allowing him to take pictures of people sitting right across from him as they virtually stared right into the camera. If anyone would like to share their own methods, I'd be interested to hear them. </p>

<p>Up until 3 years ago, I was shooting film exclusively. I made the jump in 2005 to a Digital SLR, and upgraded to a Canon 5d recently. But after shooting with that for a year, I've decided I am going to buy a Hasselblad and split my time between my DSLR and a Hasselblad.</p>

<p><br />Although the ease of shooting all-digital has been wonderful, I feel as though my work is less deliberate. If I don't like what I see in the LCD, I can just delete and fire off another shot until I get it right. There's nothing wrong with that, as you are almost certain to get the shot you want. But if you are pursuing photography more as an artform, I find it helpful to slow down your process and envision what you want to capture, rather than just capturing everything and then selecting the pictures you like.</p>

<p><br />I also feel that while digital can undoubtedly lead to high quality images these days, it is more comforting knowing that you're capturing your work on the best gear available. I'd rather capture the shot of my life on medium format film than on a sensor that will be outdated in 6 months. For the best quality, it doesn't seem like you can beat film just yet...</p>

<p>Dmitriy,<br />I'm sorry to hear about the situation with your webhost. As others have suggested, I would recommend reading the contract that governs your relationship with your former webhost. Admittedly, it is probably skewed toward the webhost so that they aren't legally responsible for mishaps like this, even if it is technically their fault. <br />As an attorney, I understand why other lawyers might not want to take the case for the amount of money you cited. But it doesn't mean you don't have a case. Also, even if a lawsuit is not feasible, I would recommend you write a letter (not email) to the company explaining the situation, requesting a response, and send it certified mail so you know (and they know you know) that they received it.<br />Finally, don't spend more time on this than it is worth it to you. While the money you have lost is not small, there is a certain amount of time after which it makes more sense to forget it and invest your efforts into recruiting new clients or putting out more advertisements. <br />It's unfortunate but it seems like many of these webhosting companies are some of the most unresponsive, hands-off, impersonal businesses you'll every encounter. I find that's just the nature of companies that don't have brick and mortar operations. In any event, good luck, if you have any questions, just drop a line.</p>