nick_sofroniou

Thanks for your suggestions.

<p>

At the moment I'm trying to get hold of further information on the

long-term consequences of some of the chemical treatments which I have

had suggested to me.

<p>

Nick

I have several boxes of colour transparencies, circa 1983, that are in

glassless plastic mounts and stored in plastic boxes. Upon inspection

recently I noticed a white fungus had appeared on about 10% of the

slides, this starts as a white speck but grows into a `spidery' like

structure and is on the emulsion side.

<p>

Does anyone have any suggestions for how the fungus can be treated to

save the slides, or will I just have to get them duplicated.

<p>

Is there some way I can prevent this in the future, all my negatives

stored in archival negative files are fine from this period, so how

might I store mounted transparencies, and would I be better off with

glass mounts.

<p>

Many thanks

<p>

Nick

I find Dan's suggestion fascinating. The thought of generating 10x8inch internegatives by using transparent media in a high quality desktop printer appeals to me very much. By contact printing on an appropriate grade of photographic paper one could expand the tonal range, and achieve archival stability simultaneously. I look forward to hearing the result of your experiments.

<p>

Nick

Presumably it is possible to calculate a theoretically desirable scanning resolution that will reach the limit of the resolution of the camera lens/film combination. For 35mm I estimate about 130 lines per mm, which equates 3300 dpi. Since the better Nikon 35mm scanner is 2700 dpi, I guess we are close to that. Does anyone have any estimates of the resolution of the better medium format lenses, such as a Zeiss Planar lens, to enable a similar calculation for roll film.

<p>

Nick

Many thanks Darron for your comments.

<p>

the maximum black available from my laser printer (Brother HL-660) is nowhere near as dark as from glossy photographic paper, would some kind on inkjet printer give better results?

<p>

What about when scanning in negatives, the density range being lower than that of a transparency --- does this not mean that the scanner will digitize the image over fewer grey levels? My experiments using negatives have yielded on-screen images with a lower range of greys than a print, which after software adjustment to the screen's full brightness range, had distinct jumps between each grey level.

<p>

Nick

My query concerns the use of film scanners/Photo CD for monochrome photography, how many bits per pixel are needed for a smooth range of grey scales? What is the best way to print them out (my laser printer gives rather flat looking results of courseresolution)? What resolution of scan is required for a good result of print on standand

paper sizes, is there a simple table or formula?

<p>

many thanks for your views on the topic.

<p>

Nick

My query concerns the use of film scanners/Photo CD for monochrome photography, how many bits per pixel are needed for a smooth range of grey scales? What is the best way to print them out (my laser printer gives rather flat looking results of course resolution)? What resolution of scan is required for a good result of print on standand paper sizes, is there a simple table or formula?

<p>

many thanks for your views on the topic.

<p>

Nick

Chris Fortunko wrote:

<p>

"The GX is a camera I would like to own. I would certainly appreciate the performance of the HFT lens and more versatile, albeit different, metering arrangement. However, I am bothered by the fact that the GX has an archaic film-loading system. The lack of 12/24 capability is not a problem, but might be appreciated. Most importantly, the GX does not appear to have the solidity of an F-series TLR. It is more like a Rolleicord with a superb lens."

<p>

There has been some discussion along these lines in the magazine of Club Rollei. Those who have owned both cameras don't seem to have this view. Personally I have owned both a Rollei SL66E and a 2.8 GX and found the build quality to be superb for both models. The film loading is no more archaic than most other systems which involve lining up the starting arrow of the film with a dot in the body. My complaint was that the spool holders are sprung and won't stay out whilst you insert the film, which makes loading the film something of a handful.

<p>

Regarding Chris' query about the F prism obscuring the meter LED's in the GX, you do have to use the special GX prism if you want to make use of the built in meter. Since this costs a small fortune, I have never bothered looking into it further.

<p>

Nick

I was asked to give some comments upon the 2.8 GX, so here are some thoughts of mine after a year and a half with the camera.

<p>

There has been some discussion in the MFD about equipment suitable

for lightweight travelling, and the most common response is to suggest a Fuji or Mamiya rangefinder type camera. However, having owned a Fuji 645 I found that I didn't like the vertical orientation of the viewfinder, and having to continually turn the camera on its side for a horizontal shot seemed odd. The Mamiya 6/7 is a great camera if you are satisfied with composing your shots in direct optical viewfinder, and don't mind an all electronic camera.

<p>

If, like myself, you prefer a two-dimensional reflex arrangement then the fixed lens TLR setup pioneered by Rollei is a good alternative. The standard 80mm focal-length of the Planar lens is useful and gives such quality that one can crop to give a small telephoto effect. The weight is 1.2kg and it is compact in size, whilst the built in meter is accurate, though restricted in its low-light capabilities. The parallax compensation works by moving the screen in proportion to the set distance on the focusing knob. This is clever, though I can't say I have noticed many benefits over the Mamiyaflex's system with a moving indicator in the viewfinder. The main advantage of the Rollei over my old Yashica D is the wide open lens-performance, a total absence of flare, and the bright viewfinder. The latter has a standard microprism/split-image centre spot which is discracting when used with both eyes open at waist-level since the centre goes dark for one of your two eyes. This I got round by changing it for a ground-glass center-spot screen that is a bit slower to focus, but is nicer to compose the image with. It has markings for 6.45 in vertical and horizontal format which are also helpful.

<p>

The standard camera has a minimum focusing distance of 1 meter so the Rolleinar sets of close-up lenses are worth having. They are lightweight and allow a minimum distance of 0.5 meter and adjust the parallax compensation with the add-on viewfinder lenses. I use B&W bayonet III filters which are excellent, and carry all this in a belt pouch made by Camera Care Systems, together with a small pouch containing my incident lightmeter. This setup is very managable when threaded through the belt of my backpack, it has proved to be robust, and performs fine in sub-zero temperatures (just watch out for the falling dew-drops from a cold nose hitting the focussing screen!).

<p>

If you are satisfied with the minimalist fixed lens approach, the drawbacks of the camera include the price, the fact that it will soon be unavailable new, and the lack of 220 film capability --- its very annoying to have to change the film in a storm. Minor quirks are the lack of detents on the spool holders that makes film changing more awkward than it need be, the strap fixings that rotate to ensure a twisted strap when you take the camera out to use, and the fact that you cannot fit a filter to protect the viewing lens when one is in place on the taking lens.

It depends which aspect of a Nikon F series you are after. All 6x7's reflex cameras have interchangable viewfinders, but none are really practical for handheld use (the Pentax looks a bit like an old Nikon F, but seems to be let down by mirror and shutter vibration that prevent handholding at medium shutter speeds). The Mamiya 7 means that you lose the facility for a motor drive, and reflex viewing, but gain in managable hand-holding.

<p>

Your query was directed at 6x7 format, but really the closest thing to 35mm style handling are the 645 cameras with motordrive and prism finder, if you can work with 6x6 then the Rollei or Bronica are also quick to use, but considerably heavier than 645.

Having owned an SL66SE for a while, I can say it is a lovely camera, though heavy and slow to use hand-held. If you do a lot of close-up work, then the lens tilt comes into its own, but if you're using it for landscapes then you are probably on a tripod and able to use small apertures, which makes the lens tilt less useful. The lenses and backs are relatively cheap secondhand, in the UK, e.g., 40mm lenses #750, 50 & 150mm #500-600. You pay more for meter coupled lenses and backs. The new prices advertised on the WEB for these items are on par with the 6008 system. At the end of the day it depends on what you want to do with your camera, I now use a 2.8GX which is small and light(ish) and more suited to my mountaineering pursuits.

<p>

Nick Sofroniou

Glasgow, Scotland.