doug elick

March 4, 2009

BTW, in case there's any confusion, the hub is not visible nor could it be in this photo. The silver you see on the edge of the "phantom props" is the metal tip protector.

I imagine the illusion of the prop arc being slewed is another artifact of a "rolling shutter". See the link of the aircraft taking off I posted a few entries back. Now imagine that slew or blur mixed into this mess.

It helps to visualize the prop arc as being a solid disk; in the case of visual geometry/perspective, it is.

Doug

March 3, 2009

I've been practicing in front of the TV, etc. off and on for the better part of a week (been sick with the flu). I finally wore out my practice roll (really old NHG-II) so I switched to old PXP. The film curl is enough that once I get it about half way onto the reel, the slightest mistake makes the whole thing "fly apart".

I've read every thread I can find, watched videos online, but it's just not working out. One demo showed a fellow guiding the film in with a single finger (it's easy, of course). NO WAY with this reel/film. I can load it if I go very, very slow and watch.... I'll keep practicing, but my gut's telling me it shouldn't be this hard. I can load the same super curled film onto a plastic reel in about 30 seconds.

Doug

March 3, 2009

I chucked a jug of 2.5 year old working strength fixer, and whipped up new chems. They all worked like a champ. Now I understand why diluted Rodinal is worth it.

Now I just need to figure out the black art of loading cheap steel reels (see next post).

Thanks,

Doug

March 3, 2009

I have a small army of plastic Patterson style reels and tanks that have served me well. I have no problem loading 35 or 120 into them. Problem is, none of my tanks are big enough to safely do 1:100 or higher Rodinal dilutions and I'm tired of dropping 'n cracking them. I asked for a double roll (120) stainless steel tank for Christmas and received a Kalt tank with a Kalt wire reel. You can probably tell where this is going........ I've already had a screwed up chunk of film in my last batch because it was touching itself and didn't develop in that spot; I want to verbally abuse the reel into killing itself.

Of course the plastic reels won't fit in the stainless tank.

I managed to load 35mm steel rolls in high school with no problem, but this thing is killing me. No matter how careful I am, it seems the (roll)film is always on the verge of "jumping tracks", especially towards the end where film curl starts getting nasty. Am I suffering at the hand of a supremely crappy reel? Am I horribly uncoordinated? Should I blow $40 on a Hews reel or set aside the kindly gift and get a bigger tank for the plastic Patterson style reels I already have? Will the less open design of the plastic reels present a problem with high dilution stand developing 120 film?

Thanks,

Doug

March 3, 2009

I'm resurrecting my darkroom after a hiatus of a couple years. My chemicals (Agfa Rodinal, Ilford rapid fix, Ilford PQ Universal, Indicator Stop Bath...concentrates of course) were all pretty new/fresh with only a few sessions in the darkroom out of each bottle before they were boxed up. All were stored at typical home temperatures; can I safely rely on the them? Does liquid fix concentrate go bad? I'm confident the Rodinal and Stop bath should be fine, but what about the PQ and Fixer? I previously used Kodak powdered products, but found I didn't use the working strength solutions fast enough to make them cost effective; what's the shelf life of the Ilford liquid concentrate "equivalents"?

Thanks,

Doug

March 2, 2009

You take light, stuff it through some shaped glass and project it on a chunk of something that will record that light. There, you have photography. Now what you do with that image after you've recorded it is what everyone bellyaches about. Digital just offers one a different way to finely hone that image or create an eyesore. Photoshop saturation vs. Velvia...... the process doesn't matter, both look like cartoons.

Digital? In some people's hands, it's kind of like giving them extra rope....

Doug

March 2, 2009

BTW, a normal mechanical focal plane shutter does not cause this multiple effect, what we're seeing has to be the result of some sort of raster scanning. Here's prop distortion from a mechanical "rolling" focal plane shutter:

http://www.aviationbanter.com/attachment.php?s=9724146c9ce3d67d54cc06efc80333c8&attachmentid=32651&d=1233752536

The prop appears to "smear".

doug

March 2, 2009

It took me a while to figure out how the prop is behind the cowl..... it's not. We're seeing reflections off of the fuselage. Notice how the angle changes slightly where the sky meets the cowl.

I highly doubt we're seeing anything that has to do with a change of altitude/attitude. The prop will always be in the same relative position to the lens regardless of how the plane is moving, ignoring rotation of course.

I'd be willing to wager a couple beers that this is an artifact of not a single (digital) rolling shutter, but multiples. Perhaps the imager "rolls" or scans eight seperate sectors at the same time? I've seen plenty of photos of props taken with focal plane (rolling) shutters and the weird distortion is reminiscent of this, though not X8. Lord knows what type of bizzare scan pattern it took to wind up with such a strange artifact. I suspect the prop blurred through those 8 "slits" at a relatively low exposure or "shutter speed", which explains the compression.

This is why I like leaf shutters for catching propellers; at least they look right.

Doug

March 2, 2009

If price is a real consideration in addition to low light capability, the f2.8 80mm on the Mamiya TLRs is hard to beat. In general, you will have to spend an order of magnitude more to get glass that fast for a 'blad and I'm reasonably sure it can't be done on an RB/RZ. Yes, it is a square format which will waste a bit of film, but with a bit of care when composing the image (keeping cropping in mind), it also offers flexibility.

Many a C330 served it's professional life in the hands of a portrait or wedding photographer... The lenses are very good, but not crazy sharp like some of the Zeiss offerings. On the other hand, do you want to resolve every pimple and hair follicle with amazing accuracy? You can get your feet wet, decide if MF is for you and either supplant or replace the ol' TLR if you so desire. They hold their value reasonably well. I have a C330F w/ later generation 55mm/80mm/180mm lenses, a grip and few few other small accessories. I imagine you should be able to put such a kit together for between $600-$1400, depending how patient and thrifty you are. Example, the following Ebay auction is over in about a day:

http://tinyurl.com/db4p58

Not a bad deal, I'd jump on it if I wasn't working on putting an RB67 system together.

I'd assume any used gear might require CLA, etc. and would budget accordingly. You can get lucky however. I replaced the seals on my C330 myself and have had zero problems.

Doug

March 2, 2009

My first thought was flash sync problems, but when I looked up the SQ-A, it looked like it could only do X (electronic flash) sync. Since you were using 100 speed film, you'd have an easy time underexposing the film and leaving it blank, hence my questions.

How far away from the flash was your subject?

Shutter speed is important even on leaf shutter cameras. Remember that your flash has a limited range, so anything outside of that will still follow normal exposure rules. For example, if you take a flash photo of a nearby person in a large, dim room and use a high shutter speed, you'll capture them, but none of the background. You'll wind up with the classic "ghost in the dark" photo. Many photographers will slow the shutter as far as practical to capture as much ambient light as possible; this is known as "dragging the shutter". The flash will illuminate your subject and stop their motion while ambient light will provide the background. This is a classic wedding photography technique (as I understand). The background is unmoving, so will be largely un-blurred.

I've found the best way to understand flash exposure is to think of it as a flashlight. You adjust it to expose whatever it's illuminating, but have to be aware of what is non-illuminated as well. This means you have two exposures to consider: what the flash is illuminating (by adjusting the flash's power setting) and the rest of the scene (by adjusting the shutter).Aperture effects both calculations equally.

Another way to put it is for a given film speed and aperture setting, the flash will have to be at a certain setting for a given range (if it is not TTL metered, which your SQ-A is not). Think of it this way; the flash is a "second shutter" that has settings for what it illuminates and the actual shutter speed is for everything else.

I suspect your flash sync is incorrect (slowing the shutter will help to an extent if this isn't an M/X problem) or the exposure settings on the flash itself were way off.

Doug

March 1, 2009

Are you sure the shutter is actually working? What speed film were you using? What were your aperture and shutter speed settings?

Doug

February 28, 2009

I would posit that the beauty and/or fascination with B&W photographs doesn't come from what our minds have to fill in so much as the distractions that are stripped away when color is omitted.

On an instinctual level, I find that B&W images convey the mood/emotion/aura of an point in time better than their color counterparts in most cases. I would also add that in my experience, the most impactful color images are those that are visually simple, if not stark.

Doug

February 28, 2009

I'm sitting here enduring the flu, sucking down Nyquil, contemplating my MF gear. I just acquired a RB67 pro with a first version 90mm.

I understand that older lenses have older coating technology, usually single coated, many times only on single elements. Conventional wisdom is that these older lenses can be more flare prone and can have lesser contrast than their newer counterparts.

My stable of MF gear includes my C330F with a silver 80mm, Black 55mm and Black 180 super, my Rolleicord IV with a 75mm 3.5f Xenar and the new RB w/ 90mm. Being conscious of the aperture I'm using and where the sun is, I've always been happy with the sharpness, contrast and color (where applicable) the old single coated Xenar produced (with care, it's damned sharp). Even time exposure night shots came out tack sharp. The Mamiya's 55 and 180 seemed great and I never felt the older silver 80 was a dog. Now I have the RB67 with an old 90mm.

Are the ruminations I read about ultramodern-multicoated-ubercontrast lenses splitting hairs? Sure, I'm sure the latest Zeiss glass can tromp 40 year old Mamiya glass, but aside from flare in *really* difficult situations, I've been pretty satisfied. Given I'm a rank amateur with a shoestring budget, is there any reason to shy away from the older RB67 glass like the 50mm, 65mm or 180mm? Any reason to believe their color rendition with chromes will be inferior to the Xenar? B&W contrast mushier?

Yeah, these are hackneyed questions....blame the cough syrup,

Doug

February 27, 2009

BTW, it's normal to feel increased resistance as the shutter cocking lever is pushed down as you wind. Also, it's pretty common to get dust on the mirror and focusing screen. Just take the screen off and clean it and the mirror like you would the rest of the optics.

The only squeaking noise my C330F ever made was from a cheap plastic film spool as it turned on the posts. Plastic on metal can be squeaky.

A copy of the manual can be found here:

http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_c330f_prof/mamiya_c330f_prof.htm

Doug

February 27, 2009

The C330 might be noisier than a Rollei, but it should advance smoothly with no jerking or grinding sounds. All you should hear is light gear noise.

Make sure the film loading door is being held completely shut. With the door open, you should see a small tab in the upper portion of the right side light baffle groove. That tab needs to be held in, in order for the counter and frame advance to work properly. Opening the door releases this tab and resets the counter. If the winder seems quieter/smoother as you hold the door down tight over that tab, you've found your culprit.

The most common cause is that both hooks in the door latch mechanism didn't grab. When you close the back, push firmly on both corners (opposite the door release) with your thumbs. Because of it's size, the door can flex a bit, leaving only one of the hooks latched. If you're sure both hooks have clicked/grabbed but the winder still won't move smoothly without holding the back shut, VERY CAREFULLY bend in the tabs on the body the door latch hooks engage.

Doug

February 26, 2009

Actually, I can't wait for a view camera that can receive ESPN.

Doug

February 26, 2009

Just another reason to hate seagulls. Flying rats.

Doug

February 23, 2009

Hehe, there is no way on earth I could afford a Hassy or a Phase one back, unless one of you fine folks decide to subsidize me.

My stable of cameras includes the venerable K-1000, Rolleicord IV, C330F and a recently added RB67. At least the RB is still in current production (sort of)! The last piece of photography equipment I bought new (excepting lens hoods, paper and chemicals of course) was the K-1000 in 198x.

Jeez, the RB67 is huge. It'll be the go-to camera when I have a specific high quality image mission. I don't see packing it into the wilderness unless I have a specific vision that can only be accomplished with "big iron". The C330 with it's nice stable of lenses will remain my all 'rounder and the Rolliecord excels as a light, sharp, on the go MF camera.

Doug

February 22, 2009

Hehe, there is no way on earth I could afford a Hassy or a Phase one back, unless one of you fine folks decide to subsidize me.

My stable of cameras includes the venerable K-1000, Rolleicord IV, C330F and a recently added RB67. At least the RB is still in current production (sort of)! The last piece of photography equipment I bought new (excepting lens hoods, paper and chemicals of course) was the K-1000 in 198x.

Jeez, the RB67 is huge. It'll be the go-to camera when I have a specific high quality image mission. I don't see packing it into the wilderness unless I have a specific vision that can only be accomplished with "big iron". The C330 with it's nice stable of lenses will remain my all 'rounder and the Rolliecord excels as a light, sharp, on the go MF camera.

Doug

February 20, 2009

"Douglas, what would you recommend for 6x9?"

</blockquote>

I can't recommend any 6x9 per se, because I've never used nor seriously considered one. I think Agfa made one, you can get roll film backs for view cameras, I think the Mamiya press did 6x9 and I've read plenty of positive buzz about the Fuji GSW690 series. However I said "get the biggest negative you can deal with" . In my case, going anything larger than 6x7 would necessitate hunting down a the right carrier for my ancient B8 or finding a new enlarger. If I need to go any larger, I think I'd consider a 5x7 view camera and enlarger to suit it. Maybe I will some day, but I think I'll get quite a bit of mileage out of the RB67 and my other MF gear. I should be able to enlarge 100 ASA b&w, 6x7 shots to levels higher than my capacity do deal with large paper (it starts becoming prohibitive beyond 11x14 and I'd have to reverse my enlarger and use the floor as an easel) or conversely, have a lot of room to crop, etc. I have an 11x14 color photo on my wall that was printed from a cropped 6x6 Portra 400 negative (taken with the Rolleicord). From a couple feet away, it looks grainless. The same shot with the 6x7 and Ektar 100 should be ridiculously sharp, quite usable up to poster size. A slow speed B&W film print from 6x7 should look milky smooth at any magnification factor I'm able to produce.

February 19, 2009

Just get a 645 back for the RB if you really want that format. But what's the point? Personally, I don't think 645 is a big enough leap over a good 35mm system to justify the slower lenses and semi-cumbersome camera. If you're going to deal with roll film, get the biggest (&*%! negative you can manage!

Doug

February 19, 2009

I was bad, stricken with gearhead syndrome. I have a complete RB67 w/90mm on the way; the price was too good to pass up. If I really enjoy it, I might acquire a few lenses and then maybe sell off my C330 kit; that's a tough decision. I'll always have the Rolliecord as a nice, light MF TLR though.

I was all set to develop that roll of film last night, but for the life of me, I couldn't find the box containing my chemical concentrates. I found my jugs still containing working strength chems, but somehow I don't think I want to rely on 2 yr. old fixer.

Doug

February 18, 2009

I've never really considered doing my own color prints. I'd probably have to upgrade my enlarger and certainly would have to invest in equipment for the color work-flow. I used to take my color film to a little shop down the street from my house that catered to wedding and portrait photogs; they sold no equipment, they just did processing. Since I was an amateur but someone who'd hang around and talk (The Noritsu they bought used was the very machine I operated when I had a job at a processing shop. Small world) , they often worked with me on pricing, did simple retouch "pro-bono" and were generally helpful folks. They retired and passed the business on to their kids who promptly changed the place to a digital shop. I just noticed a couple weeks ago there's a realtor's sign outside their building.....

I'd like to try color print again (Ektar), but short of mail order processing, I couldn't tell you who could do a good job processing MF in this town anymore.

An RB with Ektar 100 loaded would be a potent system, wouldn't it?

Doug

February 17, 2009

If your Va has similar strap loops (slots) as my IV, you can use just about any generic strap. Get the kind that loops through the slot and secures back to itself.

http://www.amazon.com/Optech-Comfort-Strap-Black-Neck/dp/B000928KII/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1234931033&sr=1-3

The above type strap should work fine. I'd take the camera to a local shop to see what fits/what you like. Either way, you don't need to spend anywhere near $75.

Doug

February 17, 2009

I ordered the replacement for my C330, 55mm black lens. I was heartbroken when the shutter in mine bit the dust (twice); it might be the sharpest lens in the C3xx line. I also ordered a few rolls of Fomapan 100, Fomapan 400, Efke R100 and E100GX (why'd they discontinue E100S ?!?!) I'm pretty comfortable with Tri-X, Plus-X, etc. and thought I'd try something new. My Rodinal is a few years old, but it should be ok.

I'm not worried about the B8 enlarger. I inherited it from my mentor; his results were fantastic (with a Kodak Medalist ) and I was quite pleased with mine using the 90mm Ektar it came with. Unfortunately, it appears the Ektar is growing fungus. I'll give it some time under a UV sterilizer lamp, but even if that doesn't help, I have a Rodenstock APO 80mm mounted and ready to go.

I can get sucked into the gear at times, but to be fair, sometimes personal history I have with it can be a motivator in itself. Tens of thousands of K1000s were produced, but only one of them did I work my tail off for as an 11 year old to purchase, take through grade school, high school, college and beyond. I don't care how many times people lament all the features it lacks, it just feels right and has never failed me.

.....Now I'm waxing sentimental.

I found an undeveloped roll of Plus-X I shot 2 years ago; maybe I'll soup it tonight.

Batteries are an anathema to photography,

Doug

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by doug elick