niklas_persson

<p>I just called Hasselblad Support.</p>

<p>To clear things, files scanned with a scanner such as Imacon/Hasselblad X1 in the RAW format <strong>.FFF is NOT and probably will lever be able to be converted to .DNG files</strong>.</p>

<p>The only possible option is to export to TIFF or JPG, the support technician concerned with scanners at Hasselblad answered.</p>

<p>Best </p>

<p>Thank you both! I am now a happy user of a 150mm Schneider Symmar-S which fits perfectly backwards (but yes, it's really close to the ground glass with a yellow filter and lens cap on!)<br>

Best,<br>

Niklas</p>

<p>If anyone else is looking for information I'll just post this response I got from Agfa:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>G101 is a developer from our graphic department and is designed to develop line films. The recommended temperature (for lithographic films) is 35°C and the developing time should be approx. 25 seconds. <br />The G3231c is a microfilm developer. Standard conditions : temperature 38°C and developing time 12". <br /><br />It should be possible to develop films as Tmax in G101 and G3231 but indeed the contrast will be higher and the film will be a bit more grainy. <br /><br />We did never test these combinations but I recommend to make a test with a (much) lower temperature (f.e. 20°C) and a developing time of a few minutes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess that is a probable outcome... How about really diluted? Larry suggested 1+4, perhaps even more?<br>

I am mostly asking because I have a limited budget and obtained a lot of boxes of those developers without any charge.</p>

<p>I'll at least give it a try, thanks for all help!</p>

<p>Well thanks I might just try that out! :)</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />I just acquired a LOT of boxes containing Agfa C101c and G3231c developer. The limited information I could find indicates that they are for lith film? Some information says "rapid processing" is this the same as lith film?<br /><br />What effect would the developer have on for example TMAX 100 in 4x5 sheets? I somehow go into my mind that you would get more grain and higher contrast, but other then that developing regular B&W film in lith developer would not be that terrible? Perhaps even desirable if one wishes for high-contrast negatives? (I am by the way shooting in low-contrast conditions, overcast skies outdoor - hey it's 6 days a week of gray sky, what can you do but embrace it? And I'm scanning the film in a drum scanner, so I do not require it to produce good dark room prints but rather to scan nicely)<br /><br />I contacted Agfa by mail (no answer yet), does anyone have a clue as to what the development time might be for TMAX 100 in those developers?<br /><br />I'm very thankful for any information!<br /><br />All the best,<br />Niklas</p>

<p>I read this post a few weeks ago, and now I'm on the hunt for a 150mm lens. So I forgot that this post existed, remembered it and searched for it but didn't find it until now. The conclusion I posted a question of what 150mm (if any) would fit inside a folded Wista 45SP. I got some short answers and kind of were able to draw some conclusions from that (Schneider Symmar-S seems to fit with board reversed IF it is a copal #0 or something small and doesn't have any extended release connection on the board - otherwise it would probably not fit the appx. 80mm hole behind the lens board!)</p>

<p>Link to the post: http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/00Us6g</p>

<p>Happy folding!<br>

Niklas</p>

<p>After some further research to the depths of the Internet I have found lens data of both Schneider Symmar-S and Rodenstock Sironar-N / Sironar-S (the N version being the same as Caltar II-N).</p>

<p>For anyone interested (future Wista 45SP + 150mm lens field/portable users):<br /> <em>Please note that this is calculations I have made from data charts from Schneider and Rodenstock and does not mean that I have tried the combinations! I will try to make an update when I have bought one (probably Symmar-S or Sironar-N/Caltar II-N).</em></p>

<p><strong>Wista 45SP inner dimensions for lens</strong><br /> front max dimensions: around 41 mm depth and around 45 mm width<br /> back max dimensions: 47 mm depth (width redundant)</p>

<p><strong>Rodenstock Sironar-N 150mm (27?/24? x 51/42 mm)</strong><br /> front: 27? mm depth x 51 mm diameter<br /> back: 24? mm depth x 42 mm diameter<br /> Image circle: 214mm<br /> Angle of view at f/22: 72°<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP: No, front diameter too large<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP (reversed): <strong>Probably, but it's a close one!</strong></p>

<p><strong>Rodenstock Sironar-S 150mm (27,5?/24? x 51/51 mm)</strong><br /> front: 27,5 mm depth x 51 mm diameter<br /> back: 24 mm depth x 51 mm diameter<br /> Image circle: 231mm<br /> Angle of view at f/22: 75°<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP: No, front diameter too large<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP (reversed): No, back diameter too large</p>

<p><strong>Schneider Symmar-S 150mm (36,5/18,5 x 60/40,5 mm)</strong><br /> front: 38,4-35,9 mm depth (depending on shutters) x 60 mm diameter<br /> back: 16,6-19,1 mm depth (depending on shutters) x 40,5 mm diameter<br /> Image circle: 210 mm<br /> Angle of view at f/22: 70°<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP: No, front diameter too large<br /> In a folded Wista 45SP (reversed): <strong>Yes</strong></p>

<p>Other options that would probably fit in a closed Wista 45SP, but usually with a smaller image circle and/or sacrificed max aperature, includes (kind of incomplete info, sorry):</p>

<p>150mm f6.3 Fujinon W (140g, 40.5mm filter, published image circle 224mm)<br /> 150mm f5.6 Schneider Xenar (170g, 34mm filter, published image circle 173mm)<br /> 150mm f9 Schneider G Claron (130g, 35.5mm filter, published image circle 189mm)<br /> 150mm f6.3 Calumet Caltar II-E (Rodenstock Geronar, B&H claims 180mm image circle @ infinity)<br /> 150mm f5.6 Calumet Caltar Pro (Schneider Xenar, same as Xenar's published image circle 173mm probably?)</p>

<p>Information gathered from Kerry Thalmann's page about lightweight lenses http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm and Joseph Dickerson post (above), Schneider Optics PDF archive http://www.schneiderkreuznach.com/archiv/pdf/ and Paul Butzi's page about Rodenstock lenses info http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/rodenstock.htm</p>

<p>Regards,<br /> Niklas</p>

<p>I just noticed that there is a site called rodenstock-photo.com http://www.rodenstock-photo.com which I guess have data but it currently says:</p>

<p>

<p><em>Dear LINOS and Rodenstock users!</em><br>

<em>Unfortunately, our website is closed for the moment due to some maintenance we have to do. The server will be available again soon! Thank you for your patience!</em><br>

<em>LINOS web administrator</em></p>

<p>I guess that accounts for some of the confusion...</p>

</p>

<p>Bob,</p>

<p>I guess you are refering to this page for example? http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/vintage_lens_data/large_format_lenses/symmar-s/data/1,5,6-150mm.html</p>

<p>As for Rodenstock, I didn't find any data on their lenses, perhaps I'm just blind? Also searching for "Sironar-S" on site:rodenstock.com gave me only their front page as result = they provide no data? Do they have another website then rodenstock.com?</p>

<p>I am sorry, but I have looked there and I just cannot find physical lens size or outer diameter of front/back element. Could you direct me to a specific place where I would find information on the Schneider 150mm f/5.6 Symmar-S, Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-S and Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-N?</p>

<p>All I can find is overall length (55mm for the Symmar-S for example) and filter diameter on unofficial sources (which I guess can add 2mm or so to get outer diameter of the front element). What about the back element? I am asking to learn what lenses would fit the Wista 45SP when closed _with_ lens board reversed.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Niklas</p>

 

<p>Joseph,</p>

<p>Thank you for a swift and informative answer! I think I will stay away from the Sironar-S and Symmar-s (and lenses of similar physical size), even though I guess they are great lenses and gives a lot of coverage.</p>

<p>Further, do you (or any one else for that matter) know of a place where you could find data of lenses including their physical size (diameter and length of back/font element + diameter and length of shutter)? I found this specific information very difficult to find... When I begun looking into LF I thought of buying a Horseman 45FA and for this I found a list online (http://www.komamura.co.jp/e/lens_list.html). Is there something similar for the Wista? Is it somewhat useful for the Wista 45SP as they share a lot of characteristics?</p>

<p>Niklas Persson</p>

<p>I recently bought a Wista 45SP but currently have no lens for it. I have settled for a 150mm as it is equivalent to what use to shoot on 6x7 and 35mm. The ones I have found most praise about are Schneider 150mm f/5.6 Symmar-S and Rodenstock 150mm f/5.6 Sironar-S which both seem like fine lenses.</p>

<p>But would they be possible to store inside the folded camera in between locations? (I have suspicions they won't) What about the flipping the lens board trick?</p>

<p>Does anyone have other recommendations of 150mm (or near) lenses that would fit inside Wista 45SP folded, is decently sharp and good for both b&w and color positive (i.e. MC, perhaps it's not necessary? I have no experience of the difference)?</p>

<p>It might be valuable to add that I mainly make photographs in connection to installation/performance based artwork, meaning I usually carry a lot of other items in addition to camera gear. This is why I bought a folding camera and also why I'm looking forsomething that wouldn't add to the number of loose (and fragile) items.</p>

<p>I am very grateful for any enlightenment in the folding LF compact lens jungle!</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Niklas</p>

<p>Thank you for your answers Bob, I will heed to your advice and not buy the III and keep on looking. Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi again,<br>

3241? Did you mean it in reference to 23297?<br>

If the shoe is replaced and the number "23297" is there, that means the number is probably not the same as the camera body?<br>

Can you draw any conclusions from the image (specifically what version of III it could be)?<br>

Thanks again for the help!</p>

<p>Hi Bob, Brian et al<br>

I just registered here after having "just read" posts for some years. I am on the point of seriously getting into (second attempt) large format photography as a tool and method. I work primarily with photography as a part of artistic processes (performative, conceptual, sculptural) and as a way of communicating ephemeral qualities and/or for a communication directed to more then the chance encounter with my "physical matter". However... I was interested in something lightweight, rugged and yet quite technical — thus I became very interested in the Horseman 45FA and some other similar cameras. In my search for this I came a across a Linhof Technika III with the serial number 23297 for a considerably lower sum then any package I could manage to scrape together scavenging local shops, ebay etc. I have also attached an image of the camera/kit.<img src="http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/5756/0049.gif" alt="" /></p>

<ul>

<li>Is my research correct in that this is a version 1 produced somewhere in between 1946 and 1950?</li>

<li>It says it's 9x12cm, but I learned that this was only a different set of films and film holder and that the camera itself was identical to a 4x5" of the same version — is this true?</li>

<li>If it is a III v.1, does this hold many disadvantages from the later versions? and is the step between III v.1 and IV considerably larger then the step between III v.5 and IV?</li>

<li>Would I be much at disadvantage in having the older Linhof in relation to buying a more "modern" rugged field camera like Horseman 45FA, Toyo 45AII, Wista 45SP etc.? My (very limited) previous experience is with a Speed Graphic and then much more extensive experience with MF like Mamiya RZ67 PRO II, Hasselblad 503C/W. I have understood that it is a kilo or so heavier then i.e. the Horseman and that it should indeed have a finer precision than most of these? Other comments or warnings concerning older (III) technikas? I am planing to shot both 4x5, 6x9/6x12 roll film. Does the serial number I provided (III v.1?) have a graflok/internation back usable with i.e. the Horseman 6x12 roll film back?</li>

</ul>

<p><em>Sorry for the massive amount of questions, and I am of course more then happy for any clarity in the matter!</em><br>

Thanks,<br>

Niklas</p>