brian_turner2

-what I meant to say about the red "focusing" filter was that no

light is visible through it- that is, I can't see any image on my

paper while I am focusing. Before, I could see the image without

it actually exposing my paper. What I wrote above seems kinda

silly!

I've been plugging up the boards recently with questions about

using a cold light source. I apologize. I've recently switched from

a condenser, so this is like learning to print all over again for me.

It seems that each time I learn something on here, each new

printing session brings a new variable into the equation, or

some slight modification to my enlarger. Many of you have

helped me tremendously, and I thank you!

Now I have a new situation that I would like to throw out to you:

First off, I'll tell you that I'm printing on Multigrade Fiber paper,

using variable contrast filters, just as I always have. One thing

that I have noticed about printing with this new cold source, is

that the differences between say, two seconds and four seconds

are like night and day! Much more so than with a condenser.

Also, the differences in filters are more dramatic as well, which

brings me to my main question: why is it that when I go up in

filters (more contrast), my exposure time seems to be less?

When I was using the condenser unit, if I moved from a #2 filter

to a #3, my exposure time needed to be quite a bit longer, which

is just the opposite of what I experience now. Is this normal, or

am I experiencing something very strange here? What could be

causing this? Does it have something to do with the way the light

reacts through the "red" in the filters? I noticed that the dark red

focusing filter that I used to use with the condenser doesn't work

with cold light. No light passes through it at all. I do have the

Aristo V54 bulb which is supposed to be for VC papers...

I'm not terribly frustrated, because I know it will take some time

learning this new set-up, and I have had some amazing results

when I happened to get it right. I just want to know if this is to be

expected, because right now, my assumptions have been totally

off! -thanks!

Could it be the silhouette of the film transport rollers at the top

and bottom of the frame? I've never used a Rollei, but several

other TLRs that I have do this in the corners. On mine, it is

always the distinct shape of the rollers in the corners that prevent

a clean "square" corner... I kinda like it!

Yeah, it will take some getting used to, but once you see the

quality of your negatives/prints, you may just find that you'll pick

up your 35mm less and less... or maybe not. Most people just

end up sticking with what they're comfortable with.

Like mentioned earlier, since you're starting out with a pretty

bare-bones medium format system like the 501, the only way

you're going to get that "convenience" of the automatic 35mm's is

to get a metered prism. This will work kinda like a TTL meter, but

you'll still have to tell it what speed you're using. Look out for

sticker shock! Go with a cheaper Kiev prism if you absolutely

must have one that meters for you, they're pretty accurate if you

calibrate them with an already reliable meter.

Personally, I prefer a handheld meter, spot meter, etc. Any case,

if you want to push, just dial it in the meter as 800 instead of 400.

Simple as that.

Good luck and enjoy!

ladies and gents,

I just received my new Aristo cold light for my Beseler 23CII, and

can't wait to go home and try it out. However, I've been reading

through the threads and I keep finding all these problems

people are having, like uneven illumination, fall-off around the

edges, hot spots in the center, etc. At least two out of these three

are reasons why I decided to switch to using a cold light in the

first place, so imagine my frustration if I start having these same

problems with a $200 new head!

I'm going to give you guys my set-up specs, and you can tell me

what problems I can expect, if any. Hopefully, there will be no

problems, and I'll be tickled to death with the results :)

Here it is:

A) Beseler 23CII with Aristo V54 cold light,

B) Rodenstock Omega® 75mm /2.8 lens (I usually use f/8 to

print),

C) 6x6 negs only,

D) Ilford MC filters (below the lens),

E) Ilford MC paper (fiber)

Can I expect good stuff???

I have a good friend who just acquired an old Beseler Color Pro

135mm enlarging lens. He got it from a science lab that never

used it, therefore it is in mint condition. Judging from the

packaging, I'd say it is at least 15-20 years old.

Question is, can anyone tell me what kind of reputation these

lenses have? I haven't found too much info about it, but I read

something that led me to believe that these were actually made

by Rodenstock for Beseler. Is this true? How well would this lens

perform for enlarging 6x6 and up? He does all B&W work, but

what would make this lens special to carry the name "color pro"?

Is it somehow geared more for color printing?

We still haven't set up his enlarger to fit this lens yet, but we are

hoping that someone will tell us more about it, so we'll kinda

have an idea of what to expect.

Thanks!

Nick-

I've spoken with Mr. Hama several times. He is indeed the East

Coast Yashica go-to man, if not the entire US. I believe he even

specializes in the Yashica Mat, or it's better-known relative, the

124-G.

I still have several (maybe 4) die-cut sheets of black leatherette

that Mark once sold me. I could part with them for a small fee.

They fit any Yashica Mat model, but you can probably cut them to

fit a "D" or and "A", or even a 635. Check with him to see how

much he would charge you for what you need... I think he sold

me 5 of them for like $25. Let me know if you're interested...

I get the impression that's all Honeywell, as a corporation does.

They try to get their name included in just about anything for a

short period of time. Kinda like the kid who tries to be in every

yearbook photo.

What the hell DO they do, anyway?

(my apologies to any Honeywell executives out there)

Thanks, guys. I just happened to find a piece of 1/4" translucent

plexiglass (similar to milkglass) that was lying around in my

studio. Cut it down with the ol' table saw so that it fits in the

condenser drawer of my 23CII, and voila! A diffuser filter!

I'll do some test prints tonight and let you guys know what

happens... I was mostly trying to come up with a way to keep my

B&W prints from looking so "muddy". I print on Ilford MCIV fibre,

and find that when my prints dry down, they just look too dark in

the centers and muddled overall. A friend suggested I try using a

cold light head, and that what I was seeing was a result of the

"Callier Effect".

Hopefully, this experiment will help some, or at least back up my

friend's suggestion. Thanks again!

ok. I don't know... this may be silly, but I thought I'd ask...

Is there any way to simulate the effects of a coldlight head with a

regular condenser enlarger? I'm just wondering if, instead of

dishing out extra money for another light head, if there was some

way to maybe place a piece of milkglass or translucent plexi

between the bulb and the lens to diffuse the light? I know we're

talking about two completely different light sources here, but I

wasn't sure if it would even be worth trying, so I thought I'd ask.

Thanks!

I've noticed that with my Hasselblad (which is about 30 yrs old),

on about 1 out of every 4 rolls, usually one frame will overlap

another slightly. Sometimes there is irregular spacing as well:

i.e. too much or too little space at beginning and end of the strip.

Both the back and the insert have matching #'s. The back is

dated from '82.

Sounds like it may be time for a checkup. Does it sound like this

problem is in the back's gears or in the body's? I'm wondering if I

should just send the whole camera in to Hasselblad, but I'd

really hate to go without it for too long since I use it everyday. Any

input or advice on what may be causing this?

I saw that too! Aside from all the other discrepancies, the objects

that appeared to conceal parts of the Rousseau plate crop

marks was the most interesting point of their argument.

(although the flag waving around frantically raises some

questions, too???)

However, a friend of mine has an old "coffee-table" style picture

book of official NASA photos from the moon. We thought, "Man, if

we find pictures in here like the ones they were showing on TV,

maybe there IS something to it!". All of them have the little

cross-hair marks in them, but we couldn't find any that had

objects in front of them.

I agree, the Hasselblad tech guy did seem to be there more for

sound-bytes than anything else. An actual technical investigation

of the properties of the photos would bore most people to death.

I have a couple of questions about replenishing developer:

I use HC-110 (dilution B), and am tired of having so much

left-over chemistry by the time it exhausts and I start seeing

evidence of this in my negatives. Then I found out that Kodak

makes a replenisher to add to the stock. Has anyone used this

replenishing method with good results? Should I just stick to

making a new batch every time?

Also, if I decided to just make a new batch, could I just mix the

new in with the old without having to throw it out? Would the

exhausted developer contaminate the new in any way, or would

addition of the new chemistry cancel it out?

This may sound like a silly question, but I just hate pouring $$$

away. Thanks!

Michael,

I bought two of the three available Proxar lenses as a set on

eBay. I got them both for a total of $80! That's pretty darn cheap

for two Zeiss lenses. If you go the Proxar route, I would suggest

getting the 0.5m and/or the 1m, since the 2m isn't going to get

you much closer than the limits of a standard 80mm/2.8 lens. So

far, so good. I'm really pleased with them.

ps. another good thing about Proxars is that you won't have to

compensate exposure like you might with tubes.

good luck!

Thanks for asking that, Jennifer. I've been wondering that as

well!

What IS the difference between Bay 50 and Bay 60? I've heard

that the older C (chrome) lenses take both. I have some Proxar

lenses that say "B 57" on them. Does this mean they are Bay

57??? They fit the inside ring of the lens perfectly, but they don't

say Bay 50 or 60 on them anywhere.

Maybe someone could clear this issue up for all of us??

Thanks to all of you who responded, especially those who

suggested going to a gun shop. I went down to my local

weapons dealer, and not only did I pick up a nice lens cap for my

spot meter, but also a nice AK-47 to boot! Can't wait for deer

season!

(just kidding)

...that is, of course, depending upon which model you have and

how old it is. Make sure you have the two little tabs that secure

your screen in place first.

I have a great old Pentax spotmeter- the Honeywell kind with the

brown/black body. My question is, does anyone (co., individual) make

an efficient lens cap for these? I bought a 42mm threaded lens cap

that fits well, but it is such a pain to screw it off and on, and to

keep fidgeting around with it during shooting.

I once saw a Pentax spotmeter for sale on eBay that came with a nifty

lens cap that appeared to be made of plastic. It fit over the lens

barrel, and had a hinged flip cap that would stay up while you were

using it. The seller described the cap like it was something someone

made for him, but it looked mass produced to me. Does anyone know of

something like this, and if so, where I might be able to get my hands

on one? Anything similar to this, or something that would be easier

to use than what I have now??? Thanks!

The ONLY place I buy film from is Calumet (Chicago).

Sometimes, if in a pinch I'll go to the local shop and buy film for a

buck or two more with the mark-up. Someone posted above that

B&H is cheaper- yes, they are sometimes, but not by much. My

experience has shown that B&H often messes up my order, and

are often rude (NYC attitude) when I need customer service. For

that, I'll pay a few cents extra.

Calumet has ALWAYS given me exceptional service. They get my

vote!

Jeff-

Remember what they said in elementary school... "no such thing

as a dumb question"!

There's no rewinding of film, or even a cartridge to fool with. Just

place the empty spool (assuming there is one already in the

camera) in the top spot, and your new roll in the bottom spot. Pull

out the little leader tab and insert it into the slot on the empty

spool. Turn your film advance knob until the paper backing is

wrapped around the spool once and seems taut. Now shut the

back of your camera and continue advancing until you see a

number 1 in that little red window. You should be ready to take

the first picture. Just make sure you advance after each shot!

Remember to keep those empty spools as your new take-up

spools.

Have fun!

Todd-

I too just recently purchased a 2x3 Graflex with the Singer 120

back to shoot MF with, but my back is all screwed up. It doesn't

advance properly, and feels to be "stripped-out". Might I ask how

you modified yours to accept other brands of 120 backs? Was

this DIY, or did you shell out a lot of cash to do so? I really want

to use this camera with 120 film. Another problem is that I find

that the backs are hard to come by on eBay, and are ridiculously

high in price. Do you have any suggestions?

Martin,

I've never had any experience with the 2000 FC models, but I do

have an older 500 C/M. I recently took it on a weekend trip where

at times, as the sun was going down, I was getting meter

readings of around 1/30 sec. I took a chance, thinking that my

pictures would probably just fall victim to camera vibrations, but

to my amazement, all the shots on my roll taken at 1/30th were

crystal clear and sharp as hell. I just try to brace my arms

snuggly against my stomach or chest, and that seems to work

fine- as long as I don't go slower than that.

Good luck!

Does anyone know of a decent close-up kit (or filter-like

attachment) that could be used with a Ziess 80mm Planar

(C-type lens). I would like to take close up shots from time to

time, but don't want to have to shell out 2K or more for a different

lens.

I've used +1 close-up kits with TLRs before, and have had great

results depending upon my aperture settings.

Thanks!

I've recently purchased an older Honeywell Pentax 1/21 degree spot

meter (the brown/black one).

Does anyone know of any good resources on the internet where I can

obtain instructions on how to properly use this meter/ or to check to

see if it is accurate?

If anyone can give me any quick pointers on what the buttons and

metering scales do, I might be able to take it from there... the only

meters I'm used to are the old "cheapo" ambient/reflected light

meters that GE used to make.

Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks!

Ok- I'm new to Hasselblads, but I've been doing lots of research

these past few weeks. Here's a question that's been skirted

around, but never fully answered on here...

I'm trying to determine which focusing screen is on my 500 C. It

is actually a C/M from '71 branded with the name "C". This is,

however, the model with the two locking pins for the screen. It

has a diagonal, split-screen in the middle, but no grids or

anything.

From all that I'm reading on MFD about the Acutte-Mat D screens,

these are apparently the ones you should upgrade to for brighter

viewing. The Wildi books seem to suggest that some of these

models came with the Acutte-Mat screens, but from what I can

tell, this glass isn't any brighter than those on some of my

Yashicas, which are rather dim. I would like to purchase a

brighter glass, but not if my camera already has one of these

screens and I'm just not experiencing this awesome brightness

that everyone claims from the D screen. Is there an easy way to

tell which one I have?