will_frost

June 16, 2012

Hello everyone,

I am attempting something similar, albeit with a twist: I'm copying the slides as they are held in the projector, so I need more working distance, (at least 140mm) and I'm using a micro four thirds sensor, so I need somewhat less magnification (about .46x).

I initially tried a reversed 50mm*, but without extension tubes, I couldn't get the magnification I wanted, but more importantly, the image showed obvious pin-cushioning! (The working distance was terrible, too.) I immediately abandoned that, did a whole bunch of searches here, read a lot of advice, and found Tony Jeffree's spreadsheet http://www.jeffree.co.uk/pages/macro-lens-calcs.html

I ordered a Pentax screwmount (M42) bellows, some M39 (Leica threadmount) to M42 adapters (cheap, 6$ including shipping), and a trio of cheap M39 enlarging lenses. (50, 75, 135mm) I hope that they will provide an undistorted flat field, and I hope my calculations are correct and the 135mm lens will provide the necessary working distance and magnification.

Will

*Nikon Series E 50mm 1.8, a nice small, light, little thing.

December 18, 2011

For a pseudo-TLR toy camera, try googling "Brownie Starflex".

May 24, 2011

For the curious the six-sheet speed loaders were commonly Grafmatics, which are still in use today, and are compatible with one and a half* of the main Large Format camera back systems. An earlier variation nicknamed the 'bag mag' let you shuffle 12 sheets of 4x5 film. I'm not clear if they were used on press cameras, but there were bag mags that were compatible with the 4x5 Graflex SLRs. Which used a third type of camera back with a confusingly similar name. The Medalist would presumably have been a better choice than a 2x3 press camera with a rollfilm back, since early rollfilm holders tended to have iffy film flatness, which becomes more evident at larger apertures and bigger enlargements. Summary for the truly bored: *Spring back a/k/a Graphic Back - film holders, Calumet rollfilm holders, Grafmatics? (according to one of the Graflex faqs they can be made to fit under a spring back, but it's really tight.) Graflock Back - film holders, almost every rollfilm/Polaroid holder, Grafmatics Graflex Back - for SLRs, film holders, oversized rollfilm holders, oversize Grafmatics, bag mags. Note that these were all manufactured by the Folmer Graflex company, for cameras containing the word "Graphic", for extra confusion and bafflement. Oh, and some backs & accessories were made in multiple sizes (2x3, 3x4, 4x5) and modern 2x3 Polaroid/Fuji pack film holders only fit 4x5 backs. Beware on the big 'ol auction site, incompatibilities abound. If you're reading this, you probably already knew all this. Sorry. Will

May 21, 2011

Thanks Marios,

I had stopped paying attention to what LR and Aperture did a while ago. Maybe it's time to read product reviews again. :)

May 20, 2011

Thanks, Tim, that's helpful.

May 19, 2011

Thanks Tim. ACR doesn't allow for layers yet, does it? I'm used to applying different amounts of noise reduction and curve lifting in different spots with a combination of layers and masks. Time to take a closer look at the manual. (Especially the part about Exposure vs. Highlight Recovery.)

I hear you on the ETTR stuff. I'm mostly thinking of some snaps I took on a day with really flat light - for some reason the in-camera metering plopped the entire histogram in the middle. Loads and loads of room to the right. I'm going to take a second look at Carl Weese's <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/12/on-testing-new-digital-camera-steps.html">paper towel test</a> and see if it still makes sense with what I'm doing.

May 19, 2011

Hi all,

I'm going to put my noobie hat on, and ask you if you think I'm doing it right.

Here's what I do when I take a digital image from camera to print:

1. Visualize

2. Expose to the right for the lightest tone I want to print. Bracket if I need more shadow detail.

3. Recover highlight detail with the Recovery slider in ACR

Hopefully I have a flat 'negative' at this point.

4. Duplicate the image into another layer and bring up the shadows in that layer.

5. Mask off areas for noise reduction. Heavy on the chroma noise reduction, light on the luminance noise reduction. Do as little as possible.

6. Fiddle with curves to place my lightest, darkest, and mid-tones where I want them. Blend layers.

7. Save (!)

8. Size for output

9. Sharpen for output. (This is adding acutance in film terms, yes?)

Obviously I'm missing some things here. (RGB vs LAB, color casts, B&W conversions, etc.) But, do I have the basic outline right?

Thanks everybody,

Will

May 10, 2011

Update II. It's been over a month, and the amount of flattening from stretching alone is about constant. It's probably good enough to scan, and it no longer wants to spiral up onto itself.

Lex, thanks for the tip on the hemostats. I think I have a pair on the workbench that I use as heat sinks when soldering.

Will

May 9, 2011

Thanks John, that's where I would have started.

Will

May 9, 2011

Hi John,

I was recently offered some Kodak and Ilford infrared, but haven't shot it yet. I like hc110, but I was wondering, what development time and temp did you use?

Will

April 11, 2011

Dan,

Thanks for the tip, that helps a lot!

Will

April 11, 2011

Say, is there an index of camera shows online? I see you guys finding cool stuff, but I've had no luck with googling for a list.

Will

March 31, 2011

Thank you very much everybody! The summary of flatness factors, and the comparison of different Yashica and Mamiya models is very helpful. I'm not too concerned about post processing flatness - patience and a heavy weight seems to help that. I'm a little more interested in situations where depth of focus is shallow and curled film plus film plane alignment errors add up.

I had begun to look at RB/RZ's since KEH seems to be running a sale on new-in-box models, but I was wary of noise, film curl, and weight. My Yashica seems better and better :)

Will

March 31, 2011

Hi.

I have some experience with MF. I've used a 6x6 folder, and currently use a Yashica D. Of course I'm wondering if there is something better out there :)

I'm looking for cameras that are known for film flatness, a quiet (leaf) shutter, relatively few moving parts, and don't cost the earth. Any format from 645 to 6x9 is fine.

My understanding is that almost all film magazine cameras - those with interchangeable backs leave some curl or bend in the film by the time it reaches film plane. (Under some circumstances.) I understand that some TLRs are better than others, depending on whether the take up spool is after or before the bend. I would be willing to consider a 2x3 press camera, if there was a rollfilm adapter that kept the film path perfectly straight.

I do understand that film flatness is kind of controversial, as in <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/001awY">this thread</a> in this very forum. I acknowledge that I might be chasing after something that makes no difference. But humor me, please.

Will

March 29, 2011

Update - I decided to hang the strip as if I were drying it - hooked a paperclip on the top and another on the bottom, hooked a binder clip to the bottom paper clip, and attached a thin paperback to it. It's only been up since this morning, but the middle of the roll has already straightened.

March 28, 2011

John Shriver,

Are all non-aqueous film cleaners pretty much the same? Just poke around on B&H and see what they have? That sounds remarkably simple. I suppose next, I should ask about negative pages :)

John A,

Let me see if I understand this: you want the water temp to be room temp so the emulsion, which softens in water, doesn't crack or buckle on the surface of the backing. Too cold or too hot, and the backing and emulsion would expand (or contract) at different rates, yes? Room temp for me is 64-68, so I'm assuming that would be fine, but no hot showers in the bathroom where I'd hang the negatives out to dry.

Everybody else,

Thanks for all the details, history, and advice. I'll have to think over really carefully what I want to do. Right now I'm debating washing the film and hanging the whole thing to dry, vs. cutting to 6 frame strips and washing them individually, vs. cutting and scanning as is, and interleaving them with clean paper until I get new negative sheets. The last seems the least potentially destructive. (First, do no harm?)

I'll update this thread with scans from the film when I get them done, and I might put a thread in the Classic Cameras forum with the camera and other sample photos if I get ambitious.

Will

March 27, 2011

Thanks Jay!

I'm thinking I'll hit up Craigslist for a tank and reel. Maybe I'll dig through the old threads on here about the 'best' tanks.

Will

March 27, 2011

Jay,

Thanks for the tip - do you think I could get away with a quick soak in a basin, or do you think reels would be best? (I don't own any at the moment, but I keep on intending to get some.)

That's a neat story. I did find one roll, years ago, that had been put inside a metal film can. The curl wasn't too bad, but the outer part had picked up some scratches from being repeatedly wound tight against the inside of the can.

March 27, 2011

Is there a category for "What were they thinking?"

Here we have some of my dad's old negatives, and curiously enough, they seem to have been deliberately wound around a purpose-made Kodak box. I wonder why anyone thought that was a good idea?

In any case, the outer layer of film (see image) is dusty, and the stiffness of the curl is impressive. Do you have any suggestions that are specific to this kind of bending? The film edge says, in faint letters:

Kodak Safety Film Kodak Plus X Film

I understand the common advice is to soak the negatives in 68 or 70 degree water with a little photo-flo, and then hang to dry first in a humid environment, then in a dustless, normal-humidity environment. But! Is that the best thing to do? Has anyone here worked with film kinked in this particular way?

Also, if it says "Safety Film" it's on acetate, like modern films, yes?

Will

p.s. I intend on scanning these later, instead of optically printing them, if that makes any difference.<div></div>

March 25, 2011

In all fairness, I think I hit on a perfect test case. If the lady who sold it to me via that auction site was truthful, her dad had bought it new, used a 35mm rangefinder of the same vintage in preference to it, and then it sat on a shelf in his closet for 20-35 years. At the very least, it still had a metal 120 spool sitting inside it when I received it. So there probably wasn't any opportunity for dust, dirt, or helicoid shavings to help the grease coagulate into something permanent.

Will

March 25, 2011

Yes, it was a permanent fix. 18 months later and it still works fine.

March 25, 2011

For those with stuck focusing or shutters, I had good luck with applying a hair dryer to my isolette for a little less than three minutes. I covered the bellows with a dishtowel, and kept the dryer constantly moving over the lens and shutter assembly. By the time the focus ring was uncomfortably warm to the touch, it worked perfectly.

March 11, 2011

The Olympus XA only has a 35mm f/2.8 lens, but you could not ask for a more pocketable 35mm camera. You'd really have to see it to believe it. It is aperture priority, with automatic shutter speed, but if you can remember what you are doing, you can change the ISO switch to get your desired speed (Within reason.) The viewfinder patch is small and dim.

If you want a different experience, try a Fujica V2. 45 mm f/1.8, with a thumbwheel for focusing! Decent size viewfinder, and a real metal brick too. Cds meter, with shutter priority, or full manual operation. Shutter is rated up to 1/500th, and may actually achieve it. Takes a Mallory PX13 (mercury battery). The metering patch has variable size covers that are rotated into place with a metal dial for different film speeds. 64, 100, 160 (Hey, it's a Fuji product, so of course 160!), 200 and 400, as I recall. Note that when you get to the end of a roll, the winding lever jams out at an angle - that is a feature, not a bug, according to the manual.

Will

March 4, 2011

Thank you JDM and Hillary! That is very helpful.

Will

March 4, 2011

JDM von Weinberg,

Can you tell me where I could buy a stereo viewer? (My usual google-fu is failing me, even when I restrict my search to just this forum.)

I've become quite interested in antique stereo views, and have actually bought a few, but the very, very expensive antique viewers are too narrow for my glasses.

Thanks,

Will

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by will_frost