ola_tuvesson

June 1, 2016

Thanks! If you look on the Emsa site you'll see they have loads of different sizes available - I'm sure the same is true for other manufacturers. Some container sizes stack in neat ways too. I do have a few rolls of 135 in the refrigerated box (as opposed to the frozen ones) and can report that the 1L version holds six rolls of 135 standing up, height and length a perfect match, but with a fair amount of space left on the sides. Eight 120 rolls and three 135 rolls fit just as neatly as twelve 120 rolls do.

June 1, 2016

I don't freeze film to be used in less than a year

</blockquote>

Yep, I've never frozen film before either, but 20 rolls of 120 is more than I'm likely to use in a year - especially considering I have a bunch of mixed rolls already in the fridge. It's also the first time I've ever bought IR sensitive film, and although the SFX is not a "real" IR film I figured it can't hurt keeping it below zero. At this point I have no idea when I'm going to be using any of this, or how often - it could well be more than a year, even two years before they're all gone.

a desiccant is a good idea

</blockquote>

I live by the sea and buy desiccant bags in bulk to keep various bits of equipment damp, mould and corrosion free. Tool drawers, component storage, camera bags, laptop bags - open any of them and you're likely to find the familiar little pouches with "do not eat" printed on them (a silly warning since in the unlikely event that you'd feel tempted to do so, the worst thing that would happen to you is that you might feel a little thirsty). I "recycle" them in a small toaster oven I have in my workshop and consider them essential. Since I always have literally dozens of these to hand I figured it can't hurt popping one into each box - might keep any paper eating moulds from munching up the cartons if nothing else. Life by the coast also means frequent and lengthy power outages and I cannot trust my tiny freezer to stay below zero at all times...

June 1, 2016

Yeah, well, I needed something to put the film inside, and had no suitable bags or other containers to hand. It's not going to hurt them to store them like this, is it? FWIW, those three Emsa containers cost just £14.50 delivered, and should last for decades - the batch of film cost ten times more! I just felt it was a happy coincidence that they were such a perfect fit for film rolls (which I prefer to keep in their original boxes) - it may be that there are others who like the idea. And the fact that they are made in Germany only adds to the nice feeling of Ordnung! :D

June 1, 2016

I'm sure shrink wrap would work very well - though you'd have to re-wrap every time you take out a fresh roll...

June 1, 2016

I was running out of film and decided it was time to stock up - and to try a couple of interesting emulsions I haven't tried before. But since I'm a bit random with how much film I use, I wanted to make sure I stored them so they will last; it may be a year (or more!) before I've gone through them all, particularly the SFX and PanF rolls. So I started looking at options for airtight freezer safe containers, of the type usually used for food storage, and stumbled upon what might be the perfect solution: the <a href="https://www.emsa.com/en/products/freshness-guaranteed/food-storage-containers/clip-close-classic-format-100l/">Emsa "Clip & Close" 1L</a> size container is not only well made, completely air-tight and freezer safe - it also happens to have exactly the right dimensions for 12 rolls of 120 film, and I mean like down to the millimetre, in all three dimensions. An added bonus is that you can clearly see exactly what rolls are inside each container without having to open them. Some photos:

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240579-md.jpg" alt="" /> A selection of fresh 120 rolls from Ilford

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240580-md.jpg" alt="" /> Emsa Clip & Close 3x1 Litre

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18240581-md.jpg" alt="" /> Ready for the freezer!

</center>

Since I only had twenty rolls I was going to freeze I opted to put a mix of ten in each box, and used the left-over space for a bag of silica gel desiccant, for ultimate storage conditions. It also meant I had one Emsa box over - I now use this to store the rolls I want to have to hand in the refrigerator instead; no more boxes of film falling out on the floor every time I open the refrigerator door...

May 30, 2016

I have this lens - a CF T* FLE version from 1996, and it is simply wonderful - the only pity being the filter size - that it is an uncommon size

</blockquote>

Indeed. So imagine how amazing it was to get hold of one that came with both the original UV drop-in filter AND the dedicated polarizer (which doubles as an adapter for the Proshade, which I also have, allowing you to adjust the filter with the hood attached). The polarizer even came in the original box. These filters are like the proverbial hen's teeth, and both were absolutely spotless. Alone they are probably worth $300-500. And a mint condition 4/40 CF FLE maybe $1500. But I paid a lot less than $2000. I also wasted $90 on a Proshade adapter for it, which I now have no use for. Now do you see why I'm frustrated?

Then again, I'm not a big filter user either, though I do like a #22 orange when the Simpson's clouds are out, and with lenses as expensive as this I consider an UV filter to be mandatory.

To cheer myself up I used the refund to buy an Imacon Flextight Photo instead - finally able to scan my Hasselblad negs! Time. To. Let. It. Go.

May 30, 2016

Thanks guys. I agree Tom; I've let this get to me more than it should have. But I'm sure you know what it's like when you fall in love with a magnificent piece of glass like this, only to have to see it go. And technically, I was still the legal owner of this lens until Friday afternoon, since I had not yet received a refund. So when the technician looked at it, he was really looking at my lens - it was only some hours after the inspection that a final decision was made, and I asked for my money back. I guess that's what really pissed me off; had the technician said "I can't answer your questions because it's not your lens" then I could have explained that actually it was my lens, but instead he gave me this nonsense about not finding any fault, when I knew that there was something wrong with it. I found that rather insulting.

As to my certainty regarding what exactly it was that caused the damage shown in my photos, I confess to having some doubts. That's why I posted here. I just wanted certainty. I still think it looked like some kind of impact damage, but of course, had a qualified lens technician said to me that it was fungus and given me his word that he'd been able to remove it without any lasting impact, then who am I to argue? Lens technician I am not. I don't know if it's even possible for two elements to collide inside a lens like this - though having looked at a cross-section view it sure looks pretty cramped in there. The only glass I have with fungus damage is a Hasselblad chimney finder, where the attack has left permanent marks on the coating. It doesn't affect the use of the finder at all (it's invisible when looking through it), but it also looks nothing like what you see in the photos above. So I really just wanted to settle this in my own mind. What if the seller was telling the truth? I never saw the lens again after the "servicing", so short of getting a professional opinion from someone here, based on my blurry photos, I guess I'll have to live with the possibility that I may have missed out on the deal of the century instead.

May 29, 2016

Look, it's cracked glass. There are tiny shards sprinkled all over the element. Sharp geometrical lines around a darker centre. No way this is a mould, or any other kind of organic structure. I was hoping I could get some confirmation on this, but really, it's quite plain to see. Add to that that there appeared to be some movement inside the lens when handled and I'm pretty convinced that my initial assessment is correct - and that the seller and/or Camera Museum were taking me for a fool. You might want to have a look at some pictures of mouldy lenses to see just how ridiculous the suggestion that this would be a fungus is: <a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus">https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=lens+fungus</a> Tell me if you spot anything that looks remotely similar - I sure as hell can't. So having serviced a lens that someone is selling - a $1500 lens - you would not be able to say to a prospective buyer what service you performed on it? To me that would be quite worrying, and I would stay away from any such equipment. As I chose to do in this case - precisely because details of the fault and the servicing done to remedy it were not disclosed in an honest way. I'd advise anyone else thinking about parting of a huge chunk of their hard-earneds to do the same. It is worth remembering, when it comes to collector's class lenses, that damaged glass is basically impossible to restore to factory condition - spare elements are unlikely to be available, and a lens with a damage such as this one, however nice in other respects, has in effect a market value only equal to that of the spare parts that can be scavenged from it. I count myself very fortunate indeed that I spotted this flaw in time.

May 28, 2016

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on this? Surely there must be someone here who has dealt with damaged/mouldy lenses? The deal may be off, but I still want to know: could this really be "fungus" on the glass? Or do you agree with my assessment that it looks more like some form of impact damage? I did an image search for "lens fungus" and couldn't find anything that looked even remotely similar... I feel like I have been taken for a ride, and would like to settle the matter - if nothing else, it will help knowing what to look out for in the future!

May 27, 2016

And then it gets even weirder. I decided to call the Camera Museum myself to hear first hand what the techie had to say - and guess what, he goes "oh no, there was nothing wrong with that lens at all, no fungus or anything." I tried to explain to him that I had photos showing the damage quite clearly, but he was, shall we say, less than interested. I asked him if I could get him to evaluate the lens for me (for a fee) and he said they'd have to send it off(?) elsewhere to do that, which I thought was rather odd since he had just done an evaluation of it for someone else! I asked him to confirm that he had taken no action other than opening and inspecting the lens, and again that there was no fungus, scratching, or other damage to any of the elements, which he confirmed. Then I got a pretty angry "look, this has nothing to do with me, it's not my problem, don't get me involved" - funny considering he's had the lens apart on his workbench just hours earlier... This whole thing stinks to high heaven - I'm puling out!

May 27, 2016

The plot thickens. Having returned the lens to the seller he took it to the Camera Museum in London to have it examined, and the techie there said there was fungus in the lens, opened it and cleaned it. Now the seller is offering it back to me. I would love to accept, but I'm very hesitant; could this really have been a fungus "infection" on the glass? I've never actually seen this in real life, so don't know what it looks like, but to me the glass looks cracked/scratched? Can anyone here offer some opinion on this?

May 25, 2016

It's on its way back for a refund. Heartbreaking stuff; the lens almost looked like new, and came with the dedicated (and quite rare!) Hasselblad polariser and original "drop-in" UV filter. All absolutely perfect in every way, apart from the internal damage. I had been on the look out for one of these at a reasonable price for *two years* - god knows how long it will be before I manage to locate another one that doesn't require donating a kidney to pay for it.

May 24, 2016

I was devastated to receive the lens of my dreams today only to find that there appears to be some damage to one of the internal elements. The front and rear glass is spotless, and the lens exterior is near mint. Focus, FLE control, aperture and shutter all appear to be functioning perfectly. But when I look through the lens from certain angles, an ugly scratch appears in the central field, and to me it looks like an impact damage. Holding the lens in my hand and moving it around somewhat vigorously there is a very faint mechanical clunking coming from inside. I would greatly value opinions on the likely cause, severity and potential remedies from those more experienced! Some photos:

September 7, 2014

Thanks - it's not looking good; the only ones I can find cost ~$90, more than I paid for the WLF! :(

September 5, 2014

Maybe you can help me with something though: what is this part called!? I've tried to guess what it could be but the results I get when searching seem to indicate I haven't guessed correctly :)

September 5, 2014

Hi Ken,

Many thanks for your helpful reply! Yes, it strikes me as odd that there are no markings on the removable part with the lens - I would have thought that unless it was "neutral" they would print something on it! I can't see what else it could be though; the hood itself is in great condition and it's certainly not "deformed" in any way that could explain the focussing problem. I haven't got it in front of me now, but IIRC the lens part is not flippable either - it will only fit one way up - so I don't think it's just that it's the wrong way around. Not good to hear that these are hard to find, I think I paid $50 for the hood :(

September 5, 2014

Hello,

I recently picked up a "new style" waist level finder for my Hasselblad, but for some reason I am unable to get a sharp picture on the matte screen with it. The "old style" WLF that I have works perfectly, but with the new one the picture always remains out of focus. I'm thinking it might have a lens with a dioptre adjustment - I see it is replaceable - but there are no markings on it to indicate what that adjustment might be. How can I tell if this is the problem. and if so where can I find a "normal" lens for a "new style" WLF? I've tried searching but I don't know what the part is called!

Many thanks,

Ola

November 18, 2010

Actually, that's not quite correct, after checking current exchange rates the MIS Pro inks are actually a tiny bit cheaper than the Inkrang inks - but shipping from Italy should be a lot cheaper than from the US.

November 18, 2010

You might find this list of compatible inks useful, I've included all the bulk load inks I've been able to find that are designed to work in the UltraChrome K2 printers (4000,7600,9600). Note that prices are for 500ml single bottles and in different currencies.

<ul>

<li>AIS

<ul>

<li>advancedinkjetsystems.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>ITL Digital Chrome

<ul>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Lyson

<ul>

<li>marrutt.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Fotospeed Ultra Pro

<ul>

<li>fotospeed.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Inkrang

<ul>

<li>inkiostro.it</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Can-Ink

<ul>

</ul>

</li>

<li>MIS Pro

<ul>

<li>inksupply.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>ConeColor K2

<ul>

<li>InkjetMall.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

<li>Mediastreet ink2image

<ul>

<li>mediastreetbyink2image.com</li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

The MIS Pro inks stand out to me as the best deal - Inkrang is cheaper but I've never heard of them while MIS have a pretty good reputation. But as I haven't been able to find a UK supplier of their inks I am instead leaning towards the ITL Digital Chrome inks; ITL seems to be a well regarded manufacturer and the price is very good compared to the competition.

November 17, 2010

This has been moved to a new thread: http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00XhTi Please post any replies there!

Ola

November 17, 2010

I originally posted this as a reply to <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00XMzm">another thread</a> but noticed that threads don't pop back to the top when replies are posted. Since the thread was more than two months old I doubt anyone would see it - so I thought I'd post it as a new thread instead. Hope this isn't against the forum rules!

Ok, so, after a few months of procrastination, and the gradual realisation that good B&W printing will never be possible to achieve with my SP 5500, I have now become the owner of an Epson Stylus Pro 4000. Unlike the 5500 this machine is supported by QuadTone RIP and there are several alternative ink options available, including dedicated black & white ones. It also does A2 and handles roll paper so quite a nice upgrade for my tiny budget. I am pretty sure the banding issues I had with the 5500 when printing black only were caused by poor rasterisation algorithms in the Epson print driver and I'm betting on QTR being the solution. Since the printer only just arrived I'm currently happy to use the ink it came with and print some colour pictures with the standard Epson driver - but I will eventually start to run out of ink and at that point I would like to invest in a refillable cartridge system. Now I have heard horror stories about clogged up heads from third party inks but I'm prepared to take that risk in the interest of saving a sizable chunk of $$$. Besides, I'm fairly confident I can unclog the head by reverse flushing should this happen (I did this for the 5500 a couple times which was pretty easy - and from what I've seen removing the head is even easier on the 4000). But since I do all this on a budget which would make most of you laugh I have to try to keep costs under control. I've done a fair bit of searching on the web, reading in various forums and browsing web shops to get an idea of prices. A plan is formulating and it goes something like this:

<ul>

<li>Get a full set of transparent, spongeless, refillable cartridges </li>

<li>A set of 500ml or 1L bottles of the standard colour ink set</li>

<li>Add an additional set of cartridges of the same type for printing with MIS carbon based inks</li>

<li>And of course some bottles of B&W inks</li>

</ul>

But how big should these sets be? Do I really need to swap out all eight carts every time or can I get a B&W inkset which shares one or more "blacks" with the colour set? And does the B&W inkset really need to be 8 carts in size? Won't I get sufficient quality from QTR with just four? I don't worry about tone at this point, decent neutral tone B&W is more than enough for now. I haven't been able to find a clear answer to any of these questions, can someone here perhaps shed some light? Many thanks, Ola

November 17, 2010

Ok, so, after a few months of procrastination, and the gradual realisation that good B&W printing will never be possible to achieve with my SP 5500, I have now become the owner of an Epson Stylus Pro 4000 instead. Unlike the 5500 this machine is supported by QuadTone RIP and there are several alternative ink options available, including dedicated black & white ones. It also does A2 and handles roll paper so quite a nice upgrade for my tiny budget. I am pretty sure the banding issues I had with the 5500 were caused by poor rasterisation algorithms in the Epson print driver* and I'm betting on QTR being the solution. The replies from John and Edward were really helpful in making this decision - many thanks to both of you! Since the printer only just arrived I'm currently happy to use the ink it came with and print some colour pictures with the standard Epson driver - but I will eventually start to run out of ink and at that point I would like to invest in a refillable cartridge system. Now I have heard horror stories about clogged up heads from third party inks but I'm prepared to take that risk in the interest of saving a fair chunk of $$$. Besides, I'm fairly confident I can unclog the head by reverse flushing should this happen (I did this for the 5500 a couple times which was pretty easy - and from what I've seen removing the head is even easier on the 4000). But since I do all this on a budget which would make most of you laugh I have to try to keep costs under control. I've done a fair bit of searching on the web, reading in various forums and browsing web shops to get an idea of prices. A plan is formulating and it goes something like this:

<ul>

<li>Get a full set of transparent, spongeless, refillable cartridges </li>

<li>A set of 500ml or 1L bottles of the standard colour ink set</li>

<li>Add an additional set of cartridges of the same type for printing with MIS carbon based inks</li>

<li>And of course some bottles of B&W inks</li>

</ul>

But how big should these sets be? Do I really need to swap out all carts every time or can I get a B&W inkset which shares one or more "blacks" with the colour set? And does the B&W inkset really need to be 8 carts in size? Won't I get sufficient quality from QTR with just four? I don't worry about tone at this point, decent neutral tone B&W is more than enough for now. I haven't been able to find a clear answer to any of these questions, can anyone here perhaps shed some light? Many thanks, Ola *) I forgot to mention in my original post: the banding was perpendicular to the print head travel direction; so very unlikely to have been caused by a clogged head.

September 26, 2010

Here is a 100% crop from the previous image.

Ola<div></div>

September 26, 2010

I have been lurking here in the forums for some time and have found them to be one of the best resources for technical info, tips & tricks and answers to a wide range of questions. It so happens I have a few of my own which I have been unable to find an answer to, here or elsewhere, and now that I've finally plucked up the courage to expose my ignorance I figured this would be the best place to post. For a number of years I've been using a Nikon D200 and a couple of lovely Nikkors (20-35mm f2.8 AF-D and 85mm f1.4 AF-D) but I've always longed (perhaps irrationally) to go back to film, black and white in particular. I was lucky to get hold of an FM3a body a couple of months ago and have been shooting a few rolls of Ilford Delta 100 (rated 80 ISO) with it and the aforementioned Nikkors. While I still shoot mainly digital I have really enjoyed the more focused style and manual steps required to produce images from film - and I have been very pleased with the results too!

Now I don't have a darkroom, instead I'm trying to follow a hybrid workflow with scanning and digital printing which which seems to have become fairly popular of late. For this I use a Pacific Image PrimeFilm 3650 Pro scanner (lets me scan uncut rolls which is great) and an Epson Stylus Pro 5500 printer from which I've had some surprisingly good results, particularly using the "black only" method. After spending some time setting up the scanner the ~17Mp 16-bit TIFFs it produces need very little (if any) adjustments and print beautifully up to 13x19" (which is the max size for my printer), provided the neg is well exposed. Life couldn't be better. But there's a fly in my ointment and it's driving me nuts. Depending on the size I print at I get varying density banding pattern which must be caused by an interpolation error between the scanner and the printer. No banding whatsoever is present in the scanned neg, even if I hunt for it with extreme curves adjustments - and importantly it changes frequency non-linearly with the size of the print. I have tried printing at 1440dpi but I just get a different frequency of bands. I suspect that the grain in the film as captured by the scanner causes an interference pattern with the printer driver's "raster". Does this sound like a reasonable assumption or have I got things completely wrong? And more importantly, does anyone have any suggestions what I could to to get rid of this effect? Any input much appreciated, Ola <div></div>

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ola_tuvesson