willy_boots

<p>Hi Cory, thanks for that detail about the retaining pins. this way I'll be able to tell if it is in fact the original metal spacer. </p>

<p>Hi, thanks for all the responses everybody, you've all been really helpful.</p>

<p>I took the screws out, and what I found is that a thick and thin metal frame came out. The thick metal frame has the fresnel glued to it. Good idea, using the solvent, I was trying to think of how to remove the glue -- although it may actually be some kind of caulking, not totally sure what it is yet or if it will dissolve easily.</p>

<p>When I had the thick metal frame out, I dropped in a type A screen, put the DE-1 prism back on, and was disappointed to find that the focus wasn't right, it was focusing well beyond infinity. I suspect that the thick metal frame with the fresnel glued to it is the proper spacer for correct focus (if only the glue wasn't on there). Why it has those ugly counter-sunk screws is a little mysterious. Maybe it's not actually the proper spacer, but I'll have to remove the fresnel before I know for sure.</p>

<p>I'm going to bring it to the store that sold it to me in a week, and maybe they have access to an expert who can throw it up on a bench and do it properly for me, but I'm pretty sure I could tackle this issue after the help from you guys. Thanks again.</p><div></div>

Hi, so this is what my f2 looks like without a prism and with the screen, marked 'k' removed.

 

http://i.imgur.com/PPV7kdS.jpg

 

There appears to be a piece of fresnel with a bunch of weird (TV?) lines and shapes and numbers on it glued into place. The beige

coloured stuff could be the glue or something, and someone has written into it. Or do all F2s have that beige kind of glue like stuff in

them?

 

So what I was thinking I'd do is scrape the glue out, break the fresnel out, and clean in all up carefully with an exacto knife. I have an A

type screen. My question for F2 owners is should the screen just sit flat at the bottom of this, um, cavity, or pit, or does it perch down

there on a special apparatus that has possibly been removed?

 

Any indoors or advice? Thanks.<div></div>

<p>Old thread I know, but I've just been looking through Nick's photos lately. Somebody mentioned how there must absolutely be blurring done on photoshop on the lion looking into the storm photo because just his face and nose area is in focus. To me it's very obvious that there's a narrow depth of field with the focus bang on his nose and the reason his mane is out of focus is because it's a slow shutter speed with a strong wind blowing it out of focus.</p>

<p>I recently heard someone talking about how the underexposure latitude in print film X has less latitude in 120 format than 35mm. Is this the case with any films? I would think it would be the same because my understanding of film production is that a certain type of film is produced and then cut into its various rolls and sheets, so it should be uniform regardless of format.</p>

<p>Leigh: sorry to be unclear. I mean that i was photographing along a measuring tape with a marker sitting beside the number on the measuring tape that I was focusing on. I had this little pointer aiming at 35, and instead of 35 being in focus, 36 is nice and sharp instead. I did this test a number of times with multiple lenses and multiple backs.</p>

<p>Thanks for the info about the lens scale refering to the film plane and not the end of the lens, though, that's some good info.</p>

 

<p>Ok! Got it back in!</p>

<p>Thanks for the response, Tim. My screen doesn't say hasselblad anywhere. How do I tell if it's genuine? And how do you get it back in?! Having some trouble here, but I'm sure I'll figure it out in a sec..</p>

<p>Hi there,<br>

I've been fiddling around with a Hasselblad 500 cm lately, getting to know it and all that. I noticed a lot of my photos were out of focus. Basically, any portrait shot at 2.8 and maybe 4. At first I thought I wasn't holding steady or my eyes weren't good at gauging focus or something, but it kept happening. So, I shot some tests and what I found, very consistently with every shot (I took a lot of shots to be sure it wasn't my eyes not seeing right) is that the focus lands a little further back than what I intend.<br>

Now, I've tested this with 2 lenses and 2 backs and it always comes out like this, so it must be the body, right? But if it were the body, then shouldn't focus at infinity be off? Shouldn't infinity be at least just a little blurry? Because as far as I can tell it's not. I tried another hasselblad that was clearly not sharp at infinity so I've at least seen the mirror not sitting right problem. What could be causing this?<br>

Another note: The tests I did were with objects and the tape measure up pretty close and they would come out with focus being off by about an inch. But when I photograph something around ten feet away (like a cat I photographed recently) it's out of focus and everything right behind it, like a wall, is just bang on super sharp. Same observed about 6 feet away from a person on a couch. Their face is blurry and then the couch is very well defined.<br>

So can this be fixed? I'm not familiar with hasselblad repairs but I was under the impression that it's the kind of camera that everything can be repaired with. It's just that I spoke recently with a camera technician and he was basically like, 'well, if it's in focus when you put the lens to infinity, it must not be the body.'<br>

If anybody could tell me what they think this problem could be, I'd be very grateful. I'm a little discouraged because of course I don't know what's going on in the camera and the repair guy I've spoken to so far doesn't seem to have any ideas what else could be causing the problem. Thanks.</p>

<p>Oh, wait. I'm reading elsewhere that the framelines have actually been moving the whole time. Really? I guess it took me 6 weeks to notice or something? Well, ah, maybe everything's fine and I won't start panicking. Really though? They've been drifting that much across the thing and I never noticed it before? Weird. Ok.<br>

Ehrm but the focusing patch, the way the second image moves over nice and smooth and then suddenly kicks back for a sec, but then if I keep going it gets back into position. Whaddya reckon?</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Yesterday I just received an old collapsible 90mm Leica F4 collapsible elmar. I threw it on my almost brand-new Voigtlander R3M to test this morning. I went out shooting with it and my Voigtlander 50mm f2 Heliar to compare how they rendered the same scene and things like that. At first I didn't notice any problem at all but then using the 90mm I noticed the 90mm framelines shifting up and over a little as I focused. Also the secondary image in the focusing area after this would kind of jump back and then move back over and line up. The framelines stayed put and didn't move again.<br>

Now, I'm new to rangefinders and I don't know exactly what this means though I'm guessing it has something to do with the lens needing some attention. The focus is pretty stiff, but the apertures click nicely. It collapses pretty stiff. I should note that I haven't collapsed it into my Voigtlander at all yet.<br>

So I took my camera and lenses home and thought that I'd finish my test roll shooting some stuff in the apartment. First I shot with the 90mm elmar, not noticing any more frameline shifting or anything, and then when I put the 50mm on, I got a real shock because now the 50mm frameline is shifting pretty heavily and it just wasn't doing that at all before I put the 90mm on.<br>

I wouldn't be all that dismayed to find that I had to get someone to CLA the 90mm elmar, but I'm pretty disappointed that it seems to have tweaked something and wrecked my camera's rangefinder. Or at least, that's what I'm guessing happened. I don't know much about rangefinders. Is this possibly what happened? Is this a major repair? What do I do?? Should I panic?</p>

<p>Wow thanks everybody for the detailed responses! Stand development sounds like it's definitely worth a try. Maybe I'll give it a go in the morning. If the ambient temperature is at 22C-23C then would it be safe to stand 20C 1:100 for an hour or should I prepare a 20C water tray just to be safe? I'm not sure how much the temperature would change over the hour but it seems like it would be a good idea regardless.<br>

Now, if I wanted more grain than stand then trying 1:50, and if after that I could get even more grain by using a development scheme with 1:25 rodinal? Is this correct?</p>

<p>Interesting, I haven't tried development where you just let it sit. What are the benefits of this over shorter developments with more agitation?</p>

<p>Good to know. I'll keep an open mind as I proceed.</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

Home developer beginner here. So I've been picking around flickr checking out other people's results with tri-x developed by rodinal and I'd say I see a lot of results that are coming out better than my first attempts. I see a lot of scraps of people's technique (agitation regimen etc.) and there seems to be a lot of variety. Some people agitate every 30 secs, other people every 90, some agitate vigorously for first 30 secs, some people agitate for 5 seconds every 30 secs for first 5 minutes and then 10 seconds every 60 secs for the remainder and so on and so on.<br>

I'd love it if an experienced rodinal user could give me a development scheme to follow for EI 400. I'm using the pattern universal tank (2 135 or 1 120/220). I'd like to know details like do I use the twister thing, how many times to overturn the tank in however many seconds of agitation and how gently to overturn it, things like that. Something detailed that would give me a decent starting point is what I'm after.<br>

I'd also like to try the overexpose - underdevelopment thing, EI 250 or 200 or whichever. Thanks a lot! I really like rodinal tri-x results out there and would like to emulate what I'm seeing.</p>

<p>Great, thanks everybody. In about a month I'm going to go out working in the bush, where I probably won't have a lot of opportunities to develop my negatives. When I come back with dozens of rolls to do, it'll be nice to get some bigger tanks. I guess one thing you could do with an 8 roll tank is fill it with the developer and then plunge the 8 rolls of film quickly in so that they all get the same amount of devoloping in.</p>

<p>I've been using the patterson tank that can do one 120 roll and 2 135s but I'd like to get a bigger tank because I'm a little behind on my developing. If I optimize my development times with one tank but then I want to do a bunch of rolls in a bigger tank later should I run fresh tests to get my development exactly as I want it or does choice of tank not really impact development much?</p>

<p>oh, there's a temperature chart???? Ooooooohhhhh.</p>

<p>Ok, maybe I should go with the water bath technique. I guess it would take a little while before all the solutions were at the same temperature, but once they're there then I should just keep a close eye on the temperature of the bath itself? What sort of method do you use to maintain the water bath temperature? I'm working on getting a really solid reliable system down so I can be scientific about this whole thing.</p>

<p>ok, these concepts are starting to crystallize in my mind somewhere.. I should have mentioned I'm using D-76. So if I shoot at EI 800 I will lose shadow detail because not enough light was let in to touch the negative, and there's no way to pull that out of a negative no matter what fancy development technique I use. So if you push a film, say you're shooting tri-x at 1600 then this guarantees a higher-contrast image than at EI 400? Now, when they say that tri-x is a flexible film that can be pushed (and pulled?) lots, this means that it records a vast tonal range so that even with the increase of contrast at EI 1600 you can get a negative that still looks like something other than blacks and light greys?</p>

<p>Ok, I know that on the dev charts they're just start times, so does that mean that things'll be good enough if you start with the kodak times the same whether shooting tri-x at 400 or 800, but in the end are they the same? Do you pros out there who've settled on dev times throw rolls at 400 and 800 into the same tank together? And hey, on the massive dev chart it says that if you shoot it at 200 to develop it (1:1) 15 seconds shorter than if you shot it at 400 - 800. It's counter-intuitive to me that you could shoot from iso 200 through to 800 and only have a 15 second difference in development times to get proper development. (But that's probably because I'm a nooooB)</p>

<p>Wash water, so far I've been 'eyeballing' it to get it in the neighbourhood, but I haven't been testing it, should I? Hypo-clear and photoflo at room temp (22C) from the distilled water that's sitting around. I have this glass thermometer but it's a little slow to change temperatures. Can anybody recommend a thermometer that responds really quickly to small temperature changes? Would make things easier.</p>

<p>I was just wondering, when people say to keep all solutions the same temperature, would you call this sloppy? My apartment is reliably 22C, so I mix up my D-76 1:1 for 20C and then figure everything else is close enough. Whaddya think?</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing, everybody!</p>

<p>Hi there,<br>

I'm shopping for a better focusing screen for my 500 cm and I noticed there's this one on ebay from some sellers in china and hong kong that's pretty cheap. Far cheaper than an acute matte d, that is. It's not Hasselblad and nobody's really clear on who makes them or anything. I was wondering, has anybody tried these? Are they any good?</p>