mark_l6

<p>Well I use a 508 and performed all the rigorous testing as described by others here and ended up adjusting exposure compensation setting to give +2/3 stop exactly as Ian suggested. Now that I know it's right, if I have any problems I have to look elsewhere, and it usually turns out to be either a thermometer or a shutter.</p>

No I've never bought another photographers prints, and I from my experience I have never sold a print to a photographer, but sold loads to non-photographers. I only hang my own work at home and loads of paintings.

Love books pf photographers work, but I am really fussy about the print quality of the books.

<p>Thank you Q.G., that is the first one I've seen that would work on the side shoe, all the others I found had two bubble levels which meant one was useless when installed on the side of the camera and the three way levels that I have tried were so badly made that they were not level within themselves or not perpendicular to the base. Again thank you, that looks good.</p>

<p>I would second Blanco Negro in Sydney, they do Foma's own version of ID-11 and Rodinal, Chris who runs it is so helpful, although I try to deal with him by e-mail so he doesn't get disturbed in the darkroom. Use him for paper as well, if only to keep the stuff available, and it's good too.</p>

<p>When I used a Hasselblad briefly I found the bubble level that attached to the side very useful. Now that I use a Rolleiflex 6006 I would like to fit a level into the hotshoe, which I have checked is in line with the film gate. With the shoe being on the side a lot of the spirit levels and electronic levels don't work very well or have their readout in the wrong place. I would really like to be able to check both front/back and side/side axis as I do on my large format gear. Actually thinking about it, it would be handy on my rb67 as well, although I have not checked the accuraccy of it's hot shoe.<br />all suggestions gratefully recieved.</p>

<p>Well I'm pleased that I'm not the only one with this problem, I wondered for a while if I was doing something wrong myself.<br>

I don't wish to do anything to devalue the camera in the long run, but I have to wonder if it is possible to adapt my 6006 WLF or even just the magnifier panel?. Never had this problem in grey old England!<br>

I tried a prism briefly but it seemed to me to make the handling considerably more awkward.<br>

Thanks for your responses.</p>

<p>Recently I bought a Rollei TLR, specifically a 3.5E3, which I love. However the magnifier is on a very small flip up panel hardly bigger than the magnifier lens, so it hardly shields the focussing screen at all. Under the bright Australian sun where I live I find the focussing screen almost unusable because of sun getting past my face and flaring the view. If I shield the top of the finder with my hand the image becomes perfectly clear, so it's not the focussing screen, which is the original, but simply a matter of too much light hitting the top of the screen. Do other people have this problem, and if so how do you get over it?<br>

My Rollei 6006 magnifier is in a square panel that fills the top of the waist level finder, as does my RB67, so I've never come upon this before and I cannot find any sign of this problem on the net although Phil Greenspun in his review of the 2.8f mentioned using a baseball cap to help shield the finder. I don't like hats of any form so any brighter ideas would be appreciated.</p>

<p>"You mean that, 4x5'' will produce better image quality over 6x7cm, in a 16x20 print? Wet? or scanned equally? All other being equal? At 16x20, I wonder, I don't think so"<br /><br />I don't scan much these days, but I can easily tell the difference between a 16X20 from my sinar or technika over 16X20 from my RB67 on a wet print, talking black and white only, to me the detail is better as is the tonal gradation in the midtones, but that is MY eye. The 4x5 neg is enlarged about x4 linearly to reach 16x20, the 6x7 by a factor of about 7. I personally prefer not to enlarge much beyond 5x, that's my threshold and applies to me, Iwould not inflict that on anyone else! That's not to say that I do not print larger of all formats, I'll print 6x6 to 20x20 sometimes, but I'll always wish I had used 4x5 instead. I am always happier if I keep to that limit, but in my opinion that is very personal limit.</p>

<p>Do you actually have a 75mm lens on a technika board? If you do, try what I do with my technika III version 5, which is to drop the baseboard to the first drop position of -15 degrees, then slide the inner rail back to the click stop so it's overhanging the rear of the baseboard, then click the lens back upright, then slide the lens back until it's carrier slightly overhangs the back of the inner rail, then open the shutter and adjust it's position until it focusses at infinity, then you can simply use the focussing knob to focus closer, bearing in mind that as you focus closer the lens will drop slightly and you may need a litle rise to keep it in the neutral position. Of course this does not work with the rangefinder cam, only for GG focussing. I've been doing this for years with my 75mm Grandagon and it works fine. I believe the special focussing device was for the 65mm and shorter lenses. If you look up Technika III 75mm on photo.net you will get a posting with a photograph of my technika with my 75mm which shows what I mean, and I believe it will work with the Technika V as well. A recessed board would allow the front standard to sit further forward but I've always used a flat board quite happily.<br />Hope this helps, Mark</p>

<p>"The tried and tested, and still best, solution would be the thing traditionally used for such work: a view camera. Simple, and cheap. And delivering all the quality you would need.<br />Scan the negs if digital is required."<br>

Exactly right, perfect answer, tried and tested over decades. If you need to get away in a hurry, pick up camera and tripod as one, run to car, deposit on back seat and drive off. Works for me. I've twice had to do exactly that when being approached by gangs of skinheads in the north of england. I'm no coward but I do know when to run and when to stay.....</p>

<p>I've one of these in my shed, from when I stopped processing film in my shop and went digital only.<br>

Check the price of the specific chemicals, they are very expensive.<br>

The "instruction book" comprises about four volumes! But they are really quite simple to operate once the chemicals are loaded up and the comment about daily test strips is correct. These machines are not meant for intermittant operation, from memory the 30 in the name is the minimum daily throuput to avoid the chemicals going stale.<br>

The lab did well, I can't give mine away!</p>

<p>If we've reached the point where niche digital products are viable, we could be in for some interesting times, how about a digital x-pan anyone?</p>

<p>I think if you look at my earlier response I clearly stated my personal reasons why I find digital boring, they apply to me and me alone. You 'gladly gave me a chance' to explain, well I have done even before your last post, so I really don't know what you are going on about. The original post was about relative costs of film and digital and I still stand by my position that if you are doing it for fun, who cares what it costs, or how other people do it, just get on with it and enjoy.</p>

<p>Glad to see you are still descending to personal insults when you don't get your own way, pathetic.</p>

<p>My original comment about digital boring the crap out of me was really not meant to start a riot and I was somewhat amazed when Leslie even asked the question about why. Are we not allowed to have different tastes? I find Americam football boring but love Rugby League, why should anyone else care?<br />I certainly don't expect anyone else to have the same taste as me and have never inflicted mine on anyone else. I don't think I even have to have a reason to find something boring, sad if others viewpoint is so narrow that they cannot see that others could think differently to them. Do we all find the same members of the opposite sex attractive? I think not.<br />Let's hope there remains room for all tastes in this wonderful occupation we call photography.<br>

Honestly, all I really care about are my final prints, how anyone else gets there is up to them.</p>

<p><br />"Because for some people, photography is about materials science, rather than the culmination of vision, technique and style into a great photograph."</p>

<p>This is certainly true of many people, however please do not presume that applies to me. What makes it boring for me is that I spend all day on a computer, and much of my day fixing up others peoples photos in my shop and it's a blessed relief to avoid a computer at home. Further I have a very strong preference for siver black and white prints as a final object. I have won awards with them so I know what makes a good photograph. I certainly would not wish to inflict my idea of a good photo on anyone else, I just find digital boring, for me, I really don't care what anyone else does. Note that these days I only do monochrome work, if I did colour I probably would go digital.<br />I still do not know why you think that the culmination of vision, technique and style into a great photograph would preclude using film, in fact I've read a lot of your posts and do not believe you mean that.</p>

<p>Actually digital bores the crap out of me, so why care what film and paper and chemicals cost? I do it for fun, all hobbies cost something.</p>

<p>Can someone tell me how the front shutter release on the old superwide compares with the top release on the SWC? Thanks, Mark</p>

<p>Actually, I hardly ever use the standard bellows with my P, bag bellows for everything from 65-180mm, only use the standard with my 250mm.</p>

<p>Q.G.- 13x18 film will buckle in a 5x7" holder, and a 5x7" film will drop out of a 13x18 holder. Strangely enough a half plate film holder, 5x7 inch and 13x18 cm holders are all the same external size and will fit a modern 5x7 back, but the films themselves are just different enough to not be interchangeable.</p>

<p>Q.G.- 5X7 black and white is available from many sources, colour has been a problem for ages and I think the last was in fact from Kodak, who of course have stopped E6 film production altogether. In fact I know of many photographers who have been cutting 8x10 colour down to 5x7, it is not that difficult, just somewhat tedious after a while and you have to be VERY careful not to make the dust problem worse. I do it myself to make 4x10.<br>

Of course 13x18cm is a different size needing different holders even though the external size of the holders are the same as 5x7inch. Colour is also a problem in this size which is still reasonably popular in europe.</p>

<p>David, I just love those deals. After I bought my 4x5 P I found an 8x10 conversion set at a Brisbane professional dealer for $249 and the guy told me they had very little value in Australia. When it arrived it had the 8x10 back, standard and bag bellows in original boxes, it had never been used! It also included six film holders. Frankly it was worth too much to use, particularly when I have a Burke and James for the rare times I use 8x10, so I could not help myself an split the kit up and sold each part seperately on Fleabay, got a grand total of $1800, paid for a Rolleiflex 6006 plus 40mm and 80mm lenses, and a 65mm grandagon for my 4x5. Still kept the 8x10 film holders.Even some long standing dealers have no idea what stuffs worth in this current market. It does not always work in our favour but it's lovely when it does.<br>

Darkroom stuffs even better, I recently got a Durst L1200 with all accessories from a hospital for $99 and an Omega d5 with Ilford mutigrade head for $79 from a lab shutting down. So happy digital created all these opportunities for the luddites amongst us.</p>

<p>Ian, the only way I know is to contact Sinar head office with the serial number, they are quite helpful.</p>

<p>Having taken on board this advice and looked a bit harder I have found some variations in the Norma over the years. The earliest had only a spring back, not an international back, but this was changed early on in production.Also the bellows changed from a tapered style to a straight bellows at some point in production. As Jose says, there were variations in the control knobs and as David says, variations in colour of finish in either green or black and some are using later black rails.<br />Having at last looked at a few examples I think I'll have to be very wary buying one as the ones I looked at superficially looked good but were totally worn out mechanically and I'm not interested in restoring a camera, I want to use it. Even the youngest is pre 1970 and the earliest 1947! so we're talking 65 to 42 years old and most were used professionally for much of their life. I've pretty well decided I'll keep going with my P until I can find a really good Norma to replace it. Also it was quite noticible how much lighter and lower the Norma was than my P and the quality as I expected was so much higher than a Sinar F it was hard to believe they were made by the same company, the F I used felt like it was made by Fisher-Price, but according to my conversation with several professional dealers they were built down to a price, not up to a quality standard regardeless of price as the Norma and P were.<br />Thanks everyone for your advice.</p>

<p>Thank you Jose. I almost always use a bag bellows, as my most used lenses are my 65, 75, 90, 121mm. I will keep a look out for the variation in controls. I am not bothered by losing the yaw-free design as I my camera is almost always level for my current work. Thanks for your advice, Mark</p>

<p>Michael, I thought I made it clear I use loads of rise, some fall and some swing, most field cameras are poor for this with wide lenses. I already have a Technika for simple stuff but I find it poor for serious architectural work, where the Sinar really shines.<br>

Leigh, I know the F2 is better than the F, bit it's not by much, and I lived with the F for 18 months as a second lightweight camera, and I stand by my comment that it is garbage. Still has the high centre of gravity, appallingly sticky and imprecise rise and fall, poor plastic locks, very happy when I sold it.<br>

David, thank you, you've rather confirmed what I wanted to know. I do think the centre of gravity is lower because the rail clamp/tripod mount is so much shorter than the P or F. I was hoping to keep the standards either side of the rail clamp, and if I can do that by means of the focus racks I will, certainly on the P I did not like unbalancing the whole rig by putting both standards on the same side. I'm glad to hear the Norma is lighter as well.</p>