m._hilo

Eduardo, I have this screw and you can have it at the cost of postage from The Netherlands. Send me a private message . . . Michael

making sure the image you will be printing is so good and so special to you, that you will not stop until you get it right.

The first question is how many prints and what is their size? Then it is important to know their surface, matte or glossy? I helped a friend who had a stack of about 10 curled prints which were printed on 24x30cm paper Agfa Brovira double weight with a matte surface. We first separated the prints and put each one on a table between 2 acid free carton of a slightly larger size. Then we used a book as a weight for each print between the two cartons. Most difficult was to make sure the corners did not fold and all I can say I pushed down the corners of the smaller side, then held that from the outside with one hand, while the other hand pushed down the corners of the opposite smaller side of the sheet. It worked but took awhile. In the end there were 10 prints between carton on the table with each a book (photo books, ha) on top. A week later the friend came back, the curling of the prints had diminished a lot, at least by half. I then used the least important print and a dry mounting press to press this print flat. The temperature of the press was at about half of what I normally do while flattening my own fiber prints. Which is 90 degrees Celsius, so I set the temperature at 45 degrees Celsius. Pressing this print took a little longer than usual, because of the lower than usual temperature of the press and I also decreased the tension of the press. The result was very good, so we did the remaining prints in the same way. After pressing I put these prints between acid free sheets for about two days, like I usually do. They came out fine and flat, and looked as if nothing had happened to them Washing or wetting such prints I would stay away from, because you risk changing the surface, when glossy in particular. And, even after so many years, if the prints were spotted you probably change that. The spotting ink may disappear completely or partly, or you risk changing the color of the black ink used for the spotting, which can look awful.

Smith was an excellent printer. His prints from that time in Japan had a lot of contrast. Perhaps he developed his films harder than usual and he probably used the harder gradations of the paper. He may have made his paper developer more contrasty by raising the dilution. These were typical ways in those days to reach more contrast. But it could happen that, for instance, a white face remained too light. You could/can save that print by taking it out of the developer, breathe on it while rubbing it with your fingers or thumb. It works. Photographer Dave Heath printed in the same manner. Very strong prints, full of contrast and still with enough information. Not becoming harsh. If you ever have a chance to see the prints from his book A Dialogue with Solitude: they’re amazing. Also in the book this is evident, both the first edition from 1965 and in the reprint from 2000. A professional printer I knew had a seperate small tray with stopbath, just to clean his hands after doing this. Stopbath, then water . . .

Yes, their traditional or analog fora are plenty. Lots of knowledge. Folks seem to react mostly when they know more than usual about a subject. In my case that is about Leitz enlargers which I have used since the late seventies and I still do. Let's say you don't find me in threads about Leica cameras. I use Olympus since way back then, but I still find there's not much to say about them. Or perhaps cameras interest me less. I suffer from insomnia and when the newspapers are too depressing the forums are a welcome distraction.

Correct! Traditional Darkroom covers it better. Even implying there's more than that: namely the Digital Darkroom Analog to me sounds non-committal

I am afraid I have been unclear from the start, sorry. English is not my native language. I was looking for an active and practical archive based on the posts and experiences of folks familiar with the analog darkroom. I was not looking for a place to send students with questions, but I accept my use of language may have suggested that. At the Photography Academy in Europe where I teach, there is no requirement whatsoever instructing students to ask questions at photography forums. I have also taught at two universities in New York and at a university in Perth. Again I never heard about this. If Photonet agrees it is important to build archives from the posts, my suggestion is to use the words Analog Darkroom. After all, it works for Digital Darkroom.

You understood wrong and it case it interests you: they ask me plenty of questions and they get plenty of answers from me. But that's just me, there are many roads that lead to Rome. Today's students have an open world in front of them and they know very well how to access it. Also, they can certainly deal with a diversity of opinions.

Yes, that makes sense, with perhaps adding the word darkroom: 'Film and Processing / Printing and darkroom Equipment'

I see your point about the endless number of sub-forums, but I respectfully have a different opinion. When you look at the number of messages Film and Processing has, I feel the analog darkroom will have the same or more. Or is the Film and Processing forum also an obscure forum? My students do read the posts in the forums because they're eager to find out more about analog photography.

I was wondering if people with questions about analog printing, enlargers and other darkroom equipment ask questions here in Photonet. Not that much for myself. I teach photography and stimulate students to find solutions themselfes. Forums are one way to do that.

I have been away from Photonet for some years, perhaps I am searching in the wrong place and this is a dumb question. Is there a forum on the analog darkroom? About enlargers and about printing? Or has Photonet given up?

I have worked professionally with the OM-1 since 1978 and with the OM-4Ti from when it replaced the OM-4. During the first years I used the 50/1.8 and a 35/2, but in the mid-eighties I settled on the 40/2 lenses. I am a one lens guy and found the 40mm perfect, in particular because of the b/w prints I get from it. My prints go up to 50x60cm (20x24in.) I use the OM-4Ti with 125asa and the OM-1 with 400asa and both with the 40mm. One of the best things of the OM-4Ti is the Grip 1, which changes holding the camera in a beautiful way. About 15 years ago I held that Grip 1 to my OM-1 and realized it would fit. I asked the opinion of an old friend who was a Leitz repairman, his response was: "may I?". In about 10 minutes he drilled the hole in the right place, gave it a screw thread, made it so it wouldn't leak light, glewed the leather back in place, etc. It looks and feels factory made. The only thing about the 40mm I was not happy with is the very small front ring of the lens, which operates the aperture. I use 49-52 metal step-up rings made by Pentax which make using the aperture ring totally easy. Some different brand step-up rings don't work. Attached a picture that explains the Grip 1 on the OM-1 and the step-up ring on the 40mm

Yes, I was looking for the traditional darkroom and printing forum - which in my case still is the heart of photography If it is still around, it is not very good I can't find it If it is gone, oh well, luckily there are other forums to go to

If yes, so will I

<p>Tony,<br> Thank you for looking into this camera! I came to the same ideas and also I could not find any pictures of it. Which I find a little strange. However, I did find pictures and mention of a Cosina Hi-Lite ECL, which was supposedly built in 1976. Does McKeown list that one too?<br> The ECL owner confirmed the AE lock on his camera and will come back with more information.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I am looking for pictures of this camera and a little bit of information. <br> There's also the Cosina Hi-Lite EC (without the II) and I assume the II is not much different. Perhaps all that's different are AE lock and spot metering?<br> I would like to understand how AE lock and the spot metering work. Perhaps someone has this camera and can explain? And if you have anything else to say about this camera, all is welcome . . .<br> Thanks, Michael</p>

<p>What I forgot to say is that the AE II prism does give me the correct information in the finder . . . even if the the numbers of the exposure times are a bit shaky . . .</p>

<p>Hello,<br> I have just gotten an ETRSi with the 75mm, a waist level finder and the AE II prism.<br> With the waist level finder in manual all goes ok, my film is well exposed. But with the AE prism in automatic the lens seems to stay open too long, like a full second. Consequently the shots are badly exposed. When I look into the lens while taking the shot, aperture on f 5.6, I see the aperture open too long in relationship to what it should be . . .<br> I also think the lens stays opens too long that full second, regardless of how I set the aperture . . .<br> Am I doing something wrong? If not, what seems to be the problem?<br> Thanks, Michael</p> <p> </p>

<p>Ferdie,<br> Again: thanks !<br> Since my last post I have gone to another country and now is not the time to try understand the implications of this camera system. But I will come back to it !<br> Michael</p>

<p>Thanks Ferdi,<br> One or two more questions, if you don't mind: does anything happen to the viewfinder when you change to this 4560 back? Or would one need to get a special screen?<br> I have looked at this 6008, it is impressive. I assume all four 6008 versions will accept this back?<br> Thanks again for making this easy to understand !<br> Michael</p>

<p>Ferdi, Chauncey,<br> Thanks a lot ! I also posted this question on the SL66 forum and got the same revelation, ha!<br> I was wrongly thinking this vertical film back would solve everything, including the usual spacing of 4,5X6. That poster also pointed me to the 6008 and the 4560 magazin. I will look into that.<br> My problem with the 4,5X6 cameras, like the Bronica, etc, is that I find them difficult to use vertically. I am not a RF photographer, but may have to give it another try . . .</p>

<p>Hello !<br> Looks like Rollei made both vertical and horizontal film backs for the Rollei SL66<br> In short my question: what about working with a 4,5X6 vertical film back on the SL66 ?<br /><br />Is anyone here doing that? <br /><br />Apart from wanting to know how rare this 4,5X6 back is, I would like to hear something about how practical this operates. <br /><br />Are you still looking through the square viewfinder? Are there ways to give the viewfinder the "portrait" orientation?<br /><br />Thanks, Michael</p>

<p>Thanks Simon, what you say makes perfect sense!</p> <p>Yes, these companies should disclose serial numbers and year-of-production information, before this information is lost permanently. There's no reason to sit on this information, or keep it secret.<br> I agree with you that not much can be deducted from the different versions, if only because the XD bodies have needed specific attention from repair places: shrinking leather, the mode selector lever sooner or later has bad contact with first versions, the pneumatic mirror damper needs cleaning with all versions . . .</p> <p>The versions that I do not find, or think are most rare:<br> - a chrome XD later logo version and even a chrome XD early logo version with the compensation lever "inboard".<br> - XD11 late logo versions either black or chrome</p> <p>One more small detail: in Japan you see plenty XD-s early logo versions for sale. But no later logo XD-s.<br> And the same for the XD. Of the black XD version I have at least seen a picture of one, sold in Canada. Whenever a late logo XD-s, XD and XD-7 shows up, it is mostly in Europe.</p> <p>Michael</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Andy, Larry</p> <p>Based on what you say and some other sources, I think it is safe to say the XD11 with a new logo is a rare bird. Black or chrome.<br> From Japan there is no confirmation a chrome XD with a new logo ever came on the market.</p> <p>What complicates is that XD-s cameras have surfaced, with new logo plates that simply covered the old logo. I know of two for sure. I also know of a XD-s camera with a new logo plate that has no old logo underneath.<br> It is a one minute operation to fix a new logo plate. I wouldn't be surprised if there are old logo XD11 and XD7 bodies out there covered with the new logo plates.</p> <p>I guess only people who worked for Minolta can tell us what was the policy. If there was one.</p> <p> </p>