andrew pell

Is it possible you've got two diferent thread pitches and you're forcing the Cokin ring onto an incorrect thread?

This may be an assumption but is the Cokin a 1mm pitch thread and the "awkward" lens is 25 or 26TPI - near but not the same?

As for getting a thread retapped - I'd have thought it was a specialist lens repairer's job as you're not going to get a tap at the local hardware store and as it's an internal thread, a thread file wouldn't be much use...

It might come down to either getting a male / external thread of the correct spec and working it to and fro gently until it corrects the cross-threading (fine grinding paste as well) or have the lens stripped down and get it turned out by someone with a suitable lathe that can thread-cut.

Failing this, is it possible to buy / scrounge / make a step-up adaptor to get from your thread to the next size up Cokin ring?

Just a few thoughts off the top of my head as it's bedtime here...

How about an air bulb release? You can get them extendable up to 30' plus long but it's still the last 3/4" that matters... ;-)

I have them on each of my shutters (copals) and think that they are smoother in operation than cable releases but if you absolutely need that split-second timing...

I don't know what type of camera you're using but if it's got cut-out corners on the ground glass, you can use these to see if it's vignetting - it's the same idea as on Sinar cameras.

Set up the camera for the shot and then stop down the lens to the desired aperture. Look through the cutouts to see whether you can see the full "circle" of the aperture diaphragm (might look slightly eliptical as you're looking from an angle). If it looks like there's an "obstruction" e.g. an extra curve / flat on the diaphragm, then you could have vignetting. Try the same without the filter(s) and see if it disappears...

Looking through the corners can also check for problems with bellows droop and cutoff from excessive movements.

Richard,

I have a Sinar with the clip-in fresnel but I tend to use it only for initial composition - generally in dingy churches where you need all the light capturing you can get. When I've set the movements up coarsely (?) I remove the fresnel as I found I was getting unsharp images - I couldn't focus through it properly with my loupe. I've then only got the grain of the g/glass to worry about when focusing. I also think my fresnel has a slight bow on it which doesn't help as it rocks slightly when installed :-(.

I don't use swings / tilts much but on the odd occasion I found it more difficult to focus with a double layer of g/glass & fresnel in as you've then got a focus shift / offset to the loupe when going through both layers at an angle. It might be me being hopeless though...

At least having a clip-in version means I've got a choice rather than needing a screwdriver each time.

One positive side of having a fresnel fastened inside the g/glass - it doesn't drop out / on to the floor / get scratched / lost etc and you don't have to find somewhere safe for it when unclipped :-)

Andrew

I might be a bit late into this thread but...

Could it be that without a close-up lens, the PDSM can't focus that close (I seem to remember something from the manual about 1m+ (?) minimum focus distance as it's generally used in "infinity" situations) and therefore the image on the sensor is blurred, i.e. low contrast and it can't differentiate between tones very well so gives "mushy" readings?

If you knew the minimum focusing distance, you could calculate the dioptre strength of a close-up lens to bring it down to your working distance...

Andrew

I've since found the Jobo USA site recommends reverse agitation for drums - I can see the logic of this for developing film in "print" tanks re streaking as the soup sloshes one way only over the ridges but does this also apply to using an Expert drum?

Andrew

PS anybody know where I can get hold of a uniroller base in the UK? Hen's teeth are positively abundant compared to these things ;-)

Hello all,

A year or so ago I was given a Simmaroller motor driven base that has

a wash/wave action and I am about to order an Expert 3006 drum for

4x5 neg developing.

From a quick scan round the last few days posts, does anybody know

whether this is a viable combination or should I look out for another

setup?

The distance between the rollers is approx 5.5" - how long is

the "contact patch" on the body of a 3006 tank? It drives at 30rpm

(single direction rather than reversing) and the wash/wave motion

sloshes the soup along the axis of the tank as it rotates - is this

likely to not be ideal for the internal makeup of an expert drum?

Any help gratefully received.

Thanks

I've got two Silvestri loupes - the 4x and the tilting 6x. I liked the idea of the tilting bit but found the base stiff to tilt. I loosened off the screws a bit but still have a fear of hoping the ground glass is strong enough to take the force needed to tilt the loupe and then finding it isn't... :-(

I use the 4x nearly all the time - great construction with metal body and dioptre correction that can be locked in place - the rodenstock / calumet one I tried hasn't this little nicety and was very flimsy / plasticy in comparison and not worth the price IMHO (approx 55 gbp opposed to 35 gbp for the Silvestri a couple of years ago).

The 6x can be taken off it's tilting base and used as a normal loupe if you want but I prefer the strength of the 4x over the 6x...

If you want to look at prints, the rodenstock has the slide-over sheath rather than having to change to a translucent base with the silvestri but the one I tried seemed as though it slid back down very easily.

This might seem very anti-rodenstock but it didn't suit my needs and I got something that did for approximately half price :-)

BTW tilting 6x were approx 70 gbp when I got mine.

I'd second what somebody mentioned about using a tilting loupe on a 8x10 - from my experience on 4x5 I'd have thought you'll have a lot better chance due to the larger gg area i.e. not being as pushed to see into the corners / working with a pokey viewing area ;-)

Andrew

Thanks Bjorn & Keith

I'll have a go with the fractional version to see If I can get the hang of it.

Keith - thanks for the link but if you look at the pictures, both the loco and the cards would cover both lines on the g/g and hence it's easy to follow Sinar's method (they would make it easy for themselves!)

Any more answers welcome

Andrew

This might seem obvious to some of you but...

A while ago I remember reading a review of a Sinar F1/F1? that

somebody had taken on a trip to somewhere like Monument Valley. In

the piece, it was mentioned about using the g/g lines for sorting out

tilts and swings for off-centre subjects (say objects in foreground

and 2/3 picture is sky). The reviewer said it was a doddle to do once

he'd got the knack but then said nothing further!

a) If the subject doesn't cover both dashed lines on the g/g, is it

possible just to use any 2 lines as long as they are symmetrical

about the centre of the g/g? and

b) If the subject doesn't cover the dashed lines and is off centre in

the frame, do you use vertical / horizontal shift to centralise it,

use any 2 symmetrical lines for the tilts/swings etc and then

recompose?

If I've answered my own questions, please let me know so I know what

to have a play around with next time.

Thanks

PS I can't find anything in either the original or later Sinar

books / manuals apart from if the object covers both lines and is

central in the frame.

Just a brief update to the thread - Sekonic has now launched a 608

that includes an interal display - I haven't had a go with one to

date so can't comment how good it is.

<p>

My Starlite has been sent back for repair (hopefully under warranty)

due to a few things I would have thought shouldn't happen:-

<p>

a) the first time I used it in the field, the screen cracked. It was

in it's case, put into my camera case and not trapped AFAIR, the lid

shut. The next time I opened the case, there was a half inch crack on

the readings screen.

<p>

b) the thumbwheel on the side that let's you change readings etc

misses / has a bad contact so you've to do more than one click

sometimes to get it to register. On talking to a dealer at a trade

show, it seems that this could be a known problem, and

<p>

c) as I got out the meter to have a look before I rang the dealer,

the battery was flat. On trying to change the battery, the lugs on

the catch snapped off so it was not possible to fasten this cover.

The cover / lugs seem to be made of a soft / ductile plastic which

isn't very strong.

<p>

I'm disappointed with the meter for the things that's gone wrong with

it within approximately 6 months of ownership in which time it's only

been used on about occasions five times. I supposed it could be

argued that the screen and lugs could be my fault but the design

doesn't seem to be "fit for purpose." As I think I said on a previous

post, I like the features of the meter but wish that they were put

together in a more robust package. If these things have gone wrong to

date with what I'd consider light use, I'd hate to think how a

professional would get on with one being used as a daily workhorse.

<p>

The above points are in my opinion and I'm not suggesting that all

the meters are weak - mine seems to be in certain ways.

Hello everybody,

<p>

I've been lent a small loupe for gg focusing and I'm trying to identify it in case I ever get chance to purchase another one (doubtfull but you never know). Also I'd like to find out what they were called / any history as I've drawn a blank looking around the web.

<p>

It's marked "Zeiss Ikon, Made in Germany" on the barrel. It is a single element design and seems to be just less than 4x magnification when compared to a silvestri 4x.

<p>

Its dimensions are:

Length "closed" - 50mm (dioptre correction for open / closed)

Length "open" - 70mm

Eyepiece lens diameter - 17mm

Objective end internal diameter - 20mm

Objective end external diameter - 31mm

It is made of alumininum (aluminum) with a black paint coating.

<p>

I like it as it's small, can get into the gg corners and is easy to use.

<p>

I'm looking round for a loupe and thought about the following (to be used on a Sinar p2 gg):

<p>

Toyo 3.6x: like the rubber end caps but is it too long to manipulate into corners? Maybe prefer this slightly lower magnification but haven't had chance to try one yet.

<p>

Toyo "Superior" 4x: can't find any info on the web - is there much difference to the 3.6x and is this the shorter one people refer to?

<p>

Rodenstock 4x: had a go with one and found it very "plasticky" and thought I'd be forever readjusting the dioptre correction. I know it's the one Sinar use so should be OK but didn't have a good feeling about it.

<p>

Schneider 4x: ruled out on cost and size grounds - I've got the 6x6 loupe and it's great but think the new generation versions are bulky and are more designed for lightbox use.

<p>

Silvestri 4x: like this and it seems substantial and a good price. Larger than the zeiss one but brighter. Gave a more contrasty grain on the gg compared to the zeiss but the only camera I could try it on was an MPP with a Beattiescreen which salesman said would be different to a standard gg.

<p>

Silvestri 6x tilting: I like the tilting idea but do you get problems with light leaking in from the side and is 6x too strong for a sinar gg? I don't know how a sinar gg compares to any other for coarseness etc.

<p>

I'm in the UK so trying various loupes is difficult before purchase. The ones I mention above were tried at the recent Focus On Imaging exhibition but I could only try the silvestri 4x against a gg (the company didn't have a tilting one with them) and everbody else only had lightboxes with trannies on.

<p>

Any info appreciated.

<p>

Thanks in advance

Julio,

<p>

I accepted that I wouldn't get a visible internal reading unless I

got the pentax which would be too basic for my needs. It would be

nice to see how a reading changes if you flinch as you press the

button, i.e. to see if you are accurate with the targeting but

unfortunately this isn't possible.

<p>

I can't fault it's accuracy but I think a lot of it is down to me not

having enough experience with taking spot readings to date. I've also

got an older Multisix which gives good readings but I never felt I

was either using the right technique or pointing in the right places

as I always got contrasty negatives. I solved that with a metering

prism on my Bronica but now I've moved up to LF I'm back with

seperate metering. I went for a multi-function meter to save carrying

two items around in an already too heavy case.

<p>

I wonder if companies are trying to cram too many features into the

meters so they can say that theirs is better than the others without

fully going through the ergonomics of the finished product?

Hello Hector,

<p>

I went for the starlite for the reason you said in that it measures

lower light levels and also that it has the zone system function

already built in.

<p>

I tried the starlite, L-608 and pentax digital at my local dealer and

liked bits from each, i.e.

<p>

pentax: simple / uncomplicated which worked for and against it and it

can't handle flash which I don't used often but saves having to carry

two meters around. Liked the pistol grip feel for taking readings.

<p>

sekonic: liked the zoomable spot (1° to 4° rather than 1° or 5° of

the starlite), similar spec to gossen but as mentioned, didn't read

as much in low light and I wanted zone system function.

<p>

starlite: features eventually won it for me over the other two.

Useability can be a bit of a letdown at times - I find I can twitch a

little when taking a reading which means I'm not as accurate as I

should be due to the still buttons and how you have to hold the

meter. The low light readings are taken in the incident setup, don't

expect to get the low EVs with the spot meter (5° goes lower than 1°)

but it doesn't take much for it not to give you a reading unless it's

my inexperience with spotmeters (I'm generally inside dark churches

taking pictures and still have a grey card with me just in case).

<p>

As I said, I don't use flash much but the starlite has given me the

best exposures I've seen at a portrait session a whie back. It's

possible to go a lot deeper into the flash setups than I'll ever

need, e.g. multiple light setups. You'll just have to get used to

knowing which fnctions are available in which modes as I still find I

want to make certain measurements but can't as I'm in a mode that

stops me.

<p>

I've had the meter approx 4 months now and on the first trip out I

had with it, managed to crack the front "glass" - it seems fragile.

I've also found that the thumbwheel can need a couple of clicks at

certain points to get it to register but hopefully these can be

sorted under warranty.

<p>

In general, for b&w I've been getting thin negs so will have to re-

rate my film. For the zone system function, out of interest I

compared the final reading after using the zone function with an

incident light reading and they came out the same (outdoors landscape

shot). It seems to give exposures that are more highlight based (i.e.

for tranny film rather than negs) but it might be how I'm taking the

readings.

<p>

This might seem like a downer on the starlite but I'm geting more

used to it and how it works - practice makes perfect.

<p>

You haven't said what type of pictures you take and what you think is

important - your needs will vary depending on subject / technique and

hence the things you need to get out of whichever meter you choose.

<p>

Hope some of this helps.

Kevin, I've got effectively the same lens but as a Sinaron-W 75mm,

i.e. a Rodenstock Grandagon-N 75 f6.8 and it's mounted in a Copal 0

shutter . The info is also listed in a Rodenstock leaflet I have. It

gives the Compur 0 and Prontor professional 01 S as optional

shutters. The minimum aperture is f45 in each of the three versions.

<p>

Hope this helps.

I like the forum for the wealth of information on it but I sometimes

wish for some usability improvements to be added.

<p>

I get the impression that you don't want to become a full time

webmaster / moderator and from what I've read, the members do a

decent moderating job if somebody steps out of line (rarely, I know),

but I'm a member of another bbs (www.scoobynet.co.uk & follow the

link to the forum) and I like how this is set up w.r.t. displaying

the most recent and replied to posts (i.e. the most recently replied

to post returns to the top of the pile and things are allowed to die

a natural death by dropping off the bottom of the page into an

archive if they are not posted to for a while). We've found the data

on number of posts and the nuber of times the threads are viewed

enlighening as it lets you keep up with the "hot topics"

<p>

I'm no computer techie and this probably would include a lot of work

to set up but hopefully would run itself (things like smilies and

inserting graphics possibly could be disabled to cut down data sizes

etc).

<p>

As for ruling out posts due to film formats, there was a comment made

that it should just be based on whether the camera has movements or

not. I think this is a good suggestion as we're all in the same boat

then - when I bought my 4x5 I was told that the market was dropping

off for this size as professionals (I'm not one) were switching to

smaller formats like 6x9 to suit ccds in digital systems and had no

need for "cumbersome" 4x5 systems. I only hope that this forum

doesn't become overrun by digital topics - I've nothing against it as

it's another technique, it's here and I can see some good uses for it

but cost prohibits a lot of people (plus logistics for outside work)

and there's life in us silver workers (and alternative process

people) yet!

Thanks for your answers. It seems that the lens was mounted on the

only board the shop had at the time, i.e. the auto shutter one and not

flat or recessed. The lens is the same as the grandagon N but is a

sinar badged one (sinaron). I'd thought about a sunk mount but

wondered how much room I'd have to get my fingers in to operate the

shutter etc. There's little enough room with the lens shade on when I

use it. If anyone knows the inner diameter of a sinar recessed board,

I could guess how much room I'd have for my fingers.

<p>

As for the lens being mounted with the board the wrong way round, it's

in a sinar board and they're cast and machined so that they can only

be fitted one way.

<p>

One thing I've just thought of (without getting too deep into the

optics) - is it preferable that the lens is mounted on a flat board so

that the centre of the lens is in line with the vertical plane of the

standard, i.e. tilt movements are correct? The camera is a p2. If a

recessed board is used, would there be a focus shift if the lens was

tilted / swung?

Thanks for you answers. It seems that the lens was mounted on the only

borad the shop had at the time, i.e. the auto shutter one and not flat

or recessed. The lens is the same as the grandagon N but is a sinar

badged one (sinaron). I'd thought about a sunk mount but wondered how

much room I'd have to get my fingers in to operate the shutter etc.

There's little enough room with the lens shade on when I use it.

This might be a no brainer question but is there any reason why a sinaron 75 6.8 WA lens can't be mounted on a flat sinar lensboard. When I bought the lens (s/hand), it came on a protruding board (possibly a DB type board as it looks to have a cutout for a mechanism even though I use it with a Copal 0). This means it is offset by approx 10mm forwards and hence the standards are pushed even closer together to get it to focus. This leaves me very little chance of using tilt & swing movements (several degrees either way at most).

<p>

I don't see that there should be a problem remounting it on a flat board but thought I'd check with the experts first before I part with the cash.

<p>

Thanks in advance.

Sorry if this is jumping on your thread, Peter, but has anybody any

experience with the Gossen Spotmaster 2 w.r.t. the zone system and

how similar is the new starlite in this respect? Is it possible to

specify what placement you want for multiple zones or does it work

like the minolta with highlight / mid / shadow settings only? I like

the idea of the starlite if the zs function is ok as it's an all-in-

one meter but I have a multisix I could use with the spotmaster for

incident work (yes, I know it's heavy and hellishly expensive but

there aren't many pentax meters around here in the UK). I am moving

away from sekonics due to them not handling low light as well but may

consider the 778.

<p>

Any help would be appreciated and it might throw some more light on

your choice, Peter.

<p>

Thanks

Bruce,

<p>

I've used Ilford films for ages and they print a reciprocity graph in

their film brochures. It's the same graph for each of the films - I

don't know why as I'd have thought different speed films would have

had differing reciprocity characteristics. It's possible to either

make out a table of figures from this rather than having to carry

round the graph (for the most common speeds you use) or even to do a

bit of measuring and put the figures onto a spreadsheet so that you

can calculate the equation of the curve and then work out whatever

correction time you want. I have to agree with the other posts that,

at longer times, it's not an exact science and plus or minus a

reasonable amount doesn't make much of a difference.

<p>

I tend to measure the exposure I want, add on the reciprocity

correction and then bracket from that figure - it means you get

something on the negative although the times can get very long on the

third bracket at +2 stops (no point bracketing below the time for b&w

negs as you start losing shadow detail). e.g. measured time = 30 sec,

add on correction to give 2 min 40 sec, expose at 2min 40sec, 5min

20sec, 10min 40sec. The problem with this is highlights in the

picture will be way overexposed if you're trying to get in a lot of

shadow detail and you have todevelop & print the negs very flat to

kill the contrast.

Thanks to everybody for the all the replies, suggetions, hints and

tips. It looks like I've got a fair amount of reading and testing to

do and hopefully I'll be able to sort out some of my "difficulties."

<p>

Andrew

James, I once tried pre-exposing the film with the Bronica. It made a

slight difference to the shadows but only slight. I found I could get

more useful results from pre-exposing / fogging the paper and it was

a lot less hassle over having to rewind the roll film etc. I suppose

it's better to do the film as it makes printing easier as opposed to

having the same contrasty negs and trying to rescue them via the

paper. I'll have to get hold of some sheet film and try that.

<p>

I've just developed my first roll out of the LF camera tonight using

zone system metering (shadows placed on z3) and my usual developing

sequence. Apart from the pictures not being sharp (as I said, I'm new

to LF!), the density doesn't look as bad as some of the ones I've

done previously although they aren't the most contrasty of subjects.

There could be some hope :-)

<p>

Ken, I'll look around over here for some developer to try something

different to ID-11 if I can't get any joy with weaker dilutions.

<p>

Andrew

Ken,

<p>

Thanks for your suggestions - it seems as though you have the same

problems.

<p>

I don't know whether Edwal FG7 is available in this country (England)

as it seems to be a US manufactured / sold item. I'll have to try and

find an alternative unless you know of one. We don't have anything

like the choice you have (assuming you're in the US.) Either that or

I'll have to try tapping up a few of the chemical wizards I know and

see if they can concoct an alternative.

<p>

I suppose whilst I'm experimenting, rollfilm might be a bit easier to

handle as it would stay in the tank all the time to hopefully avoid

damaging the emulsion I presume you mean rather than transferring the

sheets between different baths etc.

<p>

From your 1:4 cycle, should the last bath be a developer one or water

or doesn't it matter as the film is going to be put in stop-bath

anyway? I guess it's a suck it and see thing found out with trials.

<p>

Andrew

Rob,

I'd never really considered double exposure due to the logistics of

a) being able to stay in a cathedral until after dark (unless you go

in November etc where closing time is after dark) b) having to leave

the camera set up in position for so long without it either being

moved (probably having the tripod kicked) or c) sombody trying to

steal the camera. As I'm not a professional, I'm not able to pay to

keep these places open to take a single exposure :-) but thanks for

the idea. Another downside to this is the actual internal lighting of

some of these places - it's worse than no lighting due to the harsh

shadows and hotspots etc. At some places I've had to ask them to turn

the lights off to give me a chance to even up the distribution. The

people then think you are weird by wanting the lights off to take a

picture.

<p>

James,

One of the ways I've been trying to "rescue" negs is to use pre-

flashing of the paper and split grade printing but it's not ideal.

Were you meaning pre-exposing the film intead? You've given me a lot

of ideas with the other things to try. My dad always sticks to FP4+

and I tend to think his negs are grainier and flatter compared to the

Delta 100 but it looks like I'll have to swap films. Unfortunately he

has the same problems with contrast as well but his negs look better

to start with. His were also possibly flatter due to the old lenses

he was using unlike my Bronica ones.

<p>

Andrew