steve_mareno1

I would buy a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit, or if you can afford it, a Leica R 9 Summicron. Don't get me wrong, I like Nikon glass, but they just do not make anything in the same category as a Leica R lens. Never did, and never will. Just holding one of these lenses in your hands is a totally different experience. Seemingly molded from a solid block of glass and metal, they are a little heavy and built to aerospace tolerances. They are capable of giving your photos a 3-D "pop", with the smoothest bokeh you can find. Bokeh is not a Nikon strong point. My manual focus 85 1.8 and the later AF D 85 1.8 were not up to the standard of a Leica lens, and the MF 85 1.8 bokeh was particularly harsh. The Summicron at f2 is magic for portraits. It isn't sharp, but has a look that I cannot describe. Perfect is a good adjective, I guess. Expect to pay about $600 for a clean used one, and a cheap Chinese adapter will mate it to your Nikon body (assuming your camera will meter correctly with a non Nikkor lens on it). I had an old MF Nikkor 85 2 lens that could make wonderful portraits as well, but there is sample variation on that particular lens, so maybe you get a good one, and maybe you don't. As a good budget compromise, I finally put a Canon FD 85 1.8 lens on my Nikkormat with a cheap adapter and it worked very, very well. That was a great lens. There is a thread on the site that shows the adapters.

Saw an exhibit of Warhol's photographs years ago in Las Cruces. Many were with a Pen half frame camera. Andy like it camera because he was a cheapskate and could get twice as many shots on one roll of film. I had one of those too Rick. Sadly, mine broke about two minutes after putting batteries in it, and I had to send it back to the seller, so I never even got one shot out of mine.

Its a valid question these days. Who shoots film cameras anymore? Well, of course some of us still do, but even I have become a fan of quick, in the moment cell phone shots. Everything has its place, and there are all sorts of ways to take a photo. I support all of them. For quality, especially in B&W, film is obviously the only way to go. But for a lot of other purposes there are now a lot of other ways to take a shot and that's great. I have looked at many, many film photos that probably should have been deleted, including my own :] Like those hundreds of shots of the cat :[

The Big Chicken http://i1241.photobucket.com/albums/gg514/stevemareno/phone%20photos/20170508_100803_zpsmbnaz1vx.jpg

Albuquerque photo shoot in Old Town. I just love these phones! Turning into a real Phone Phreak. http://i1241.photobucket.com/albums/gg514/stevemareno/phone%20photos/20170513_124225_zpsx80hnznb.jpg

This post reminds me of a point our Zen teacher made the other night in no uncertain terms. He said that unless we wake up from our conditioning, our ego, and our delusions, then we are screwed. And when we DO start to wake up, we will suddenly discover that life is not really about "me" after all, it is actually about something much bigger than that. I would just be happy that someone is viewing my shot in any manner at all. Period. And I would not be concerned about dictating to them the manner in which they should view the shot. But, that is just "me".

I couldn't find a drain stopper the right size, but I did find my spanner tool. So I took the path of least resistance and unscrewed the rear element, swapped the shutter blades w/ lots of lighter fluid, and thoroughly cleaned up the residue. Took about15 or 20 Q tips but both sides of the shutter blades are now oil free and the shutter fires strongly on all the speeds. Thanks again for the suggestions. It's always good to learn new tips on camera repairs.

That is an excellent idea on the drain stopper, along w/ something to stick to it that I can remove later. Thanks! I will try it right now.

I bought a cute little Primo Jr TLR today, and need to get the taking lens unscrewed to clean the oil off the shutter blades. I don't have my tool in front of me to unscrew the back element, which has a retainer w/ the usual two notches to put a spanner into, and the front optics have the outer rings that need a mouse pad or something to grip and turn (there are no notches in the front retainers). The curved front element protrudes out a lot, and I was wondering if anyone had a backyard approach to getting the optics unscrewed w/o the mouse pad or something like it?

<p>Actually, I have two of those Federal enlargers, a condenser model and a diffuser. They are great enlargers. Mine will take negs up to 6x9, and the enlargements are tack sharp. Unfortunately (but fortunately for me), many people like Craig think they're no good, so you can usually pick them up for a song. They're impossible to get out of alignment unless they're bent, and my 16x20 fiber prints look just as nice from the Federals as they did from my Durst. Enlargers are all about the lenses. If it's straight and has a good lens, it doesn't matter how much it costs, it will make beautiful photos. But no, it isn't going to make you much money, so donate it to someone that will use it.</p>

<p>"He said that it worked well with adults, but children always spotted his subterfuge right away".</p> <p>Makes sense. It takes many years of hard work and study to lose our original inborn wisdom and become a truly stupid adult.</p>

<p>A focusing system is a focusing system. A rangefinder is as good as any, hence the name, range..... finder. The key it to have it well calibrated, but if that is taken care of (usually a very simple thing to do), then you will get pics that are just as sharp as using your gg. Leica shooters are pretty fussy about sharpness, and their rangefinder system has been working fine for what, a hundred years? The format size is irrelevant. If it is accurately set up, it works. </p>

<p>I do it all the time. Anyone that works on cameras uses it, or the more commonly called lighter fluid. Your camera has a full metal shutter, so nothing short of acid is going to hurt it. Most plastics can be cleaned w/ it too, but you maybe need to test something first. I have never had any trouble w/ this though. The lighter fluid comes in a plastic container from the stores. Some people who do not understand chemistry or metallurgy will get on here and caution that it's a solvent. Sure, it's a solvent, just like acetic acid and glycerin are solvents. They're just very weak solvents. A Zippo lighter has a wick made out of cotton that stays saturated w/ lighter fluid for eons and it never shows any damage. </p>

<p>That's the first time I ever heard that shooting B&W was limiting. It's not, I assure you. If you don't do it consistently it's difficult because you have to learn to see the scene in B&W. You need to understand that a red flower in green foliage is going to look the same value, so a filter is in order. I have no idea what is involved digitally, but for B&W you really want to be shooting film for about a thousand reasons. It's a difficult medium to master, much more so that colour, which allows you to change composition and point of interest w/ simply a saturated colour. A colour shot of a sunset is something, but not much so in B&W. So you need better skills to successfully shoot good B&W images. It's all about the light. </p>

<p>Keith, you nailed it on the head. Those magazines are all about selling, selling, selling! Even their "articles" are not-so-subtle ads for gear manufacturers. It takes me about 2 minutes to thumb through those things.</p> <p>If you want to learn about photography, go look at some great photographers. Any place that shows Weston, Man Ray, Evans, and a lot of other great photographers can teach you more than looking at those magazines. That's what I did to learn about painting and printing. Made a pilgrimage all across the country to see what the good stuff looked like in galleries and museums. You need to know what is really good, and why it's really good. Only exposure to the real thing can tell you that. Then you need to go out and take photos. Lots of them.</p>

<p>I've been in the art game for over half a century and never heard of this. I would take it seriously. There is no logical or rational reason why this is happening to you if everything is working normally, so I would start w/ a good eye exam. If that doesn't show anything, I'd invest the money to see a good neurologist. This is either an optic problem or a brain issue. It would be smart to get it checked out ASAP. Anyway, that's exactly what I would do. I certainly would not ignore it. There are several medical conditions that may be indicated, but I am not going to speculate That's what specialists are for, to run tests.</p>

<p>I'd just leave it alone if it's taking sharp photos. Keep your eye on it now and then to look for changes. If it is fungus and gets worse, simply set it out in the sun for several days in a row w/ it aimed at the sun. That will kill the fungus growth. It won't get it out, but it will keep it from growing more.</p>

<p>Your best bang for the buck by far is to get a Voigtlander Bessa RF w/ a Heliar lens, which you can usually find for $300-$400. Those old uncoated Heliars image so much better than the newer lenses, and have a 3-D quality to the shots. For all intents and purposes they're the same camera as a Bessa II, which will set you back $1000 w/ a Heliar lens (coated vs uncoated) and has unit focusing, a rangefinder, etc.</p> <p>You're right about the stealth factor. I briefly owned a Fuji 6x9 rangefinder and it was comically big and it DID attract attention. Folders usually fly under the radar.</p> <p>All of the 6x9 cameras generally have very good lenses, and a 3 element one stopped down can be quite nice. Keep in mind that unless you're enlarging beyond 8x10, a 35mm camera w/ fine grain film and proper exposure & development is not going to look much different than a 6x9 shot unless you enlarge it a lot. Unlike Bill, all of my 6x9 folder shots were made handheld. The trick is to keep the camera open w/ the film advanced to the next frame, carry it w/ one hand, and have the shutter cocked. Having it pre focused to the distance you expect to get the shot at helps too.</p>

<p>OK, like I said, slide film is the real deal for colour image quality. Difficult to expose correctly, hard to find someone to process it right if you don't do it yourself, but worth every penny.</p>

<p>The long and the short of it is that B&W film is far better than digital despite all the accolades digital gets, and people that are interested in photography know that. But, you have to know what you're doing, and things like film choice and filters and developers can make a big difference. The tonal range of film is huge compared to digital because you can still get deep blacks w/o blowing out the highlights. The ratings they give digital are make believe. That big range they use is for bragging rights. The top end and low end are totally unusable. No digital camera made today can duplicate the tonal range of B&W film, and probably never will be able to. It's apples and oranges.</p> <p>As for your website results, people assume that someone that shoots film knows something about photography, so they are going to that site w/ the expectation that the images will be superior and fundamentally different.</p> <p>Digital has it's place, and for convenience you can't beat it. Still, no digital colour image comes close to colour slide film for beautiful, saturated colour, and no digital file looks as good as a B&W negative film like good old Tri-X (assuming, as I said, that someone knows what they're doing). Even on big budget feature films, the gold standard is to shoot on film to capture the very best look and the best image quality, then transfer that to digital for editing purposes.</p>

<p>Alcohol is fine, but the only way I have been able to get those things unstuck was by removing the lens and shutter assy and soaking it in 91% alcohol in a coffee cup for several days. Nothing else ever worked. I once left the lenses in the shutter and soaked it all in one piece and had no problems. Alcohol is not going to harm glass or metal, and this method gives the shutter a good clean too.</p> <p>Once it's unstuck, unscrew the front optic (make sure to mark where the threads come loose from the barrel or you will have lots of fun getting infinity focus later on) and remove every vestige of that green grease w/ a Q-tip soaked in lighter fluid. Also, when you take off the front distance bezel, make sure you have the optic at infinity and make a mark on it and the bezel so that you put it back in the same place. Sometimes those three grub screws are hard to get out, but use a good screw driver and don't take them all the way out, just back them off enough to get the bezel off. If you don't get every teeny bit of green grease off the threads you'll regret it later. When it's all clean in there I usually put a little dab of synthetic or silicone bike chain oil on the threads before reassembling.</p> <p>Once it's back together, open the shutter to B and keep it open w/ a cable release, put a piece of ground glass across the film rails w/ tape, and focus on something 100' away and see if infinity is sharp by using a loupe or a 50mm lens as a loupe. Some people suggest using something 1/4 mile away for focus but that's crazy. Look at most lenses and usually right after 70' to 100' on their distance markings you see infinity. If you're fuzzy about any of this, there are lots of tutorials on the internet.</p> <p>The Agnar is a great 3 element lens. They render very nicely and are sharp by f8. Now, how is the bellows on the camera?</p>

<p>Don't make any value assumptions based on what you see on web images. You have no idea what went on in the post processing.</p> <p>Besides correct lighting and exposure (and a yellow or red filter can help) choosing the right film and developer combination is important. I can only tell what worked for me, and that was D76 full strength w/ Tri-X shot at 200 w/ a yellow filter, and Arista EDU Ultra 100 shot at 50 in full strength Microdol X. Both of these combinations gave stellar whites and deep blacks. Rodinal gave beautiful grain, but the blacks were not so deep, and Acufine gave incredible sharpness at the expense of the blacks. If you nail the lighting and exposure, either of these combinations will give you juicy blacks on the negs. Then print them on something like Adox MCC 110 fiber paper, which has the best whites and deepest blacks of any paper I have ever seen and is very simple to get dialed in.</p>

<p>Like Edward said. They're all like that. I was concerned the first time I saw mine too, but no worries. Enjoy shooting it, those are great lenses.</p>

<p>You would have to use recycled wood for the cellulose for it to be environmentally friendly. How are you going to make the lens and shutter? You'll either have to go w/ a pinhole and super long exposures, or scavenge those from a working camera. I assume you are aware of the fact that the demand for such a camera would be almost zero, as you can buy a perfectly good working camera in a thrift store for $2 that will take sharp photos w/ 35mm film, or use your smart phone to take digital pics.</p>