steve_mareno1

<p>I rather like the two shots that you linked to. Contrary to what a lot of left brain dominant people think (such as internet forum participants :), knowing what you have and why you have it is not necessarily a good thing. We are better off letting the intuitive side of our minds have a freer reign than we normally would when it comes to creativity.</p> <p>You can't figure it out anyway. Why do I like short women w/ brown hair? Who knows? I just do.</p>

<p>Nice shots Rick, as always. I had a thing for Baldas at one time, and owned maybe a dozen (not at once). They made these things in a bewildering amount of designs, even if they were all mainly under the Baldessa title. One of my favorites was a smaller, simpler model w/ scale focus. I remember another that had shutter priority AE even! That one was called a Baldamatic.</p> <p>My best pics came from a diminutive 35mm folder called the Baldini w/ a Xenar lens. It's unfortunate they weren't Italian made w/ all those names, but in practical terms, it may be just as well :] The camera you have is an odd little beastie to shoot because of it's very light weight, small size in your hands, and the front mounted shutter and focus controls. Then there's that funny little wind on key below. Say this for Balda, they were different.</p>

<p>I'm especially fond of the rarely photographed combination tire tree mulcher and mosquito breedery.</p>

<p>Wonderful photos Rick. Acros is not a film that I've had success with (lots of grey photos), but your developer seems to do a fine job w/ it. The Clack isn't a camera that I could use, since my enlarger only goes to 6x6, but there's no lack of sharpness w/ the Click II shots, so maybe this could be a future camera in our place. The top shutter speed of only 1/30 is a little unsettling, but that's about par w/ this sort of camera.</p> <p>Is there possibly a lens alignment issue? Most of the shots are sharp as all get out in the center and right side, but seem to struggle on the other side. Shimming the pressure plate isn't a solution, as there is none! I'm wondering if it might be film slackness, possibly when the next frame is advanced? W/ that shutter speed and handheld shooting, I suppose that it's a wonder that as many of the shots came out as sharp as they did though.</p>

<p>Might be even better if he met a real photographer, assuming that one can be found these days. His meticulous test procedures discovered that wide angle lenses distort faces and noses, and a Nikon PC lens allows selective focus. Wow, who would have thought?</p> <p>ALL the lenses he featured have terrible bokeh, no matter how modern they are. I've always thought that lens designers reached their zenith back in the 30's to 50's, and it's been pretty much downhill ever since. Yeah, some of the new lenses have micro contrast galore....who cares? How about the ability to make pleasing images? That has gotten lost somewhere down the line, and if I want a good image I'll use a Heliar (uncoated if possible), or an old Summar, Summicron, or Nikkor 50 2.0. Haven't seen anything that makes nicer photos than those, although I am also partial to "inferior" 3 element lenses.</p>

<p>I totally understand your friend's mind. Over a quarter century ago, I was working as a "successful" painter and printer, but wished to go to NY to compete w/ the Big Boys. Over the course of decades I had edited my work down to what I considered to be the best stuff, and was finally feeling ready. A small miscommunication w/ the place that had my work in storage caused me to lose everything. Nothing was left, along w/ irreplaceable photos and documents of my children, past loves, etc. The effect was, to say the least, severe, and I finally ended up on the Big Island of Hawaii in a daze, which turned out to be a great place to heal. Unable to work in those mediums again, I switched to photography, as it didn't have the same mental angst and pain associated with those memories.</p> <p>The island was my home for many years, it's where I met my wife, and it's where we plan to return to live out our lives in two years, assuming all things go well, and they should. Once I became adapt at photography (and don't read too much into this, but it was certainly an easier road than painting), I returned to the B.I. for a visit to see how some of my old painter and photographer friends were doing.</p> <p>While standing in the East Hawaii Cultural Center one day and looking at a piece by Tomas Belsky, something struck me. Why, I wondered, am I standing inside looking at this artificial representation (although a good one) of the land, when the real deal was right outside? I mentioned this to Tomas, and he agreed, muttering something to the effect that he often wondered the same thing. "We really can't compete, can we?" was what he said. From that moment on, nearly all of the pain and hurt left me as I finally realized where the priorities were supposed to be. Often I have to remind myself to look up into the sky and clouds and not down at the ground, as that's where it's really at.</p> <p>Once in a blue moon I wish even one of those works that disappeared were up on the wall, but losing them was one of the best things that ever happened to me, not the worst. If I had gone on to NY w/ the art and made a game of it, I would have been just one more ego driven artist schmuck that had no idea what life was really about. It's about connections, friendships and loves w/ humans and animals. If I had not lost everything, I would never have met my wife, nor the love of my life Sissy, a beautiful cat that died last year after a long battle with lymphoma cancer. </p>

<p>My kitchen has two sinks. One is used to catch the drips from inverting the developing tank (grr), and the other sink has a few inches of ice water w/ ice cubes floating around in it. That's where the chemical gradients sit w/ thermometers in each of them. When they get to the right temps, they come out of the bath, sit on the counter, and I start my developing. I've set the developing tank back into the cold water in between inversions, and not done it. No difference in the negs, and this is in Florida where it is often pretty hot in the home. </p>

<p>It's not something to be concerned about, really. There's a lot more important factors like bokeh, sharpness, etc. But even those are trumped by just plain old good IQ, which is undefinable when using graphs and charts. It's a visual thing. Some lenses have it, some don't. Unless you're enlarging a neg up to the maximum size and putting your nose up to the print, I doubt anyone will see a difference between f8 and f11.</p>

<p>Film is all I've ever shot, and probably all I ever will. Had a brief foray w/ a DSLR Nikon, but didn't appreciate the hit in image quality, nor the way you get only one look. Not a big fan of blown highlights, reduced tonality, and shadows w/ no details. I might suffer that w/ color but not w/ B&W. With film, I have tons of choices in not only films but in different developers too. Being able to push or pull the emulsions also allows me to customize the images. It usually takes only a couple of rolls to get something new dialed in if I make different exposures on test rolls. I get to use all these wonderful cameras and the different film formats too.</p> <p>While I love Tri-X, especially in D76 (fantastic tonality), the price has gotten too dear, so I switched to Arista Ultra EDU 100 souped in Microdol-X full strength. Amazingly, those decades old tins of Mic-X are still good, and you get a really tight grain if you can afford the 1 stop of exposure you lose at full strength. Nothing wrong w/ scanning and inkjet printing if that's what someone wants to do. You still capture the film's native look. That's why film makers shoot w/ film and transfer it to digital for post. Still, you get great blacks w/ wet prints on fiber, and wet printing was a breeze after learning and experimenting w/ developing.</p>

<p>I've seen this before. Some people have a filter that prevents irony or sarcasm recognition. Freestyle probably sells them, or it was installed at time of manufacture.<br /> <br /> But to help the op out,<br> <br /> /> <br /> Let me know how it works out for you. I was too lazy to watch it. You could always hire someone to tote it around for you. I guess you'll have to post the link into your browser, as the software won't let me post a youtube video to the post. What a website!</p>

<p>Wow, who wrote the copy for this? And better yet, who came up w/ this lame brain idea? I'm all for a film movie camera, but Super 8 with a digital viewfinder? Why not optical? Along with, and I quote, a "an ecosystem of other devices to make it easy to create, share and archive". Isn't this a film camera? I suppose that you're supposed to share and archive your undeveloped film? And what's with this sustainable manufacturing?</p> <p>Well, at least they're available in midnight black and bone china and have a leather accented handle and grip. What are they smoking over there at Kodak? I can only hope this is some sort of late April 1 internet joke. Or something.</p>

<p>As mentioned, all you need is a flatbed scanner. I agree that if the prints you want to copy are only 5x7 that's all you can get on a copy, BUT artwork is not photography. You might be able to get much bigger sizes w/ only negligible loss of quality, if any. Years ago I had a small felt pen sketch of an old girlfriend that I dashed out in about 5 minutes. It really captured her. I knew that the inks were fugitive and the sketch would soon fade out, so I had a lab take a photo of the little sketch w/ a 4x5 film camera and enlarge it in their darkroom. I think it ended up being roughly 30x50 from the small sketch. It looked great! Having that large photo around made it easy to make large prints and paintings of the piece.</p>

<p>LOL! Someone mentions that what someone else is doing bugs him (I'm sure he meant that it mystifies him), and someone else comments that they don't understand why what someone else does should bug them. It's obvious that the question bugged them so much that they had to comment on it! Love the irony.<br /> <br /> There isn't a person alive that isn't bugged by other people. Even Donald Trump, although that's stretching the definition of "person" quite a bit.</p>

<p>Those photos were taken w/ disposable 35mm cameras judging by the picture format, not an Instamatic. I believe the article mentions they were disposable cameras. There are a couple of shots that are great, otherwise, I see why they were never published. If nothing else, the book would be a timely reminder that the times are indeed a changing, because in today's political environment you would either be arrested for dropping those nudes off at a 1 hr lab (if you can even find such a thing anymore), or the lab grunts would refuse to print them, except to bring home for themselves of course :]</p>

<p>Fred, there's no sense trying to convince Robin that his position is wrong. He has a right to his opinion (one that I share by the way), just as you have a right to your opinion. In the end, that's all it is, your opinion, his opinion, and my opinion.<br /> <br /> I find Robin's statements clear and concise. You seem to find them annoying because they conflict w/ your thinking. That's your stuff. The fact that I find his wording clear, concise, and in sync w/ my thinking, is my stuff. We all have our stuff. It's OK.<br /> <br /> Pretentious double talk just about sums up the state of the art world today, along w/ a lot of weak art. Hence the need to explain it. If the work can't get the artist's statement or meaning across (and who's to say that it has to have any meaning anyway?), then it has failed. I've been actively producing paintings, prints, and photographs for over half a century now, and I understand the gallery culture and art world as well as anyone. None of that helps if I produce something that has to be explained w/ an artistic statement because the work can't do it on it's own. In the end, who cares what the artist thinks? That's for the galleries to hype up.It's all about the image, period.</p>

<p>JDM,<br> Say it ain't so! I signed into this forum for the first time in a year or more just to say I wish you weren't leaving. I understand where you're coming from, as much as I can understand anyone I have never actually met, but I will miss your presence and the neat info you always manage to dig up. But that's really immaterial.... it has been your geniality and good sense of humor that are will be sorely missed. These are wonderful qualities. (qualities which in a few, very few, other individuals here were MIA, and sorta prompted my moving to another site a long time ago. They brought to mind the old country song "How Can I miss You If You Won't Go Away?." So, I went away). I don't run into those attributes much these days. Hopefully you will either renig or pop in again now and then so that I can enjoy your schtick. Is that the right word? Your personality is what I mean. But what the hey, change is good! If you're ever in Florida (and you are better off not being here, trust me) drinks are on me. If I go to Denver, smokes are on me. Best wishes wherever you go. Sniff. </p>

<p>I meant shutter blades in the above post, not aperture blades.</p>

<p>It's been a year and a half since I visited this site. Today, I was doing a web search on something else, and this posting came up. Gotta say, except for JDM, who always posts intelligent and well mannered writings, the other responses to my little tutorial here are ridiculous.</p> <p>The only reasons I wrote on this forum in the past was either to share some tips w/ others, or to ask advice (that part didn't work so good). I'd hate to see someone get the wrong information from some of these comments on this tutorial, so let me correct things, and then I can go away and maybe revisit in another year and a half :} Or not.<br> <br /> First, the camera featured here has worked beautifully since this repair, and has been working faithfully ever since. Second, I understand mechanical things. I'm a retired automotive dealership tech, and was factory trained at Toyota. I also have experience in other dealerships such as Fiat, Alfa Romeo, Nissan, and Mazda (first factory trained Mazda tech in my state, back in the day). I was certified by the National Automotive Institute for Service Excellence, have a certificate of training and work experience as a machinist and layout man, and also a certificate in air conditioning and refrigeration. In short, I can build a Rolleicord if necessary, except for the optics. I'm not saying this to convince anyone here of anything, but to assure others that perform web searches on camera repair that I know what I'm about. For the uninformed, who will undoubtedly respond (I know this forum) that none of this concerns cameras, I'd like to point out that a mechanical object, is a mechanical object, is a mechanical object. It's not rocket science, it's just common sense in most cases. <br /> <br /> Probably 90% of the shutter problems on these old cameras is a result of oil on the aperture blades, which causes them to stick. In the camera above, I suspect that lubricants had leaked onto the shutter blades and gotten cooked onto them by heat (left in a car in the summer perhaps), or simply over the course of time. Usually, a flush w/ lighter fluid (a rather benign solvent compared to what's available) fixes the shutters if duly wiped clean w/ lots of Q-Tips. You only have to unscrew the lens elements to do this. There's no need to disassemble the camera any further. Don't try blowing them out w/ canned air, because some tiny springs could be blown out.</p> <p>After cleaning the blades on this one w/ the stronger chemical, the speeds were checked w/ an electronic tester, and found to be within spec. The camera exposes film properly. As a note, aperture blades are made of hardened steel in most cases, and lighter fluid or even stronger solvents will have no effect on the metal. They are not coated, and if they were back when the camera was made (I have found no evidence that they were), the coatings would have been long gone by now anyway. Aperture blades do not need coatings. On some cameras, the blades are made from plastic, so lighter fluid MAY not be an appropriate cleaner. But please note, the lighter fluid in the photos above resides in a plastic can from the manufacturer, so draw your own conclusions on this one. The shutter above was not given a full CLA because it did not need one. When you bring your car into a repair facility and the tech runs some tests and suggests a valve job, they don't overhaul the whole engine. They only repair what's wrong. Run as fast as you can from techs that suggest unnecessary repairs in order to run up your bill.</p> <p>Most of these old cameras are very simple, light-tight boxes for film. They're easy to design, build, and maintain. Don't be put off from doing your own repairs. It's easy, and will save you a lot of money that could otherwise be better spent on Tri-X, or a new lens for your enlarger. There's always the satisfaction of a job well done too.</p>

<p>Anyone used this? I bought some (cheap!) just to use in cameras that need light leaks checked, and it is some weird stuff. I developed it as the seller suggested, 11 minutes in D76 1:1 at 68 degrees, and it looks like maybe reticulation? Plus, there are some strange "swipe" marks on some of the negs that I've never seen (and w/ my development, I've seen just about everything). I won't be using this for anything but my light leak chasing scheme, just thought I'd post an image and wondered if anyone has had any luck w/ it? I hear the 400 is better, but I've seen enough of Ultrafine at this early stage. Looks like Ultracrap to me.</p><div></div>

<p>I bought a Rolleiflex 2.8 (think it's a 2.8C) for cheap. It has lots of tiny cleaning marks/scratches on the taking lens, along w/ lots of little spots. In sum, the coatings are shot. I was going to resell it because once I got the camera in the post yesterday the coating damage was worse than the seller had indicated, but went out today and ran a roll through it just to see what it would do. If you point it towards sun it will certainly flare, but then I didn't have a hood on it. What's surprising is how sharp it still is. Here's a couple of shots of the camera, and some samples from Tri-X developed in D76, w/o my usual yellow filter and hood, as I do not have anything in Bay III around the house. On the way home after I took the shots, I discovered that the front element wasn't snugged down all the way. Apparently the previous owner had taken it out to inspect it and never fully screwed it in all the way. I turned it at least 2 full turns, so it should take sharper photos than what's here now. It may be all right after all.</p><div></div>

<p>One of the best ways to drive yourself around the bend is to start comparing cameras and lenses, but if you can hang in there, sometimes you get surprising results. I have this Ikoflex TLR w/ a Novar lens that I bought recently as an upgrade to my beater camera, but it had a light leak that needed tracking down. My Rolleicord w/ Triotar had a shutter that was bouncing badly at 1/300, so I took Paul Ebel's advice and bought another old one w/ a Compur Rapid shutter that ran to 1/500, as he figured it wouldn't have this issue, and would be the cheapest way to fix the problem. I then switched my Triotar taking lens into the camera w/ the better shutter and headed out today w/ both cameras. This is Tri-X in D76, and both cameras had yellow filters.</p> <p>The first shots featuring the chair turned out way different. At first I thought I had really missed focus w/ the Rolleicord, but not so. I had purposely focused on just the front edge of the chair w/ both cameras, and both were shot at f4. While the Ikoflex got everything in focus, the Rolleicord got ONLY the closest front edge of the chair in focus. The photo also exhibits something I often get on old Rolleicords, a side edge that isn't quite flat. Probably a pressure plate issue, but it's not a big deal, and isn't on all the shots. The second comparison photos of the little tub are taken at the same apertures, and I like the Rolleicord better than the Ikoflex. So, depending on what sort of shot you want, each camera has it's own looks.</p> <p>I then got this crazy idea to compare the Rolleicord's shot of the light fixture w/ one I had made some time ago w/ a Rolleiflex E w/ a 3.5 Planar lens. I had been regretting selling that camera, and was considering buying another one. Not anymore. The Triotar did a wonderful job, and compares very favorably w/ the Planar. I like the way it images better actually, as it has a more vintage look and is plenty sharp. Both were shot on different days, so the light was different, but it's close enough to get a comparison. All the shots were given the same workflow from my Epson 2450 scanner, and minor sharpening and basic levels were very minimal. The Rolleiflex w/ Planar will not be needed, although I did like the way the camera handled. I knew that the Triotar was a good lens, but this really surprised me. </p> <p>I </p><div></div>

<p>Here's a simple tutorial on cleaning your Rolleicord shutter. These cameras come in all types of shutters, but this is how I cleaned the one on this particular model. Usually, all that's needed is to unscrew the front lens element and carefully clean the shutter blades w/ a Q-tip wetted w/ lighter fluid, then quickly cleaned up w/ a clean Q-tip. You'll need to get the oil/gunk off the back of the blades as well, but if you're patient and careful (lucky) you can just keep cleaning one side and let the shutter blades get wetted w/ fluid, so that it goes over to the back side of the blades. Just keep at it, and use about 20 Q-tips or so. Any fluid that gets on the back element can be cleaned off w/ the shutter on 'B' and a Q-tip through the open shutter. Unfortunately, this didn't work on this shutter. It was still hanging open on all the speeds even after the cleaning, so I had to go a little deeper.</p>

<p>I snagged a Super Ikonta III w/ a Novar lens cheaply, but it has pinholes in the bellows (odd for this model). Here's the one shot that turned out OK. I had been standing in a covered area, and apparently the light didn't get to the side of the bellows where it has a couple of tiny holes. Tri-X, D76, and scanned on an Epson 2450.</p> <p>Years ago I owned one of these w/ a Tessar. This particular Novar lens seems to be just as good as the Tessar if it's stopped down. The camera's build quality is superb, and even though it looks very similar to an older Ikonta I have that has no rangefinder, it's much heavier and feels more solid in every way. In theory, whether a camera like this has a rangefinder or not isn't important to me, or so I thought. In practice, I found it a lot nicer to have focus confirmation in the viewfinder. It does add to the camera's weight and size though.</p> <p>Has anyone else found these Novars to be good shooters? Everyone says what I said, that if they're stopped down they're fine, but I discounted that . In reality, it looks to be a fine lens. </p><div></div>

<p>I'm still auditioning cameras for my 2 Canon lenses, and bought a beater T60w/ a Sigma 28mm FD lens for cheap ($27, shipped). The seller said the wind on lever doesn't do anything, so I'm hoping it's just the old "mirror up-dead battery" fix. I was looking at the photos of the camera, and it looks very much like the Bessa R rangefinder cameras I've owned. Are they based on the same mechanicals? If so, I don't understand why people don't like these. My Bessa R's were totally reliable, had great meters, and were light and relatively small. Yes, build quality wasn't the greatest, but my AE-1 Program build quality doesn't exactly inspire me w/ confidence either. A plastic camera is a plastic camera, and if you can get used to the Ressa R shutter sound (which is actually not as annoying as Canon Squeek), it should be fine. That is, if the T60 is the same. </p>