marcusk

Ok, I figured it out from the MSDS. Here's the key, in case anyone else is puzzled. Flexicolor SM F1 module, v2.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bottle | volume (ml) | Sol’n | Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 1 | 436 | C | 4-(N-ETHYL-N-2-HYDROXYETHYL)-2- | | | METHYLPHENYLENEDIAMINE;SODIUM BISULFITE; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 2 | 476 | Rinse |DIETHYLENE GLYCOL;NONIONIC SURFACTANT;MAGNESIUM | | |NITRATE;ISOTHIAZOLIN DERIVATIVES; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 3 | 945 | A |POTASSIUM CARBONATE;POTASSIUM SULFITE; | | |PENTETIC ACID, PENTASODIUM SALT;SODIUM SULFITE; | | |POTASSIUM HYDROXIDE; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part 4 | 118 | B | HYDROXYLAMINE SULFATE; ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, also, this will only create Flexicolor SM Developer Replenisher--not a Working Tank solution.

Hi, just picked up a Flexicolor F1 kit and was preparing to mix, but discovered that Kodak didn't label the bottles the same way they are referred to in the Z101.pdf. (Z101 refers to them as Part A, B, C, while the Flexicolor box is only labeled Part 1, 2, 3, 4) Can someone tell what bottle is Part A, B, C of the developer? I guessed, Part 3 = Part A, Part 4 = Part B, and Part 2 = Part C, but I'd like to be sure. Thanks, Marcus

Yep, and the minute I turn the aperture or shutter dials, the strings came off. It was fun to dig through it and learn first-hand, how tricky the mechanisms can be, though.

Just a quick update. I located the gear I need to add off-camera flash to my OM1n and OM2n so once I receive it I'll try some of this out and report back. Thanks for the advice and problem solving help.

Gary, you totally get my situation! While I've been looking around for a suitable flash, I've kind of been forced into doing the thing that is probably the most fun for me--making completely different decisions about how to shoot the subjects. I've been pulling them out toward the window, "faking" a certain operation in better light, going so far as to drag one poor barista out into the street, but it has made for some interesting and different shots and looks!

Chaz, I tried this in concept, using a LumeCube and then a Manfrotto LumiMuse. They're bright, but the light is very hard. I tried to put a collapsible diffuser in front of it (30" round) but it was too cumbersome to use in the small confines of the shop and I lost about a stop of brightness. I got caught up in the sales pitch for the LED panels some of which are saying they're bright and soft enough to use without additional diffusion. I've had a look at one or two of them but I'm leery of buying gear to solve a problem which I know photographers have dealt with for many years.

Joe, I get what you're saying about the reflector versus the bounce board. In order to soften the light from the flash, I'd need to bounce it off something that spreads the light out at as many random angles as possible. Also, I understand about the size, too, I think. Ideally, I'd put the foam core as close to the barista as possible and make it as big as practical (from your previous post, at least 12" in diameter). If I'm misinterpreting, let me know. Thanks

Bob, if I can find a flash for my OM, I'll give this a try. I hadn't really thought about using a handheld meter to test the effect of the flash when I bounced it but that makes total sense. Thanks for the info.

Joe, Yes, I agree with you about digital versus film. I'm not one of those film lovers, I actually just really love my film cameras. I started out shooting digital (an Oly EP-3 mirrorless) and I liked it, but it was fiddly and I never felt like *I* was in control. The reason I entered the film realm was that the EP-3 first got damaged and then later stolen, so I just went out and bought a cheap film camera. Now, I've had that batch of cameras and lenses stolen as well, but it doesn't hurt as much when you can replace them for $50-100 for the body. (Lenses are still painful to replace). I dug out a flash for my OM and found that it doesn't tilt or rotate so I'd have to upgrade that. Also, the other problem that you mentioned is the need to find something to bounce the flash off of would be an issue. The ceiling is quite high in this particular shop, probably 20 ft, and it's dark, rough textured wood. Also, the nearest wall is behind the barista and covered with shelves. Still, I think it's worth trying and it's another skill to add to the toolbox. I'm not prepared to give up my OMs but I hadn't thought about the environmental impacts of film for a long time and that did give me pause. Lots of water used for sure and I've been doing my own C-41 recently, too, so more chemicals. I appreciate the reality check. Thanks, again.

Digital. sigh. Yep, it would definitely be easier! thanks!

Hi, I am a 35mm film shooter taking ad hoc portraits of local baristas. I'm having difficulty capturing the baristas in action, particularly at one shop where the window light doesn't quite reach far enough. Flash is undesirable because it annoys the baristas and customers. Also, I'm shooting an Olympus OM1N and I'm not sure how to rig up off camera flash, anyway (open to learning, of course!). I've been going up the film speed ladder with Portra 400 to Portra 800 and just tried 2 rolls of Fuji Natura 1600. Didn't really care for the Fuji, so far. Portra 800 turned out much too grainy. Best results have come from CineStill 800T but I think it would be so much better if I could just add another stop of soft light. I've tried the LumeCube and a Manfrotto LumiMuse. Both seem to be almost bright enough (I'm looking for about 1 to 2 more stops) but I need to diffuse them. With an umbrella or collapsable diffuser these solutions are just too hard to setup on-the-fly and without getting in the way of the barista. I've seen some led lights that claim to be usable without additional modifiers and I'm skeptical but curious (read: ready to take the bait). Have any of you used the Fotodiox "FlapJack" edge lights?

<p>Hi, I know this is an old thread, but rather than start a new one, I'll post my question here.<br />I have an OM1 (not an OM1N) that I got off of eBay and after doing the diode conversion for the battery, I realized the strings were off their pulleys. When I opened it up I noticed that the repair manual doesn't match what I have. My OM is missing at least 1 if not 2 pulleys (see photo below). The meter seemed to work ok before I did the battery mod (meaning, I think the strings were all on their pulleys and the meter responded to aperture and shutter changes as one would expect...except that I knew it would be off because I didn't have a 1.3V battery). Has anyone got an OM1 like this? Did I get suckered by the seller or is this just an undocumented production revision? It seems like, if I reassemble it as I found it, the strings will come off the pulleys again since the 'missing' pulleys added tension to the strings (the one for aperture). <img src="https://flic.kr/p/NC1gb9" alt="" /></p>

<p>I'd like to add that 357s, while the correct size, do not have the same discharge characteristics as a 76. <br /><br /><br> The Energizer EPX76s are specifically marketed as "photo" batteries and if you compare the data sheets, you can see that they are very different from the 357s. </p> <p>ENERGIZER 357/303H: http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/357-303hz.pdf</p> <p>ENERGIZER 357/303: http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/357-303Z.pdf</p> <p>ENERGIZER EPX76: http://data.energizer.com/PDFs/EPX76Z.pdf<br> I just bought some Energizer 357s, but I think I'm going to try the EPX76, instead (they also seem to be quite a bit more expensive, sigh).</p> <p> </p>

<p>Hi <strong>Craig</strong>, I shoot in fits and starts, and there are times when I'll bring 10-15 rolls into lab at a time. They usually require me to put each roll in it's own envelope so simply I put a number on the envelope and when I get it back (in the same envelope), I know which roll it came from. As to why I number the rolls...I'm a newbie so I like to keep track of when, where, how, and if there are any special requirements (like sending someone a print) for each roll. If I can't see the forest for the trees, Please enlighten me!<br> I've decided that I will eventually want to develop my own film (B&W at least) and when I started to look (ha ha) at unloading the film in the dark, I realized that it would be hard to keep track of which roll was which. If each roll had an integral mark, I wouldn't have to worry at all.<br> <strong>Results so far</strong>: I put 2 rolls of color print film through my "scratch a number in the leader" process. At the last minute I decided to scratch the number on both the base and the emulsion side with the point of my pocket-knife. Scratching the emulsion side definitely worked better. I've got 2 more rolls of film queued up to test this (B&W) and I'll let you know how that goes, too.<img src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/52399920@N00/15331161341/in/set-72157647535876169" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>Michael</strong>, hail to a fellow Oregonian! Thanks for the quick response. I haven't shot transparency, yet, so it hadn't even occurred to me that that would be an issue. Hmm...that means I might not have a good all-purpose solution.<br> <strong>John</strong>, I hate the thought of spending a good frame on ID, but I guess if my little experiment doesn't pan out...<br> <strong>Larry</strong>, I am worried about this as much as I am about it not making a readable mark. I currently stick to 2 labs. One for color (they're ridiculously cheap) and the other for black and white. The lab I use for black and white leaves a good amount of the leader on, so I'm hoping I have a good chance with them. On the other hand, the place I use for color is much less predictable. It's a different person running the machine every time I go in there. I dropped off 2 rolls today and I explained what I was trying and the guy who took my film put it on some kind of template and said that if he did the processing, it was likely that he would not cut off my marks. crossing my fingers.<br> Ultimately, I'd like to develop my own film so the length of the leader will be under my control (at least for B&W).<br> Thanks to all of you for your input! I'll let you know how it turns out. </p>

<p>Hi,<br> I'd like to mark my rolls by scratching a number into the leader. <br> I wonder if anyone knows if this will work.<br> I have 4 rolls prepared.</p> <ol> <li>I marked two of them by scratching a number into the emulsion side. (Not all the way through the emulsion).</li> <li>I marked the other two by scratching a number on the base side. </li> </ol> <p>*I did this a little way past the "tongue" so that it doesn't get trimmed off during processing. <br> I plan to shoot these rolls in the next week and have them developed at my local lab, so I'll have my own empirical evidence soon, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to want to permanently and integrally mark their film.<br> Thanks,<br />Marcus Kaneshiro</p>

<p>Cory, have you done a lot of color negatives with the V600? Is color decent? I don't need print quality--these are just my substitutes for proof sheets. (Do people even bother with proof sheets for 120? (I'm a noob, so...well, I don't know?)<br> Also, how fast is it? How many 120 negs can you do at a time. I was under the impression it is one a time. This made me think of the V700 because it can do 3 at a time...for 3 times the cost, of course. <br> Thanks</p>

<p>I would like to start shooting 120 film. <br> My current practice (35mm negs) is to get everything developed and cut. No prints or contact sheets.<br> Then, I use a no-name Chinese made film scanner (CMOS) to view the negatives and figure out what, if anything, I want to print. This is fine for black and white but terrible for color, as the scanner I use only has 5MP resolution, outputs to jpeg, and has very inconsistent color casts. (When I started, I thought the color cast was no big deal, but now it makes me kind of crazy. I can hardly stand to look at my color stuff). <br> I'd like to do a similar thing with 120 using the <strong>Pacific Image ImageBox MF scanner</strong>. My hesitation is that it only has <strong>9MP</strong> resolution and only produces jpegs. I'm worried that I'll end up with files that I can't color correct because there's not enough data. <br> Has anyone used this scanner and/or am I just not good enough with post processing? (I use GIMP not Photoshop)<br> Thanks,<br />Marcus</p> <p> </p>