steve_singleton2

Whatever brand you buy, make sure the print guide is square with the

blade and the guide marks on the bed. This seems like an obvious

basic requirment, but in my experience you can't take it for granted.

Ideally, it's best to take a carpenter's square or simply a piece of

paper that you've measured to be true and test any model you're

considering, because misalignment seems all too common and it will

certainly affect your satisfaction with the trimmer.

I'll second the Robert White suggestion. Last summer I wanted a 4x5

viewer, but without the eye cup, since I already had one for a 6x9

viewer. Robert White sold me just what I needed at a considerable

savings over what I would have paid in the U.S., even with a few

dollars in customs thrown in. Most accomodating folks there.

Knowing how to reason out a probable exposure is a useful skill, but

mostly as a check on the accuracy of a hand meter, in my opinion.

It's also useful to know how to bias exposure to the reflectance of

your subject. But to learn mental metering, you'll have to waste a

lot of material in tests and/or bracketing, or even worse, go home

having failed to capture that beautiful light that may never come

again. Using large format, you typically take a meter reading, think

about it, adjust as necessary and set the aperture and shutter

speed. This is a far cry from total camera automation and I think

foregoing a meter imposes an unnecessary handicap on the process.

The exception would be pinhole photography or other non-standardized

processes where you have no choice but work out standards for

yourself.

Bought a rolling, carry-on flight bag for $19 at the local closeout

store and a military-spec foam sleeping pad from the surplus store,

to use as the source of padding and homemade dividers. Works well

and costs little.

Please request the "warts" feature you mention, and the reverse, of every review. Learning what someone likes best and least is often very revealing, both about the product and the reviewer's viewpoint. It also helps the reviewer to get off the fence and take a position. Also, please ban use of the word "cool."

Can't say anything about the Finder 2, but I bought the original non-metered prim and haven't regretted it. Added a Beatty Intensescreen, which also benefits waist-level viewing. Other than a matte finish paint that doesn't match the body as well, the original finder works fine.

My tip is to forget the fill flash and use a reflector instead. To take advantage of the sharpness your Pentax lens can deliver, you'll want to use it on a tripod. With the camera on three legs, you could figure fill flash based on an in-camera or hand meter reating, then adjust the flash using manual control and experience, but that is soooo sloooow that your subject may get fidgety. Use a collapsible round reflector (ideally with someone to hold it) or a homemade sandwich-board type that can hold itself in position and things go faster. Becasue you can see the lighting effects, you can adjust the lighting as you pose your subject, take a single reading and shoot. White, silver, or gold reflector surfaces give you some color control, the reflector will typically be larger and therefore softer than flash, and you can position it more freely. Taking a slower approach, I'm betting you'll be really pleased with the quality of images you'll get with the Pentax.

A tip on going from an eye-level slr to a waist-level TLR viewfinder: with an SLR, you typically view the subject by moving the camera back and forth to frame; with a TLR, I found it helpful to use a short strap to rest the camera on my breatbone and frame by looking at the subject directly, squaring my body toward the subject, then looking down for focus and final framing. Before adopting this method, I kept missing shots by trying to follow the mirror image. Enjoy the great image quality.

While agreeing with everyone who says you know best what you can't do with your current kit, if advertising commercial work is first priority, I'd add the 65mm for work in close quarters and for greater apparent DOF.

In theory, I prefer a three-way head to a ball for LF. When I bought

a B1, it was primarily intended for 35, but I ended up using the B1

for LF too, simply because it's so smooth and easy to adjust in fine

increments. The 3047 was more difficult to make those fine

adjustments. So while I wouldn't claim the B1 is superior to every

other 3 way--I don't know the Gitos--it certainly is better than the

3047.

Key question is the maximum power you'll need. Virtually any unit

that has a power ratio control to dial down flash output in manual

mode should do the job for close work. Maximum working distance and

bounce/diffusion needs should determine the maximum power you need,

plus the usual tradoffs of size, weight and budget.

The small Bogen geared head sounds like the best solution. If you

had an Arca B1 or B2 (for preference) already, you need no quick

release. The camera's mounting block is flared to fit within the

Arca clamp. The Arca B1 is smooth enough and strong enough to use,

as I'm doing thus far, but trying to level the camera in one

direction without losing it in the other will try your patience. The

B2 does allow independent adjustments but is very costly. If the

Bogen balls are not as smooth, the task will be even more difficult.

If you do decide to use hex plates, I would suggest an aftermarket

plate from Kirk that includes an anti-twist lip. I bought one to

mount an RB, but have found it useful for other cameras, including an

Arca 45FC.

Had this done on my Pro S by a local camera repairman, who provided both the relacement foam and the service for about $75 as I recall. Since you got the camera for a song, this might be a good route to go rather than doing the cleaning, material locating and application and testing all yourself. Certainly sounds easier than trying to locate another adaptor which may also be subject to deterioration in the not-too-distant future.

Based on my advice, a friend & client purchased two Pentax 6x7 bodies

with mirror lockup some years ago and recently a new 300mm lens.

Neither metered prism works now with fresh batteries and I'm wondering

if mounting the new lens and inadvertently pushing the lockup button

could have caused the damage--which he and I both managed to do

independently. That seems to be the common denominator. There looked

to be a short length of brass chain in the lens mount area on one

camera with the lens removed, as if the broken chain might have

severed the connection between the lens coupling and meter prism.

Anyone have any ideas about how this happened and how to avoid the

problem in future?

On one occasion, I loaded one sheet of film backward in the holder,

so the anti-halation backing produced a color cast on the developed

film (actually the mis-loaded film was more pleasing under the dusk

conditions I was shooting in). If loading is clearly not a factor,

are you using more than one lens and getting only faulty results with

the 90? If so, I'd agree it must be the lens. If not, I would see

if someone else could expose the other side of the same holder with

another camera. That should quickly establish whether it is the film

or lens.

It would seem that processing flaws would be a more likely cause than

your lens. Are you using a trusted lab and have you consulted the

lab manager?

Just in case this thread sticks in the archives, I thought I'd

mention that I could not find any Arca equipment for rent, so finally

broke down and bought a binocular viewer. Robert White had an

excellent price (at least for Arca) and customs weren't charged,

either by accident or design I can't say. The viewer is very bright,

very convenient and has just enough magnification available to allow

me to see focus without resorting to a darkcloth and separate

magnifier. So, as it turns out, life is perfect.

The budget ran out before I could get every accessory I could wish for to complete an Arca 45F classic C outfit. In particular, I'd like to rent a binocular reflex finder to see if life really would be perfect if I owned one. Can anyone point me to a source for renting Arca gear?

In terms of handling, it may be important to decide how you'll hold the camera. A twin lens on a short strap can rest on your breast bone so you can look down to frame and focus. That means you can use Sunpak or Metz handle units and detach the flash and hold it up manually when you're ready to fire. A shoe-mounted unit usually doesn't attach and detach easily enough to do the same, so a bracket would be more practical in that situation. Another good choice for this camera would be a flash with a round reflector like a Sunpak 120J, or if your budget is larger, a unit from Lumedyne, Norman or Quantum.

I'll be the heretic here and say you may very well not see any difference between 8x10s shot on 35 and medium format. You should certainly see for yourself. Medium format gives you reserve capacity that 35 does not--both greater enlargeability and the option to crop with enough image left to work with--but in my experience the technical improvements are so subtle as to be almost invisible until you go larger than 8x10, assuming slow film and good technique. That applies both to C-41 prints, Ilfochromes and magazine reproduction. The question really boils down to your working style, quality expectations and how you choose to spend your (presumably) limited resources.

Not being silly, but no, I don't think anyone can help you. Medium format is a different creature--actually a number of different creatures--and you simply have to step out of your comfort zone and take the plunge. My advice would be the same as for choosing a 35; pick it up and handle it, judge the weight and the viewfinder quality. See if local pros will let you handle their machine of choice. Rent one you're seriously considering. Buy a good used outfit for a fair price and you can sell it and get another if the relationship doesn't work out.

A retired photographer I knew had shot with 35mm Leicas since his days as a combat photographer in North Africa and Italy during WWII. He had 20x24 portraits that were stunning in quality, but he had spent a career learning how to get the most from his materials. Most photographers, me included, want to buy bigger and better equipment to improve the technical quality of our photos, but I think it's true that we'd all do better getting the best we can from 35mm, then moving up in format only when the situation demands. For 8x10 maximum, I would advise you to stick with the flexibility of a 35mm system and spend the money you would have spent on medium format on a seminar, a pile of books, or very good tripod.

Stokes Imaging in Austin has done scanning work for National

Geographic, if memory serves me. They've done optical slide

duplication also for years before that, so I would check with them.

Haven't used the C-700, but the 23C and the B-22 are both classic machines that are known as sturdy performers. Of the two, I would prefer the 23C because of the U-shaped column rather than the single post of the B-22. But if you're buying used, you could simply go with the best deal. Your lens choice sounds pretty good. The 80 will certainly do up to 8x10 from 35mm, although it's a little wide for 6x7 (90mm being "normal"). One thing you might consider for 35 is a Beseler negatrans carrier. It uses geared rubber wheels to draw a strip of negs under the lens and is a great convience compared to a hinged negative carrier.

The sun is a point source. A point source enlarger produces very

contrasty light that old timers thought of as very sharp. A

comparison of point, condenser and diffused enlargers setups by David

Vestal concluded that high quality prints could be made with each

system, provided negative development and paper choices were tailored

to the specific light source. The point source problem, and to a

lesser extent condenser problem, is that in addition to producing

sharp images of silver grains, they also produce sharp images of

fibers, dust, and scratches. I have no experience with a microfilm

head, but since such images are theoretically quite small, I would be

concerned about coverage of the negatives. If coverage isn't adequate

for your negs, it might be best to look for a used head.