Silent Street

On Blanket Bay, Evening Great Otway National Park, Victoria. October 2018 ZeroImage 69 multiformat pinhole camera; Provia 100F, multispot metered with extended exposure shift (2 minutes). Printed 20x20cm Kodak Endura Professional metallic. In priv. col. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Loneliness of a long-living plum-tree Dog Rocks, Batesford, Victoria, Australia. Pentax 67 + RVP50 w/ 90mm f2.8 UV(0) multispot MWA metered. Printed 12x16" Kodak Endura Professional metallic. In priv. col. This very old, weather-beaten prickly plum is the sole remaining tree standing where once a granite quarry was worked very close by. It stands on an isolated high granite plateau, surrounded by modern new homes, so this is not a 'wilderness' shot, but I've tried to make it so! :p I had to get down low and dirty so as not to include distant HV power lines, TV antennas and wandering stock behind the rocks! ______________________________________________________________________________________

Toorongo Narrows (I & II) on the Toorongo River, Noojee, Victoria, Australia. June 2019 Pentax 67 + RVP50 w/ KSM-CPOL (@+0.6). SMC-Pentax 67 45mm f4, multispot metered (MWA w/+2.0 FF and +0.5 baseline shift) Printed 12x16" Kodak Endura Professional metallic. Ed. 1 MGCF, sold to Singapore priv. col. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ( I ) Lete's pause here and see how the same pretty scene looks in "Pro" mode o_O on my phone. What you reckon? True dinks, it looks very ... bland, on first sight, but then, all things change (a lot!) when you bring out a proper camera under proper pro control!! :p (II)

It is perfectly reasonable and correct from a business point of view to charge a customer extra for mounting transparency film, especially today where the process is by no means widespread and is time consuming: machines do exist to automate it, but smaller High Street labs would have to do the assembly by hand, and that is not good use of time. It was a push among professionals in publishing decades ago to have transparency film returned unmounted, uncut and in a continuous sleeved strip: this assisted speedy examination and vetting on the lightbox, and cutting then masking for e.g. drum scanning. What didn't make the cut, so to speak, ended up on the floor, in the bin or through the shredder. The last time my transparency film in any format was mounted was in 1987.

Ekta 64 (the one that faded the most severely) for one of the aunts who routinely used her Minolta SRT101 on a tripod (50mm and 28mm lenses), the other using 100 also on an SRT101, because she was "never comfortable standing next to a tripod" (!).:rolleyes:

E6 was certainly available before 1977. My two globetrotting aunties recorded many events in the UK (when flying from Australia to London took 6 days!) such as Trooping the Colour and other royal ceremonies, both on Kodachrome and Ektachrome; these would have been beautiful to look at back then, but not now, just pale, ghostly patterns of blue and grey. Only their Kodachrome slides of that epoch (1964 to 1980) survive to this day (the Great Yellow Father would be thrilled!), the rest (of southern UK, plus Scotland, Wales, the Channel Isles and the Outer Hebrides) having been reduced to nothing (Ektachrome didn't have the best reputation for archival stability). Likewise, my own pithy Ektachromes from 1977 to 1979 were discarded early last year, but Kodachromes (1980 onward) are still holding up (probable slight shifts of red to brown/sienna), stored in dark boxes in my study.

I've puzzled over that too. The dots occur at 4-sprocket intervals, so maybe in those days (1970s) an alignment / orientation assist when loading into machines? I have no recollection of my own Ektachrome transparencies from that era having little dots among the sprockets.

Indeed. Probably the single most important first-step for anybody setting out on long-term consumption of transparency. My first lightbox, back in 1980, was built by Dad from a desklamp positioned under a white frosted glass table top. The 100 watt (!) globe cooked my face and warped my first endeavours with Kodachrome and Ektachrome. Subsequent endeavours were much improved after researching just what the term "light box" meant!

Thanks Steve. Production has been severely impacted here this year, first from the catastrophic bushfires, and then, amazingly, from the pandemic and the infuriatingly extended quazzie — we're still not allowed to go camping or use amenities etc!! I have 34 images lined up for scanning and printing when restrictions on travel are further released around 22nd June. This is all very frustrating!!

Slides, reversals, transparencies or, Heaven forbid, Trannies... are all ready-rolled names for chrome film. I have never heard my print lab or any of the techs refer to it as "slide film" or "prints from a slide". Probably just a natural progression of terminology in the modern era, IDK. I agree that once you've eyeballed trannies up close and personal you'll never quite feel the same way again about looking at negatives. What you see is the finished product.

One more, before I head out to explore in the winter gloom... A rainforest scene: Upper tier of OREN Falls, Mousetrap Complex Great Otway National Park, Victoria, Australia _______________________________________ Pentax 67 + 75mm f2.8AL, full polarisation on Velvia 50, scanned on Heidelberg Tango. RA-4 hybridised print.

Slide film today is processed "stripped", and rarely mounted. I masked individual images in polytex masks for 6x6 or 6x7 and sleeve these. Much easier task for scanning than to fiddle dismantling slides and reassembly (always a risk of damage to the actual film during this process). Gepe glass mounts are still available, but these too are fiddly to disassemble. And if the glass should break and penetrate the film... :eek:

Why are you using 400ISO in bright sun conditions? Any meter, be it CWA, MWA, Matrix, multipattern or reticulated, will have difficulty balancing highlight and shadows when using a high speed film in conditions it cannot record well. A handheld multispot/duplex meter (not a camera's own meter!) can work wonders in this situation (one of very high differences of contrast) by hedging highlights down and balancing shadows through duplex multispotting and careful mean averaging. This takes skill and experience through observation and applied technique.

Clean the contacts on the camera's lens mount, additiional to the contacts on the lens. There is only so much one can do with an old, well-used lens. Contacts with a significant, visible abrasion/wear will become dodgy in time and cannot really be repatriated.

Yes, a great deal depends on subject and effective anchor and lead-in subjects. For many years I have used Canon's L-series 17-40mm ultrawide to "shorty" lens. The 17mm end requires careful consideration of foregound and background context because of the vast sweep it takes in. It is not a rectilinear lens and will disort straight lines when tilted up or down. Most of my landscape and commercial work is now with medium format, with 35mm only occasionally used. But when I want to go wider than 45mm (Pentax 67) or 65mm (ALPA), a take a tilt at the 17-40 and go waltzing matilda looking for subject matter that will benefit from it, not just for fun.

Has this film been processed at all? Ektachrome, and indeed most chromes films, have black rebates and leaders/tails after processing, with film data visible on rebates. The other thing is, well, 1979 is a long, long time ago... Slow-speed Ektachrome is a difficult film to expose well when expired after such a long time. A baseline guidance is 1.5 stops for every 10 years elapsed, but variations — likely wild and unpredictable, will be found depending on storage. Film that has been frozen over a very long term will still have lost speed but can provide useable images. Latency will be affected if the film was exposed but left unprocessed; with Ektachrome, that means any recorded images will come to nothing, much like Ilford's infamously "disappearing" Pan F+ 50 film with its well-known poor latency.

Postcards from Australia Saw this thread on passing and thought I would liven things up a bit with scenes from a far away, but still well-known place — Downunder! Evening light over Devil's Marbles/Karlu Karlu Northern Territory, Australia _______________________________________ Homemade 6x17 pano camera with 90mm Komuranon and Fuji Provia 100F, scanned on Heidelberg Tango, RA-4 hybridised print. Evening twilight at the Taoist Tree (I -- early Spring), Lake Bonney Riverland, South Australia _______________________________________ Pentax 67 + 90mm on Velvia 50 (EI40), multispot duplex metered. Cropped 6x6, scanned on Heidelberg Tango. RA-4 hybridised print. Evening twilight at the Taoist Tree (II -- 1 year later, late Spring), Lake Bonney Riverland, South Australia _______________________________________ Pentax 67 + 90mm on Velvia 50 (EI40), multispot duplex metered. Cropped 6x6, scanned on Heidelberg Tango. RA-4 hybridised print. Twilight reflections of drowned river redgums, Lake Bonney Riverland, South Australia _______________________________________ Pentax 67 + 55mm on Velvia 50, scanned on Heidelberg Tango. RA-4 hybridised print.

Checking accuracy of focus is done through collimation, involving the check at 3 places on the surface of the focusing screen, and any adjustments made according to the camera, for example, the Pentax 6x7 (1969 version onward), this involves slight adjustment of the shims beneath the focusing screen. Later Pentax 67 (1989 onward) are spring loaded and usually do not require physical collimation. The reference to the Pentax cameras is just one example of many applying to MF cameras with their own specifics for achieving precise focus. Analogue lenses usually can be used on digital camera bodies (e.g. Canon's L-series lenses), but the reverse is not usually true due to digital communication pathways being non-existent between the lens and the camera body. Not to say that people have tried this with a converter (with varying levels of success, often only getting an in-focus confirmation light). Again taking Canon's L-series lenses as an example (but also Nikon's) there are all manner of lenses in the stable that perform beautifully wide open on film and digital, chiefly due to combinations of CaF2 (synthetic calcium fluorite), LD or ULD glass. The best quality of focus is achieved with a true macro lens and absolute stillness, which applies equally to the subject being photographed and the camera, which must be stabilised and controlled with supplementary effort such as mirror lock-up and self-timer to separate mirror slap and drive inertia. A supplementary variable magnifier that attaches to the viewfinder during macro work is also very useful if your eyes are compromised in any way, particularly with glasses.

A fungal infection that has etched into the glass, either as spiderly scratches or pitting, is impossible to remove without virtually machining elements and repolishing. A lens that old is probably not worth the work in salvaging from such a problem. I would not disassemble the lens for risk of allowing any active fungal spores to spread to other equipment.

Lens hood clip point.

Image Stabilisation has improved a great deal since the first EF 75-300 tele lens fitted with this noisy, raspy feature came out around 1995-1996, and which drained the 2CR5 battery after a very short time. Unsurprisingly, this lens was hammered mercilessly in reviews at the time. It is noteworthy that IS power drain was reduced considerably when the lens was used on an EOS 1N with a power drive booster E1 (8 x AA batteries). This was my experience and is also the current experience of colleagues using the EOS 1V with the power drive booster using the larger, faster IS-equipped Canon L-series lenses (predominantly on digital bodies; I surmise there would be a small difference on film bodies because of the additional power needed for shutter, mirror and film transport actions). Today, IS works very well, and much quieter, smoother and gyroscopic metrics have improved so much that blur through gyro element movement is eliminated. That said, if a camera uses AA batteries, these are preferable for use over 2CR5 or other lithium batteries, so yes, the battery grip is a better choice.There is a significant power drain and 2CR5 batteries are not particularly well known for their longevity. IS should not be used when the camera is tripod-mounted, even on the premise of "reducing lens shake". Let the stability of the camera and lens take care of that and leave IS for handheld shots when and where it is needed. IS decreases in performance below 0°C and will also suffer retardation in very high termperatures (30-40°C). Though often involved in testing Canon's EF IS lenses, I have not been pursuaded to purchase one as the majority of my landscape and scenic work is in MF ANA/DIGI using tripod-mounted cameras. The price premium of IS lenses means you should give careful consideration as to how much you would use this feature and the economy it provides on battery power.

I am very, very surprised about the shutter failure in the EOS 1V. This is not a camera known for that type of fault, being more prevalent in the earlier EOS 1N and its variants (though not entirely due to the camera!). Canon has closed a fair number of service facilities, and the sequalae of this is abrubt discontinuation of standing warranties or repair windows for cameras. It is probably worth your while to have the camera examined by an independent dealer. However, if the shutter does need to be replaced, this would likely be now taken from another 1V body. The cost of repair/replacement of the shutter should also be considered against the cost of another camera, which could well be cheaper. It's not just take the old shutter out and plonk in a new one: there is complex electronic disassembly and in the end, calibration and stress-testing then reassembly; goodness knows what happens to the weather sealing but I don't think it is re-used. The 1V once cost a fortune (like the 1N, which I still have, purchased in 1994). They can be found now for around $600-$700, add a couple of hundred more for the PDB-E1/2, but should be critically examined to exclude heavy, continuous professional use and the integrity of weather sealing (a good few thousand first coming out had faulty weather sealing around the top plate). At some stage this camera will require service for replacement of the lithium battery that keeps track of camera settings when the camera is off or in the absence of batteries. The general lifespan of this battery is between 5 and 10 years. My 1N battery was replaced in 2001.

I would not recommend a professional level camera for a person stepping up from a very basic camera, with the added expense of a selection of EF lenses (the 1N is optimised for the higher-end L-series lenses in terms of speed and focus metrics). Results will not come overnight, even if you let this camera (and the later, similarly specified 1V) "do the talking". Having said that, the Canon EOS 1N has metered manual e.g. it will be aware of the scene and keep track of the exposure, but you will be exercising judgement on the exposure, and this requires baseline skill and experience. Reinforcing my point above, the 1N is not the best camera for a beginner because of is complexity and function overlays that can fundamentally alter the way exposures are made and their metrics (this refers to custom functions). Something like a Nikon FE2 with simplified viewfinder exposure information — the FE2 (which I travelled widely with around 1984-1988) is still sought after today and Nikkor lenses are reasonably easy to find and cheaper than AF lenses.

There isn't a 75mm LS in the P67 line-up. You may be conflating LS with shift (a 75mm shift lens, the cheaper choice of the stellar but pricey 75mm f2.8AL). The two LS lenses are 90mm LS and 165mm LS. Either/both can allow multiple exposure (only a few Pentax 67 bodies were fitted with the factory fitted multi-exposure facility on the right hand side, to the left of the film format selector), but the 165mm LS (only) will not allow mirror lock-up in LS mode, the attendant risk being jamming of mirror and aperture mechanism. That 165mm LS lens, in my kit, is quite a heft, too, but surprisingly very sharp and contrasty; it is an annoying unbalance and added weight to an already heavy camera. The 45mm f4 has a spring-loaded gelatin filter clasp at the rear element and the lens uses 82mm filters, which makes it stand out as an awkward piece of lens when everything else is 67mm or 77mm! If the meter is erratic, that may be symptomatic of age-related drift. You will need to run a roll of transparency film through the camera to ascertain how accurately the meter responds, and take notes of what you are doing. Negative film has too much latitude, which is misleading when assessing old meter performance. Later TTL meters (from 1992) have improved electronics (though not much!) but rough handling, extended lack of use and even disassembly can affect their performance. If your 55mm f4 develops a rattle during handling (well known and widespread with just the 55mm), this is indicative of a fault in bearing collar alignment/runout and can be fixed by service (does not affect performance by any stretch, but it is very annoying!).

Light piping from some point in the camera back, not the shutter. Likely coming through where the seals have worn away. Can also occur when a 35mm cassette is exposed to strong light, which can still penetrate the felt trap designed to keep it out.

Irrespective of MLU, either/both Pentax 6x7 and 67 are noisy. I agree non-owners are a problem, fuelled by populist opinion and rabid herd mentality than fact based on long and enduring experience. Having said that, inertia-induced blur is at exposure, not post-exposure. ___________________________________________________ Qualification: 30 years use of 67