antoniobravo

your setting is more sophisticated than mine. :) and yes I agree that an insulated tank hand regulated according to a kitchen thermometer is enough, C41 chemicals for hand tanks are quite tolerant in fact. Yet it's not comfortable, prone to errors, and not easy for reproducible results. initially I was having different ideas for more or less elaborated devices. What is important to me is to avoid standing by a sink all the time with a timer, doing hand agitations and rotations, and to have some homogeneity is the process for reasonably reproducible results. Important when experimenting/testing. I am used to tinker a lot in different fields and often you have around devices, tools, materials easy to adapt for different goals. in this case, I need temperature control and water volume temperature homogeneity (water will be more or less same temperature everywhere in the sink and constant speed agitation. - for temperature control, a cheap sous-vide/circulator cooker works perfect. May just have to tweak the handle for the sink. - for agitation: I just noticed that some of the small cheap icecream makers have the lock which has the small motor, a bit smaller than the diameter of a Paterson tank. this kind of bowl, sold for 300 kr. ~ 30 eur ~ 35 usd : it's useless for icecream making, but see its parts: the top fits on top of a Paterson tank: so, cut the connector of the stirrer blade and epoxy glue it to a Paterson agitator stick. and you have a Paterson electrical agitator at constant speed. It has enough power to rotate tanks with 2x 120 spools or 3x 35mm spools: in order to have that top at the correct height over the Paterson central column, and stay stable while rotating, I needed to provide a compensating insert. I cut a stripe of flat 1mm plexiglass sheet, and bend it with a hot air gun into circular shape: this ring isn't the full lenght of the circumference because some room is reserved for adjusting the Paterson stick on the agitator column in the tank, and a small piece of plastic is inserted and glued on the side of the stirrer block, which will rest of the one end of the plexiglass stripe and so will not self-rotate. This small stopping piece of plastic, circled in blue: the ring on the Paterson tank: the whole in use. This costs ~1000 kr ~100eur ~ 110usd, it's simplier and more reliable than a Jobo system. I have never had problems a couple short videos:

> How many of you use Lightroom alternatives, and if so, which one do you use? I am a "native" Unix user, ie. have grown into unix ecosystem before Microsoft came out with Windows 3.1 and 95. So for home computing I run OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Linux and there are many raw editors, usually I am good with Gimp + Darktable or Rawtherapee or Lightzone. These are also compiled for Windows and MacOSX (which is a unix system under the hood). The advantage with these is that, being opensource, you can try different interfaces without paying a license, in order to make your mind. I use post-processing mostly with scanned negatives, from totally manual systems, so all the databases of cameras and/or lenses specific tweaks coming with some proprietary software are totally useless. It may be of interest for people who shot only digital (or even film) with electronic cameras and lenses. so in short: it depends what kind of photography you do (all digital, film with electronic, purely analog), what computing environment you are used to, how much you are willing to learn, how much you can spend.

for only few rolls (~15), and with a reasonable shelf-life once opened, the small Compard kit works well and is cheap: Compard Digibase C-41 ready to use kit 3x 500ml I do kitchen development, with the regular Tetenal/Fuji/Compard/Rollei and it's easy to get consistent good results with little money: a sous-vide cooker in the sink to keep temperature stable, and I use a hacked cheap chinese small sorbet maker top for rotary agitation of the spool in a Paterson-like tank. I even use that DIY rotary agitation setting for BW, as it's easy to do tests, it's reproductible.

that's what I read on older forums around but I find no pages about replacing the mount on the Hasselblad body with one from a Salyut, if doable with reasonable tinkering. Here is a Kiev-88 that I used for disassembly practice and learning about the inner: There's the outer shell, the inner frame with the gears and mechanism, the bayonet mount taken apart. The idea is to remove the mount on a Hasselblad 1000f and put that one from the Salyut/Kiev-80/Zenith-80/Kiev-88. What matters are the sizes of the corresponding body and outer shell holes for the mount and the distance to the focal plan. A bit smaller holes would be better, they could be enlarged with file/dremel, but bigger would require for instance something like inserted rings fixed on the outside, with epoxy probably as there's no room inside for added screws supports. Then the register distance....

curiosity, experiment. In case I find a cheap 1000f body only (the one I spotted is gone and often whole kits rather than bodies are sold)). I have a range of six soviet bayonet-V lenses, which are totally ok, specially I am very satisfied with the Zodiak-8 and the Vega-12. Plus macrotubes, wide-angle addon lens, teledoubler, and a bunch of backs old and nt. So if some reasonable tinkering makes these lenses usable on a 1000f, I could compare with the Salyut body and keep my gear. Like for instance in RF world, Zorki vs. Leica-III.

I may have the possibility to get a Hasselblad 1000f body for cheap (few speeds unaccurate). I was thinking, i may experiment: replace the mount, included whatever required slight dremeling and register distance adjustement, with one of a Salyut/Kiev-88. So all range of soviet bayonet-V available.Tweak Salyut backs for it (this for sure has been done, the Salyut back must be modified a bit in order to fit and frame spacing will be a bit different it seems). I find nothing on the web but certainly somebody must have done it?

well I had the jam only twice, on a Salyut-S and that Zenit-80, but had feebacks of similar jam from other users. Yes, maybe some little bit misalignment corrected between models. The one I disassembled (and never re-assembled fully) is an 88 that I picked for almost nothing just in order to know the beast. The jam on the Salyut-S was easy to fix, the current one on the Zenit-80 I'll see when I have a bit of time. btw. about the Zenit-80: last year, one of the week-end I spend in Sankt-Peterburg I went to see what they had (lenses, cameras, ...) in the second hand shop in Gostiny Dvor. I was bearing the Zenit-80, which created strong interested, they wanted to look closer at it. They told me that this model is highly regarded and sells 3x more expensive that the regular Salyut. Well ... my CM from Araxfoto sees very little use, I bought it just to get an idea, and well I like better the old Salyut. Just that the placement of shutter button and the reinforced mounting plate of the CM are nice, so I was tempted to ask Gevorg Vartanyan about the cost for these mods on the Salyut. I keep the CM also with the idea to buy one of these days some lenses available only in the P6 B-mount (CZJ mostly like the Sonnar). I have Kiev-6S bodies but use much more Salyut because the interchangeable backs. > There is something satisfying coaxing a nice image out of these quirky cameras for me, the motivation for getting back to film was the desire to do the most myself instead of "delegating" to various levels of electronic/software and also somewhat not be dependent of batteries/power source. So indeed when images are nice satisfaction is much higher: it's YOUR image from your natural optical sensors (eyes). brain and hands (from operating the camera to development) not the one computed by some sensor/software combo.

I must too check the one jammed last week. May be simple. My first try will be to unglue the leatherette of the knob, unscrew and carefully remove the gears, poke around for possible stuck/misaligned gears, the connection to the winding rod. If no luck may have to extract the box from its shell. the Salyut/Kiev is partially similar to the Hasselblad 1600F/1000F, so this may help: Hasselblad 1000F Repair - A Camera Apart otherwise general mechanical overview with nice illustrations, for the basics: Kiev88 Repair Manual | Gear | Shutter (Photography) I like my Zenit-80 so if I can't fix it myself I will send to Ukraine or Russia. Otherwise if it was a Kiev-88 or Salyut-S and I couldn't fix it, I would just buy another body. Yet working bodies alone for sale are less common that whole kits (body+lens+backs).

Just for the fun... I am back from one week holiday in Aragon region, Spain, where I went specifically for some cultural tourism, focused architecture, mudejar and post-Reconquista, plus a bit of the usual medieval spanish castle in countryside mountain here and there and whatever interesting street shots. Flight Oslo-Barcelona and highspeed train Barcelona-Zaragoza. Not easy to find 120 film outside big cities usually, so I took 2 packs of Portra 160, 1 pack of Lomography 100, couple rolls of Provia (I develop it in C41 and can have interesting color shifts and tones), some Ilford and Fomapan for BW. And one of my Salyut, a Zenit-80 (this was an export version of Salyut 2nd gen.). I am used to the Salyut family, I have 2x 2nd. gen. 2x Salyut-S, one modified P6-mount, cloth shutter from Arax, plus one Salyut early 2nd. gen for parts, one disassembled and not re-assembled. Among the usual idiosyncrasies when using these cameras, one, in my experience, is to always really fully depress the shutter button, otherwise there's some probability for jam when you wind on for the next frame. Bingo, after 6 shots the first day in Zaragoza, I got it, the shutter jam. Just the very first day of my ambitious long awaited travel.... Arrghh, how nice, a bag full of film and a jammed Salyut. No tools no time to seat and unscrew the knob and try the easy fix, just in case. So next time, I will bring along another body..... (that said, I still could shoot, I brought too a Canon 5D (the "Classic") .... but I forgot to bring a regular prime and no shop around selling old m42 primes, I had just my Mir-20 ultrawide. So I have over thousand 24x36 digital shots in 20mm only. Haha). Few days after that, in Barcelona I went to Casanovafoto and FotoK where I spent lot of time watching some 2nd hand Bronicas and Mamiyas. I was considering to buy a body with prism and lens, but, hell, I have a nice serie of Salyut lenses that can be adapted only Mamiya 645 (focal plane shutter, others are leaf shutter lenses) but 6x4.5 is not for real men, and anyway if I want 6x4.5 I use the adapted Salyut backs and a mask in the viewfinder. Moreover the Salyut is very compact, the unmetered prism is nice, it's all mechanical, simple and reliable, WHEN your fingers aren't distracted or tired. So, after a long meditation, I decided to stick with Salyut. A jam or something unfixable by ownself? no problem, buy another body for 100€. Anyway I have 3 others fully working on my shelves. I buy a body sometimes when I spot a working one for cheap, in a 2nd shop in Moscow, on Avito.ru, on Allegro.pl, on Ebay or anywhere. Is that addiction?

well, that's just for the fun ... :) Since I moved few months ago to full-frame DSRL, with a Canon 5D (the first version of it, sometimes nicknamed "Classic"), I became fed up with its very Canon look. I mean hell all Canon look the same, and because it's the most sold DSLR brand, you easily end up with other photographers around who have any old or recent model but basically the same. Reminds me of these times (picture I took in East-Berlin in 1988): talking of what the other day I was servicing an old Praktica from early-to-mid 60's, I scrapped the worn leatherette, cleaned and sanded to metal and used a roll of red duct tape I had around and some cardboard; and then I had to idea to play with the 5D ... So I cut/put that red duct tape: duct tape is good because it sticks well, holds good at any temperature with the glue becoming softer only in very warm climate, yet it's not too hard to remove and clean. It makes for a ground layer on top of which further leatherette material can be applied with contact/neoprene glue. So the glue doesn't bind on the camera's body and the whole can be undone by removing the underlying duct tape. I had some old worn leather jacket, I cut chunks from the back and the arms. On the left side of the lens, duct tape covers the "5D" logo, and leather is glued on the tape, so logo isn't damaged in case of removal. Final result, needs more finishing for a neater aspect, but good enough for me. I used the camera, carried in a messenger bag with lenses, a Salyut and other stuff all the week. The skin sits well. I decided to keep the small area between the grip and the lens with the red tape only, which makes the camera more visible. With the leather i get a better feeling when holding it and it's now certainly a unique camera.

> If it doesn't have an instant return mirror, it's a IV. If it does, it's a V. yes I know, that's why I titled "what Praktica (IV)?" :) ... yes this one doesn't have the instant return mirror. and the speeds are also 2/5/10/15/25/50/100/200/500. What I wonder about is if it's an existing factory variant or a customized box. It's about the cosmetics on the prism. I have always seen only two variants: plastic cover: http://www.praktica-collector.de/images/Cameras/139_Praktica_IV/Praktica_IV_139_front.jpg metal: http://www.praktica-collector.de/images/Cameras/141a_Praktica_IV/P_IV_front.jpg this one has a piece of leatherette and a brand sticker that looks from a PL Nova but with an added strip of leatherette on the lower part (masking the PL Nova marking). I think it's a customization from a former owner. In order to know I guess I'd have to remove that skin, but it sticks strong.

I picked a Praktica for 100kr, took the focusing screen for test on a Canon 5D. A pleasure to open, very straightforward and simple, I took the focusing screen and decided I will keep the camera and shot it, I put in a focusing screen salvaged from an Olympus OM-40. Anyway this is the Praktica. I looked up on Mike's Praktica Collection and Praktica: 1950-2001 - www.pentax-slr.com, and a bit more of online search but didn't find one with the same brand label name and a piece of leatherette on the forefront of the prism, all images I found are of some older models with a decorative black plastic or otherwise full polished metal. mine: it has the old shutter speeds progression by 5 (1/5, 1/10, 1/25,...) top of winding knob with shots count is black, rewind knob is the split variant. I guess it's just a custom front label on the prism of an intermediate version of the IV series... Only number on the body: so what year, what submodell?

Hello! I registered some time ago but didn't see the usual introduction sub-forum for new users, though there was none.... I have spotted it now, it's not a the top of the page as often, but at the bottom... I live in Norway, I did use a Pentax DSLR some time but turned mostly film, I'm 50, so I know film from an earlier life. I ditched AF lenses for M42 and KMZ39. I use only soviet cameras and Spotmatic, and in digital now a Canon 5D with a M42 adapter all the time on. Cameras: Start, Zenit-3, Zenit-3M, Zenit-V in 35mm SLR (and Spotmatic), Fed-2, Zorki-4, Kiev-4a in 35mm RF, Moskva-5 in 6x6 and 6x9 RF, Kiev-6s, Salyut, Zenith 80, Salyut-S, Kiev-88 in 6x6 and 6x4.5 SLR. I am having soon one or two Kiev-10 SLR also and one more Salyut... Some cameras and not enough time :)

thanks for the advice Robin. So I guess I will get one Ee-S first, they sell for cheap anyway. (on my two Start the viewfinder is clear and the aid focusing split circle is very good.) Too bad that nobody manufactures photo only cameras like the old 5D. Its 12.8 MP sensor is good but it could be nice to have more of course. I was on Pentax crop-sensor, but everywhere I go I have two bodies, one film (the Start or a Spotmatic or a Zenit), one digital and one set of manual lenses, and the difference crop/FF sizes became more and more annoying. I was thinking to move to a Pentax-K1, as I am (was) very much Pentax, but the K1 is a beast with zillons things I don't need and expensive. So I thought of Canon because flange distance is good for screwing M42/KM39 lenses, and considered a 6D or 5D2 but then I just need for my DSLR to be basically a digital back for my manual lenses, no need for video, audio, wifi, gps, nfc and whatever. And that's the problem: they don't make camera just with better sensors and logics but they pack bells and whistles along. The 5D is not so powerful sensor but very good otherwise. It doesn't even have liveview, I never used liveview on my Pentaxes either and I don't need liveview on my Zenit or Spotmatic :) But a good focusing screen is important.

I recently acquired a Canon 5D, the 1st generation also often named "Classic". I use only manual lenses and this is a perfect body for the purpose. That said the focusing screen is not the best. I can focus better on a plain ground glass like on the Zenit-3/3M/V .... Actually on 35mm SLR my favorite focusing screen is the one of the Start (I have two, 1963 models, it's also my favorite SLR), with a big horizontally split circle. Seen from the camera of my Blackberry Keyone: well I know it's not possible to have something similar on a DSLR but I am willing to try on the 5D something else than the default Ee-A. Of course i have read all the good words about the Ee-S, which is reported being very nice for lenses up to f2.8, but very dim going slower. The manual lenses I use in 50/55mm are f1.7 to f2.0, on 35mm f2.0 but I also use a lot 20mm wider-angle no faster than f3.5 and a couple of zooms at f3.8 or variable f3.8-4.5, so maybe the Ee-S will not be good. I fear a bit too dark, as per reports read here and there. Only alternative I find are these ones, made by focusingscreen.com from Ec screens: Focusing Screen (I did in the past buy from them focusing screens for Pentax DSLR, carved from Canon ones, for manual lenses, with good results) Just as an experiment I cannibalized the focus screen with microprism collar and split image of an Olympus OM-40 I had in a box, it doesn't fit exactly, should be trimmed in height and is a bit narrower, but sits anyway. Took some shots but found the microprism circle too small. Maybe I am spoiled by the big split circle of the Start :-)... anyway, very interested in feedbacks and alternatives.

I am playing with a Reflecta Proscan 10T ie, on american markets a Pacific Image XEs. Mainly I use Vuescan Pro, but I want to see what can be done with Silverfast, so I test with a demo version of SE Plus. I exhumed some negatives from 1988, almost forgotten in a box, never been cared for since I took the pictures with some point-and-shoot camera back then, and I scan also recent pictures. Vuescan and Silverfast settings aren't equivalent, but one can chose same level of scan definition, output image format, and let off color tweaks, as well as filters by model of film (the Negafix stuff of Silverfast, choice of vendor/brand/type in Vuescan). I have scanned with max. resolution supported by the Proscan 10T, output in 48bit RGB tiff. the following pictures are 70% jpg downsized to 4096x in gimp, of the unprocessed raw tiff. a relatively recent shot scanned by Vuescan, colors are not too bad, need correction (that was a very sunny, luminous day and deep clear blue sky): Silverfast flips it! but the shock I've had is with one, a very scratched shot from 1988 that I wanted to use for testing scratch removals. Vuescan: Silverfast (scratch removal was on, I didn't notice but re-scanned without I got same blue picture). what ??? Settings are exactly the same for the Moskva and the Berlin shots, I haven't touched nothing...

this thread title scared me a bit.... I am back to film since last year and home developing since few months. C-41 Tetenal is the only reasonable option I have here in Norway, because due to the silly European Union regulations, Rollei and Digibase (excepted the ready to use kit) can't be shipped by air outside the EU (shipments of small orders from EU located online shops are by air...). The couple local resellers of color chemistry that we have here don't stock Rollei or Digibase only Tetenal. I'm not far from swedish border ie. EU zone, so I can ride to Stockholm once in a while, otherwise I can buy and get shipped to nearest poste restante office accross the border, but it's not so convenient. Maybe EU could go down before Tetenal :)

I am thinking of buying a 35mm dedicated scanner, and from current reviews around it seems, as Wouter Willemse mentioned, that the Reflecta Proscan 7200 and the Proscan 10T/10M (and Pacific Image brands of the same in american markets) are roughly equivalent in definition to CoolScan V. And at least the best alternative nowadays for a reasonable money. Here around by now I see LS-50ED selling more than twice the price of a new Proscan 10T, and couple LS-40ED USB1.1 (not the "Super" with faster FireWire) at the price of a new Proscan 10T. there's a long 5 to 4 years old thread on Flickr about the merits of Reflecta/Pacific Image 7200, and many samples: Pacific Image Primefilm XE | I Shoot Film Scanner Group. | Flickr I have been playing with DSRL "scanning", but have yet to find an optimal replicable setting- Basically one must build some scanning box with set lightning, film holder keeping the film flat, tubes/bellows/lens, ready to go, and connect a DSLR to it for scans, in order to keep some consistency and save time. Anyway in case of slightly scratched film, the infrared processing embedded in the logic board of a current scanner goes faster than post-proc manual cleaning, also the calibration of orange background (color film) and white balance is done by the scanner (it's done very fast also in software but the scanner spares that step).

well, more than one year old thread, but still relevant given the fact that scanners don't seem to evolve much at the core technology, but are repackaged with different ergonomics and cosmetics. I have the dilemma of OP, wondering now if I will buy a 2nd-hand Plustek 8200i or a Reflecta Proscan 10T/Pacific Prime Film XES (its name for american market). (the Proscan 10M has automatic feeding of 35mm rolls, but this I don't need) my context: Last year I went back to film/analog and for a start I bought for ~ 60eur a used Canoscan 8800f. According to different places and among others filmscanner.info the real resolution of the Canoscan 8800f is in the 1600dpi. A word about the software: I have used Canon's MP Navigator/Scangear, Vuescan Pro (cheap!), Silverfast 8 demo. Silverfast is a cumbersome mix of actual scanning software and much post-processing, Vuescan is much clearer and straightforward, little little embedded post-proc. Canon software does a basic good job. I have the feeling many users but also reviewers do confuse hardware capabilities and software offerings coming packaged with the hardware. The Canoscan 8800f it has been good in order to give me a taste and get me started with both 120 and 35 film, so I have an idea. I bought a Vuescan Pro license, for what it offers it's very cheap in fact. I don't know if Silverfast works with better specs from Canon and can actually provide finer tweaking in the use of the hardware, comparatively to Vuescan (Hamrick site says it is reverse engineered) but with 35mm color film using Vuescan i think the results are ok for web and usable for A4 print after adhoc sharpening. For instance, from some 35 film I had around since 1988, without taking care of it, scanned at the 2400dpi setting (which in facts gives ~1600dpi) with infrared dust/scratch detection+removal, default color and fading correction in Vuescan: https://clck.ru/FDhSg https://clck.ru/FDhTQ for printing A4 they need post-processing, for instance the first one basic sharpening like this: https://clck.ru/FDhUM so this Canoscan 8800f @1600 dpi is convenient enough for 120, and for 35, preview and selection of 12 frames at once. But for better quality in 35mm I should use a dedicated scanner. Ideally I could use just one scanner for both 120 and 35 but the real specs of the current best flatbed offering, Epson V800/V850 seems to be ~2300 dpi according to the tests at filmscanner.info. There the Plustek 7600i/8200i is tested a real ~3250 dpi, so, much better than the V800/V850. The V800 is also more expensive than the Plustek 8200i SE and some more than the Reflecta 10T/Pacific XES. I think I can keep going on 120 film with the Canoscan 8800f and buy a dedicated 35mm, until I am ready to spend the ~1500 eur for a Reflecta MF 5000 or Plustek 120 (and if ongoing reported problems are fixed). there are much more online reviews of the Plustek 8200i than of the Reflecta 10T/Pacific XES, but the only place where comparison of: - scanning speed - infrared dust/scratch removal performance - actual resolution (not the manufacturer annonced one) is found is on filmscanner.info. According to that the Reflecta is faster, has an actual 4100 dpi resolution (vs. 3250 for the Plustek 8200i) and better IR performance. But then they compare with Silverfast, not with Vuescan, so that's where I wonder about hardware vs software of the IR functionality. Is Plustek IR sub-performance (according to filmscanner.info) a hardware limitation, or just software related in their test... With my Canoscan 8800f, I got better results with Vuescan than with similar amount of time spent on setting the UI with Silverfast (maybe there are settings giving similar or better scan results in Silverfast but then the guy who designed the UI should be shot...) Not easy to get a clear overview...