10987435

I finally have time to respond to my own post! Neil_grant: Actually, I had less luck finding what seemed to be a quality lens. Though there were WAY more to look through, almost every single one had some optical flaw (I don't care too much about cosmetic flaws). I think because the 127mm lenses were used so much, they are in worse condition. AlanKlein: I didn't specifically want the 140mm for its macro capabilities. I think pricing has changed since some people here have been on eBay, or maybe I'm looking wrong. 127mm lenses that don't have any fungus, haze, or separation are almost impossible to find. The ones I could find were closer to $200. 90mm lenses were in better condition, it seemed, but also around the $200 range. 180mm lenses were the cheapest and seemingly good condition, while the 140mm lenses were somewhere in between. c_watson|1: Actually, the 90mm lenses in good shape seemed more expensive than the 140mm lenses. Orsetto: Sounds like good advice. The USA sellers seem to have better quality items, but there are hardly any. Luckily/unluckily, I now have time because I misunderstood my wife's "permission." We're in the process of buying our first house, so apparently she didn't really want me to buy a lens yet...happy wife, happy life...right? I have an RB67 Pro-S, so I will certainly be on the lookout for K/L lenses. How much should I worry about haze/fungus/etc.? I think I'm overly worried about haze based on my experience with the original lens. I think that I am capable of taking apart a lens without issue (and won't carry it over concrete next time), but since most haze in the 127mm seems to be in the rear elements, I would have no way of knowing whether the lens could be fixed before receiving it. Fungus seems easier to clean, but more likely to cause etching. Balsam separation seems like something to avoid in almost all situations. Does that seem like a fair assessment? Are there any places you would suggest looking other than eBay? Thanks again for your time and replies.

Thanks for the suggestions so far. I haven't abandoned this thread, but life got suddenly busier for a bit. I will respond more, later.

Some of you may remember me from previous posts regarding a Bronica that had a few issues and had to be returned, my subsequent purchase of an RB67 budget camera, and my discovery of holes in the bellows. My medium format aspirations seem doomed sometimes. I decided to start testing the camera and had a little success with it, but was having difficulty with developing and scanning in my film. I decided to send the film to TheFindLab requesting some commentary on the results. They pointed out significant haze in a few of the shots, and, sure enough, there was significant haze in the lens once I knew what to look for. I decided to try to clean the lens myself after watching a couple of videos. Unfortunately, I ran into two problems. I had no luck with cleaning after I removed the elements. Either the lenses are etched, or the haze is between cemented elements or something. Regardless, while following one suggestion of using ammonia and hydrogen peroxide, I took the lens out on our porch and managed to drop one of the elements. That put an end to that lens. I have finally received permission from the wife to purchase a new lens, but I don't want to risk getting another dud. I have a budget of about $200, though less is definitely better. I mostly shoot landscapes and tend to prefer 50mm and longer lenses on my Canon 6D, though I'm open to wider. I also like closeups of flowers and such. Some shots would be portraits, though not that many. Almost all lenses I see on eBay have some amount of haze, fungus, or separation. Here is one I'm considering: 【Excellent＋5】 Mamiya sekor macro c 140mm f4.5 for RB67 S SD From Japan #76938 | eBay It says it has no haze/fungus/separation, but on the last picture, in particular, there are dots that look suspicious. I would prefer a US listing, too, but beggars can't be choosers. Any suggestions on this or other lenses? I'm getting a bit overwhelmed looking through eBay.

Well...I followed a new tutorial I found online and I'm definitely getting closer! Thoughts? Still not great, but I'm at least getting closer to acceptable results.

Rodeo_joe|1, thank you very much for the time you put into your responses. I appreciate your advice and expertise. By what you're saying, I'm beginning to wonder if I somehow messed up the mixing of the blix powder, or if, (as a very last possibility), the kit was somehow defective. I hear many people comment on the smell of the blix, but frankly, my batch has little smell. Again, I can't imagine what I could have done wrong, but considering I've tried various processes and had the same issue throughout, I do wonder if that's the source of the problem. That being said, I think I need to stick to my original plan and send off a roll to TheDarkRoom or some other lab that will develop and scan the images and return the negatives. I can scan the negatives myself and see what it takes to get it to look similar to the lab's scan. That way I can know if I'm struggling because the developing is off, or the scanning...or the picture taking itself if the pictures come back horrible from the lab.

So I've shot, developed, and scanned two more rolls. The weather around here is not the best, so most of the shots are under cloudy skies. I'm not sure if that's contributing to my struggles, or if it's issues with the camera (light leaks) or if it's my shooting technique (under exposing or over exposing, perhaps), or if it's my developing or scanning. I got some shots that aren't horrible, but none that I'm really satisfied with. None of them look natural. I know it's possible to get natural-looking shots...just not how to get them. Some of these look even more off now that I've got them out of Lightroom. Don't mind the dust...these are just for learning, after all... Any thoughts or suggestions? I think I need to go in search of someone in town that could help me...

Kmac: I definitely might not have drained out all the developer. I was in a hurry to move from that step to blix. I will be more careful next time. I allowed blix to run for 6.5 minutes, but maybe I'll let it go an extra bit next time. The stabilizer might also have been the issue. I went from fairly warm tap water to approximately room temperature stabilizer. Is it OK if the stabilizer is at the 102 degrees as the other chemicals? rodeo_joe|1: I think I followed the tanks recommendation and flipped it over and back four times every 30 seconds. However, I probably did overfill it. I wasn't filling it to the brim, but generally I filled it up into the funnel. I checked the tank, and I guess I should be using 500 mls. How critical is that? Can I just estimate half my 1-liter bottle, or should I really measure out 500 mls? I used a measuring cup, which I'm sure isn't as accurate as using a graduated cylinder or some such, but I should think it's close enough. The problem was that the bottles were exactly 1 liter if they were filled all the way to the brim. I didn't want to fill them so absolutely full, so I filled them to a little under (about 980 or 990 mls, I'd guess). Thanks to both of you for the tips! YouTube videos only tell you so much...

Kmac, where in the process would sloppy processing cause that yellow staining? I was quite careful, or so I thought, so I'm not sure where I need to correct. Any suggestions? Rodeo_joe|1, I am using a DSLR and end up lowering the white balance as far as it can go, but I still feel the colors are off. Can this be a result of underexposing? I'll have to look for a blue filter... Thanks to all for the replies. I'm sure I will have many more questions!

Oh, so this might be normal? I really struggle with the post-processing, then. Most of my shots are coming out like bad Instagram filters...

My film is very blue. I am trying my hand at developing film without knowing anything about film. Maybe not the best way of doing things. So far, I've done two rolls of Kodak Portra 160. I'm using an Ultrafine Unicolor C-41 powder kit. I used a sous vide wand to maintain temperature when mixing the chemicals. I'm quite capable of following instructions, but I did run into two issues while mixing the chemicals. First, the bottles I purchased are 1 liter bottles. Exactly. Therefore, the chemicals aren't mixed in quite one full liter. However, it is very close. Second, the bottle with the water for blix fell over in the sous vide water, meaning some of the distilled water was contaminated with water from the tap I was using for the sous vide. It also meant that I did not fill that container quite as full of water and therefore may be even more concentrated, but only barely. I can't imagine either of those is causing my issue, but maybe. During development, I use the sous vide wand to warm the chemicals. The first time, I put all four bottles (presoak, developer, blix, and fixer) in the bath. I followed closely the directions as far as agitation and timing, but did it in a cold garage and did not worry about maintaining temperature once I started each chemical. The second time, I worked inside, paid close attention to keeping the Patterson tank in the water bath in-between agitations, and removed the fixer from the water bath (albeit after I had initially warmed it). Both times, I rinsed with water from the tap. The first time with cooler water (I think), but the second time I used warm water from the tap (though I don't know how warm). Here is an example of my results: Thoughts? I assume this isn't exactly normal. This is from the second roll, but the first roll was basically the same. Don't mind the model. He was pestering me while I was taking test shots from my new-to-me, beat-up Mamiya RB67, so I conscripted him into service...

Well, some of you may remember my struggles with the Bronica S2 I purchased. That all turned out quite well, thanks to the seller. I then purchased a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S for quite cheap ($200, including lens, 1 additional 120 film back, and a retractable lens hood). I asked the seller some questions first and he mentioned he had inspected the body and lens, but either he didn't inspect them well, or his definition of inspection is different from mine. It's rather beat up, but not horrible. The lens and body seem to work fine. However, the bellows have a few holes in them. So far, I figure the price was reasonable for what I got and it appears that replacement bellows can be purchased for about $80. The question then is whether I want to replace them myself, or pay someone to do it (possibly along with the light seals). Anyone have other suggestions for repairing the bellows as opposed to replacing? Electrical tape? I saw a guy that enhanced his bellows with liquid electrical tape, but he didn't have holes yet, and he let it dry for 5 weeks. I'm not sure I want to wait that long to use the camera! Here are the first shots from the camera. I have something wrong with my developing (but that can be a new post). For now we'll just say I'm going for the "instagram" look. You can see some light leaks from the bellows in one, and it appears there might be a light leak on the right side, as well, though It's not particularly visible in any of these photos. My next roll I will have developed professionally. I thought that doing the developing myself would give me a quick idea of how the camera is, but the color issues and my inexperience make me wonder how much I see is from the camera and how much is from the developing.

I think that was the issue with my lego setup, despite using a flash. That being said, I assume that with both a lightbox and a flash setup, that can be resolved by working in a dimly lit room, correct? Mainly, the Lego solution was just unwieldy and awkward. In any case, my wife didn't kill me when I told her about the lightbox purchase, so I figure I can keep it.

The Lego idea kinda worked. I used white legos and wax paper as a diffuser with the flash firing from the side. There was something off, though, I think. Maybe I just needed to work on the exposure. In any case, I decided to send back the film holder to Amazon, buy a Digitaliza film holder, and the lightbox Henricvs recommended.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm trying to avoid spending more money, but I may have to. My next attempt will be to build a lego box. My thought is to have the tablet, a flash, or an LED hotshot light I have on the bottom, a diffuser of some sort a few Lego stages up, then place the negative holder a few higher. If that fails, I guess a ommercial light box it is... I wish I had bought the Digitaliza negative holder instead of the one I bought. It seems that a negative holder is better than glass, but this one doesn't hold the negatives particularly flat...

As a bit of background, I jumped into medium format with my first camera, first roll doing all the developing and scanning myself. Unfortunately, the camera had some issues that necessitated returning it, but in preparation for my next camera, I wanted to work on my scanning technique. For this first try, I used my Canon 6D, a 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens, and a Samsung Tab A as a light source. The process worked well, except that when I zoom in at a 1:1 crop, the pixels of the Samsung Tab A are visible. I've seen suggestions of using Apple tablets and possibly newer Samsung Galaxy phones for light tables. Is this a symptom of the specific tablet I used, or is there a way to prevent this?