danny_spence

You can also use a normal daylight-type roll film tank. It's no more difficult than 35mm.

Do a search for "taco film development". I like dilute developer (Xtol 1:2) for this method.

I develop 4x5 by the 'taco' method. The newer Paterson Universal Super System 4 (for two

35mm rolls or a single roll of 120) holds two sheets of 4x5 nicely. Development is exactly

the same as roll film, although with a larger amount -- 800ml -- of chemistry. Fixing and

washing are also done in the tank just like roll film. The tank is sized just right so that the

top of the film will be flush with the light trap funnel - this keeps the film from drifing

upwards out of chemistry during agitiation. No film reels are used, however a rubber band

on each sheet is essential - they gently bend the film into a U-shape and keep each sheet

of film from drifting over onto the other inside the tank.

 

I've also tried the Jobo 2521 tank on a roller base - I really wanted it to work, yet despite

everything I did I couldn't get even development with it. The simple Paterson tank really

works well for me. If interested, email me and I'd be glad to send photos of the Paterson

setup.

I had the same problem recently. It was definitely hardware - after I inserted either of the

film holders, I could get one or two scans, then the film transport mechanism would make

terrible grinding noises. The scanner wouldn't respond to the software, nor the buttons

on the front of the machine. I could gently pull the holder out, power it off and restart the

computer for a few more scans, however not long after the scanner wasn't able to accept

the film holder at all. I figure that I had made about 1,000 scans on my machine at this

point.

 

I sent mine in to Minolta for repairs - $180 later it was back and the invoice for the repairs

stated that the "FPC contact" had been replaced. I haven't been able to determine what

exactly they did, but I'm just happy to have it back. If you want repairs, I'd suggest you do

it soon before Minolta is gone at the end of March.

I'll echo the 35mm f/2 lens recommendations as well. The 35 f/2, 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and

200 f/2.8 are my most used landscape lenses. Of those, I use the 35 and 200 the most.

The 35 has a very nice angle of view for me (The 24 is so wide I tend to get too close and

warp things a bit). I could best describe the 35 as wide, but not too wide -- for me,

photos with this lens look natural without any distortion. Manual focus is okay, but

doesn't seem to 'pop' as it does with my 50 or 200. The 200 is just marvelous - compact,

extremely smooth manual focusing, incredibly sharp, and very resistant to flare from

bright light sources.

I've been using Minolta AF cameras for many years (my film 7s do the same 'set focus to

infinity' when a lens is attached regardless of the focusing mode) and I've never had any

reason to worry about damage to the autofocus system. On older Minolta AF lenses, the

focusing ring is always directly linked to the camera - so even if the camera is in autofocus

mode, the focusing ring on the lens will turn. If your Tamron macro is like mine, it has a

unique (I love it myself) push/pull clutch on the focusing ring -- if the ring is pulled back,

it is linked to the lens focus gearing - pushed forward, it spins freely as it is disengaged.

 

There won't be any damage to your camera if the Tamron macro is set to manual focus -

just don't grab or force the focusing ring to turn with autofocus mode set on the camera

body.

You couldn't go wrong with either the Minolta or the Tamron.

 

I have the slightly older first generation Tamron SP (not the Di). It is a superb lens and I would recommend it highly to anyone looking for a macro. The lens is compact, lightweight --and most importantly to me-- is very smooth when manually focusing. Image quality is excellent. The push/pull focusing clutch on the Tamron that disengages the focusing ring from turning in AF is also a nice feature. No lens compatibility issues (I've heard of some Sigma lenses being problematic) either. Again, I am basing this on my older version of the lens. I would assume the Di is the same lens with distance encoding built in for the newer Minolta cameras. As for the difference in price, I doubt any of us could be of any real help to you there. I would, however, suggest you get a RC-1000S remote cord for the triggering the shutter, a VERY useful accessory for macro with a tripod mounted camera.

I assume you're referring to the 24mm f/2.8 autofocus lens. My lens is the version with the rubberized focusing ring and lens hood that bayonets on. I always use the lens hood - not so much for shading the front of the lens from the sun, but to keep my fingers from straying to the front of the lens when I'm handholding the camera as the lens is so short.

 

The flower shaped hood is useful and vastly preferable to the perfectly round, thin, and arguably useless hoods I have on some wide angle manual focus Minolta MD lenses. I bought my autofocus 24mm new many years ago and I've never had a problem with the lens hood it came with vignetting the image.

First, thanks to those of you who responded to my question. I've

learned more about the components and functions of

photographic fixer in the past few days than I have on my own in

the many years of practicing photography. I've been working with

Ron Mowrey by means of email on this formula, I have worked

out a solution and largely determined what went wrong.

 

The formula I was following in The Darkroom Cookbook simply

called for Sodium thiosulfate. When I was ordering bulk

chemicals, I ordered the first one I saw, which was Sodium

thiosulfate in anhydrous form. I didn't notice that there were two

forms of the chemical -- anhydrous, and pentahydrate/crystalline.

While not specified, it strongly appears that the formula in The

Darkroom Cookbook calls for the pentahydrate/crystalline form of

Sodium thiosulfate.

 

I believe the formula was thrown off because I used anhydrous

Sodium thiosulfate, when it needed pentahydrate/crystalline

Sodium thiosulfate. I used the same amount of anhydrous for

what should have been pentahydrate. This created a stronger

solution of thiosulfate than what was needed. To compound the

problem, I was only using half of the buffering agent by using

Sodium sulfite alone (following the printed formula exactly) and

leaving the Sodium bisulfite out. The higher than normal

concentration of thiosulfate in the first batch I made with the

inproportionate amount of buffering Sodium sulfite was not able

to cope with the amount of Citric acid called for in the formula.

The Citric acid lowered the PH so drastically that the fixer

decomposed.

 

After first recreating and observing the same results a second

time to ensure my first batch of the formula wasn't a mistake,

With Ron's help I was able to successfully create a batch of the

formula by using less of the anhydrous thiosulfate and citric acid

than called for in the original. I assumed I had all the correct

chemicals for this formula by following the book exactly.

Assumptions are a dangerous thing in chemistry. If anyone

reading this is new to making formulas as I am, do be careful.

Ron, Paulo - yes, indeed I did mistakenly state sodium sulfide in

my above posting. It should have read sodium sulfite. Lex, if you

see this can you correct my error?

 

The formula - and double checking what I have on hand - is

sodium sulfite. Paulo, the formula I have is essentially identical

to yours. Again, what I used was sodium thiosulfate (anhydrous)

240g, sodium sulfite, 10g, and citric acid, 22g.

For years I have always used premade liquid concentrates for

simplicity, and only lately have I experimented with a few simple

chemical formulas in my darkroom. Of particular interest to me are

the so called "odorless" variations. I've been substituting citric

acid for normal stop baths for some time with perfect results. Just

recently I tried making fixer from bulk chemicals. The formula I

used was from Stephen Anchell's The Darkroom Cookbook for "Kodak F-24

Nonhardening Acid Fixer". The formula seems simple enough with only

three dry chemicals -- sodium thiosulfate, sodium sulfide, and sodium

bisulfite. Next to the bisulfite is an asterisk stating that I can

substitute a quantity of citric acid for the sodium bisulfite for

less of a fixer odor. "Fine", I think, and away I go.

 

The formula made one liter of solution. All was well as I carefully

dissolved all of the thiosulfate in hot tap water, then stirred

constantly while I slowly added the sodium sulfide. It certainly

looked like fixer so far. Then I added the citric acid in place of

the bisulfite as described in the book. To my surprise, there was a

brief audible hiss and the solution quickly turned a murky yellow.

The last time I saw fixer look like that, it was when I opened and

prepared a beaten-up forty year old metal army surplus can

labeled "fixer, 10 gallons" with equally ugly results. Wafting the

air from my mixing graduate with my hand, I detected a sharp acid-

like odor. I didn't know what went wrong, however I quickly dumped

the solution down the drain and flushed it with plenty of water. My

plastic mixing graduate has a faint sulfur smell even after several

hot water cleanings (a long HCA soak will probably take care of

that).

 

I studied biology, not chemistry. It would seem the citric acid is

to blame, but can those of you who took chemistry explain why (and

why was it listed as a substitute for sodium bisulfite?) This was

an "acid" fixer, so I'm at a loss as to what went wrong.

I've never heard of any Maxxum cameras other than the 7000

having a problem with the aperture magnet failing, nor is there a

clear consensus of any events that lead up to the mechanism in

the 7000 failing. It would probably be safe to say that if your 7000

is working now, you need not worry.

 

I have not heard of the aperture magnet being a problem with

any other Minolta cameras and that goes contrary to my

experiences with the Minolta system.

 

I've been a long time Maxxum camera user since 1985 and I

have never had a camera or lens fail. In fact, I'm still using my

original 50mm f/1.4 and 35mm f/2 lenses that I got in 1985 on

one of Minolta's newer cameras, the Maxxum 7. I also have a old

manual focus X-700 that predates the Maxxum 7000 that I love to

take out from time to time that is still going strong.

Perhaps you're thinking of the spot mask meter attachment? It works on the III/IV Auto Meters/Flash Meters. I use the spot mask on my Auto Meter IV to turn it into a meter for enlargements of B&W negatives. I take my current printing aperture (not the time!) and open up the lens when I make enlargements from the same negative to get the correct exposure without test strips.

 

You have to "calibrate" the meter by making test prints. Once you have a good print, you use the meter to measure the amount of light at the easel. Once you've found that measurement, metering similar areas of other negatives (or enlarging the same one as I do) and adjusting the aperture of the enlarging lens will get you the correct exposure for further prints.

I've been using canned air in this way for a few years now. In that time I haven't seen any problems with using it to displace air in film and paper developers.

 

The biggest hurdle to keeping developers is the type of bottle used to store them - some plastics are air permeable (like HDPE) and don't lend themselves well to storing developers for an extended amount of time as they "breathe". I believe that the best kind of plastics for storing developers are made of PET or PETE (soda "Coca-Cola" bottles) as they do not let air pass through them. Amber glass bottles are also a good choice.

I just bend the straw of a canned air duster into my glass bottles, give a few slow bursts to displace the air in the bottle and seal with a little piece of plastic wrap over the neck of the bottle before tightening the cap. Works fine - the canned air isn't "air" but is "tetrafluoroethane" (any chemists reading this?) and the plastic wrap will not let air permeate into the bottle through the cap. I've kept developers in half empty bottles for months this way with no oxidation.

Yes, you can use RB lenses on a RZ. On the RZ shutter dial is a setting marked "RBL" that will allow RB lenses to be used. "RBL" locks the dial and the shutter speed is set on the RB lens. Because of a slight difference in the design of the two systems, you will have to extend the bellows a bit to get infinity focus with RB lenses on the RZ body.

 

RZ lenses cannot be used on a RB as they are electronically controlled.

I've never had a problem with it in years of use either. I use the five liter packages, yet I lament the loss of the one liter packets as that size was so useful. I prepare the stock solution with distilled water and store in sealed glass bottles. Just a few weeks ago I found a eleven month old 250ml bottle of Xtol in the back of my cabinet that I forgot about. I tried it on a whim and amazingly it was still good! I wouldn't want to keep any developer that long on a regular basis, but the reliability of Xtol has been flawless for me.

I've had A LOT of trouble getting HIE to dry without water spots. It could be the climate here (dry) but I believe it to be problematic due to the film base -- in HIE it's called ESTAR by Kodak (I believe a kind of polyester). In other films I use the film base is acetate and I've never had any problems with water spots.

 

The last time I used HIE I had to rewet and hang it back up three separate times before I finally got it to dry with relatively few water spots. The best method I found is to add four or five drops from an eyedropper full of Photo-flo to 500ml of water, let the film sit in the solution for a minute, then I squeegee the excess solution off before I hang the film to dry.

Are you using the included Silverfast software for scanning on the 3200? I also have a 3200 and Silverfast initially defaults (until the setting is changed) to a high degree of sharpening when scanning. My first few scans of 120 film were "grainy" due to the high amount of sharpening that the software added. Turn the sharpening filter off to see if that solves the problem.

Is the spacing between the previous frames on the roll of film consistent? If the spacing between the frames is wildly erratic (it is normal for the spacing to vary a little bit from frame to frame), it may be a problem with the film back. The only time I've seen a large amount of clear leader and frames lost was when the film was misloaded. You did line up the arrow on the paper film backing with the mark in the back when you loaded the film, right?

Not really. You can press the shutter release on the body to lock up the mirror and then trigger the lens shutter by a single cable release attached to the lens.

Here are a few possibilities ... Can you get a sharp image looking through the regular eyepiece on the telescope? If it's not clear and sharp here, the camera won't fare any better. When attached to the telescope the image in the camera's viewfinder will be considerably darker and slightly lower in contrast than what you can see with the telescope eyepiece. Also, any high clouds will utterly destroy a clear image of the night sky. Are you staying outside the entire time with your equipment or are you going in and out several times with your gear? Going straight from the outside cold to your warm house can cause condensation to form on any cold surface.

Elliot, as Sean suggested all you need to do is put your camera in manual mode and enter the handheld meter reading into the camera. It would probably be best to just set the shutter at 1/125 or 1/200 on the camera (ignore the shutter speed suggested by the handheld meter, enter the aperture vaule only or adjust the flash position/power) and leave it set at that speed for working in the studio.

For studio flash the shutter speed for the camera does not matter much. The reason for this is the duration of the flash burst. On portable flash units the flash burst lasts somewhere about 1/10,000 of a second or faster. Few, - if any - focal plane shutters can operate at these speeds! Those that can do so by creating an extremely fast moving slit that scans across the surface of the film. Here's how:

 

For these very high shutter speeds, say 1/1000, the shutter in the camera cannot physically fully open and close to expose the surface of the film evenly at one time. If you look in the back of your camera where the shutter is you can see that it appears to be made of several small blades. Basically when the shutter is opened these blades move out of the way to allow light to strike the film. Think of a window with a curtain that is split down the middle and retracts to both sides. As you open the curtain, The gap between the fabric appears first in the center and eventually widens to expose the entire window. Then as you close it, the gap where the curtain first opened is the last to be closed. Say you only wanted to open the curtains for five seconds. As you opened the curtains, light would first appear in the center, then finally at the far sides. If it took you two seconds to open the curtain, then another two seconds to close them fully, you might have had the center open for five seconds, but the left and right corners would have only been open for one. Now say you want to leave the curtains open for a five minutes. You could easily open and close them in that amount of time and only lose a few seconds in the process of opening and closing.

 

If you wanted to open the camera's shutter very quickly, it would have to be opened in segments. Did you see how the shutter seems to be made of several blades? For very high speeds, each one can be opened and closed in such a way that it creates a moving slit. If the window and curtains I described above had a slit for an opening in the curtains and you still wanted to have them open so that they provide an even amount of light for five seconds, you could move the slit across the window frame at a rate so that the entire window would be exposed five seconds from one corner to the other. Why can't this be used for flash? Imagine a thunderstorm with lightning outside. If you had the slit for curtains and wanted to see the lightning, you would only see a brief sliver of it through the slit as curtain was moving. If you opened the curtains fully for two minutes and there was a flash of lightning within the two minutes the curtains were open, you would see the entire lighting flash. As the burst from your flash units is so quick, the only way to expose the entire frame of film evenly is when the entire frame is fully exposed through the open shutter. The fastest rate at which the camera's shutter can be opened and closed to expose the film all at once is also your flash synchronization speed.

 

This is why you have a flash synchronization speed that is slower than the fastest the camera's shutter can provide. This is also why you cannot control flash exposure by adjusting the shutter speed, and why any shutter speed shown by the meter when metering flash is really not needed. Thus for indoor studio photography with strobes for lighting, the only way to control the amount of light that strikes the film is to physically move the flash units around, reduce their power or the amount of light they put out, or alter the amount of light going through the lens by changing the aperture.

 

Whew!

You didn't mention if you have the grip on the 700si. The 700si doesn't have a PC terminal unless you have attached a VC-700 grip to the camera. The flash synchronization speed on the camera for the PC terminal is 1/200 or slower.

 

Setting the shutter speed on the meter is irrelevant, (unless ambient light is high) as exposure is determined by measuring the strobes and adjusting the flash position/power or the lens aperture. The meter will give the exact same reading for the flash regardless of the shutter speed selected.

It's a feature to prevent the camera from exposing film without a lens on. With the lens removed, several electrical pin contacts are visible on the inside of the lens mount. Those line up with contacts on the lens to provide information to the camera about the lens, among other things. The reason that "--" appears is because the camera isn't detecting a lens and is locking the shutter.

 

Check the manual of the 5. Somewhere in the "custom functions" should be a setting for "shutter release lock" on or off. There are two locks - one for the lens and one for the shutter -- you'll want the lens setting. Turn the lens lock off to disable the lock for using the t-adapter.

Forget sharpness (both are excellent). The real question should be what you're looking for in terms of coverage and what you would use them for. Do you need the extremely wide coverage of the 20? Or do you need something more moderate in the 35? Also consider your existing lens kit and where either lens would fill in.