Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,200
12,501
I know a few people with the Lee big stopper that certainly don't look like they have any issues!
They must do a bit of colour correction in post-production if they are using their images in colour, which isn't really that much of a task with the right image editing program.

The screw on filter is the recessed one that reduces some of those issues. I have a viewfinder blackout cap.
Cool. Most people don't think about blocking out their viewfinder when using ND filters for long-exposures.

I look forward to seeing the results of you exploring with your new gear! :cool:
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Original poster
Feb 21, 2012
57,002
56,024
Behind the Lens, UK
They must do a bit of colour correction in post-production if they are using their images in colour, which isn't really that much of a task with the right image editing program.


Cool. Most people don't think about blocking out their viewfinder when using ND filters for long-exposures.

I look forward to seeing the results of you exploring with your new gear! :cool:
Well I think I'll be alright with colour correction ;)
I'll just use my Colour checker passport!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander.Of.Oz

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,200
12,501
Well I think I'll be alright with colour correction ;)
I'll just use my Colour checker passport!
I swear by mine, I have profiles for all of my camera and lens combinations under sunny, overcast and cloudy conditions, and I always use it under artificial light for each place I visit.
 

Alexander.Of.Oz

macrumors 68040
Oct 29, 2013
3,200
12,501
Glad to hear it. I'll pass on your compliments to Art the next time I see him (the creator)
I was very glad I knew about it and had one recently as I had to capture an event launch for an art exhibition that was under mixed light. I got perfect colours under the mixed light, which was added to by me using a bounced flash off the ceiling too! The various profiles I created in different spots in the room worked perfectly when I applied them in Lightroom. It saved me countless hours of colour tweaks! :cool:
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Original poster
Feb 21, 2012
57,002
56,024
Behind the Lens, UK
I was very glad I knew about it and had one recently as I had to capture an event launch for an art exhibition that was under mixed light. I got perfect colours under the mixed light, which was added to by me using a bounced flash off the ceiling too! The various profiles I created in different spots in the room worked perfectly when I applied them in Lightroom. It saved me countless hours of colour tweaks! :cool:
It certainly does save a lot of time.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
I picked up a few odds and ends the week before last, although they fall in the realm of darkroom stuff rather than strictly camera accessories.

I walked into my favorite used camera store with the store manager fussing about an enlarger that the owner had bought earlier that day. I ended up buying the enlarger, all the darkroom "stuff" that came in with it, and managed to talk the owner into a 50mm 2.8 El-Nikkor for the enlarger(I don't have a 50mm enlarger lens).

This whole bundle of stuff is special. It is arguably the best enlarger made for 35mm film-a Leitz Focomat V35. Unfortunately, it was missing the original 40mm Focotar, but the auto-focus is close enough with the 50mm El-Nikkor that it only needs a small tweak to get it into focus after an adjustment.

I've been printing for years on a Beseler 23C, which is a fine enlarger but getting it reconfigured when switching formats is a bit time consuming. I also only have an 80mm Rodenstock on it, which again is an excellent lens but is a bit too long for 35mm. I can now leave it permanently set up for medium format.

In any case, going back to the Focomat-it is absolutely the sturdiest enlarger I've ever used. The head moves with a light touch, but it stays perfectly in place and there's no flex or wobble anywhere in it. The Besseler is a bit rickety by comparison. I'm use to using condenser enlargers, which give very sharp images but also well defined grain and magnify any defects of the negatives. The Focomat is sort of a hybrid condenser-diffuser as it incorporates elements of both. A diffusion head is often said to print about 1 contrast grade softer than a condenser, and I'm finding that I need to go about 1/2 grade higher on contrast on the same negatives.

On the subject of contrast, though, the Focomat also has a color head. I don't have any intention of printing color for the time being, but a color head allows you to "dial in" the contrast with multi-grade papers rather than using a contrast filter. I only use Ilford papers these days(not a lot of choice, and Ilford paper is great) and I just taped their published filtration values on the enlarger head.

It doesn't stop there, though. The enlarger came with a nice little digital Gralab timer-it's so nice to just set the time, hit a button, and get perfectly timed exposures.

The biggest surprise, though, was the developing tank. I just looked at it and saw two reels and figured they go into the rotation. I was working through some film the other night, needed some reels, so just grabbed this tank and tossed it in the changing bag. When I pulled the reels out, I knew I was holding something special-they were heavier and more sturdy than any 35mm reel I've handled, and seemed to virtually load themselves.

After I finished developing, I looked and saw that they were Hewes reels. I've heard about them for years, but never bothered to look for them. I've used Nikor, Omega, and even no-name reels and all are fine as long as they aren't bent. The Nikor 120 reels are solid pieces, but I've bent more 35mm reels than I care to count. It would take a concentrated effort, and not a mis-step like dropping in the sink to bend one of the Hewes reels.

Amazingly enough, the made in England Hewes tank was the also the only stainless tank I've ever used that didn't leak. That's impressive for something made in England :)

I've been piddling in the darkroom for years, and this is the first time in a while I've been excited about something like this. I'm now looking at picking up some more Hewes reels on Ebay :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: someoldguy

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
This should be fun to play with.

IMG_4981.jpg


The plate holders have a patent date of 1883 on them, although I don't know exactly how old they are. I've had them for a while-I was going to dabble in wet plate so I went in my local camera shop and said "Hey Chuck, do you have any 4x5 plate holders."

Unlike a normal store where you'd get a laugh, I was instructed to go to a corner of the store, move a couple of boxes, open a specific drawer, see what I could find, then close the drawer and carefully restack the boxes :)

I dug up these two, and after a bit of hemming and hawing he said "$15 for both." I said something about maybe looking for another and he said "It's $45 if you want three-they're that cheap because you only want two."

In any case, they've sat for a while, but someone on Pnet put out a feeler asking if there was any interest in dry plates. I talked to him a bit, and I thought his price was reasonable. I ended ordering two boxes.

These are coated in a more traditional monochromatic emulsion with high blue sensitivity, minimal orange sensitivity and no red sensitivity(virtually all modern B&W is panachromatic, meaning that it is sensitive from blue to red). This means it can be handled under a safelight-a real advantage since these plate holders load a LOT differently from cut film holders, and also they can easily be developed by inspection(as one would develop a print).

I'll try to load a holder this evening, and if I can brave the cold tomorrow I'll go out and shoot one or two. The big question is if I want to go with the convenience of my Speed Graphic or the flexibility of my B&J field camera. Temperatures will probably dictate that I use the Speed.
 

monokakata

macrumors 68020
May 8, 2008
2,063
605
Ithaca, NY
Amazingly enough, the made in England Hewes tank was the also the only stainless tank I've ever used that didn't leak. That's impressive for something made in England :)

This (long long ago) rider of AJS, BSA, and Royal Enfield motorcycles is laughing and remembering leaks. Many of them. Too bad Hewes didn't make crankcases.
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
This (long long ago) rider of AJS, BSA, and Royal Enfield motorcycles is laughing and remembering leaks. Many of them. Too bad Hewes didn't make crankcases.

I have a 1970 MGB, and have gone a bit nutty over MGs for the past few years.

The first time I pulled the engine, I got talked into these thick silicon gaskets for the tappet galley covers vs. the OEM cork. I did the engine pull at a friend's house who is about two hours away. He followed me most of the way back(in his 77) and flagged me down to pull over. When we pulled over, he got out and had oil spots all over the front of his hat and on his windshield-it seems that I'd been "misting" oil most of the way. I added a quart, and we tweaked the crank case breather.

A week later, the car was dumping a couple of ounces on the ground every time I shut it off and I added a couple more quarts.

Finally, I called one of the top MG mechanics in the country and told him that I had a serious oil leak coming from that side of the engine. Gave him the back story, and he said "Did you use those G-D red silicon gaskets on it?" My instructions from him were to get a set of cork for an MGA and install them. I was dissuaded from cork initially as I was told that the exhaust manifold cooks the cork, but apparently it's not a serious issue. Oil only comes into the head from a small galley at the rear rocker, and then drips down into the sump via the pushrods and tappet galley. When running, crankcase gasses blow oil right past the leaky front seal(the crankcase normally vents through the front cover, and it has an integrated oil separator to deal with this), and of course when stopped everything in the head starts dripping down and a lot was coming out that side cover.

At that point I was frustrated and needed some machine work on the exhaust manifold(needed it helicoiled due to broken studs, something I'm not set up to do) and I told my mechanic to just "make it stop." When I pulled the head this past summer, I discovered that what he'd done was use Permatex form-a-gasket on the front cover(the problem child) and cork on the rear. I ended up redoing it the same way, and THAT PART is still tight as a drum.

As I mentioned, I pulled the head this summer, and actually ended up replacing it completely. I had a burnt exhaust valve(incredibly common) and decided to just buy a head to replace it. A lot of them are cracked, so I might have had to buy one anyway-I just cut right to getting a ready to go head that was crack-checked, had new exhaust valves and hardened valves(unleaded conversion). I also took the opportunity to mis-match some parts, and opted for a head with smaller combustion chambers than mine for a nice compression upgrade(stock 8.8:1, now 9.5:1).

I had a bunch of fiddly little issues, and one of the things I'd noticed was that I seemed to be loosing coolant but couldn't locate it or smell it. When I turned the heat on this past fall, I immediately got the stench of antifreeze along with steam coming out of the vents and a greasy film inside the windshield. I bought a new heater core, but before it arrived I talked to the same mechanic I referenced above. He said "In 40 years of fixing MGs, I changed 3 heater cores. It's the most misdiagnosed and over-sold part on the car. If the hoses going into it are loose, they spray coolant onto the core and give the symptoms of a leaky one." Sure enough, I had a marginal hose going into the core that was allowing just that to happen. Once I replaced it, everything was fine.

My last anecdote comes from my last oil change-I usually change the oil once a year in October or November. This year, I did it over Thanksgiving weekend. For a few weeks leading up, I'd noticed unusual oil loss and an oil burning smell along with the engine being seemingly louder. I went to pour fresh oil in, and about 1/4 of the gallon jug I used(Delvac 15W-40, fortunately on sale at Autozone at the time) came pouring out from under the valve cover. It seems that in one of my adventures in there, I hadn't seated the valve cover gasket correctly. It's a cut out piece of cork around 1/2" thick, and the only "guides" it has are tab on each side of the valve cover to hold it in place in its lip. I had a new one in the garage(I always buy complete head gasket sets as they come with that and a bunch of other gaskets plus are only $20 more-about the cost of a valve cover gasket by itself). I took care in seating the replacement(grease to hold it in place) and fortunately it no longer leaks. Plus, it's quieter .

Now I just need to send the carbs off for a rebuild as one has a throttle shaft/bushing worn and leaking enough that it's causing problems with setting the idle.

Also, in a country known for nearly day rain that can pop up out of nowhere, what were they thinking making a "hood"(top) that takes 10 minutes to put up and still leaks even when up.
 

monokakata

macrumors 68020
May 8, 2008
2,063
605
Ithaca, NY
I have a 1970 MGB, and have gone a bit nutty over MGs for the past few years.

The first time I pulled the engine, I got talked into these thick silicon gaskets for the tappet galley covers vs. the OEM cork. I did the engine pull at a friend's house who is about two hours away. He followed me most of the way back(in his 77) and flagged me down to pull over. When we pulled over, he got out and had oil spots all over the front of his hat and on his windshield-it seems that I'd been "misting" oil most of the way. I added a quart, and we tweaked the crank case breather.

A week later, the car was dumping a couple of ounces on the ground every time I shut it off and I added a couple more quarts.

Finally, I called one of the top MG mechanics in the country and told him that I had a serious oil leak coming from that side of the engine. Gave him the back story, and he said "Did you use those G-D red silicon gaskets on it?" My instructions from him were to get a set of cork for an MGA and install them. I was dissuaded from cork initially as I was told that the exhaust manifold cooks the cork, but apparently it's not a serious issue. Oil only comes into the head from a small galley at the rear rocker, and then drips down into the sump via the pushrods and tappet galley. When running, crankcase gasses blow oil right past the leaky front seal(the crankcase normally vents through the front cover, and it has an integrated oil separator to deal with this), and of course when stopped everything in the head starts dripping down and a lot was coming out that side cover.

At that point I was frustrated and needed some machine work on the exhaust manifold(needed it helicoiled due to broken studs, something I'm not set up to do) and I told my mechanic to just "make it stop." When I pulled the head this past summer, I discovered that what he'd done was use Permatex form-a-gasket on the front cover(the problem child) and cork on the rear. I ended up redoing it the same way, and THAT PART is still tight as a drum.

As I mentioned, I pulled the head this summer, and actually ended up replacing it completely. I had a burnt exhaust valve(incredibly common) and decided to just buy a head to replace it. A lot of them are cracked, so I might have had to buy one anyway-I just cut right to getting a ready to go head that was crack-checked, had new exhaust valves and hardened valves(unleaded conversion). I also took the opportunity to mis-match some parts, and opted for a head with smaller combustion chambers than mine for a nice compression upgrade(stock 8.8:1, now 9.5:1).

I had a bunch of fiddly little issues, and one of the things I'd noticed was that I seemed to be loosing coolant but couldn't locate it or smell it. When I turned the heat on this past fall, I immediately got the stench of antifreeze along with steam coming out of the vents and a greasy film inside the windshield. I bought a new heater core, but before it arrived I talked to the same mechanic I referenced above. He said "In 40 years of fixing MGs, I changed 3 heater cores. It's the most misdiagnosed and over-sold part on the car. If the hoses going into it are loose, they spray coolant onto the core and give the symptoms of a leaky one." Sure enough, I had a marginal hose going into the core that was allowing just that to happen. Once I replaced it, everything was fine.

My last anecdote comes from my last oil change-I usually change the oil once a year in October or November. This year, I did it over Thanksgiving weekend. For a few weeks leading up, I'd noticed unusual oil loss and an oil burning smell along with the engine being seemingly louder. I went to pour fresh oil in, and about 1/4 of the gallon jug I used(Delvac 15W-40, fortunately on sale at Autozone at the time) came pouring out from under the valve cover. It seems that in one of my adventures in there, I hadn't seated the valve cover gasket correctly. It's a cut out piece of cork around 1/2" thick, and the only "guides" it has are tab on each side of the valve cover to hold it in place in its lip. I had a new one in the garage(I always buy complete head gasket sets as they come with that and a bunch of other gaskets plus are only $20 more-about the cost of a valve cover gasket by itself). I took care in seating the replacement(grease to hold it in place) and fortunately it no longer leaks. Plus, it's quieter .

Now I just need to send the carbs off for a rebuild as one has a throttle shaft/bushing worn and leaking enough that it's causing problems with setting the idle.

Also, in a country known for nearly day rain that can pop up out of nowhere, what were they thinking making a "hood"(top) that takes 10 minutes to put up and still leaks even when up.
Love it. They're classic, your gasketry tales. I too solved the occasional problem with Permatex. I never had an MG, but I did have early-sixties Fiat 600, which was a troublesome little thing.

Is this thread drift? Yes, it is, so why don't I talk about a useful accessory I picked up:

https://tripodhead.com/products/plamp-main.cfm

It works very well.
 

Laird Knox

macrumors 68000
Jun 18, 2010
1,958
1,346
This should be fun to play with.

View attachment 745603

The plate holders have a patent date of 1883 on them, although I don't know exactly how old they are. I've had them for a while-I was going to dabble in wet plate so I went in my local camera shop and said "Hey Chuck, do you have any 4x5 plate holders."

My 8 x 10 was made between 1897 and 1903. When I take it out I spend more time explaining it to people than I do taking pictures. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenoh

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
Other than nostalgia what does that give you that a modern camera doesn't?

Movements and more resolution than even the best digital.

LF cameras are tend to be sort of simple, and as long as the bed and standards are solid and the bellows light tight you can get great results with a sheet camera of any age.

There are lens boards that are somewhat standardized on modern cameras at least in 4x5, with many using Linhof Technika boards. Go back to the '50s and 60s and you can find non-Graflex cameras that use a Pacemaker Graphic board. Many even older cameras used just a plain wood board that you can make with some basic wordworking equipment(table saw, maybe a router, and a drill press). Once you have a board, you can fit ANY lens from an old Petzval or Cooke to a brand new Rodenstock. Lenses have to be fitted to a shutter(unless you're using something like a Sinar or Graphic with a behind the lens shutter), and the shutters are standard sized. Thus, even a camera from the 1890s could use a brand new Shneider or Nikkor lens.

I use my Pacemaker Speedgraphic most often, but my more "flexible"(literally, as it has a lot more movements) and lighter camera is a 1940s B&J field camera. Supposedly they are made out of nice hardwood, but most originally shipped in a sort of light gray paint. I've kept it, as it's a bit less attention grabbing than a cherry or mahogony field camera with brass fittings.

IMG_4982.jpg
 

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Original poster
Feb 21, 2012
57,002
56,024
Behind the Lens, UK
Movements and more resolution than even the best digital.

LF cameras are tend to be sort of simple, and as long as the bed and standards are solid and the bellows light tight you can get great results with a sheet camera of any age.

There are lens boards that are somewhat standardized on modern cameras at least in 4x5, with many using Linhof Technika boards. Go back to the '50s and 60s and you can find non-Graflex cameras that use a Pacemaker Graphic board. Many even older cameras used just a plain wood board that you can make with some basic wordworking equipment(table saw, maybe a router, and a drill press). Once you have a board, you can fit ANY lens from an old Petzval or Cooke to a brand new Rodenstock. Lenses have to be fitted to a shutter(unless you're using something like a Sinar or Graphic with a behind the lens shutter), and the shutters are standard sized. Thus, even a camera from the 1890s could use a brand new Shneider or Nikkor lens.

I use my Pacemaker Speedgraphic most often, but my more "flexible"(literally, as it has a lot more movements) and lighter camera is a 1940s B&J field camera. Supposedly they are made out of nice hardwood, but most originally shipped in a sort of light gray paint. I've kept it, as it's a bit less attention grabbing than a cherry or mahogony field camera with brass fittings.

View attachment 745911
Makes me laugh when I see images like that and think of all the I dropped my DSLR for a morrorless because it was too heavy!
[doublepost=1515446051][/doublepost]
It gives an 8x10 inch image sensor and a headache doing the exposure calculations :)
I was never very good a maths. (Or English, geography, history, science, woodwork)

I was good at playtime and home time! :D
 

Laird Knox

macrumors 68000
Jun 18, 2010
1,958
1,346
Did you buy it new? :p

Other than nostalgia what does that give you that a modern camera doesn't?

Who doesn't like a camera made out of mahogany and brass?

12717307_1064710413581457_8308734405807891668_n.jpg


I think the other posts summed up the benefits pretty well. The depth of field with some lens tilt and an f-stop of 32 or so is wonderful to work with.

I also find the B&W film gives a beautiful tonal quality.

10001450_693942020658300_452505468_n.jpg


I've even 3D printed my own lens board to do pinhole photography. I can take a piece of brass and quickly create a multi-aperture "lens" to play around with. It just slides into a slot on the custom board.

On my newer 4 x 5 I can rotate the back and create multiple exposures like this eight exposure shot of the Stratosphere.

10339620_726952707357231_7333088061549729024_n.jpg


Sure you could copy and paste in Photoshop but then why even bother with a camera? Just create it in CG. ;)

Or this double exposure.

10369747_731777410208094_2958565699792051934_n.jpg


Sure I use my DSLRs most of the time but there is still room for technical cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacRy

Apple fanboy

macrumors Ivy Bridge
Original poster
Feb 21, 2012
57,002
56,024
Behind the Lens, UK
Who doesn't like a camera made out of mahogany and brass?

12717307_1064710413581457_8308734405807891668_n.jpg


I think the other posts summed up the benefits pretty well. The depth of field with some lens tilt and an f-stop of 32 or so is wonderful to work with.

I also find the B&W film gives a beautiful tonal quality.

10001450_693942020658300_452505468_n.jpg


I've even 3D printed my own lens board to do pinhole photography. I can take a piece of brass and quickly create a multi-aperture "lens" to play around with. It just slides into a slot on the custom board.

On my newer 4 x 5 I can rotate the back and create multiple exposures like this eight exposure shot of the Stratosphere.

10339620_726952707357231_7333088061549729024_n.jpg


Sure you could copy and paste in Photoshop but then why even bother with a camera? Just create it in CG. ;)

Or this double exposure.

10369747_731777410208094_2958565699792051934_n.jpg


Sure I use my DSLRs most of the time but there is still room for technical cameras.
I'm not sure there is room in my house! Mrs AFB already thinks I have too much camera gear!
 

someoldguy

macrumors 68030
Aug 2, 2009
2,806
13,993
usa
Movements and more resolution than even the best digital.

LF cameras are tend to be sort of simple, and as long as the bed and standards are solid and the bellows light tight you can get great results with a sheet camera of any age.

There are lens boards that are somewhat standardized on modern cameras at least in 4x5, with many using Linhof Technika boards. Go back to the '50s and 60s and you can find non-Graflex cameras that use a Pacemaker Graphic board. Many even older cameras used just a plain wood board that you can make with some basic wordworking equipment(table saw, maybe a router, and a drill press). Once you have a board, you can fit ANY lens from an old Petzval or Cooke to a brand new Rodenstock. Lenses have to be fitted to a shutter(unless you're using something like a Sinar or Graphic with a behind the lens shutter), and the shutters are standard sized. Thus, even a camera from the 1890s could use a brand new Shneider or Nikkor lens.

I use my Pacemaker Speedgraphic most often, but my more "flexible"(literally, as it has a lot more movements) and lighter camera is a 1940s B&J field camera. Supposedly they are made out of nice hardwood, but most originally shipped in a sort of light gray paint. I've kept it, as it's a bit less attention grabbing than a cherry or mahogony field camera with brass fittings.

View attachment 745911
Is that an original Tiltall tripod ?? Thought I was the only one in the universe to have one .
 

bunnspecial

macrumors G3
May 3, 2014
8,353
6,495
Kentucky
Is that an original Tiltall tripod ?? Thought I was the only one in the universe to have one .

It is indeed a Marcioni Bros. Tiltall. I think that they switched over to Leitz in the mid-1950s, so this one predates that.


I've had it about 10 years, and it was the first "real" tripod I bought. Despite the fact that it has a lot of modern detractors, I haven't seen a lot of reason to upgrade. The Marcioni and Leitz ones are built like tanks-they mostly just lack a lot of modern conveniences like QR plates.

BTW, I'm 6'2", and wanted a tripod that could bring even something like a Canon A-1 up to eye level without bending over. If you price out a set of Gitzo legs that will do that, you've gone from expensive to ludicrous. As a college freshman at the time, I couldn't afford that. At most, the Tiltall needs about 2" of center column to bring even a small camera up to eye level, and without using the center column it's not uncomfortable for me to use. With a medium format WLF, I don't even extend the legs all the way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kenoh
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.