I called out lenses that are actually reasonably common for RB67. I don't think I've ever seen an 80. And doesn't the Xpan have a 27 or so? Hence the wide filter to go on the 50...
That would be the 100mm, 80mm and 50mm lenses for that.
I called out lenses that are actually reasonably common for RB67. I don't think I've ever seen an 80. And doesn't the Xpan have a 27 or so? Hence the wide filter to go on the 50...
re: OP
looks like it could be a scanning issue, are those dark stripes (which would be light bands) on the negative? If you scan the negative un-masked, light sometimes pipes in from the edge of the negative. If it's on the negative, then you may have an internal reflection issue in the body, although those are not usually that uniform the dark stripe is usually on one side only.
I don't think it's related to the 220 back. The higher pressure would tend to make the film flatter no? And also increase required torque which is why this is not recommended. Don't know about the Mamiya, but on other cameras, the 220 backs have milled channels on the edges. You can shim them with tape to reduce pressure a bit. Film plane isn't affected by using a 220 back.
Likely culprit are internal reflections. Check if the bands are more pronounced in sunny scenes?
RB67 lenses illuminate a somewhat large image circle.
RB67 lenses illuminate a somewhat large image circle.
Most are designed to actually cover 6x8, which means they need to cover most of an 8x8 cm frame.
I don't think they really do need to cover 8x8, because the horizontal and vertical 6x8 rectangles can be inscribed in the same circle, smaller than 8x8.
Did you try to load the film, take the lens off and check flatness of film.
If thickness of emulsion of 120 and 220 is the same than focal plane of these two films in camera is identical no matter how thick is the filmbase or paper.
The two thicknesses are not the same thus neither are the backs.
That would matter in a 120 back (excess clearance, never mind reflection from the pressure plate), but 120 in a 220 back just compresses the pressure plate spring a few more thousandths of an inch (or about .1 mm).
why don't film manufacturer make more 220 film emulsions.
Content would be one word ("Money") and then endless argument. Even when professionals used film only, 220 was a specialty product for model shoots (and virtually nothing else).
I find it fun, and a 220 back is also useful to load 35 mm in a medium format camera (because it'll handle the length), but I have no expectation of a 220 comeback. I'm just happy to be able to get GP3 in that format.
We could start a thread on why don't film manufacturer make more 220 film emulsions.
Hello everyone! Here's an update:
I tested that 220 back again with a different lens and proper start arrow alignment (i.e., I did not "cheat" and start the roll early to get an extra frame). I did not notice the same problem with the border of unsharpness around the negatives.
Unfortunately, I couldn't get more time to evaluate that 50mm lens. I had other reservations about it, so I returned it. I will test this out again once I can find another bargain on a 50mm because who knows if longer lenses somehow "mask" this problem.
My update might be a long, long time from now because quality 50mm lenses are not cheap, and I'm prioritizing stocking up on film and paying for portfolio shoots.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?