Re: Spud sightings

[Paul Talbot <ptww@xxxxxxxxx>]

Greg Erker wrote re: the feeble latch mechanism on my Ricohflex:

>   One word: tape.  :)

Ugh!

It *has* actually crossed my mind.  But my wife's P&S has been
living a taped existence for years due to a broken battery
compartment hinged door, and it makes quite a gooey mess of
the camera. So, I've been reluctant to do the same to the
Ricohflex.  Is there a better tape to use to minimize the
mess?

>   Thus perfect focus (in a Spud! ha!) is achieved at
> some distance in front of the pressure plate. It is
> calculated to be the paper thickness plus 1/2 the film
> thickness (or whatever). So if you put in film without
> the paper, the best focus will be [in front of] the film.
> 
>   At small apertures this may not matter much.

I have no idea how little or much DOF affects focus when the
film is moved off the film plane.  Should I worry about this
or not?  Should I try to scrounge up some extra reels and some
used paper backing, cut the 220 rolls in half, and wind my own
120s?

Other MF cameras I've seen have no rewind; same for the Spud?
If it had a wind and rewind you could possibly tension the film
with the wind/rewind to pull it closer.  (Might require more than
the usual complement of hands, though.)

>   120/220 cameras normally have a switchable pressure
> plate position to take this into account (Yashicamat
> 124's and Pentax 67's for ex)

All out of my league...

>   220 is more prone to scratches (I hear)
> and more prone to spot from improper drying
> since the film is so long many places hang
> it to dry in a U shape, letting the last few
> drops settle to the bottom of the U.

If it comes back with a nearly permanent U like my 36-exp
35mm film does when the dip-n-dunk guys process it, I'd
really lean toward re-rolling it into 120 size.  Those
U "creases" are a real drag when mounting.

Paul