matthew_brain

Quickloads would certainly be the easiest.

 

But as long as you can initially record the info you want, it is possible. I use grafmatics, and of the 6 shots, they come out in the order you take them. So as long as you recorded which shot you needed to develop differently it is still possible.

 

For ordinary sheet film, not quickloads, I findthe best way is to use of the larger 50sheet film boxes and the following. As you know, sheet film usually somes sandwiched between two bits of cardboard - Fuji sheet film comes with the cardboard joined at one end and folded over. Keep several of the Fuji cardboard sandwiches in one box and make notches in the cards for the different development times you would like. eg no notch, normal development, triangle notch N-1 and rectangle notch N+1. Then unloading, as long as you know which piece of film needs what development, you can place it between the appropriately notched cards. As implied, this is easier with the Fuji cards and can also be useful to keep each card in its own foil packet inside the box.

For equipment, European Camera Specialists (Sydney), and the Camera Exchange in Melbourne are great to deal with. Pick up the Photographic Trader from a newsagent and these and many others are in there. There is usually adds for various suppliers of paper and film in there too.

 

Vanbar (www.vanbar.com.au) is good with prompt delivery and web based ordering (but you are in Melbourne anyway). Kodak BW film and paper, and Ilford paper is cheaper from Vanbar than by ordering from BH in the US. Ordering from US sources, particularly BH is good value if you keep the order less than AU$400 as you won't get stung on customs or GST however you do have to factor in the shipping cost. 4x5 slide film is best ordered in this way.

 

All the best

 

Matt

The rear method will never be as precise as what you are doing because you cannot move in and out of focus whilst watching with a loupe for checking. Using the camera back, also requires checking for parallel orientation to the film plane.

 

What you could do is very carefully make some marks as 'infinity stops' on the inside rails that are as perfectly parallel to the film plane as you could get them, focussing on the horizon etc (or choose to make them just 'behind' infinity so you can focus into infinity). This would solve two problems as you could pull out the standard onto the marks with the confidence that the marks are parallel to the film plane and also not have to check where infinity is.

 

Matt

Do you mean the standard has some play on the rails or that the normal swing adjustments are loose.

 

If the standard has too much play on the rails, ie it can be moved when you are not pushing the two black levers at the front together; this can be corrected by adjusting the eccentric shaped nut below the front standard in the centre for more grip.

 

If there is play in the front standard swing adjustment, it may need a good clean out. This involves carefully removing the belows from the front standard so you can take it apart (the screws are on the inside - the metal plate should stay with the bellows). It is not particularly complicated to take apart and reassemble and certainly can build up some gunk inside.

 

Matt

I note that the line is not straight. I have had this occur in my technika with lots of shift - basically it was a photograph of the bellows. This occured with a focal length of 180mm fujinon W with 300mm image circle.

 

It is interesting because at wide apertures, the line could be seen as a blur at the bottom of the ground glass but as you stop down it gets higher and more distinct (bear in mind this is behind the lens). When it first occured I didn't know what it was because I couldn't see it as obvious on the groundglass but after it occured I found a bright subject and, put the lens on full shift and slowly stopped down and it happened on the groundglass too.

 

With such a short focal length lens as the 65 or the 58, something else must be doing this. My 65 grandagon 4.5 does not do this but I don't have it in a wideangle focussing device (I just use move the adjustable back - it works but is slower to be critical) - thus I would suggest it is something to do with your mounting in the wide anlge focussing device, perhaps the lenses are not centered or something.

 

Pointing at the sky at infinity and stopping down slowly may show you what is happening.

 

Good luck<div></div>

I have a 240mm f9 G-Claron in a copal 1 shutter that folds into my Tech IV. I was suprised when I found it fit but really appreciate it.

 

Note the 52mm front filter size seems to be the maximum that will fit into the hole between the front rails when the door is closed. I have a 180mm fujinon W f5.6 (58mm front thread) that does not fit into this hole and consequently won't live in the body.

Buy two boxes of unexposed film and put it all in one of the boxes - there is usually plenty of room and if the film is of different types you can tell by the notches.

 

You will then have an empty box. Make sure the lab sends your box back.

Try this table of comparisons

 

http://creekin.net/films.htm

 

It is only taken from the data sheets but down the bottom it shows a conversion from the Kodak PGI to RMS.

 

Matt

I find Velvia 50 at 32 to be equivalent to most 100asa films at 100 asa in terms of both shadow detail and highlights.

 

Attached is the composite of the curves for E100SW and Velvia at their rated speeds, as can be seen the velvia (at 50) curve (green) requires more light (vertical axis) to reach the same density as the E100SW (at 100). If velvia is shot at asa 32, the curves become closer.

Try EUROPEAN CAMERA SPECIALISTS

 

http://www.europeancameras.com/Stock_List.htm

 

They go through a lot of lenses and have some wides at the moment at far better prices than you have seen. Also try the Camera Exchange in Melbourne. Good deals can also be found in the second hand market by checking say the Photographic Trader and other second hand sites.

Does anyone know if normal width filters eg. Hoya 58 mm HMC K2 will

vignette on a 65mm f4.5 Grandagon on 4x5? Thanks in advance.

 

Matt

I could not tell the images apart for sharpness with a light table and a loupe until I used a microscope at a pathology lab. They are all pretty sharp and it is comforting to know that f32 provides a reasonably small drop in sharpness for the increase in DOF available. I certainly could not tell a shot at f32 from one at f16 with a 10x loupe.

Thanks for the words of wisdom Michael,

 

I have already said that if it didn't work I would not use it and also if I relied on using the rangefinder more often I would get it cammed.

 

As it stands - mine IS sharp, you will just have to beleive that. I usually want everything in focus and hence use the groundglass. If the light is changing quickly I can rely on my rangefinder to choose a hyperfocal distance. I have a correctly scaled printout of:

 

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/dofknob/dofcard.gif

 

printed on transparent plastic screwed onto one of the markers above the distance scale that tells me how much focus spread any aperture will have. Next time I have a digital camera available I will photograph the scale on the camera in case your imagination suffers from visual impediments.

Thank you for your information on the pricing Richard, it is less than I expected.

 

As I have already said if I relied heavily on the rangefinder I would get it cammed correctly. I don't - as I have already said for the subjects I shoot I usually use the ground glass. An aperture of 32.5 allows 4mm focus adjusment either side of the plane of sharp focus - I know from testing my equipment that my cam sits within half a milimeter of the groundglass in terms of focus shift at close distances and is dead on (with a loupe) on the ground glass from infinity to about 10 feet. This is reliable and for me not worth the cost or loss of my linhof for a period to get a cam when I mostly use the groundglass.

 

As you always use your rangefinder for 100% of your shots, it is obviously going to be worth it for you.

 

I know 32.5 is a diffraction prone aperture. That is why I use the groundglass and lens movements to optimise my shots. With the rangefinder I am often more interested in determining the near point so I can choose an aperture for DOF from there to infinity.

 

We have different subjects and different uses for our equipment. You have the equipment to shoot fast apertures at high quality with the biogon but are limited for movements with this lens. My grandagon is brilliant at f22 but at f4.5 is considerably poorer (see my posting on resolution). At f22 I can afford half a milimeter in difference for a close object because I know that I have just under 2mm of sharp focus in terms of focus shift. I wouldn't use f4.5 for the poor performance, certainly wouldn't bother using my rangefinder with it.

 

See

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

for details on sharpness and focus shift.

 

As for filing a cam, you can carefully see if a cam needs less metal. Of course you can't add it back on if the cam you have is to narrow. As you have said, buying a non-matched cam is a risk but to me it is worth it for my limited use of the rangefinder.

 

Thank you for the discussion Richard, may others be able to make an informed decision from it and choose what will be best for their technique and subjects.

Richard,

 

Your patience may be tried - a string of artistic awards does not mean your technical solution is the only one, particularly for others in this forum who may be budget limited and have an old linhof and the opportunity to pick up a cheap cam.

 

To your speculation about my time and technique, I have invested time to develop a solid and efficient technique that allows me to get on film the maximum quality for the compositions I desire to record with the light that is provided. If you would like published examples, send me a mailing address.

 

I use my groundglass for greater than 95% of my shots, it is how I make sharp pictures. I use the rangefinder as a tool if the light is changing rapidly or the subject is moving quickly - I am lucky that my cam matches well the lens it was not machined for. I have already said that if it didn't I would not use it - simple.

 

What was the cost of your lens camming?

 

On what percentage of your shots do you use your rangefinder?

 

I don't think you could calculate a probability of a non factory matched lens-cam combination working. But if you can, then knowing the cost of having one cammed will help us all estimate the risk- benefit ratio of picking up a cheap used cam. And if it is too long, you could always file it with careful checking. I would still give it a go. YES i know you wouldn't, as you have already said 'Good for you. I wish I was that lucky'.

 

Matt

Wieslaw,

 

Both the schneider website and paul butzi's rodenstock information contain the theoretical barrel and pin-cushion distortion measurements for their lenses. Test charts are available to do this I beleive. I just accept the lenses distortion as a characteristic of the lens. To your first answer, I only became interested in doing the tests out of curiosity and some availability of several lenses. Knowing the optimum aperture is useful but these are usually published anyway, there are many factors that influence sharpness in a scene and I usually err toward composition even if it means f32 or more.

 

Michael,

 

Thanks for tabulating the results, they are much clearer.

 

Joe,

 

I read somewhere that the maximum lp for f32 is 40 something as this is diffraction limited but that the smaller aperture compensates for the difficiencies of the lenses at the edge. Rodenstock suggest two optimum apertures for their lenses eg the sironar is f16 when no movements are used and f22 when movements are used.

Richard,

 

Sorry for assuming any familiarity but we have discussed this topic before. I would not know you from a hole either.

 

Thank you for explaining your test method - you have explained why the cam was more accurate for that method. My point still remains, a non-matched cam can be very close BY CHANCE to what a lens requires - the opposite can also apply it could also be quite bad. As I said above, if it is critical to your photography (and it obviously is to yours), get it cammed properly.

 

If is close enough and you only use the RF occassionally keep the cam you have and stop down more. It works for me, your mileage was obviously different. If I saw cheap cam that I did not have for a focal length that I did, I would grab the cam and try it out.

 

Matt

David,

 

I completely agree, lens design is far more important in flare handling. My comparison in this case is to show the effect the lens coating has on the flare - note the colour difference of the sunrays. The SA90 f8 has a blue hue to the coating. Testing the same lens designs would yield better results of the actual image enhancing effect of the coating.

 

Neil,

 

My main suprise was that the biogon and planar didn't acheive higher resolutions although their performance at wide apertures was very impressive compared to the modern designs.

 

The sironar has a coating problem and the fujinon and tele-arton have a very slight film on one of the elements when looking at a light. This could well be the cause of the lower results. A good service could change these.

 

Some time soon I am planning to repeat the tests.

Note the above attached picture looks closest to the film when my monitor is set to full contrast and brightness just down from full where black is black.

 

No contrast or curves have been altered in photoshop, so that no diffence to the flare would be caused by optimizing the scan for the screen.

John,

 

I have put your biogons lens test results up with some other lenses that I tested of yours and mine for interest as a new post.

 

Richard, I assume you tested the cam vs the ground glass on film (or how else could you say the cam was more accurate than the ground glass). Will you get marflex to recalibrate your ground glass?

 

I have as you know been a proponent of non factory matched cams. I have never said that for critical focussing they were as good but in my opinion (and more importantly to me, for my style of shooting) depth of field from optimal aperture more than covers any minor difference (and I also agree that if the difference was not minor - and it is a risk - then I would not use a cam with a said lens).

 

If I was doing sports photography with a linhof, and fast apertures then correct camming would be critical however only a select group of lenses such as you biogon and a planar are sharp at fast apertures.

 

If I was hand holding a biogon I would be more worried about camera shake (that is about 2.2kg for the camera and 1.3kg for the lens) then critical rangefinder focussing.

 

I guess my point is, if you run most lenses at their optimal aperture and your cam is pretty close to the ground glass be happy - unless you have a need for that sort of accuracy, DOF will cover it. Personally I would use a MF SLR if i needed fast critically focussed large pictures. There is also of course the school of thought that you should superglue all your shutters to their optimum aperture and only focus at infinity of the sharpest photos.

 

To summarize, if you need critical focussing use a groundglass. If you like using a viewfinder to frame your shots, use the rangefinder with a cam that is well matched to your lens. If you regularly need a perfectly focussed single subject that is on a vertical plane at a constant distance from the camera, then send your cam to marflex.

 

Matt

For everyones interest as I have not seen results for a biogon on he

net yet, here are the lens resolutions I got with Johns biogon and my

wide angles. The biogon is very good across all the apertures.

 

Although my SA90 results are similar to kerry thalmans at

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

my tests are best intrepretted relative to each other.

 

Note these are the minimum resolutions, some of the lenses had a

marked transverse radial discrepancy (in keeping with standard

estimates for lenses eg

http://www.butzi.net/rodenstock/grandagon/65mm.htm)

 

The results are in lens name Aperture-Tested Center resolution Middle

and Edge

 

Shot Lens Aperture Center Middle Edge

1 Super Angulon 90mm f8 f11 64.8 57.7 28.8

2 Super Angulon 90mm f8 f22 57.7 51.4 40.7

3 Super Angulon 90mm f8 f32 40.7 36.3 36.3

 

 

4 Grandagon 90mm f4.5 f11 64.7 64.7 45.8

5 Grandagon 90mm f4.5 f22 57.7 57.7 51.4

6 Grandagon 90mm f4.5 f32 51.4 45.8 36.3

 

2 Biogon 75mm f4.5 f4.5 43.6 43.6 43.6

3 Biogon 75mm f4.5 f11 43.6 43.6 38.8

4 Biogon 75mm f4.5 f22 48.8 38.8 34.5

5 Biogon 75mm f4.5 f32 38.8 34.5 27.5

 

1 Planar 135mm f3.5 f11 50.8 45.3 40.3

2 Planar 135mm f3.5 f22 40.3 45.3 28.5

3 Planar 135mm f3.5 f32 32.0 28.5 25.4

 

4 Fujinon W 180mm f5.6 f5.6 53.4 47.6 30.0

5 Fujinon W 180mm f5.6 f22 47.6 47.6 42.5

6 Fujinon W 180mm f5.6 f32 42.5 42.5 37.8

 

1 Sironar 180mm f.6 f5.6 53.3 47.6 47.6

2 Sironar 180mm f.6 f22 42.4 42.4 42.4

 

 

3 Tele-Arton 250mm f5.6 f5.6 54.3 48.1 43.0

4 Tele-Arton 250mm f5.6 f22 43.0 48.1 43.0

 

Note the sironar has some coating problems.

 

I'll say again, these results are relative to each other. Done using

a postscript version of the usaf test chart in bright sunlight.

 

A bit of fun. It doesn't make much difference in the field, where not

all the world is on one plane and compromises must be chosen - and

shooting speed maintained.

 

Also for interest is a comparison between a single coated lens

(grandagon 90mm) and a multicoated lens (super angulon 90mm). The

flare is warmer in the single coated lens On the positive and even

more noticable on black and white negatives, shadow detail holds

better contrast with the multicoated lens. Again this is not

scientific and I have not had both shutters tested (to ensure one is

not letting more light on the shadows) but it is interesting.

 

Matt<div></div>

Howard,

 

I'm afraid to say that my camera must have been one of your students. When I put a card in front of half the the lens - I see half the image disappear yes the other half does get darker but the first half is definitely gone. When I shade, I typically try to cover as much of the glass that is not in use as possible. I don't know the maths behind it but sure improves image quality by reducing flare (that is more shadow detail - not less from making it darker).

 

Sinar make a product that is similar to the above design but sits further forward it is part of the lens hood see:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bh2.sph/FrameWork.class?FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___47856___SIBHM2___REG___CatID=82___SID=F4EACBA5CB0

 

This product sits over the end of their lens shade bellows and allows the end of the shade to be tailored to the image being taken. It is effectively what Wieslaw is doing. Wieslaws design would provide more flare protection if it were further infront of the lens but it is a pretty good and cheap start, especially if you don't use movements.

Are you using constant agitation or intermittent. The unidrums are designed for a roller base that is always going. If you are letting the drum sit at any point, the developer may be blocking below the rims.

 

Another option - have you made sure that the emulsion is facing toward the center of the drum? the way it sits, only the shorter edge of the filmbase should be in contact with the drum. If you had the emulsion facing outward by mistake then the shorter edges of the film but not get much development (as you have).

 

Like many others, I have no trouble with the unidrum on its base

 

Let us know how you go.

 

Matt

Before you pull the rangefinder to bits check a few things.

 

1. An ex linhof serviceman told me that two of the easiest ways to check the use a tech has had is one to look at the amount of ware on the plate desribed in 2. below and two, to remove the rotating back and check out how groved the rotation circle on the body side has become. These will give you an indication on how much work and thus wear you camera has suffered.

 

2. There is a silver or black diamond shaped plate (aprox 3/4 inch long) that slopes up to the right (when you look into the body) it is underneath the front standard when the standard is inside. This plate eventually grinds down on its upper edge. Its function is to move the cam left as the front standard is pushed back into the body and again when the standard is pulled out. (If you hear a scraping sound has you move the front standard out of the body - this plate is worn out, replace it soon). It is easy to replace, by just carefully filing and bending a bit of metal to the same shape (but a little wider) and drilling the screw holes in it.

 

When the plate is worn and the cam does not move left as you pull out the standard, then the little knob on the bottom of the standard that normally pushes against the cam from the otherside will pull the cam out as you pull out the standard. So first for your camera, pull the standard out, if the cam does not move much, check that the cam is inserted all the way into its slot, and then try your cam.

 

3. To make sure all the cam is functioning before you pull it to bits and risk dealigning everything, try removing the bellows and front standard. This is quite easy, just undo the screw caps that cover the frontends of the rods for the omnidirectional back. loosen the caps and pull the back right off, and then slide the front standard through the camera. you now have access to the body. by moving the long black lever inside, you can operate the mirror in the rangefinder. Moving this should always move the mirror mechanism in the rangefinder, my understanding is that they are connected but I haven't delved into this bit yet (however I have completely serviced my front standard and brought all the controls back to full function).

 

I would suggest you do all this before you try lubricating anything. With the front standard and bellows out, you will be able to give everything a good clean too.

 

Hope some of this helps. Let me know how you fare.

 

Matt

Just for starts to get an image on film you could try focussing with the camera back, keeping the front standard inside the body.

 

There is an online shop selling a rare 5x7 Linhof Wide angle focussing attachment at the moment too.

 

Matt