stevewillard

I shoot color landscapes using large format cameras. I process all of my own film and

prints in my color darkroom. To mimic the quality I achieve in my darkroom I have had to

do a high-end drum scan and have high-end lightjet print made. In my darkroom I can

make a 16x20 for around $1.30 including chemicals printed on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

This is the same paper most high-end lightjet images are printed on. When I make a

16x20 print I usually print three at a time using 2-3 8x10 test prints to get the correct

colorhead settings on my 8x10 enlarger. So the actual cost per print is around $1.60 for

each 16x20. To do a digital image of comparable quality ranges from $30.00 to $90.00. If

I make 20 prints or more of the same print the price is around $30.00 per print with a

total cash outlay of $600. This does not include the price for a high-end scan which is

around $150 for each 5x7 or 4x10. Just to drum scan all of my film, I estimated it would

cost me around $30,000.

I believe the price of small digital prints of medium quality is somewhat competitive with

traditional prints. I have come to the conclusion to do big high quality digital prints is

prohibitively expensive. The bigger the print the more cost prohibitive it becomes. I do

up to 30x40 and 20x50 panoramic prints in my darkroom. 16x40 and 20x50 prints are

my biggest sellers for me because they fit perfectly over the couch. If my memory is

correct, I believe to have one 20x50 lightjet print made was around $400 to $500. To

make big prints in my darkroom, I buy my paper in rolls (40"x100') to save money and can

make a 20x50 for around $10.00 which is a lot less than $400 to $500.

Luis, my understanding from what you say - is that once you have set the tilt properly

then adjusting the rise/fall will only require a small tweak to the focus rail leaving the tilt

untouched. Is this correct?

I am thinking about buying an Ebony 8x10 and I am trying to decide if I should pay extra

money for the asymmetric focus option. Does the this option really save setup time in the

field when trying to shoot under fast changing light? As a rule I have found I need far less

iterations of focusing when I use the front standard tilt then when I use rear standard tilt.

In fact, I have found that focusing on the elements close by at the top of GG and using

front standard tilts to bring the far elements into focus approximates asymmetric focusing

very closely. What are your feelings about this?

I currently have a 30x40 drum processor made by Photographic Consolidated Industries. It

consists of a base unit that rotates the drum back an forth like a JOB drum processor and a drum that is

the size of a small barrel for processing 30 x40 prints. I believe the machine was used by people

making cibrachrome prints. The company no longer exists.

I am looking for a backup one. Does anyone know where I can get one or have one they are willing to

sell?

Thanks for any considerations

-Stephen

I made the move from a 4x5 enlarger to a 10x10 enlarger 3 years ago. It was the best

thing I did for my darkroom. The controls. movements, and masking capabilities are

absolutely wonderful. Mine stands 10' tall so for me and 8' column is a subcompact. Mine

weighs about 1200 pounds. If you do not want it let me know and I will come get it. YES,

YES, YES take it!

I to have a Nikkor SW 90 f8.0 lens and really like it. Of course, I must admit that I am

biased toward Nikon lenses for I have 12 them. That said, when evaluating your lenses,

make sure you do it at the edges. Most lenses will be razor sharp at the center, but its the

edges that separate the good ones from that bad ones. That is where the bad ones will be

soft and the good ones will be razor sharp. Every time I purchased a lenses I did extensive

testing at the edges of the speced image circle of the lens.

A great case in point, I once had a 240mm Rodenstoch enlarging lens that I made 16x20

and 20x24 prints with. I was very pleased with the lens. When I beefed up my color dark

room so that I could process up to 20x50's and 30x40s did I notice that the edges were

unacceptably soft. I then order a Nikon 210mm enlarging lens which produce very sharp

edges even at 40 and 50 inch enlargements.

I have been shooting with Nikon 720mm telephoto lens for years now. For the first two

years I owned the lens I was only able to produce one sharp image. The rest where

slightly blurred from vibrations due to shutter and wind movements. When I studied the

profile of my camera-tripod configuration I realized that verbalizations were occurring not

in the tripod legs nor in the camera itself, but rather about the tripod head.

To solve this problem I bought the biggest tripod head Bogen made (which they no longer

sell) and then I hung a heavy bungee rubber band cord around the front barrel of the lens

down under between the crotch of the tripod legs and back up to the knobs on both sides

of the back standard. The bungee cord served to dampen any further vibrations that may

be realized from wind. Since I have done this all my images taken from the 720mm lens

have been razor sharp from edge to edge even when shooting in mild wind.

The benefit of this solution is that it simple and fast to set up without any additional

equipment.

R,

This is true that carbon fiber is lighter, stiffer, and easier to carry. However, if resources

are scarce, then one does not need a carbon fiber tripod. I have one, but I love the new

leg locking system that Bogen has on the 3021Pro. I can set the tripod real fast. It can

get real close to the ground in three ways. Invert the center post, remove the center post

lower part and spread the legs flat, or run the center post horizontally, spread the legs

flat, and then tilt the tripod slightly putting the head right into the ground. With the later I

can get my camera about an 0.5 inches from the ground. Off topic, sorry.

To further help dampen camera vibration, I take a long bungee cord loop it over the front

barrel of my lens, run both ends of the cord underneath the head between the tripod legs,

and then hook the cord ends around the knobs on each side of the back standard. I then

draw the cord tight with a cord knob. This makes a triangle with its top part being the

extended base plate of the camera. The whole thing is put into stiff ridged tension and

does a great job at snuffing out vibration and movement. The weight of the bungee cord

is not significant.

I spend a lot of time in the high peaks of Colorado at 10,500' above sea level. Lots of wind

up there. I use a BTZS focusing cloth which is wind functional, and I use the biggest

tripod head bogen makes which is the 3057. I dont think they make the head anymore,

but you can still pick it up on ebay, and some stores still have them in stock. Try to stay

with the latest models that those big quick release plates.

I have a 720mm lens and for years I only got one sharp image with it. Once I switched to

the big haunken tripod head every time I use the lens the images are sharp. I have also

shot in some pretty strong wind with that head and still got sharp images. The head has

a huge quick release plate and lots of steel.

Many people believe hanging rocks from your tripod will do the trick, but I no longer

believe that. Rocks will help, but it will not be enough. I now believe that most LF camera

wind movements occur at the point where the camera attaches to the head (plate) and the

head itself. Wind can setup a lot of torque at those points. So you need some steel there

to counter the torquing vibrations. The 3057 for me did the trick , but I must warn you it

is as heavy as my tripod. Since I started using the head I never had to hang a rock bag

from my tripod.

You also have to manage wind as well. Wind generally comes in gusts and you need to

time your exposure between gusts. With a little practice you can get real good at it.

Just for the record I use the Bogen 3021Pro tripod. It is true that carbon fiber tripods are

stiffer (and a lot more expensive), but that is not where the movement and vibrations are

occurring. So I believe carbon fiber tripods are a waste of money. I had two older 3021

tripods, and I am now upgrading to the newer models because of all the great

improvements Bogen has made over the years. Prior to the new 3021Pro, I though every

tripod on the market was poorly designed no matter who made it and how much it cost.

Hope this helps.

I have an idea for precisely predicting color balance and print exposure times for color

negative papers. I am looking for your considerations.

First, let me provide you with the circumstances. I am a fine art landscape photographer.

To maintain quality control and consistency from print to print, I make a master copy of

each image I have. I use the master copy as a target when printing subsequent prints. I

have found that making precise copies of the master print to be very difficult if not

impossible without wasting lots of paper and time. I can do a better job by making test

prints than I can with a color analyzer, however both still fall short of my goal.

My overall strategy is to apply the analysis at the print level rather than at the negative

level as color analyzers do. This should eliminate all variables attributed to paper batch

and processing. I will be using a print densitometer for taking readings which is far more

accurate than a color analyzer. So here is my grand plan.

1. I will ?rough in? a test print that is close to the master print using the manual test strip

method. I can get close in two sheets of paper.

2. I will then select a critical area on the Master print and take a RGB reflective density

reading and a white light reflective density reading. I will then repeat this procedure on the

test print in the same spot.

3. The differences in the white light density readings will tell me the time change that I

need to apply to the test print to achieve the same density as the master print. I have

already done this using a linear interpolation and found that this method to be very

accurate provide the prints are reasonably close in density.

4. The difference in RGB readings will tell me the color head changes I need to make and

the times changes I need to make as a result of changing the filtration. These times will be

added to the white light time noted above.

Clearly, I will have to quantify the impact of unit changes in print density for both white

light and RGB readings would have on the color head and final print times. Once I have

done this, then I can develop an equation which inputs all the densities and computes time

changes and color head changes needed to generate a print that matches the master print

with a greater degree of accuracy and much less paper and time.

So does this seem possible? Has any body done something similar to this?

Hmmm... this is really interesting. I use the 3221 and the 3047 head with excellent

results. I shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10 and I often use a 720mm lens which needs a bellows

extension of 500mm. With this configuration, the camera behaves more like a sail than a

camera. It is very rare that I end up with fussy stuff that can be traced to my tripod.

Hi B. Poetz,

I have a used Adams Retouching Machine that been completely restored , and it is in new

like condition. It has both magnifing glass arms and dust cover. I have gone over every

inch

and replaced every part that was questionable inside and out. I am looking to sell it. If

you are interested you can email me.

This machine vribrates the negative to smooth out pencil or dyes strokes leaving no visible

marks to be seen. This machine will work independent of the film technology used. The

machine is considered an essential tool for retouching. It will work with all formats. With

a little practice it is very fast and inexpensive solution compared to digital retouching.

Veronica Cass sells the machines for around $680 with two magnifying glasses. You can

see the machine at

http://www.veronicacass.com/productCat47365.ctlg.

I am willing to sell it for $200 plus shipping.

Boy, all this great information. This will save us lots of time and money. I cannot tell you

how appreciative I am for all your comments. I know there was some time and thought

put into this. Thank you!!!

My partner and I have decided to exhibit at a few art shows this year to sell some of my

work. We have decided to apply to high-end festivals thought out the west in hopes of

being more profitable. We are aware it will be very difficult to get accepted to the more

popular shows. To increase our chances we intend to apply to 10 to 15 shows hoping

that we will be accepted to 2 or 3 of them for our first year.

To provide you with a little background, I do representational color landscape

photography. I can make prints up to 30x40 and 20x50 in my own darkroom.

We have zero experience with art shows, and so I am hoping to draw on your experiences

to better our chances of success. Any considerations would be greatly appreciated.

Here are some of the questions I can think of, but I am sure there are other issues that I

have not considered.

1. What sizes and formats seem to sell best? I have a 4x10 camera, and I can print

16x40s and 20x50s with this format. I also have a 4x5 and a 5x7.

2. What price ranges should I use to generated sales and be profitable?

3. How many prints should I bring? Some for display and some in reserve?

4. Should I accept credit cards? If so what do I need to facilitate this? Do you accept

personal checks?

5. Do the organizers generally provide power?

7. Do I need to bring a canopy, or do the organizers provide them?

8. How do I transport my photographs?

9. Most art shows last for several days? How do I secure my prints each night? Do the

organizers provide security for you?

10. What do you do for meals and lodging? This can get expensive.

11. What tools and techniques do you use to enhance sales?

12. How do you display your work? Do you use easels?

13. For those of you who do landscape photography, are there certain type of images that

seem to sell better than others?

Again thanks for any considerations?

They made some 4x10 film holders for my Wisner camera two years ago. If their cameras

are built like their film holders then its a class act. The Lotus people were also very nice

to work wth.

Good luck.

Jake, my response does not answer your question directly, but I believe you are struggling

with DOF like the rest of us have done, and have chosen hyperfocal lengths as a way to

manage this.

There are many different solutions to this problem. Most of them are either complex or

require measurements in the field to be taken which in most cases is not really feasible.

And most will not work once you apply camera movements.

There is one very simple way to accurately determine DOF. The method is independent of

lens, format, or camera movements. I believe it will even work when doing macro

photography as well, however I have not tested it for this yet.

The only thing you need is a small mm ruler and a very simple table. I have been using

this technique this past summer and it worked every time. It is simple and fast to use.

You can find out about it at

www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

Hope this helps.

Nikon currently makes two sets of convertible lenses.

There is the 360mm, 500mm, and 720mm suite. This set will cover both my 4x5 and 5x7

formats. The 500mm and 720mm focal lengths will also cover my 4x10 format as well.

The 600mm, 800mm, and 1200mm suite covers up to 8x10.

Both sets use interchangeable rear elements. Both sets are optimized for infinity, but I

have done many compositions at shorter distance with very good results. Both sets are

also very slow lenses. This has never been a problem for me. Nether set is cheap. Even

used on ebay they go for a pretty penny. I have the 360-720mm set. All the lens use a

telephoto design which means they require less bellows extension then the actual focal

length.

I believe you could use the 360mm with no problem. I suspect you may be able to adapt

the 500mm configuration with an extended lens board.

Hope this helps,

I have number of basic questions about framing photographs. My intent is to frame about

50 prints ranging in size from 16x20, 30x40, 16x40, 20x24, and possibly 20x50. I will be

doing my own framing, and I have just purchased a matt cutter and a drymount press to

handle these sizes from ebay.

1. Does anybody know the name of the foam backing board used for mounting

photographs which is acid free and is designed to absorb atmospheric pollutants?

2. I am looking for a place on the internet where I can buy name brand framing materials

at close to wholesale prices. This would include acid free matt board, metal frames,

drymount tissue, and foam backing board. Clearly they would have to have sizes

sufficient to handle the print sizes I noted above, and be willing to ship in small quantities.

3. I want to frame these prints using the best archival materials with just metal frames.

Any suggestions would be appreciated. I also am wondering if people seal metal frames

like they do wood frames with paper backing? Perhaps they use some other method for

sealing metal frames? Perhaps it is sufficient just to use a few more metals clips to form a

tight seal?

Any suggestions, recomendations, and books would be greatly appreciated?

I started out using a JOBO CPP-2 to do C-41 color negs and RA-4 color prints, and I loved

it. I shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10 film. I use the 3000 drum system to process all my film. I

now use a JOBO ATL 2 Plus machine to do all my processing. I bought it used for less than

what you would pay for a new CPP-2. It is completely automatic and a dream to use. I do

control contrast by altering development times just like you do in B&W with N+1, N, N-1,

N-2, and N-3.

I can do extremely high quality color work with this setup very fast and very inexpensively.

To make a 16x20 print using the most expensive archival paper available ($200 for 50

sheets) cost me about $4.65 which includes chemistry. I can process any archival color

print in less than 4 minutes versus hours for a B&W print.

I have recently bought a used 8x10 enlarger for $1000. It came in pieces and we restored

it to new like condition for additional $1200. This included rebuilding the 2000w color

head with a 8 new matched bulbs and 8 new sets of dichroic filters. It stands 10' tall and

weighs around 1000 pounds. That is cheaper then what it cost me to buy my 4x5

enlarger.

This is great time to buy classic processing equipment on ebay. I just purchased a

Fujimoto CP-51 with wash unit for $2000. It was in mint condition and can process up to

20x24 prints without jamming in the rollers. We are currently building a jig that

allows use to very accurately align the paper with with the rollers. Are hope is to run

20x50 panaramic prints throught the CP-51 from the 4x10 negs. Expected cost per print

we hope is just over $10.

I also just picked up a gigantic 30x40 drum processor for $350. The drum is the size of a

barrel and rotates on a motorized base and has a cleaver way for dumping and feeding

chemistry. However, it has no means for controling temperature. We just finished

restoring it. Our hope is to use Tetnal room temeperature RA-4 chemistry to process

30x40 prints with it. I have read a number of good reviews about this chemistry, but is not

cheap. Expected cost per print is around $27 and most of that is the chemistry.

As you can tell our goal is to produce big high quaility prints inexpensively. We have the

capability of also doing digital images as well, but doing big high quality stuff cheap is not

plausible with digital.

Also there are new emerging trends for those of you who hope to do fine art photography.

People who buy fine art photgraphy are not willing to buy computer generated images.

They want to know that the human endeavor does not take place in front of a computer

with smart software, but rather takes place in the real world with smart people who are

gifted and talented. Classic photography provides the buyer with those assurances.

I have a 4x10 wisner, and I cut all my film from 8x10 sheets. Once you have it figured

out, it is easy.

I also had problems with getting film holders. I ended up buying my film holders from

Lotus View Camera in Austria. They are beautifully made, fit the wisner back, but they

also cost around $300 a piece.

Boy, it would be nice if we stuck to the questions. If some of you are concerned with my

choice of words, please forgive me. I do believe it is clear what I am talking about.

Thanks.

This is not what you think. It is about an observation I had from visiting a Thomas

Mangelsen gallery.

Upon talking with a sales clerk I found out all his 35mm is subject to a part-analog-part-

digital process for all enlargements. The clerk made it very clear that digital was

employed for only enlargement purposes, and that no digital manipulation was done to

alter the image. I suspect the slides were scanned and printed using a lightjet. Upon close

inspection the images appeared extremely soft, but the color fidelity was not bad.

She also noted that all his 6x17cm panoramic images were done strictly using an analog

process, that is, an enlarger and Cibrichrome processing. The images were very sharp, and

the color fidelity was somewhat better than the 35mm images. However, the 35mm stuff

had better detail in the shadows. There were large black areas in the panoramic images.

My question to you is twofold:

First, why did the clerk make such a big deal about noting 35mm images were not digital

modified?

And second, why did Thomas not use the same digital solution for his panoramic images

that he used for his 35mm images? Clearly, he has the horse power to do it, yet he chose

an analog solution.

I have been out of town for the past several days, so I am sorry about being tardy

with more information. I just love the intelligence that comes to bear at this site. We all

benefit from it, the beginner and the expert.

I have notice this behavior over many years. I have also metered hundreds of scenes

throughout that time, and I have always ended up with a correct exposure. I did meter a

bright light

source in the dark, and the results I expected did occur. So, I do not believe the meter

guts are the problem.

To get a correct exposure for the picture I included, I ended up metering the shadows in

the riverbed. The reading I got there was what I expect. If had relied on the dark

mountain shadow reading in the background, the exposure would have been wrong.

My suspicion is flare. The problem always occurs with backlight subjects as seen in the

picture and noted above. I believe this phenomena is closely related to pre-exposures

outlined in Adams book the "Negative". This technique is used to bright shadows by

adding an even layer of light to the entire negative (flare in my case). The concept

demonstrates a little extra light can elevate the shadows by one or two stops while having

almost zero impact on the highlights. In my case. the flare probably was extreme and

elevated the mountain shadow reading to almost the same level as the highlights. When I

metered the shadows in the riverbed, my meter was pointed downward, and there was

probably little flare. Hence the correct reading.

I did not make this connection until I read all your responses. Thanks you. As a result, I

intend to build myself a long tubular lens hood for my meter and use it when metering

into the sun. I will soon find out if this helps. Thanks for all your comments.

-Stephen

I am not sure if I can put this into words so please be patient with my fumbling.

Currently. I am using a Zone VI modified Pentax Spot meter. There are times at dusk or

dawn when I meter areas in the scene that seem to contradict my observations. In

particular, there have been far off areas that appear to be very dark with minimal detail.

My expectation is that they would meter at a Zone II placement relative to other values.

However, when I actual meter these dark areas they have the same EV value as some of the

brighter areas in the scene that are closer to a Zone VI or VII placement.

For example, when I metered the dark mountain in the center background of the attached

photograph, I got the same EV value as the brightly light green grass throughout the

photograph.

Can anyone explain this phenomena?

The photograph I included is one of my llamas - just my trademark. I take two of them in

the mountains of Colorado for 10 to 12 weeks of shooting. They can carry up to 90

pounds of gear each. I shoot mainly 4x10 and 5x7, and the only thing I think digital is

good for is proofing, nothing more. By the way, the picture of my llama was not taken

with a digital camera. It was just a fun picture that had nothing to do with anything.

I never make such mistakes because...

I used to proof all my compositions right on sight with Polaroid no matter how trite the

comp is. Now I use a Sony digial Mavica MVC-CD350. Its a point-and-shoot clunker, but

it has the largest LCD (2.6") on the market, and the best LCD hood for viewing in bright

sun. It also shows the Zoom magnification factor on the LCD as you Zoom. Very few

cameras do this. I use this number to quickly determine what size lens to use from a chart

I have made. These tools allow me to quickly perfect a composition and catch my errors

right on site before I shoot with wet film.

Do I prune? Yep, but only when there is no other alternative. In the past 5 years I can

count the number of times on my left hand I clipped a few branches to make the shot.

Hope this helps.