jnanian

hello fred g: i agree with what you have said and i do not agree with what you have said. yes if you know what a photograph is you know by definition that it is an abstraction of reality ( 2D not 3D, black and white sometimes, not color, not true to life but maybe it can be &c ) but also misleading, or have an opportunity to be misleading. like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hibyAJOSW8U

every photograph is misleading, and manipulated as soon as the camera is set up. shutter speeds are decided, depth of field, processng or post processing / printing styles ( burn dodge filtration ). NOTHING made with a camera is unadulterated / completely objective, not even survelience photographs ... it has nothing do do with modern technology ether ..

i would guess it wouldn't work well because the camera-box / body would be in every photograph. i used to use a 58mm brass barrel on a SG and it worked ... barely.. if you have the lens why don't you put it on and see if it works ? or if you can borrow / rent one do the same. if the lens doesn't go back far enough,make a recessed lens board .. ( foam core / mat board in a pinch works well ) good luck !

hi pt ! :) i know what you mean / where you are coming from. ... that said, i have great hopes for the new site, i think it will be inclusive, not exclusive. and something for everyone and the back-end stuff/ stuff goes on behind the scenes i think have improved so everything can be integrated. im guessing ( maybe wrongly of course cause admittedly i am clueless ! ) that if the same types of moderation tools that are available today were available 10-12 years ago ... there would have never been a split .. but who knows, as i said im clueless and just arm chair experting :) a lot of people don't remember the grey area, it was extremely active but unfortunately, there was a small group of people that made things really difficult for others ... it is the internet after all ...

there was the grey area but unfortunately flame wars made it diffiuclt for the whole site.

will you be contact printing them or scanning them ? contact printing, pretty much anythng without a watermark on the back old might be good, if it is fogged ( maybe ) which might reduce contrast a little bit. scan, pretty much anything ( same thing about fog ) don't count out coating your own... liquid emulsions are easy to use and coating paper is a breeze. its not hard to make emulsion either thelightfarm.com has TONS of info and a book ( blurb ) as does ron mowrey ( book, dvd, workshops ) as does the george eastman museum. coating glass and plastic and toher stuff is fun too, and works just like a paper negative, just thickener. have fuN! john

i haven't measured my d3v but it too is bigger than the normal 4x5 enlargers. according to harry taylor ( classic enlargers . com fame / RIP ) these larger than normal d3v's were for the war effort. he had one too and told me that they were made "military contract" to print aerial film. "normal" d3 negative carriers ( glassless and glass ) will work without too much light leak, and rapid shift roll film negative carriers will also work ... because they are bigger than the normal negative carriers. the standard omegalite i can't remember it it works, i never had one for 4x5, the one for my E is too big though, the aristo cold light heads made for the omega d2/d3/d3v/bessler 4x5 works but because the condensor collar is 6" + ( or whatever size it is ) the aristo head doesn't slide right in as it does in standard omega enlargers. so, you have to figure something out. good luck !

hi jorge old polaroid 545 olders are notorious for having the clip fail steve grimes published this info on his website years ago Polaroid 545 Film holder « SKGrimes like bethe i have a #500 holder. they have a wire instead of a clip but they don't have a "stop" so if you aren't careful you might pull the cardboard/darkslide right off of your film you can tell by tension on the cardboard how much you pull out ( takes practice? ) the rollers on the 500 always seemed to spread the chemical pod better then the 545 too... don't forget excess cold ruins the chemical pods and the film won't process unless you do it by hand-- that is release the envelop, go in the darkroom, remove the film like it was a quick/ready load, and develop it like regular film in a darkroom. they say it was/was like panatomic x so if you look up old development times for pan x you will be getting close. good luck ! john

yes the issue has been addressed and some of the defective darkslides have been replaced .. all of them? i doubt it. if the OP goes the used route, who knows what he might buy.

luis_rives .. from what i remember they were used for field reconnaissance for the army. they are solid and built for speed, and to last.

michael if all you need is a bigger negative a crown or speed graphic might do you well, it is like a giant point and shoot ( no movements ) except for some rise / fall. ( you mentioned you had a hassy ) some landscape shooters like looming foregrounds &c, you might be able to do that sort of thing with a crown/speed, i have one, they are great for non-specialized ( read no movements needed) photography and portraits. i am not sure where you are located, but i would also suggest that you rent or borrow a LF camera to see what it is like before buying something. sometimes the bodies cost nothing and it is the lenses that cost a lot, depending on the lenses ( sometimes vintage/unooved cost less than modern ) and be aware there has been a lot of talk and problems that some of the recent toyo darslides have issues (leak light) and have needed to be replaced... if you "google" defective toyo darksldies you might find what i am talking about. good luck !

LOL too funny, thanks brian.

OP you don't need any $$ tilt shift/pc lenses or exotic bellows look for a 35mm recommar kodachrome back you will have to fabricate a board to mount it on.. if you can find one they cost maybe $100 i used one for years to do PC work and use vintage optics with 35mm film. i recently saw on another website a nikon-made international back/graflock back mount-plate for nikon. t wasn't too expensive maybe $100 + shipping. good luck !

i like it ! is there a page for bugs+fixes ? just in case this is it ... when i wrote in this reply box ... the "Write your reply..." didn't vanish when i type this note ( when i clicked on the "more options" tab to preview the post &c it looks normal/right i'm using safari ( newest version )

<p>one's currently being sold on another photography-space for more than<br> i suggested they were worth :)</p> <p>as i said, some people love these things, and there always seem to be people buying them<br> ( and they don't seem to be the person who just bought one, tried it, said "ugh, why did i buy this?!" and then re-sell it. ) </p>

<p>hi steve</p> <p>in addition to what bob said ...<br> it is a universal mount ( the locking iris ) that allows barrel lenses<br> and other things that might not necessarily be on a lens board that you might have .. to be mounted<br> on the camera. lots of people use + love these things, it makes using un-boarded lenses &c<br> easy to pick up and use. probably a loose mount ( iris not snug/locked well to the barrel) would make<br> the lens sag, attaching a long lens too close to the back end would not be very good, but i would not hesitate<br> to use one of these even for "serious work" if i knew its limitations ... i've always wanted one<br> since i tend to use a lot of barrel and home made lenses with a quck+dirty masonite/card stock/matboard<br> or foam core lens board or friction mounts ( even for serious work ) .. i never have the $$ for a<br> universal iris mount, which depending on its size is between 100-250$ .. ( or more )</p>

<p>nice article<br> it reminds me of nicholas nixon and his 8x10<br> i wouldn't want to crash a bike filled with collodion!<br> i've read it is hard to source some of the materials used for doing wet plate photography in brazil.</p>

<p> how to the broken and the new back<br> compare side by side?</p> <p>you might have been sold the wrong back.</p>

<p>thanks peter for the lightening bolt and re-animation </p> <p>i have been using an epson 4870 for about 10 years.<br> i have never had trouble with scanning, 8mm movie film - 5x7 camera film. the images<br> printed from the scans have been 3x4foot and larger. often times you don't really need<br> a drum scanner, or heidlburg, or something that commercially costs you 30$(usd) a scan<br> it just depends on what your skill set is. like anything else, some people are able<br> to make great photographs from cameras other people label as "junk" it all depends<br> on abilities, and what you are able to do once you have "raw material".<br> good luck !</p>

<p>there are ways of making images that don't require developing out, but they require scanning and <br> reversing. i have been making "retina prints" for years and it creates a negative on the paper,<br> and depending on the atmospheric blue light it takes anywhere from 20 mins to a handful of hours.<br> it isn't a color image ( well, sometimes it is, ... depending ).</p>

<p>cyanotypes !<br> cheap, easy, as photographic as silver prints, can be done anywhere there is light, no darkroom needed<br> youcan get paper precoated ( or coat your own ) you just need water to process,<br> as safe as it gets, can remove some or all of the "blue" with a dilute water and baking soda mixture<br> kid-proof, loads of fun<br> chemistry used: potassium ferricyanide and ferric ammonium citrate and water<br> http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes/cyanotype/cyanotype-classic-process</p> <p>good luck !<br> john</p>

<p>hi bethe:<br> i know ... maybe what has gotten me confused is further down <br />on the same page it says other formats were being used for a variety of reasons<br> and in 2010 on the largeformatphotography.info site where he announces <br />the publication of his book on yosemite he speaks of 35mm and digital being employed as well as 5x7.<br />( i came to the conclusion < probably wrong conclusion> some of the same photographs and formats were used in this new book )<br> whatever format he used, more power to him ! he makes very nice photographs</p>

<p>no disrespect intended, but i read reports on his largeformatphotography.info site that he is now shooting<br> with a digital camera. no idea if it is true or not.</p>

<p>i wonder if in 2007 things were transported via container ships that ran on bunker fuel</p>