jnanian

<p>john<br> the way paper companies rate their paper isn't realitive to the way film is rated.<br> depending on the paper and the light paper can be rated anywhere from below 1 iso to about 24.<br> you might consider coating your own paper negatives so you get used to whatever emulsion you<br> end up using. ive been using rockland colloid emusions for glass and paper since the 1980s and <br> recently started cooking up my own emulsion for hand coating as well. <br> with regards to the camera, you want to do hand held work, maybe you should look into a press camera<br> or a graflex slr, or look for something bostic and sullivan used to sell called a "hobo"</p> <p>good luck !</p>

<p>sorry, my post won't post :(</p>

<p>if you don't mind the 1900 aesthetic you might think of a delmar or cyclone box camera</p>

<p>i've had a 6" 3.5 seminat in a general shutter, purchased from dagor77 maybe 10 years ago.<br> i've been using it off and on since i got it ... like most lenses it is sharp stopped down, but wide open it has a 3 dimensionality that some of my other lenses don't have, and the out of focus areas seem really smooth ... it almost has a painterly quality to it. i don't hot link images here to p-net but have some examples on my website. </p>

<p>drew:</p> <p>you might also consider contacting bostic and sullivan. they used to sell a camera called a "hobo" which was a big LF ( hyperfocal? 4x5 & 8x10 ) handheld p/s if your wanderlust doesn't work out. they don't sell the hobos anymore ( must have been a early 2000s thing ) but they might know of people who know people ... who bought and want to sell ... i also work with big old ( or not so old ) cameras, including 19th c p/s cameras that need or don't need tripods, and have landscape meniscus (wolloston meniscus type) lenses asd well as hand held press camera type things that are a PITA and require focusing. my fave is a graflex slr .. easy, versatile, handheld, not too $$ barrel lenses, film holders or bag mags or plate ... big but perfectly weighted ( so it seems small )<br> good luck !</p>

<p>drew:</p> <p>that is my experience, i am not sure what the other person's experience might be with non-flat registration. good luck !<br> ... if i was to rent a camera and a dozen grafmatics, i would make sure before i rented anything that everything was perfect [ flat septums, perfect film registration, no leaks, no jams ] before i took money ... i've rented / borrowed gear for projects that was less than optimal, and it wasn't fun.</p>

<p>if septums aren't straight sometimes and film doesn't register flat, and the septums get jammed up inside the holder and that film number wheel is obnoxious.</p>

<p>you need a ton of bellows for this lens converted to 370. <br> as jose said about 480mm ( just for infinity ! ) it can be done with a smaller bellows camera. you can purchase what some have referred to as a top hat lens board ... it extends out ( think opposite of a recessed lens board ) and they look kind of like a stovepipe hat or an omega lens cone.<br />good luck !</p>

<p>hi jbuck</p> <p>i can't speak of your polaroid back or for fuji film, but a lot of the "expired" polaoid film<br> with chemical pods &c is dried out and useless. polaroid stopped making it a long time ago<br> and the pods don't last a long time ... AND if the person who sold them to you ( or to your seller )<br> had them stored in the freezer to "preserve" them, that did them in as well. #55 film you can still EXPOSE, <br> but you will have to remove the film, and process it like regular old film ( like a ready load ). some say it is similar to <br> panatomic x, so you can look up starting points to develop it using that as a key word search .. or develop by inspection if you know how to do that :)</p> <p>good luck !</p>

<p>with kids you have to anticipate what they are going to do. while i have made<br />portraits of kids with a variety of cameras the easiest by far was with a graflex slr.<br> no fiddling with film holders and hoping the focus is still on ... look into the top, and press <br> the button, and that's it ... i'd rather thake a portrait with that than anything else i own.</p> <p>good luck !</p>

<p>hi bob, i have been searching google for 4 years LOL it is an obscure camera ..<br /> QG thanks, i now that i went there i remember i have been there before ... it is not listed there ...</p>

<p>hi bob</p> <p>when was the land 600 portrait camera made, do you have any idea?<br> it has 6 shuttered 1/150 f16 lenses in a grid and takes 4x5 film holders ..</p> <p>thanks </p>

<p>there really is no demonstration of proof on the internet<br> everyone's monitor is profiled ( if at all ) a different way, its a 72dpi image and impossible to discern reality from a jpg. besides, even with film + paper when one scans it, it alters the image from what it actually was, it can be manipulated to death to prove or disprove any point in an argument. i guess the only thing to do is to shrug one's shoulders and say: maybe. </p>

<p>i think the thing is that some people know how to finesse what they want out of a lens, out of their film and into their print, and it really doens't matter what lens<br> camera, film, or arcane process they use. there are plenty of images made with modern multi coated lenses that have no shadow detail because the user didn't expose the film that way, just like there are plenty of images made with arcane processes and 15,000.00 rare brass lenses that have no atmosphere because ther didn't use it that way. in the end if someone knows what they are doing they can pretty much do as they please ( no densitometry or sensitometric testing needed ).</p>

<p>baby food jars, for small quantities of chemistry, dollar store tupper ware-esque containers<br />for stock chemicals, and film processing trays ...<br />joanne fabrics for my 1-2$ darkcloth <br /><br /></p>

<p>hi john<br> mine is a darlot wide angle rapid rectilinear lever stop lens. back when i got it it cost very little.<br />... i mostly shoot paper negatives with it. but when i expose 8x10 film my glass changes a little and i use a wollensak' 1a triple harvested off of another camera .. i got it a decade ago when a friend<br />told me about it :) i use IT instead of the darlot because i'm not good at fractions of seconds with just a lens cap ;) ... both lenses are sharp as nails stopped down and have a nice signature when not ..</p>

<p>OP</p> <p>you might also look into a camera called a HOBO ... there was a 4x5 as well as a 8x10 version<br> and i think dick sullivan ( from bostick + sullivan ) was one of the makers ... <br> it was a barebones point and shoot / hyperfocal camera that got pretty good reviews ...</p> <p>good luck!</p>

<p>if i am not hand coating, i usually use expired paper, it can be purchased cheaply,<br> and if there is a little base fog, it helps reduce contrast some people find difficult to control.<br> i just loaded some 15+ year old polymax rc and will be processing it in black dektol and caffenol.<br> works like a charm.</p>

<p>its a nice camera ..<br> i don't have one or need one, but i do have experience<br> with no-movement LF cameras and have used<br> large format box, falling plate and graflex slr's for about 20 years.<br> its not hard to handhold a pinhole camera if you are steady, and know how to push process film.<br />(i've hand held 20 second exposures before and didn't have much trouble )...</p>

<p>folks who do street photography in afghanistan ( with paper negatives and an kamra-e-faoree ) use an inspection/ view window . you might consider doing something similar for your tank, like a darkroom-light filter. since you won't have the benefit of developing in a tray "by inspection" ( or pulling it when you think it might be done ) and will be processing your paper negatives "blind" it might give you an idea how your exposures went. you might also consider using enlarging filters if you are worried about contrast or a lower-contrast developer like caffenol. have fun with your paper negatives ... i'd rather shoot paper than film ...<br /> if you have never heard of a kamra-e-faoree <br /> http://www.afghanboxcamera.com/</p>

<p>i don't think the ilford DP paper is being made anymore. BUT you might have luck overseas<br> because another DP paper is being manufactured for imago.</p> <p>good luck!</p>

<p>hi john</p> <p>shooting paper negatives is a lot of fun. i have been using paper for negatives probably for 25 years?<br> regular paper is fine, just trim it to fit in your film holders, and don't worry about it being too thick to fit, you won't really have any trouble. you will notice that paper is sensitive to blue light and the amount of blue light varies depending on were you are and the type of day it is. paper can be as fast as iso 25 depending on the light conditions, so in some cases it is just a few stops slower than iso 100 film. but there are papers that are extremely slow, 7 stops slower than iso 1. single weight paper works well, if you can find it, there aren't many manufacturers of single weight papers left, because it is more difficult to coat. i read somewhere that slavich is the last one, but i don't know for sure because i haven't bought paper in a long time. i tend to buy liquid emulsion and make my own photo paper for negatives. <br> one thing you might find is that photo paper tends to have contrast, so you might flash it, or use an enlarger-filter to shoot through to tame the contrast. you might also look into lower contrast developers like coffee based ones.</p> <p>have fun !</p>

<p>type 55 film was similar to if not the same as panatomic x<br> maybe someone can comment on the similarities between fomapan100<br> and panatomic x. i haven't used rodinal but i have used pan x and fomapan<br> and they are both beautiful films nice and tight grained.</p>

<p>regarding storage of the shutter cocked or uncocked<br> steve grimes suggested:<br> http://www.photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/003Cqk</p>

<p>whatever it is that you do, don't forget to have fun</p>