ken_miller4

I'm not familiar with the Tach back, but can't you shim the GG? Of coruse, once you shim it, how do you know you've done it correctly? Read on...

 

If you're not opposed to spending a few dollars, I would suggest purchasing a digital caliper. Make a small jig out of plywood (about the same size as a lensboard) that has holes drilled through it (five holes are more than enough - one in the center, one in each corner - you could even get away with three, in a triangle form) that will fit the extension probe of the caliper. Mount your camera on the tripod, and insert a film holder (preferably one in good condition) that has a sheet of film in it (important!). Don't mount a lens, and point the camera at the ceiling.

 

The jig you made should rest on the front standard in the same way the lensboard will. It doesn't have to lock in place, just sit there. Take the caliper, and insert the probe into the center hole and measure the distance between the film and the jig. Without changing anything, zero the probe. You can now measure through the other holes and determine the differences. Write these numbers down.

 

The distances that you've measured are your reference distances, since you measured with a sheet of film in place. Your goal is of course to get the frosted surface of the GG into the same plane as the sheet of film.

 

Now, remove the film holder, and repeat the measurements without changing anything - don't re-zero the caliper, nor more the front standard. If the back is parallel to the front standard, all your measurements should be the same. If they're off, make adjustments to the GG. Of course, having to move the GG further away from the front standard is much harder than shimming it to move it closer, and will most likely mean milling if there are no adjustment screws.

 

If you have a fresnel in place this technique won't work, since my understanding of a fresnel is that it will cause a slight amount of focus shift (1/2 the depth of the grooves?).

 

I had to do this with my Master Technika, since it a) had a warped Super Screen which I removed and replaced with a plain GG, and b) the previous owner had mucked with the GG placement. I'm pretty sure I've got the GG adjusted to withing a few thou, and my negatives seem to agree.

 

This procedure does take a while, but it should work for you. If you can shim the GG, of course.

Actually, it's the other way around. I'm selling the grip. I've pointed the fellow at this thread, so hopefully he knows what he's getting.

 

Thanks Brian.

Thanks much!

Subject line says it all - I have the all black grip, and I've been

asked if this grip will fit on a Super Technika. Will the mounting

hardware for the MT work on a Super Technika?

 

Thanks!

Here's a quick rundown of the 4x5 cameras I've owned, and why I've sold them:

 

1. Calumet 45N. Studio camera, can be cheaply had. Has most movements, breaks down into a relatively medium sized package, but quite awkward to backback. Ended up selling it, and purchased...

 

2. Toyo 45A-II. Small metal field camera. Some will say it's heavy for what it does, but I don't agree. Great little camera, but has an ridiculous way of controlling front shift/swing/rough focus with one lock. Minor front shifts are near on impossible due to a deep center detent. Bad design. Sold it, and purchased...

 

3. Gandolfi Variant Level 3. Wooden field camera, big, heavy, all movements excluding asymetric swings and tilts. Works very well, but it bulky. I haven't sold it yet, but am planning on doing so. I then bought...

 

4. Linhof Master Technika. About the same size as the Toyo, all metal (airframe-quality aluminum), extememly well made. Has most movements, at least enough for landscape photography, great bellows extension, geared front rise, and very, very smooth operation. Downsides include difficulties using wide lenses, high cost, and perhaps it's weight. However, once you use one, you'll certainly appreciate it. It's the best made camera I know of, and I know of 4 'professional fine-art' photographers (2 very well known, 2 lesser well known) that use it, and absolutely swear by it.

 

Best thing to do is to try out as many as you can, and then decide. Everyone has opinions, but only one really matters in the end. Yours.

While I've never done it, I know that <a href='http://radekaphotography.com/'>Lynn Radeka</a> uses what he calls SLIMT (selective latent image treatment?), in which he uses a bleach to reduce contrast in the latent image. He says it works much better than reduced development, I think because it does not affect the shadow areas as much as reduced development would.

 

You might be interested in reading up on his masking techniques - one of them is for creating a fog mask which will allow you to bring down very small highlight areas. Check out the examples at the <a href='http://www.maskingkits.com/maskingexamples.htm'>bottom of the page</a> for some interactive masking samples.

There's a fellow from Canmore, Alberta called Craig Richards - he does some absolutely stunning stuff of the Canadian Rockies.

 

One of his favourite most often used lenses? Fujinon T-400.

 

I've seen his prints up close - they are, absolutely, without a doubt, tack sharp. These are 16x20 and 20x24 enlargements. Simply amazing.

 

So, I think it may come down to the fact that perhaps there are dud lenses out there where sharpness does suffer as you move away from the axis. I also own a T-400, and it works very well, and I've never seen any lack of sharpness anywhere in the image, as long as you stop down to at least f16, preferably f22.

Regarding surge marks when developing with stainless steel hangers, I have to disagree with a few of the responses given above. I've found that the slower the agitation, the more likely you are to get surge marks. Instead, increase the dilution of the developer and increase agitation. I lift-tilt-dip 8 times per minute (takes about 15 seconds). Once I moved to this more vigorous agitation schedule, I no longer get surge marks.

 

This works for me, but as with everything, your mileage may vary.

There are references to a #5 on google, and there's a flange being sold on eBay right now which also mentions a #5 shutter:

<p>

<a href='http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30059&item=3816174313&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW'>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30059&item=3816174313&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW</a>

Oops, my mistake. The number on the inside of the lens cap is indeed the outside diameter of the element.

 

Funny how memory plays tricks on you.

lfphoto.info works fine for me. Perhaps the (Internet) domain name server that you point at for hostname -> numerical address resolution is having problems?

In the case of my lenses, it's the filter sizes. Either that, or a lucky coincidence :-)

 

For example, my 305 G-Claron, 110 SSXL have 67 on the inside of the lens cap, and the 150mm Sinonar has 49. So my Rodenstock and Schneider lens caps match the filter ring size; not sure about my Fuji lens tho.

With my Rodenstock lenses, the filter size is embossed on the inside of the lens caps. 'Course, if you've lost the lenscaps, or have replacements, this information may not be all that helpful.

I've used trays, tubes, and tanks/hangers, in that order. I dropped trays since I had a real problem with negative scratching. I don't think it was an issue with my technique, but rather with the sheet film itself. Occasionally, a sheet of film would have a very sharp protrusion on the corner. Any movement would damage the sheet below. In fact, the new Tri-X seems to exhibit sharp edges on almost every sheet of film. So, for me, trays=bad.

 

Tubes work fine, but it gets tiring rotating the tubes in the water bath. That, and I was limited to 4 tubes at a time. I could have done 6 with a larger bath, but it was too much like work to consider it. Very even development, however, and absolutely no negative damage.

 

I now use tanks and hangers. I can develop 8 sheets at a time, all to different times (based on development requirement) very easily - you just need to keep track of the times :-)

 

I tried using Kodak 4A hangers (for 4x5), but I had a real problem with surge marks along the edge where the clip flips over. I tried all sorts of different agitation techniques, but nothing I tried would get rid of the area of slighly increased density. I now use Carr hangers - there appear to be two kinds, ones with long u-shaped clips, and ones with short u-shaped clips. I had a similar increased density problem with the longer clips, but fixed it by both a) increasing agitation to increase the randomness of the flow, and b) bending the clip out away from the film ever so slightly. The hangers with the short clips have never exhibited this problem. I agitate for 15 seconds a minute (about 8 out-in movements), substantially more than is recommended. I found that a gentle out-tilt-in-out-tilt-in would almost certainly give me surge marks. Increase the agitation, and they go away.

 

While tanks do require a lot of volume (about 1700ml for 4x5), I just queue up a bunch of film to run through the tank. With a single batch of HC110 diluted 1:10.5 I can run through about 4 batches of film before any appreciable density change appears on the film.

 

The one problem I can see with the Jobo is that you must process all the film for the same time - unless you run through a lot of film, this could be very inefficient when you're trying to process N- and N+.

 

Hope that helps you out.

I would buy used - film holders are just *way* too expensive new. However, I would test each film holder with a piece of printing paper that has been just brought to exposure threshold in the darkroom. Trim each piece to fit, and insert it into the film holder. I would also suggest numbering each piece of paper - 1A/1B, 2A/2B, etc., so you can correlate the paper to the side of the film holder it was installed into.

 

Take your camera outside into the bright sunlight, and load each film holder into the camera. Pull the dark slide, and rotate the camera around, and up and down, to make sure the light hits the film holder from each possible angle. You could also use a flashlight, and move it around the camera. Re-insert the darkslide. Flip the holder, and do the other side. Repeat with all the film holders. Make sure the lens aperature is closed :-)

 

Develop all the sheets of paper and then inspect each one for light leaks. Since you took the paper to threshold, it will be very sensitive to *any* light striking the paper.

 

Yes, this will take a while to do. Yes, it's a pain. But, the comfort you gain from knowing you're not going to waste any film due to light leaks makes the entire process well worth it.

 

I would also suggest picking up a Grafmatic (holds 6 sheets of film) or five (!) - much easier to cart around 5 Grafmatics as opposed to the 15 film holders you would need.

 

Works for me, anyways.

 

Good luck!

I have that exact combination, and it works just fine. Go for it!

I leave for Yosemite in 10 days. Bit early for the Dogwoods, but the waterfalls should be active :-)

While I've never taken a workshop with John Sexton before, I have taken one with Ray McSavaney, and I can strongly recommend Ray as an excellent workshop instructor. He is possibly one of the best B&W photographers and printers in the world. He is truly a man in touch with himself and the environment; his sensitivity is amazing.

 

As an added bonus, he's had cataract's removed from his eye's in the last couple of years, so he can see again :-) I'm taking a workshop from Ray in Yosemite in April, which I am very much looking forward to.

 

Check out his book 'Explorations' if you can find it. Wonderful book.

 

Ray also teaches a workshop with Bruce Barnbaum and Stu Levey that covers Death Valley, easten Sierra Nevada, and Owen's Valley (October this year). I think there might be some sand there somwhere :-) You can find out more at www.barnbaum.com.

 

Hope that helps!

Your developing times depend on more than just water: they depend on *everything* - your meter, film, developer, water, duration, temperature, agitation technique, visualization, etc. etc.

 

The only way to determine how long *you* should develop your film is to start with the manufacturer's recommended time, and adjust as required.

 

Above all, be consistent. Always develop your film the same way.

 

And don't worry about the thinking thing - we all do it occasionally. It's kind of fun, really, once you get past the pain part.

 

Cheers!

 

-klm.

I think the general concensus will be that you should *NOT* split the powder into different portions. You have no idea of the chemical breakdown of the powder, so your batches of developer made from these individual portions could very well be quite different from each other. That's a 'bad thing' as you well know.

 

Rather, I would suggest mixing a standard stock solution and storing the stock in multiple completely full (no airspace) air tight bottles. Or, you can try mixing it up at twice the strength of normal stock (1/2 the water), and storing that - just remember to cut it properly when you make your actual developer. You may have problems fully disolving the powder as such high concentrations, however.

 

Stock D76 keeps for about 6 months in tightly sealed full bottles.

 

Hope that helps.

 

-klm.

I have a LPL 4500-II, and it's one rock solid enlarger. While I don't have much experience with other enlargers, I won't hesitate to say that if you purchsae a 4550, you don't be disappointed.

Thanks Michael, you've confirmed what I was told elsewhere. In fact, one fellow had the same lens, with a serial number that was slighly less than mine, and he bought his lens new a few years ago.

 

Interesting information on Copal shutters....

 

Cheers!

 

-klm.

I just picked up a Fujinon T-400mm lens. Serial number is 693434.

The lens was purchased used, but looks brand new - there isn't a mark

on it, anywhere.

 

Where I'm a bit confused is on the shutter. All of my lenses are

modern, with most of them purchased new. They all have new copal

shutters in them, where the aperature adjustment is controlled by a

small plastic triangular knob on the 'top' of the lens, behind the

shutter winder arm.

 

This lens has the aperature adjustment knob on the bottom of the lens,

and it's made of the same material as the shutter winder knob. The

speed ring is plastic, with coarse 'treads'. The shutter is all black.

 

A friend has a much older version of the same lens - he's had it for

15 years or so (I think). His shutter has a metal speed ring, but has

the same bottom-mounted aperature adjustment knob.

 

I've checked out Kerry T's website, and he states that serial numbers

for Fujinon lenses are all over the map, with no logical sequencing,

so it's pretty difficult to determine age from serial numbers.

 

Anyone have any idea how old this lens is? From looking at the images

on Badger Graphic's website, almost all the Fuji lenses seem to be

using the same Copal shutter as the one on my 400mm. Are these

'special' Copal shutters made for Fuji? BTW, the image shown on

Badger's website is exactly what I have in front of me.

 

Comments?

Well, from Badger's website, the 8x10 is $6900. So who knows. Besides, if you have to ask, you probably can't afford it. I know I can't!

 

It also weights in at 30kg. Wow! That is one big hunk o' camera.

I own a black walnut Galdolfi Variant Level 3 - the camera back frame is made with finger joints, which are very strong. No corner blocks here.

 

I would also note that the Level 3 has every movement as well. Shift, rise, swing, and both base and axis tilts on both standards. Pretty darn rigid fully extended too. Not a light camera however.