brian_c._ellis

I thought the notion that one was inherently preferable to the other

had pretty well been put to rest in recent years and that conventional

wisdom now is that either will work equally well - you just have to

get used to whichever one you end up buying. Ansel Adams started the

"cold light is superior" idea, I think, but he came to this concusion

by putting negatives made for diffusion heads (i.e. higher contrast)

in enlargers with condenser heads and then blaming the condensers for

the resulting "soot and chalk" look. The only real advantage that I

know of for a diffusion enlarger is that dust and scratches on the

negative tend to be less noticeable in the print with a diffusion

enlarger. Otherwise I think either diffusion or condenser will work

equally well once you adjust your working methods to whichever one you

buy.

The Lee lens hood and filter system works well and the hood is

relatively inexpensive by large format hood standards (around $100 as

I recall). I have had some vignetting problems when using the hood

with my 90 mm lens. I understand that Lee has now come out with a wide

angle adapter ring to deal with this problem but I haven't bought one

yet so I don't know how well it works. I also used to own and use the

Linhof compendium lens hood. It also worked very well but was much

more expensive than the Lee hood. If you would like more information

about the Lee system, send me an e mail. Brian

Is the statement about Riteway holders and Linhof cameras correct? If

so, why is that? I planned to try the Riteways with my Technika V

camera the next time I bought holders and don't remember hearing about

this incompatability before (though I learn something new all the time

so the fact that I haven't heard of it certainly doesn't mean

it's wrong). Is there any problem using the Toyo holders with non-Toyo

cameras (i.e. with a Technika V)?

There is a lot of good information in all of these messages. I'll add

my 2 cents. I looked at the Calumet site that someone mentioned and it

is very good. However, if you look at it carefully you'll see that it

says little that the Kodak instructions don't say. I mention this, not

to denigrate the site at all, but just to stress the importance of

following the instructions carefully, meticulously, and to the

letter. I've long suspected that the problems some people experience

with Readyloads is really caused not by the system but by their

failure to carefully follow the instructions in their haste to get the

photograph made. Secondly, I think it's important to keep the film as

perfectly parallel with the holder as possible when inserting the film

into the holder. I've seen people in the field try to load the film by

grasping the holder in their left hand and shoving the film in with

their right. I think you will have better success if you first put the

holder in the camera and then use two hands to gently and slowly push

the film into the holder. Finally, I believe Kodak has made at least

two versions, perhaps more, of this holder. I would buy the holder new

rather than trying to save a few dollars on a used, possibly

older, version.

There are two schools of thought on repairing bellows light leaks

that are caused by aging (as opposed to some sort of accident). One

school says it's cheap and easy so go for it. The other school says

that whatever caused the light leaks you are repairing will continue

to cause light leaks but you won't know about them until you've

processed all the film from a particular session or trip, thus ruining

what will no doubt in retrospect be the greatest photographs you ever

made in your life. Personally I belong to the latter school and would

rather buy a new bellows than take a chance on ruining a whole bunch

of photographs before discovering the new leaks but that's obviously a

personal thing. There was a long discussion between Richard Sullivant

of Bostick and Sullivan (who advocates repair) and Patrick Alt (who

advocates no repair) in the alt.photo news group about a month ago.

You might find it interesting if you can access that group.

This has nothing to do with the quality of the print but a nice thing

about glass carriers is that they can be used for their own format or

any smaller format. Thus you can use a 4x5 glass carrier wtih 6x7,

6x6, 645, or 35 mm negatives, saving you the cost of buying a carrier

dedicated to each format (assuming, of course, that you use or may

in the future use more than one format)

Even with NFS you can achieve much the same effect by aiming the

camera at the desired angle and then swinging the back parallel with

the subject (I'm assuming, of course, that the camera does have back

swings).

I've seen a Tachihara 5x7 camera advertised by at least one dealer in "Shutterbug" for about $1,200. I know that Tachihara makes a 5x7 back for its 4x5 cameras. I would appreciate it if anyone who owns a 5x7 Tachihara or is familiar with it can tell me whether it is a true 5x7 or whether it is just the 4x5 with the 5x7 back. Thanks. Brian

Several years ago I spent many hours studying the book and since then

I have attended two of Phil Davis' BTZS workshops. IMHO, the problem

with the book (3rd edition - haven't seen the 4th) is that it gives

you a ton of sometimes very complicated technical information that is

interesting for some but that isn't really necessary for anything. I

thought that the first half or so of the book could have been

substantially eliminated without any great harm.

 

<p>

 

Phil has said in the workshops that he sometimes regrets the title of

the book - it implies that he has a system that is very different

from, and more advanced than, the zone system when that isn't really

the case.

 

<p>

 

I use the Casio computer loaded with Phil's exposure program and like

it very much. I had the testing done by Darkroom Innovations for $30

per film brand and type. You get all of the graphs, curves, etc. that

you would get with the Plotter (or is it Matcher?) programs but

without having to buy the programs or do the testing yourself so I

thought it was worth the price. I only had two films tested, T Max and

HP5+. If I wanted to test a whole bunch of films I'd probably buy the

programs. With the Casio computer you still use the conventional zone

system to get the information into the computer (unless you use an

incident meter, which I don't) - the computer just does a whole lot of

calculations for you so that you're free to concentrate on the image

without worrying about the calculations. All in all, I think I would

be just as happy if I had never spent the time and money on the book

and workshops but they were good learning experiences and I do like

the Casio computer.

The G Claron lenses are optimized for 1-1 but also work well at

distances to infinity. They apparently are single coated

(notwithstanding the Calumet catalog statement to the contrary) but

I've never had any problem with this. They also are quite small and

light, which is nice for back packing.

I haven't used the lens so I can't comment on its quality, though my

guess is that there's very little noticeable difference between it and

the current APO Symmar, particularly if it's multicoated. However,

with respect to your serial number list inquiry, Schneider's web site

has a lits of serial numbers and dates of manufacture, if that's what

you're interested in. They're web site is at www.schneideroptics.com I

think. Brian

If you're comparing your work with a John Sexton print you're almost

certain to be disappointed in your work even though it might be

fine. I've taken four weeks worth of John's workshops and I've seen

many of his prints as "straight" prints and then seen the final print

after he has finished with all of his darkroom work. A huge amount of

what you see in John's prints isn't in the negative but rather is the

result of what he does in the darkroom. In saying this I don't mean

to demean John's work in any way. His negatives are very, very good

and without good negatives to start with he wouldn't be able to make

the prints that he makes. However, the negative is just the starting

point for what you see as the final print. The rest is John's talent

and few photographers are capable of printing as well as John prints.

Perhaps you could have moved back (i.e. increased your distance from

the front of the bank) to increase depth of field, then cropped the

image to include only the portion that you wanted.

The F Stops Here sells new Fuji lenses. I've noticed that Midwest

Photo Exchange (advertises the Fuji 400T for $1,400, whereas The F

Stops Here sells it for around $1,200. I don't know if Midwest is

comparably higher on all Fuji lenses or just this one but I'd check

with The F Stops Here before buying anywhere else.

I like the Nikon releases. I think they only come in one size, about

10" - 12" or so. I like them because they're reliable and, being

relatively short, they don't get in the way and can be left hanging

from the shutter without worry that they will somehow damage the

shutter (this may be a misplaced concern but I have one release that's

about 25" long, very well made, but the head or whatever you call the

part that you hold in your hand is quite heavy and I'm always afraid

that it will snap off a part of the shutter release if it is left

hanging in the air so I'm always fooling around with it to set it on

top of the bellows or let it rest somewhere so that it isn't just

hanging and putting pressure on the shutter release). I know some

people think you should have a very long cable release to minimize

vibration but I've never noticed any vibration or other problems with

the short Nikon releases. They cost around $15 - $20 as I recall.

I think it depends to some extent on what you plan to use the meter for. I've owned both the Minolta Spot Meter F and the Pentax. I sold the Minolta to buy the Pentax. The Pentax is, IMHO, much simpler to use because it only does one thing - you point it at something and it tells you the EV of the thing you point it at and from that you determine the exposure. This simplicity is great if that's all you want a meter to do (and that's all I want it to do). The Minolta was more complicated to use because it has more features (e.g. it can be used as a flash meter, though I never did that). Since I didn't want the additional features they just cluttered up the meter for me and made it unnecessarily complicated. But if you want more features, such as the ability to use the meter as a flash meter, then the Minolta or some other similar meter would be a good choice for you.

 

Personally I would buy the best meter I possibly could buy and scrimp somewhere else. An accurate, repeatable, dependable meter is critical to your photography. If your meter is too susceptible to flare, or if it is fooled by different colors, or if it doesn't give consistent readings, then it doesn't matter how great your camera is or your lens is or you are - life is still going to be difficult. So, FWIW, this is one area where I personally wouldn't worry about the cost if at all possible.

I also own a Tech V and read Stephen Gandy's article with interest.

FWIW, I didn't think he meant that you could just use the Graphic

viewing hood on the Linhof. I thought he meant that you perhaps

could take the metal parts from the interior of the Graphic hood (i.e.

those parts that fold out and form the hood itself - sorry I don't

know the technical term)and somehow use them to replace the leather

stuff in the Linhof hood. Also, I didn't think he said he had done

this or knew for sure that it could be done - I thought he was just

suggesting it as something to think about and maybe try. You might

contact him directly and ask him. I had some other question about the

article recently and found his e mail address by doing a search for

his name in Deja News. He replied very quickly. I agree that the

Linhof hood is useless except as an expensive ground glass cover. I'd

like to know what more you find out about this topic. Brian

I use a 100 mm lens for 6x7 negatives to make sure of even coverage

throughout the print. I could get by with a slightly shorter lens for

6x7 but the only "penalty" for using the longer lens is that the size

of prints that I can make is slightly smaller than with a shorter

lens. However, for me it was worth paying that minimal penalty in

order to be certain that the light coverage would be even.

I make enlarged interpositives and negatives with lith film. The best

developer I've found, thanks to an article in the current issue of The

World Journal of Post Factory Photography, is D 76 diluted 1-3 at

around 70 degrees. Develop for about five minutes to six minutes. The

only problem is that the developer exhausts very quickly, usually

after the second or third positive/negative, so it wouldn't be good if

you have a large volume of work. However, it does an excellent

job.

There are many ways to do this and the times, etc. will depend on the

film and chemicals you use, the dilution, the exposure, etc. etc. The

only way to find out for yourself is to test, as someone else

suggested. You unfortunately will gain contrast, and lose some detail,

each step along the way. The loss in going from the negative to

the positive isn't great but there is a greater loss when you go

from the positive to the negative. Many people use APH lith film sold

by Freestyle Sales. It is relatively inexpensive (much less expensive

than Kodak dupe film) and comes in a variety of sizes (Kodak dupe film

only goes up to 8x10). There is a ton of information about

making enlarged interpositives and negatives in the alt.photo

newsgroup archives. Also, two very good methods for doing this are

discussed in detail in Issue #2 of The World Journal of Post Factory

Photography which you can order for about $5. I don't have an e mail

address for The World Journal handy nor do I have the URL for the

archives handy but if you want to pursue either let me know and I'll

get them for you. Brian

One of the big differences is between single coated and multi coated

(I don't think any Super Angulons were uncoated but I'm not sure

of this). The multi coated ones are easily identifiable - they say

"Multicoated" on the lens. The difference between single coating and

multi coating is actually minimal in most situations so single coating

is not a bad deal but certainly a single coated lens would normally

sell for less than a multi coated lens. If the lens in question is

multi coated and the glass is fine then $350 is a terrific price. You

can find out its approximate age if you get the serial number and then

go to the Schneider web site (www.schneideroptics.com), where they

list year of manufacture by serial number.

You might look in the Calumet catalog or call them and see what they

have that will fit their Woodfield 4x5 camera. Since that camera is a

Tachihara with a Calumet decal on it any Calumet accessories

that will fit it will also fit the Tachihara. A friend of mine uses

their reflex viewer on his Tachihara.

Nikon makes fine enlarger lenses but I wouldn't buy that brand solely

because it is the same as your lenses. I don't think anyone these days

thinks that there is any particular advantage to matching your

enlarging lens and your taking lens. With respect to the basic

question, I opted for the 150 just to be absolutely sure that I would

minimize the possiblity of uneven coverage. I've read messages from

many people who say they have good, even coverage with the 135 mm.

Nevertheless, it's nice to be sure and the only disadvantage (apart

from cost) is that my maximum enlargement size is less with the 150

than it would be with the 135. However, I can make a 16x20 enlargement

with the 150 on my enlarger and that's as large as I would want to

make anyhow.

There are two excellent sources for information on lith printing, both

by the same person. The book "The Photographer's Master Printing

Course" by Tim Rudman has an excellent discussion of lith printing.

Also, Tim Rudman wrote two articles in two recent issues of "Photo

Techniques" magazine that go into even more detail than the book. I've

done some lith printing. As far as I know, the Sterling paper is the

only lith paper that is readily available in the United States and I

think Kodak Kodalith developer is the only readily available

developer. The book and articles mention other papers and developers,

as I recall, and perhaps one of the major mail order places like B&H

could order them for you. I like the process but it is extremely time

consuming. My developing times routinely ran fifteen to twenty minutes

per print, most of it spent in the dark to avoid safelight fog with

those kind of times. The other problem is that the developer exhausts

rapidly and gets noticeably weaker from print to print. Therefore it

is very difficult to predict a correct developing time from one print

to the next.

Just in case anyone reads my above post and thinks I do nothing

but sit around figuring out ways to spend money on camera, I wanted to

clarify that these three transactions occurred over the space of about

four years.