bj_rn_nilsson

About the CombiPlan: There was indeed a 5X7" version of the CombiPlan

tank available. I bought one in the late 80's. The difference was

that that it was larger (obviously!). The tank was still the same

height as the 4X5" version and the film holder could be divided into

two sections, making it able to hold 12 4X5" sheets (24 if you dare

processing the 4X5" sheets back to back!), with a slotted ridge in

the middle. Because of this there was also a double set of toothed

lips at the bottom and a double set of locks that you put on the top

of the holder.

<p>

The tank was just a tank, without nozzels, just a soft rubber lid

that is easy to put on/take off.

<p>

I don't think that this item was made in any great numbers, but I

recon that it could be found somewhere. (I certainly hope that I can

find mine again!)

Short answer: The difference is all in the developing stage and it

has nothing as such to do with the zone system. (Even though you

still use the zone system to decide the developing time.)

<p>

More elaborate: Let's start with "normal" printing first. When you

shoot your picture, you decide for N- .. N+ etc. As you've already

calibrated your developing procedure, you know the developing times

for N, N-, N+ ... This will give you a negative that has a density

range around 1.0 (depending upon your enlarger light source, if you

are enlarging.)

<p>

When you shoot an original for PT/PD you behave in the same manner as

when shooting an original for silver-based printing. The difference

is that you have to calibrate your developing time for a neg. density

range of 1.8-2.0 instead of around 1.0. This is because the PT/PD

emulsion is much softer than a normal grade silverbased paper.

<p>

You possibly have to use an intermediate negative instead of the

original. I.e. an orthochromatic darkroom film, which you can develop

to higher contrast. This gives you the opportunity to burn in/shade

off etc. on the negative that you will use when exposing the PT/PD.

And, not all normal films are good for developing to a density range

of 2.0.

First, the Fuji camera produces excellent results, so you will not

get "better" results with any 90mm lens on the Sinar. As (I hope :-)

you've noticed the Sinar and the Fuji are extremely different and

they are at their best in very different areas.

<p>

Now, if you've got a 69 filmholder, a 90m lens will give you the same

perspective as the Fuji, as long as you don't use any shifts on the

Sinar. But you will have plenty of movement capability on the Sinar

as well. Most modern 90mm wideangles just covers 5X7" and the Super

Angulon 90XL covers more than that.

<p>

You are quite right about choosing a short focal length for macro

work. It makes things simpler. (I.e. shorter bellows draw.) But the

wideangles in particular are corrected for shooting at infinity, so a

wideangle 90mm isn't at its best in the macro range. Now, having said

that, the results are probably "good enough". The 90mm wideangle is

very common, and you will not do anything wrong if you buy one as you

quite probably will have very good use for it.

<p>

Which brand you choose is of less importance. There are two

categories (or three if you put the SA 90XL in its own category).

They are the f/8 and the f/4.5-5.6 category.

The f/8 category lenses are a bit smaller and usually covers 100 deg.

The f/4.5-5.6 category are larger and heavier and more expensive.

They are somewhat easier to focus due to the extra f/stop.

Again, which brand doesn't really matter. Apart from the Schneiders

and the Rodenstocks there's also the Nikkors and the Fuji lenses.

They all perform about the same apart from very tiny variations in

color rendition. If you want to save in weight, the Nikkor 90 f/8 is

the smallest one in size and weight, but it is still a very good

performer.

If you have got strong arms and back plus a "strong" wallet, you

could opt for the best, i.e. the Schneider Super Angulon 90XL. But it

costs lots more. And in normal conditions neither you nor anyone else

could tell the difference in between that lens and anyone else

mentioned.

First, the development of art and photography as an art. In my

opinion, you have a greater freedom to artistically express yourself

these days than you had in e.g. the 30's. Looking at the art scene in

general, there are today many different ways of expression, where a

multitude of styles are accepted. This, still in my opinion, also

holds true to some extent in the photography area.

<p>

Second, and this could be offensive to some people, a trend that I

feel has become accepted in the last 20 or so years is that art has

nothing to do with being professional, it is just a matter of being

different. In artschools (at least here in Europe), most students

seems to abandon the classes on studying and drawing the human

figure. "That is out of fashion... I'll never do that anyhow..."

Many "artists" of today havn't got the patience to work the whole way

through a project, so many things seen in art galleries nowadays are

just the seeds of a final product.

<p>

Let's narrow down the subject again to photography. Aaron is correct

in saying that the f64 type of shots have been followed by other

trends. This still doesn't mean that a really good print a la A.

Adams et. al. isn't appreciated. But I'm sorry to say that I've

walked out of photography exhibitions and the only words that came to

mind was "Ehhh... blurry and gray?". Giving it a little longer

thought, the work reminded me of my very first attempts in the

darkroom some 30 years ago, except that I didn't put a $400 price tag

on the prints that I fed the dustbin with. Seriously though, I see

the same trend in photography as in general art. It is often more

important to be shocking and strange than being a professional artist

who knows his/her materials.

<p>

Photography as such have always been a moving platform. The technical

advancement in our field since the invention of photography some 165

years have been amazing. Most other classical art forms havn't had

much development for centuries. This technical advancement have to

some extent made many photographers focused on technique.

<p>

Trying to conclude this, I think that any professional artist,

knowing his tools, can produce high-grade art. What style he/she is

opting for doesn't really matter. Any good photographer who knows his

camera/film/darkroom tools have the potential to produce final

photographs which looks the way he/she intends. If the intention is a

blurry shot, the final product will probably be a good visualization

of that intention. I guess that most of the people in this forum are

able and are producing "sharp" photographs, but the skill you've

gained from learning that is also applicable to whatever idea you

get.

Armando and all others

<p>

Pinhole resource is at http://www.pinholeresource.com and one of the

users that have had his page up for a long time is Jon Grepstad at

http://home.online.no/~gjon/ (where you find a pinhole link, with

lots of info and links).

I havn't seen any such table either, but judging from most cameras

I've seen pictures from (in 4X5"), the shortest "focal length" seems

to just shy of 2". For 16X20" that would be some 8". Now, you will

probably have severe light falloff and possibly some vignetting as

well, apart from the extreme wide-angle effect. Given that 25" is

the "normal" focal length for that size, I'd start with a camera 12"

deep. with a hole that is some 0.7 mm (slighty smaller than 1/32").

<p>

As you've probably already figured out, this camera would just be a

box, which you can make as nice (or ugly) as you want, as long as it

keeps stray light out. You can spend one hour or one week building

it. (It will probably look much nicer in the one-week version.)

<p>

The main thing it that you have fun doing it! (People who pass when

you take pictures with this beast will have fun looking at you. ;-)

One website/page that describes that camera (and the Technika line)

very well is: http://www.cameraquest.com/techs.htm

<p>

Now, what's the value of your Nikon? I'd say $600 - $900. I guess a

lot of readers of this forum is starting to drewl when they see this

question.

<p>

1/ Unless this Tech IV is a wreck, it sounds like a very good deal.

If the camera and lenses are in good working order that package could

be worth up to $3000 or more. But it all depends upon the condition

of each part in the package. You didn't say which lenses were

included in the package and the worth of lenses varies a lot. (I.e.

in between $50 and $2000, but in this case probably between $200 and

$600 per lens.) You write "7 backs". That could be sheetfilm holders,

which in good condition would be worth say $5-10 each. If there are

one or more Linhof rollfilm backs, it's a different story. Such backs

in good condition are worth $300 and more. Last, a decent Tech IV

camera brings in (much?) more than $1000 these days.

<p>

2/ Have the owner demonstrate it. If you have a professional photo

shop nearby, go there and rent a Polaroid 545 back and buy a pack of

film for it. (It will set you back with some $70 or so, but you'll

get instant proof of the workability of the camera and lenses.) Look

at the cameras general condition. The leatherette is famous for its

lousy glueing, so don't worry too much about that aspect. Also check

the bellows with a small flashlight inside it. A few pinholes is

acceptable, as you can fix them yourself, but no big holes or cracks.

The camera is in general very sturdy, built in the same spirit as the

Leicas, Nikon F2's (and F4's), Hasselblads etc. I.e. a very

professional camera.

<p>

As the camera has a rangefinder, have the owner demonstrating how to

change the lenses and cams. Check if the distance setting works, and

if it is accurate. (I.e. set the distance with the rangefinder and

then check the focus with a loupe on the groundglass.) Do this with

all the lenses that are cammed.

<p>

Again, if the camera has a few flaws, but does indeed work, it still

sounds like a very good deal. (Said he with tounge hangeth out.)

<p>

3/ You may have understood by this point that it is a very usable

camera. A slightly improved (Master) Technika is sold today and it is

not considered "esoteric", just a very good german camera that will

last you a lifetime.

<p>

Now, please don't put it out for sale at Ebay next week. (Contact me

first and don't tell anyone else. ;-) If you have the facilities to

process and enlarge 4X5", you've found a very good camera for it.

Large format photography is less forgiving than modern 35mm SLR's but

it does pay off when you've learnt how to do it right.

The only thing you'll really gain is a lighter wallet. :-) Seriously

though, the Apo Ronar will probably be a little bit sharper than a

e.g. Sironar, due to the character of the lens. But this difference

is probably too small to tell.

<p>

A 360 5.6 or 6.8 Sironar/Apo-Symmar/Nikkor W/... is huge compared to

the Apo Ronar. The Apo-Symmar is 112mm length x 115mm width, with a

112mm filter thread! I'm not sure about the weight, but probably 1500

grammes or more. And again, you will probably gain ... nothing, apart

from muscles.

Sinar makes (or at least have made) both semi-transparent and fully

reflecting mirrors (front surface covered) which are of the same size

as their lensboards. (There are some bigger ones as well.) I've seen

them mentioned on Ebay, as well as on other places.

<p>

The semi-reflecting mirrors are really useful for trickshots, like

for creating an impossible background.

That is a very capable (and huge) machine. It indeed accepts 5X7 (but

you'll need a 180 mm lens or longer for that). I'm not at all sure

about the price of this beast, as it is not longer produced, but a

guess is that it would sell for $5000 or more if produced today.

<p>

I own a 40 year old Durst 138S, which is the predecessor of the G139.

I'd put my machine second to none except for the Leitz Focomat IIc,

which is the best enlarger I've used. It isn't the fastest machine to

use, but probably as fast or faster than the Omegas/Beselers/ZoneVIs

etc., and it is very smooth to operate considering its size.

<p>

If you are doing 4X5 a 150mm (or 135mm) lens will do nicely. You

doesn't say if it's a b/w or color machine, but in case of a b/w

machine, there are huge exchangable condenser lenses used to focus

the light. You change these condenser lenses according to the focal

length you are using. (A. Adams and other poo-pooed condenser

enlargers of their era, but that was the Beseler/Omega condenser

enlargers, which had quite poorly built condenser systems. Durst make

high quality condenser systems, which really brings out the best of

the enlarger.)

<p>

You can probably print 16X20 on the baseboard, but I guess that you

can take that baseboard away, or lower it. In that case the printing

size would rather be 30X40. (The G139 is a professional machine,

which is often built to the customers needs. There are variations on

how the baseboard was constructed, but I think that the standard

model has a very sturdy table where you put the baseboard in slots.

My 138S has the baseboard on a column, which can be locked at any

height from the floor up to normal working height. But again, the

G139 is different in this matter.)

<p>

If you havn't seen the enlarger, also consider the fact that it is

around 7 feet tall and it does need some space. (But it deserves

it. :-)

<p>

There's also some info on http://www.photomall.com/gedurst.htm

Oh yes, I forgot about scanner software.

<p>

Vuescan from www.hamrick.com is a very competent program that is

fairly cheap ($40) and under constant development. Most reviews that

I've seen about the program are very positive and so am I about the

program.

For 4X5" a 162 mm lens equals a 43 mm lens on an SLR camera. A 150mm

thus equals a 40mm lens and a 135mm would equal a 36mm lens. So, your

estimations are correct. (The length of the diagonal of the film

format corresponds to a normal focal length. For 35mm film it is

43mm, for 9X12 cm it is 150 mm and for 4X5" the diagonal is 162mm.)

<p>

1/ According to the Discovery flyer, you can use a 47mm as the

shortest lens. (Which equals a 12.5mm lens on a 35mm camera!)

<p>

2/ The longest lens is in this case limited by the bench length,

which is 30 cm (12"). But rail extensions of different sizes and

types are available. The other obstacle is the max extension of the

bellows, i.e. 38 cm (13"). But again, there are longer bellows

available as well. With extension rails, extra bellows and an extra

multipurpose standart you can go to 1200 mm lenses. All it takes is

extra money. :-)

<p>

3/ Even though I havn't used neither the Toyo nor the Cambo, they are

both good cameras. But the Arca-Swiss is definitely of a higher

quality, matched only by the Sinar and the Linhof range of cameras.

There are many different ideas among the contributors in this forum

about which is the best camera system, but noone will tell you that

the Arca-Swiss is wrong. The choice of camera also depends upon your

use of the camera, as they differ in construction in order to be

better suited for particular needs, while trying to meet as many

different needs as possible. Personally I would suggest that you take

a look at the Sinar F range cameras as well, but you will not make a

mistake buying any of the cameras you mentioned. If you are on a

budget, don't forget to have a look at used cameras as well.

<p>

To my experience, there are many mistakes to be made when starting in

LF. Apart from the film handling, everything (!) is manually set, and

learning LF is a process that takes time. You can avoid some of the

mistakes by choosing a better camera, which have guides to tell you

how to do certain things, like finding the Depth of Field, finding

the correct angles when tilting the lens/film plane etc. Most of my

experience is with the Sinar system, which have guides that helps you

setting all of these values fairly correct. This improves the chances

of success, which is important for any beginner. Having to waist

several days and several roundtrips to the darkroom in order to

adjust for a parameter in order to get closer to an acceptable result

takes a lot of patience. In my opinion it is better to use that time

to progress a bit further with the pictorial content instead of

making new mistakes.

Hi!

<p>

A couple of links to give you some more info on scanning and

printing.

<p>

http://www.scantips.com

<p>

and http://www.computer-darkroom.co.uk/

<p>

should give you plenty to study and it should probably give you much

better results as well.

Morten is of course right about finding whatever possible support is

a good idea in general. Adding a monopole to that improves stability.

<p>

Now, on my monopod I have a small ballhead (Slik) which I hardly ever

tighten even when I shoot. I try to remember the tricks mentioned in

the address in my previous answer and those tricks really help. (I.e.

not having the monopod straight, but at an angle.)

<p>

About stabilizing tripods. If you have a backpack, hang it from the

center of the tripod so that a weight hangs down in between the three

legs and the tripod will be much more steady. (Will this mean that

cameras prefer well-hung tripods??? :-) This trick is especially

handy if you are using a heavy camera at an angle and the overhang

makes you nervous.

A monopod will definitly help you. But you have to practice with it.

(Most of the practice can be done with a 35mm though.) It is a matter

of finding the most effective way of using the monopod. When you've

found out how to use it in the most effective way, you will easily

gain 2-3 steps. I.e. holding the camera at 1/8 or even more should be

possible, given the camera/lens combination. But taking 2 shots at

these low light instances is recommended. (A Leica M is, or at least

feels fantastic at these instances, but we are talking Large Format

here, so...)

<p>

There's an article that I read some years ago somewhere on the

Internet: http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~wee/article2.htm which give

some hints on how to effectively get some steadiness out of a single

pole.

The quality for RC papers is probably as good as for the

equivivialent fiber based papers nowadays. (The quality was

questionable in the beginning of the RC era, but that was ages ago.)

Another fact is the quick and easy handling of RC paper, which of

course have made it very popular.

<p>

Another question that is relevant here is single grade vs. variable

contrast. While VC really saves some money and shelf space, I still

prefer single grade for my final prints. I simply don't like the

somewhat greenish color casts that I've had with Ilford Fiber

Multigrade.

<p>

But I for one does still prefer fiber based. First, I love the

surface of air dried fiber based paper, which isn't as "perfectly

shiny" as the RC surface. Second, some of the papers that I use arn't

available in RC. (I prefer to use single grade papers of high

quality.) As fine printing is a long and (and sometimes tedious)

process, I often start with making a print on VC RC paper as

a "scetch". When I've decided about what to do with the picture I set

up the darkroom for fiber paper work and continue from there.

<p>

I still havn't seen any single "art print" done on RC, and maybe it's

because of some kind of stubbornness (sp?) with the few that really

knows printing.

<p>

I take it you want to start printing yourself. In that case I'd

recommend you to start with RC and stick to that until you've learned

how to make really good prints on a regular basis. The more immediate

response time makes it much more fun to go into the darkroom. (And

getting out of it before the next morning. :-) Spending a long night

to make/tone/wash the prints just to the next night find out that the

print dried down more than you had expected is not exactly my

definition of fun.

This link: http://www.cameraquest.com/techs.htm will provide you with

lots of information about the different Tech models. (The site is

filled with very good information about not only Linhof Techs, but

also a multitude of different classic camera models.

<p>

For the tech V the cam goes with the lens (on its lensboard) and the

lens/cam combo can be used with any V or Master. This means that you

can have cams made for a lens which then will fit any V or Master.

<p>

You can certainly use the tech for macro work even with a 210mm lens.

It is often more practical to use a shorter lens for macro work, e.g.

a very short process lens if you can find one. Linhof have/had(?)

special barrel macro lenses that are of 28 and 50 mm focal lengths

which are mounted on special lensboards with an extension tube. (I'm

not sure about the exact focal lenghts, but they are somewhere in

that range anyhow.)

If you feel that the price of the package is very good, you should absolutely go ahead. I've owned a 2000 fc/m and I have only good experiences with it, but I've seen many reports on it being troublesome. A general feeling that I have about the 2000 series is that they are somewhat more "delicate" than the very rugged 500 series. Hence the secondhand value of the body is low.

Look at it this way, if you buy the lenses, mags etc. and get the body for free, it is a good deal. You havn't told what series the lenses are, but even the F lenses are fully useable for all 2000 and 200 series bodys, and the mags etc are useable for every Hasselblad (except the 1000 series, but we are not discussing antiques here, are we).

You're obviously getting a lot of help and hints on how to find out if this really is an amazing deal, so do check out the value of the package before you buy it. (E.g. Shutterbug et al. Just remember that the shops always make a hefty profit in exchange for a limited warranty.)

There are two different issues to address here. First the f/stop. The

extra f/stop you gain from a f/5.6 or even a f/4.5 will make a

difference on the groundglass and it will make focusing easier.

The other issue is coverage. There is some but not that much

difference in between the f/8 and the f/5.6 lenses in terms of

coverage. The real choice here is in between a "normal" wideangle and

the Schneider XL series of lenses, where the XL really makes a

difference. (Along with that goes the price tag of course.)

As for image quality, the f/8 is an excellent lens. The more

expensive ones, regardless of brand, will probably perform even

better, but it is probably hard to tell the difference.

If you are shooting slide film and often use shift, a center filter

would probably be needed with any of the lenses that you have to

choose from in the 90 mm area.

Going from the (probably) fully automatic snapshots to the manual

making of panorama photographs does take quite a lot from anyone. I

guess that you take your snapshots on negative film, which is a very

forgiving film compared to Velvia in particular. The fully manual

process is also an obstacle, which you'll gradually learn to master.

A third obstacle is the panoramic format, which is an extreme format.

I wouldn't expect brilliant results on the first attempts even from

expert photographers who havn't done panoramic before, as the format

takes a new way of looking and evaluating the subject.

Well, your Nikon and your Leica are two different beasts. Any SLR

does appear at its best when used with longer lenses, and the

opposite can be said for rangefinder cameras. Or, the Leica is

excellent at short range, while an SLR is better at long range.

<p>

Using my F100 with shorter lenses make me miss a Leica, while my

experiences with an M4 and a 90 mm lens are a bit disappointing.

Don't get me wrong here. There's nothing, repeat nothing that comes

close to the feeling of a Leica with a 35 or a 50mm lens. The F100

being a very good camera doesn't give me that feeling either, but I

do trust it to do its job and my F100 have not let me down for the

two years that I've used it. But a Leica with a 50mm or shorter gives

you a sort of direct communication with the subject that you cannot

achive with any SLR. Now, in my opinion, all of this is lost when

using longer lenses. The small part of the rangefinder window makes

you feel very distant to the subject. The excellent performance of

the lens is still there of course, but the camera doesn't assist you

in the same way that it does when using e.g. a 35mm. (A 35mm and an

M4 have given me many of my very favourite shots over the years. I

would have missed many of those shots using any brand/model SLR.)

<p>

So, use your Leica for what it is good at, but when you need the

longer focal lengths, e.g. the excellent zoom you mention, you can

trust that the F100 will do an excellent job if you trust it.

A process lens is normally optimized for 1:1, and if you look at the

construction, it it more or less totally symmetrical. At 1:1 the

distance in front of and behind the lens is the same, and the "same"

lens construction in front of and behind the center of the lens makes

this particular construction perform extremly well. The different

abberations that are produced in the front are reversed as the light

rays "takes exactly the same path out", but on the other side. I'm

not saying that macro lenses and process lenses are the same, but

they are similar in the aspects of symmetricality. (or whatever it is

called?)

<p>

While a Symmar is fairly symmmetrical, i.e. similar construction of

the front and the back of the lens, the construction is corrected and

optimized for the fact that the distance between the lens and the

film is a bit more than 210 mm (in your case) while the distance

between the lens and the subject might be infinity. It is obvious

that the front and the back of the lens are different, as they have

different sizes etc. The same goes for most normal and wideangle

constructions that are corrected for normal ranges.

Hi!

<p>

About the film and retaining clip of the CombiPlan, I can only agree

with the other answers that you find. Practice! Most of the

procedures taking place in the dark are rehersed beforehand. Think of

it as entering a new darkroom. I guess that you would like to get

aquainted with it while the lights is on. (The same goes for most

girls as well. :-)

<p>

Some people have reported problems with uneven developing in the

CombiPlan. I guess that this has to do with the agitation pattern. It

isn't a matter of turning the tank very quickly, rather to make sure

that the developer "sits" when the tank is turned upside down. I also

shake the tank in an irregular pattern now and then, as part of the

agitation schedule.

<p>

The CombiPlan is very slow to drain/fill. Here's what I do:

<p>

I fill the tank with the 1 liter of developer needed and put it at

its place. I then load the film in the holders and when I feel like

I'm all done and I got my bearings, I dump the holder into the tank

and then on with the lid. It is easy to time the time it takes from

the dumping of the holder into the tank, through putting on the lid,

putting on the light and starting the timer. That time should be

subtracted from the total developing time. Of course this takes

knowing exactly where everything is, i.e. practice again (and

again...)

<p>

About 40 seconds before the end of the development time, I start to

drain the developer. It is the stop bath (or possibly fixer bath for

those who cannot afford the stop bath :-) that will stop the

development, not draining the developer half a minute before.

Besides, the developer is least effective in the end of the

development.

<p>

Now, if you can subdue the light to a very low intensity, i.e. almost

dark, you can lift half of the lid and pour on the stop bath

directly. The same thing is recommended with the BTZS tubes, and it

works the same here. There is no (or almost no) sensitivity left in

the developed film. But please note that (Check www.darkroom-

innovations.com for the instructions for BTZS tubes.) The same of

course goes for the following baths, i.e. fixer, hypo-clear etc.

<p>

When the film have gone into the fixer, you can turn up the lights,

even if the lid is off. If you feel uncertain about this, keep the

lid on for a minute. Then there is absolutely no way that the film

will be damaged in any way.

<p>

For washing I normally have the bottom funnel open and have the water

running just a little bit faster than the funnel lets out water, so

that a little water runs over the top. I also dump the tank a couple

of times.

<p>

I havn't done DiXactol, so I havn't a clue about the staining part.

But I guess that light doesn't play a part in the staining, so it is

probably OK doing it in an open tank with the lights on.

Steve is right about the bellows draw except if you are using a

telephoto design lens, where the bellows draw is shorter due to the

design of the lens. But this is a special case, as most lenses that

are used with large format cameras are of a standard (fairly

symmetrical) design.

Well, it really depends upon the subject choosen. Many pictures that

are nice in B&W would look very blurred up it shot in colour. In

these cases B&W works very well, i.e. they replace colour areas that

would break up the composition with grayscale areas. B&W is (in my

opinion) mostly about using contrasts, lines and areas for

composition. Colour photographs depends (or breaks) upon harmonizing

(or clashing) colours.

Some of the colour photographs that I like best are almost

monochrome. I.e. they consists of one colour tone, with some small

areas/items in another colour. In that aspect, they are almost

similar to B&W.

But there is of course a lot more to it than just what I mentioned

above. The increased technical difficulties in the darkroom if

developing colour etc. plays a part, "forcing" the photographer to

enhance their ability to see óbjects/scenes etc. as B&W compositions

instead. (This of course holds true to all formats, not just LF.)

<p>

Björn