bob_moulton

Mark,

The preceding comment by Doremus Scudder is the best advice. Test for

N- and N+ yourself.Recall that you cannot easily use a densitometer

to interpret the results due to the staining.

However, some writers suggest that Tri-X and other films of its

type,meaning non T-Max or Delta, require for N+ a 30-40% increase in

normal film development time + plus a 1/2-1 stop decrease in

exposure. For N-1 the development time , the normal development time

should be reduced by 30-40%, and the exposure increased by one stop.

Gordon Hutchings suggests the following for Tri-X: (N=14 min),

(N+1=20 min.), (N-1=11 min). But that is assuning an E! of 260 AND

the use of his PMK developer.

Hope this helps.

Bob

Larry,

Like you I examined the Pentax and then bought the Minolta Spot F.

The reasons you cite in its favor I second, plus I use flash some in

portraitures, so the meter saves me space and money.

You might look into devising a chart/exposure log similar to that

Adams presents in one of his texts. It would be somewhat slower than

the wheel arrangement, but it could serve two purposes- aid to

placing values in zones and log.

You can, of course, integrate the filter factor directly into the ISO

setting on the meter rather than calculate those later.

Incidentally, the shadow and highlight buttons and the memory button

are worth experimenting with in terms of getting exposure range in ev

and quick and dirty placements. And the A button used after reading

an initial subject area allows you to "scan" the values in the entire

scene.

It is a nice meter. One teacher of mine thought that Minolta should

have expanded the S/H buttons to allow for full zone system

placement. I guess that is too much for "the mind of minolta."

bob

More grist for the thought mill. If you expect to hike or walk around

a lot with your LF equipment I would recommend a Canham DLC, a Wisner

Tech. Field or Pocket Tech. Field, or a Linho TK 45. There are some

excellent reviews of the Linhof found elsewhere on this site, as well

as of the other cameras.

Bang/buckwise, I imagine the DLC outshines the other cameras

suggested above. Incidentally I own two Wisners, a Tech Field and a

Pocket Tech field, so I'm not trying to convert you. From what I have

read and heard, however, the DLC provides a lot of features for the

money. If you anticipate having to do a lot of architectural work

Canham allegedly has available a bag bellows. Some users report that

the DLC cold have a more stable rear standard.The Pocket Expedition,

IMHO, with its neat geared tilts and rise, makes life simpler than

the Canham, and costs little more. The Pocket Expedition takes a

little time to learn to set up and collapse correctly, but it isn't

as difficult as some others already recommended to you.

The TK45 is probably the better built, but some have problems with

its set up, and more than one person has commented on the cost of

buying anything with the Linhof "franchise" name on it.

<p>

The Wisners and the Linhofs appear in used dept.s, but the DLC is too

new and/or its owners too sold on it to give it up.

None is perfect; all will do what you want them to do.

Bob

Consider the Wisner Technical Field in one of its versions--Technical

Field, Pocket or Expedition. With a standard bellows it will easily

handle lens down to 110 mm Xl Super Symmar,, and with a bag bellows

and a slight movement of axis tilt you can use wider lenses. My 72mm

Super Angulon works well on the Pocket and on the "standard"

Technical field.

The 23 inch bellows allows the use of almost any longer 4x5 lens.

I find the cameras rigid, easy to set up and to use.

<p>

I use it for landscapes, interior architectural shots and portraits,

about 1/3 of my shots fall into each grouping.

bob

How soon we forget!

A mere 30 years ago many LF wedding photgraphers flourished. In

college I used a crown Graphic and later a Linhof II. Strobe,

negative color film, holders and/or grafmatics, and your are on your

way. As long as the rangefinder works, and you have a good strobe--

metz potato masher style-- and fast neg film, you can do okay.

You need to have a clear idea of what style of images you want to

create, and as in any weding you need understanding bride/groom and

clergy.

I would shoot as I would any wedding where I used a slighty slow

medium format( which IMHO is all medium formats).

Bob

I have used Tri-X for ten years plus in a variety of lighting

conditions. It has a feel and look that IMHO Tmax 400 and 100 cannot

duplicate. I don't demean those films; my second favorite film is

Tmax 100, again for its feel.

Processing: I use Tmax RS A+B diluted 1:9 in a Jobo for 6 min N, or I

use FG-7, and I use dilution, not time, to achieve N-2 to N+2.

IMHO FG-7 is a developer that requires more attention than it gets.

Bob

Not the cheapest solution but one that works. I use a Jobo 2500 drum

and the insert kit for 4x5 negs. I use the tank on a Uniroller. I can

do a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 12 negs. I use for the latter

TmaxRS A+B as my stock. That I dilute 1:9. I use a total of 900ml

water + decveloper. I prewet the film for 5 minutes at correct temp

and then [proceed. The negas are developed evenly. Note: I only do

B/W. Ihave compared this method to using a Jobo processor and

according to prints I've made, and neg density I have measured, I

find no significant differences.

Bob

Help! I need to buy an MC Quick Change Universal Disk for a Copal # 1 shutter. A few years ago MC made a rather neat metal lensbaord system that allowed you to install a board on any LF camera you owned and a bayoneting lensboard on lenses. So you could use all lenses on all lf cameras instantly.

I bought some and like them. Alas the company no longer manufactures the system. I need the lensboard( disc) for a Copal #1. If anyone has one of the discs and wants to sell it I would be interested. Bob Moulton

Hi,

Like many others who have posted, I would dump the developer. I am

not certain, but I was always led to believe that the Tmax RS A+B +

adequate water for 1 1:9 dilution was a one-shot solution. So while

it may be possible that I am juust wrong, it is also possible that

you could compromise future film runs by reusing the diluted

developer.

As far as fix is concerned, I use mine over and over; I do keep notes

as to the amount of ilms processed, and I use Edwal Hypo Check--

actually Anshell's formula from The Darkroom Cookbook, to test the

fixer. As to sop bath, I use plain water. I have never seen the need

to use an "official" stop bath.

Bob

I am considering buying a Canham DLC and would value the experience of those photographers who use it. My lenses include a 72mm Super Angulon, soon, according to Jeff at Badger, a 110 mm Schneider Super Symmar, a 135mm Nikkor, a 300mm Nikkor M and a 450 mm Fuji. I am not certain whether the DLC will handle easily or at all the short and the long lenses.

I have read several reviews of the DLC in the links provided here and in some published articles also. While informative, they spent a good deal of space discussing Canham's lensboards and the apparent problems (to some) about not being able to use a Linhof style lensboard on the DLC. The result was less information about the pros and cons of the camera itself.And of course the reviewer probably lacked the time to explore the camera for a lengthy period of time.

Presently I use a Wisner Tech Field and the newer Pocket Expedition. The PE has nice features, but I must confess for me its learning curve for field use, especially with the 72mm, is a bit high.

Anyways, I would appreciate any insights.

Bob

Wayne,

<p>

Try a product called Brilliantize. Light Impressions and other market

it to clean plexiglass and glass. It cleans holders well, and reduces

static electricity. John Sexton recommended it at a Canyon de Chelly

workshop. It works well.

bob

The Howard Bond article referenced above provides you with some added

data on figuring exposure in these circumstances. But you will also

need to alter development. Sexton's TMX EI at 40, plus his use of

TMax RS 1:15 in the slosher or in a Combi tank--some developing tank

where you can control agitation, should provide you with excellent

negs.

Bob

The lenses you mention should work for 5x7. As a rule, take the

minimum coverage and apply a factor od +25 % to it for some coverage

room. A 135 mm lens like the nikkor will cover 5x7 with ample

movement and avoid the problems of center filters etc. you might

experience with a shorter lens like the 120mm. And you may find it a

small but useful lens for landscapes and some architecture.

As to the format, many find a 5x7 contact somewhat small and yearn

for the 8x10. You must determine that for yourself of course. If you

want to enlarge, however, the 5x7 provides 35 sq.in and the 4x5 a

mere 20 sq. in.. You sacrifice little in the weight of cameras or

lenses and you gain a lot.

Bob

I am interested in altering an Omega D-5 from 4x5 to 5x7 or 8x10. Has anyone some experience or opinions about the best way to go? I assume I can attach an Aristo cold light tube somehow, and maybe one of the VC heads, but I don't have any particulars on which approach would be better. Ditto for the attachment process itself. Does any firm sell remodeling/connection kits?

In advance, thanks.

Bob

David,

<p>

I have used a headless tripod for some time and did not find the

adjustments grueling. I use a Reis tripod and found that by adjusting

the length of the back legs I could level the camera rather quickly.

Eventually I bought the simpler Reis head for tilt and found that

helped some. My sole suggestion would be to add a quick on/off tripod

release--I use the Linhof to speed up that action.

Ron Wisnder suggested it to me years ago. Since I got the Reis a200

for next to nothing, I thought it worth a try before searching out

heads. It works.

Bob

Like the others, I envy you!. One note abouty readyloads based on sad

experience. I have had bad batches of readyl film, mostly TMax 100

and an occasional bad readyload holder. Currently, I open and test

shoot one readyload from each box of film I buy, and I have at least

two readyload holders with me on treks. I had problems with two boxes

of readyloads within the last year, in two different holders. Note; I

have been using readyloads since they came out and am reasonably

certain the film, not the camera, bellows or me was the culprit in

most cases. So I would run a random test on the film. Good luck.

bob

I don't think you will notice a significant difference in quality

among any contemmporary lenses. They are all very good.

For what it is worth, I use a 72mm Schneider XL Super Angulon. I

found the 90mm too constricting. The 72mm covers a 5x7 format witha

lot of movemoents. I use Wisner Tech field cameras, not know for

being Wide Angle friendly, and with a WA bellows have had no problems

with it. I find the lens sharp, forgiving and relativel easy to use.

Downside--Filters are expensive, if you need them, and the lens is

not small, despite the tiny shutter it is housed in. But it is very

useful.

<p>

Note: I shoot traditional architecture, as well as grain elevators,

interiors of churches, old and new, in color and B/w. Despite the

drawbacks, I love the lens.

Bob

Mark,

<p>

I bought a 72mmXL because my 90mm superangulon would not allow me to

get the images I wanted in too many cases. I shoot architecture and

am working on a portfolio featuring disappearing agricultural sites--

grain elevators exteriors and interiors.

The lens will cover a 5x7 fully with lots of movements possible. So

on my 4x5 I have yet to have a coverage problem. I find the 72mm very

handy.The only drawback is filtration. Any front mounted filter is

very expensive, and thus far I cannot find a secrure way to attach

filters to the rear of the lens. It is unthreaded at the rear, and

the WA bellows for my Wisners tapers too much to allow the use of

some of the more popular rear mount kits.

<p>

Moving the tripod may work at times, but in my experience there were

occasions where such movement yielded an unacceptable image.

hope this helps.

Bob

Calumet Photographic sells rather inexpensive sets of pinholes that

you may be able to adapt easily to your 8x10. That is less fun than

making your own, but...

Bob

Open the large TMax RS bottle--that is the A solution. Then open the

small pouch that came with the bottle. That is the B solution. Pour

the B solution into the A solution. Replace cap on the mixed

solutions and shake the bottle a bit.

<p>

Now dilute this working concentrate 1:9.

<p>

All these steps can be carried out in normal light. Only the

development process needs to be done in the dark.

Incidentally, the darkroom store sells BTZS developing tubes. Unless

you plan on having to process huge numbers of 8x10 film after a

shoot/trip/workshop, etc. you might look into those at some point. I

use them for 4x5 and they are efficient, and the bonus, you don't

have to spend 16-25 minutes in the dark processing film.

Bob

Either landscapes or close-ups make good starting points. Close-ups

may cause you to factor in bellows extension into your exposure; for

simplicity and for ease of getting to know your equipment try a

landscape. Direct or diffuse lighting should not make much of a

difference.

When you put camera on tripod and open it up place all controls at

the zero position. Nothing tilted, swung or shifted. Then compose;

move tripod some as needed. Then use focus and think as you study

the ground glass about the possible movements you might have to make

to get what you want or to improve what you see.

Move one at a time. Rise, then Shift, etc. Study the groundglass each

time to see the effect. If the focus goes south as you tilt or swing

then play with the focus as you tilt/swing to see what happens. After

using those movements stop the aperture down to see how that improves

sharpness. For openers make the changes dramatic so you can easily

spot them. Later on you will find that a little movement goes a long

way.

If you can, focus, meter and polaroid each step in your process. Try

Type 54 film--or whatever it is now labeled. Mark each shot on the

back to define the movement you made.

This can be a slow process but at the end you will have a group of

images that you can study.

Steve Simmons View Camera text provides lots of examples of using the

movements that you could emulate or adapt. He uses alpha blocks and

practices movements with them.

Hope this helps.

BobM

I own the same camera and use a Fuji 450mm on it with good success. I

might email Ron Wisner to see his take on using the Nikkor 500T and

all the lenses in that line on the Pocket Expedition. I am not

certain that the camera will sustain the weight of that lens.

Incidentally, the T lenses do not have the coverage that other long

lenses will give you. As I understand it, you trade off coverage for

short bellows extension.

Bob

Calumet Potographic sells a sheet film washer-I believe it is under

their name. When I bought mine it was labeled Gravity Works. It holds

12 4x5 sheets and uses a fill, siphon, fill routine. Water usage is

efficient; films are washed well in 5 minutes.

I use a Gravity Works archival washer for images up to 16 x 20

inches. After some research and good luck in being able to see other

units in action I decided the Gravity Works was pretty good. I can do

20-24 11x14 in about 45 miutes at 1/2-1 gallon per minute.

Granted speed is not the goal here; efficient use of water to create

a fully washed print is. I have tested the prints and they are clean.

I use the Arkay units in the beginning photo art classes I teach and

find them just barely ok. If any volume of prints is in the arkay and

if the unit speed isn't adjusted just so, the results may be dirty

and/or dinged from collision with other prints.

Sidebar: I think that most of the archival washers using single slots

for 1 or 2 prints would do the job for you. The differences touted in

ads seem to me to be somewhat silly.

Bob

John

You might consider using the Jobo drum system on your Uniroller base.

Either the 2500 series, which allows developing up to 12 sheets, or

the expert series-the 3010-that allows up to 10 sheets processed

simultaneously. These avoid some of the problems you mention. As for

amount, I use 900ml of chemistry in the 2500 and in the 3010 series.

With d-76, that's 450 ml developer. You can use less if you are not

processing the drum full.

Bob Moulton

Hello Yaakov,

<p>

I switched from the Combi to the Jobo system and have no regrets. For

b/w you do not need to purchase a jobo processor, assuming that the

temperature in your darkroom can be kept constant and moderate. I use

either the Jobo 3010 drum-10 sheets 4x5 or the jobo 2500 series drum

with two of the 2509n reel sets. These I place on a Unicolor

Uniroller. After running tets I determined my E.I for the B/w films

that I use. I have also used a jobo processor to check out my hybrid

system and was pleased to note no differences between the negs. All

are well developed, no surging, streaks, etc.

I would be careful about the amount of developer. Check with Jobo on

dilutions of developer and quantities needed. I use either FG7 or

TmaxRS and use at most 900 ml for a full load-10(3010) or 12 (2500).

The 2500 series gets rapped for problems but I have yet to encounter

any. It does take a bit longer to load.

Good luck.

Bob