tom_johnston4

<p>This is a response to an old post by Andrea. She writes:<br>

" I'm not claiming that large format magically changes the rules of perspective, but as far as achieving a particular result the way the format works is not the same as for 35mm or medium format; the equipment works for us in a different manner.<br>

With all due respect, that statement is completely wrong and illustrates the confusion there is about perspective. The format or equipment used has absolutely no effect on perspective. Perspective is controlled by only one single thing no matter what lens or format is being used : the distance from the lens to the subject. Lens focal length does no affect perspective as many believe. Format has nothing to do with at all either. Only subject distance affects perspective. In fact, the perspective you get with any lens is exactly what you will see with your own eyes without a lens at all. Again, it's the distance to the subject and nothing else. Focal length merely affects what included in the image, i.e., cropping.<br>

I would suggest that anyone who doesn't believe this simply get a copy of Ansel Adams' The Camera. He demonstrates this fact clearly with examples. I am always suprised to see that even some professional photographers don't understand this fundamental and crucial fact.</p>

<p>I meant to say, "Hi, Ian". :-)</p>

<p>Hi Ken,<br>

Do you think you could provide a link to the cubes. I can find the individual chemicals but I haven't had any luck finding the cube kits you mention.<br>

<br />Best,<br>

Tom</p>

<p>I know that the discontinuation of the 5L kit has caused me a real dilemma for me. It's appararent that it is has been a problem for many other photographers as well. I suggest that everyone reading this write to Kodak and urge them to bring the kit back. I have seen demand cause a product to be brought back before. Also, Kodak still produces E6 chemistry so it's really more of a packaging issue.</p>

<p>I just came across this old thread. I love this comment by Alec:<br>

"Actually I think I don't really care what people think of me as long as they have something interesting to say!"<br>

What a classless thing to say! In other words, you don't care how you treat other people but you want them to be of assistance to you anyway. Wow! <br>

Your response to the initial replies to your question was completely uncalled for and your subsequent remark (above) revealed that you really are immature and obnoxious. You come across as a spoiled, self-centered little baby. Also, your description of your problem was incomplete a poorly worded and anyone reading it would have questions. It seems as if you actually wanted to receive the responses that you got so you could have a hissy fit. You came to this forum asking for help and then you insulted the people who took their time to help you but asked logical questions to determine what you were trying to do. You don't care what anyone thinks of you (based on your rude behavior) and yet you still expect them to help you! Talk about bizarre!<br>

Anyone who could offer helpful advice needed to know what you were trying to achieve but you left that information out.<br>

I would suggest that you simply don't engage in forum discussions in the future based on your comment (above). People are here to help and they spent their time trying to help you with your very unusual problem and you insult them? What a spoiled brat! You have some growing up to do, son.</p>

<p>I have no idea whatsoever where Kelly got the idea for her rant (above) about batch manufacturing. I see absolutely nothing in this thread or any other to trigger such a lecture. In fact, any child intuitively understands the economies of scale and the fundamentals of the production process. The only thing I can think of to explain Kelly's rant is that she (or he) just learned these things herself in an economics class and was looking for someone to lecture. Very bizarre! It's also an insult to everyone on photo.net because she addressed us all as if we were morons. Very condescending and insulting!</p>

<p>I know this thread is old but I will add my two-cents worth for the benefit of someone who may be interested in the future. I have owned and/or used just about every tripod made including carbon fiber Gitzos. But once I switched to Ries (not Reis as spelled in an earlier post) I never looked back. They are the finest tripods I have ever used and I simply got rid of my Gitzos, Bogen/Manfrotto, etc., tripods. I have a J-series for 4x5" and an A-series for 8x10" and I use Ries double tilt heads on both of them. I have a lot of photography equipment but I would have to say that my Ries tripods are my most treasured tools. Not only are they the best, IMO, but they are beautifully made and last forever. </p>

<p>Thanks Mark! I was thinking the same thing about warming the leatherette and then I found a couple websites that deal with the subject and, like you, they recommended that you warm it up too. You also make a good point about the recess making it easier to line up. Thanks again. Tom</p>

<p>Mark: Thanks! I've received a lot of great tips here. Durabond is one of the adhesives that were recommended on other sites that cover this subject. I just hope I can get the leatherette off without damaging it. I'm definitely don't obsess about how my equipment looks but I still don't want to screw up the leatherette, if possible. It's in a recess which looks like it may make it a little difficult to lift an edge without damaging it. Being someone who fixes everything and who has a very well-equipped shop, I have no problem at all changing the batteries myself. The only reason I might have someone else do the job is that they may do a better job removing and replacing the leatherette. The good thing is that I picked up a Battery Pack FN (AA) a while back so I will still have that no matter what.</p>

<p>Mark:<br>

<br />Thanks much! That might be the way to go. I'm still a little hesitant to remove the leatherette but I did find some info on how to do it. The place that goofed up the job last time put the leatherette back on so nicely that it's impossible to see that it was ever pealed back. Then again, maybe they never took it apart at all. It never worked right when I got it back.</p>

<p>That makes sense. I have everything I need to do the job except the batteries. The only other thing I was wondering about is the glue used to hold the leatherette on. When something is contact cemented, it isn't meant to be removed in the future. I wonder if rubber glue is the ticket. I was also wondering if warming up the leatherette with a hair dryer set on low would aid in peeling it back. </p>

<p>Ben --- You answered a question that I was wondering about. That is, what batteries the standard NiCd pack had. I knew the HP pack used AA sized cells and its dimensions are the same as the AA pack. But the standard NiCd pack has slightly smaller dimensions so I assumed that it used smaller batteries. Besides, if they both used the same sized batteries, there would be no real reason to even make the standard pack. Thanks! BTW, Ben, could you take a look at the info about spot-welding the batteries together in this thread and comment on that?<br>

Tony--- Thanks for the info. But isn't there a way to hook up the batteries without spot-welding them? I thought there were clips that you use to connect them but I wasn't sure if the clips are soldered together or not. The reason that I think there is another way of doing it besides spot-welding is that I know that people have re-celled their packs themself even though they wouldn't have the equipment to weld them. </p>

<p>Thanks, Tony. I never heard of spot welding batteries together and it seems like the heat could damge the batteries but I guess they had a way to do it safely. Thanks for the link for batteries! </p>

<p>Ben... Thank you very much! You have been very helpful and gave me exactly the information I was looking for. I appreciate it!<br>

Tom</p>

<p>Kerkko: Thanks! I probably won't be sending it out to Helsinki :-) but I have heard that Battery's Plus can do it in the States. They have locations all over the country. However, I would like to try it myself. I am one of those hopeless people who simply likes to fix things themself. Also, as I mentioned in my initial post, International Camera in Chicago goofed up the job when they did it. In fact, the pack won't take any charge at all now. I tried yesterday. After hours of charging, it is totally dead. Also, I noticed that when I press on parts of the pack when it is (supposedly) charging, the charging light goes on and off indicating a short in pack. But even when the light is on, it doesn't charge. It doesn't even warm up. So I would like to give it a try myself this time.</p>

<p>I would like to replace the batteries in my High Power NiCd Battery pack FN but I'm not sure how to start. I have a parts drawing. It looks like I may have to peel back the leatherette on the back/left of the battery pack to access a screw that may release battery assembly and cover (somewhat like removing the battery pack from the Battery Pack FN (AA except there is no latch) but I'm not sure if that's the case. Or I might have to remove the base rubber. I have searched the Internet all day for info with no success but I know there are a couple photo.net members who have experience replacing the batteries in this pack.<br>

I did pick up a Battery Pack FN (AA) a while back so I can always use that but I still would like to fix the High Power NiCd battery pack. I took it to International Camera some years ago when the batteries would no longer take a charge but when I got it back it appeared that they somehow goofed up. It never took much of a charge and the red light on the charger never went out as it should when a certain voltage is reached. <br>

Being a tinkerer who fixes just about everything, I would like to do the job myself and I will probably use NiMH batteries as I am told that the charger will work with them.<br>

Anyway, if anyone has replaced the batteries in the High Power NiCd pack, I would greatly appreciate it if they could tell me the correct way to open the pack up.</p>

<p>I have a related question. I have a New F1 that I bought new in 1981 but, being almost exclusively, a large format photographer, I rarely use it or my wonderful T90 these days. But every once in a while, I feel like shooting hand-held for a refreshing change of pace. <br>

I have a MD and a Hi-Powered NiCd Battery Pack FN but the pack became weak about ten years ago so I took it to International Camera in Chicago to have it re-celled. They also did a CLA and checked everything out at the same time. Unfortunately, I think they used the wrong batteries or did something wrong because the re-celled pack was weak and the charger light would never go off as it should when the pack has reached a certain level of charge. I picked up a Battery Pack FN (AA) at about that time so I would have it in case I could not get my NiCd pack re-celled in the future but I would still like to get my NiCd re-celled properly. I learned last week that Batteries Plus should be able to re-cell my pack but I want to make sure it is done right this time. I suspect that International Camera used the wrong batteries in my pack - perhaps the ones used in the weaker NiCd Battery Pack FN and, if that is the case, I don't want Batteries Plus to take them out and reinstall the same type. I want the proper batteries this time. <br>

Does anyone know what the specs are for the batteries used in the Hi-Power NiCd Pack are? I would like to be able to give that information to Batteries Plus.</p><div></div>

<p>I realize this thread is old but I just came across it and I hope someone who can help me sees my post. I have had a New Canon F1 for many years but, being almost exclusively a large format photographer, I rarely shoot it. However, every once in a while, it's fun to get out my F1-N and T90 and do some hand-held photography. I have the Hi-powered NiCd Battery Pack FN and motordrive. About ten years ago, the battery was very weak and wouldn't take a full charge so I took it to International Camera in Chicago and had it re-celled. Unfortunately, I think they goofed because it never had much power after that and the camera would only fire at about 2-3 frames per second and the charger light would never go off as it should when the battery pack is fully charged. I didn't want to bother with it until recently but I am happy to have learned that, supposedly, Batteries Plus can re-cell it. A few years ago, I also picked up the Battery Pack FN (insert your own AA batteries) just in case I couldn't get the hi-power pack re-celled.<br>

Anyway, here is my question: Since International Camera may have put the wrong batteries in my Hi-Powered NiCd pack, does anyone have the specs on the batteries that should be used? I would like to be able to tell Batteries Plus what batteries it needs. I suspect that if they remove the batteries that International Camera installed and simply put the same ones in the pack, I will be right back where I started from. Apparently the batteries used in the Hi-Power NiCd pack are more powerful than the regular NiCd battery pack for the camera. I have the manual for the camera and the hi-powered NiCd battery pack but I can't find info about what specific batteries are used.</p>

<p>I couldn't edit my previous post so I want to add this: When someone recommended using a 35mm close-up lens, I assumed they were talking about a macro lens because they specified 35mm. But if they are talking about supplementary close-up lenses (diopters) this is something you can experiment with but you will lose some sharpness. They must have meant a diopter because they mentioned taping it to the lens - which you don't have to do - you can get them with the proper threads for your taking lens. They have nothing to do with the format being used. But to increase the effective focal length of the lens, you would need to use negative diopters. Good luck finding them! :-) The normal "plus" diopters would effectively shorten your focal length which is exactly what you do NOT want for your purposes. Remember perspective is only a function of the distance from the camera to the subject. A "plus" close-up diopter would force you to get even closer to the subject, distorting the subjects features even more.</p>

<p>Attached is a 3/4 length portrait done with a 14" Commercial Ektar on an 8x10" camera. Look at how small my face is. This was shot from about 6 or 7 feet. You can see that a much longer lens was needed if a head & shoulders portrait with good perpective was the goal. This lens covers way too much of the subject at proper shooting distances for head & shoulder portraits. Now, imagine how small my face would be if I had used some of the shorter lenses recommended in this thread.</p><div></div>

<p>I stumbled across this old thread and thought I would add my own thoughts for the benefit of anyone who may be interested in the topic in the future.<br>

Some of the responses here indicate that the person making them do not fully understand the 8x10" format and may very well have never actually used the format<br>

Andrea claimed that one of the nice things about 8x10" is that you don't need long lenses to achieve proper perspective. That's not true. No matter what format you use, you should be about 6 feet or more from the subject to avoid having noses appear bulbous, etc. That has nothing to do with the format. Of course, you can shoot the picture with a relatively short lens in 8x10" from the proper distance but the subject's face will be small on the film. You might as well shoot with a smaller format. A 12" or even a 14" lens on 8x10 is about right for full-length portraits but they are too short for head & shoulder shots. Scott recommends a 14" Commercial Ektar. I have such a lens and, in fact, my member portrait was done with such lens. It's nearly a full-length shot. The lens is too short for head & shoulder shots on 8x10" unless you want distorted perspective.<br>

Ole says that you need shorter lenses on 8x10" due to the lens extension. That's incorrect too. If you are shooting head & shoulder portraits in 8x10" you have to use the right focal length lens and that means you have to have enough bellows extension. Most 8x10" cameras have ample extension for the lenses you need for portraits. After all, they wouldn't be of much use if they didn't. The larger the camera, the more extension it has to have. My old 8x10" camera, which is nothing special, can handle lenses for h&s portraits with no problem and so will most cameras.<br>

Steve recommended that you use a 35mm close-up lens. I don't know if he was kidding or not but no MM lens will cover 8x10 film. You would end up with a tiny circular exposure in the middle of the film. You might as well use it on a 35mm camera! Further, you don't want to shoot h&s portraits from close-up anyway. If you took Steve's advice, you would end up with a huge bulbous nose on a tiny exposure in the film. The rest of the film would be wasted and even the image that was there would be ridiculous. I hope Steve was just kidding. If not, that's one of the problems of forums like this... people advising others about things they don't know about.<br>

When you get to focal lengths like the 17"" lens used to make the picture in the thread, you are getting in the ball park but even longer lenses would be better.<br>

35mm film does not have the same aspect ratio of 8x10" film, of course, so a direct comparison is not precise. However, traditionally, part of the 35mm frame was cropped to make prints that were in the aspect ratio of 8x10" film. If, say, you like the perspective of an 85mm lens in 35mm then you can multiply that by 6 to get the approximate equivalent in 8x10". That would be about 500mm. Personally, I like a longer focal length for 35mm h&s portraits... more like 100mm. That would mean that about a MM lens in 8x10 would produce about the same perspective (shot from the same distance to cover the same subject.) <br>

Someone also asked if an 10" Commercial Ektar would have enough coverage for portraits. I think the lens does cover 8x10" film but I don't have one and don't know that for sure so I would have to look it up. However, coverage isn't the important issue here. It's perspective. 10" is too short for h&s portraits unless you don't mind wasting most of the film or terrible perspective. IMO, 10" is even too short for X" portraits. I prefer a 300 or even a 360mm lens for portraits in 4x5".<br>

Lastly, I'm not sure why you want a very fast lens. Of course, they produce a brighter image on the ground glass for focusing and focusing is also easier with a fast lens because of the limited depth-of-field but the size, weight, and cost of the lens goes WAY up with fast lenses. Of course, if you want very limited doff, that is a consideration but you will be fairly close to the subject and dof will be short anyway. You should be able to limit it with a "normal" speed lens and you definitely don't need a fast lens to freeze subject movement because you are shooting with strobes. <br>

The point I making is that perspective is paramount. Everything else should be secondary to it. For pleasing perspective, your camera should be at least about 6 feet from the subject. Then you simply choose a lens that "crops" the image to cover what you want in the picture. If you use a relatively short lens with an 8x10" camera at the proper distance from your subject, you would be better off simply shooting the picture in a smaller format because the image size will be the same no matter what format you use if you are using the same lens. </p>

 

<p>I realize that this thread is old but I will relate my experiences with this film/developer combination for anyone interested. I have been using TMX since it was first introduced and it is still my film of choice for most large format photography. (I prefer TRI-X or HP5+ for small format.) When the film first came out, TMAX developer was not available so I tried several developers and settled on HC110-B as being the best of those that I tried. I believe John Sexton used HC110 too when the film first came out but I believe he later switched to D76. When TMAX developer came out, I tested it. It produced a full speed of 100 unlike HC110-B which has always produced a E.I. of 64-80 for me with both the new and old versions of the film and in all formats, but I found that I preferred HC110. Since that time, it has been found that TMAX developer is NOT the best developer for TMAX100 film, despite the name, but TMAX-RS is better. <br>

The new and the old versions of the film require very different development times, depending on the developer used. Also, TMAX negatives do appear to be "thinner" than traditional films. However, as long as you have ample shadow detail, don't worry about that. In fact, the very best negatives I have made - as far as how they print in the darkroom - have looked very thin. <br>

Now, here's something that anyone reading this may find hard to believe: TMAX100 has always had a reputation for being very touchy (sensitive to time/temp/agitation variations). However, it is extremely NON-responsive in HC110! I tested the combination extensively in both roll film formats and sheet film when it first came out and I actually found it to be so tame that it was almost hard to achieve N+1 development in HC110-B. N+1 times were almost TWICE that of N development! Forget N+2. For expanded development, I have to use different developers or increase the concentration of HC110. I have found TRI-X developed in HC110-B to be MUCH more responsive (touchy). <br>

When the new version of the film came out, I had to re-do all my testing. I'm glad I did because, as I said, development times were very different than they were for the old version of the film. (The same for TRI-X). But I found the film to still be very UN-responsive to changes in development time in HC110. But it is easier to achieve N+ development with the new film simply because the normal development time is shorter. <br>

This may all sound strange to someone who has heard how touchy TMAX100 is but, years ago, I talked to a Kodak chemist and he confirmed that my results are exactly what is to be expected with TMAX100 and HC110. I forget why he said that was the case. Since then, I read at least one thread where other photographers reported experiencing the same thing.<br>

I get excellent results with this film/developer combination and it remains my standard choice for large format work.<br>

Try rating it at E.I. 64 when you develop in HC110-B and don't worry about the "thin" look. As I said, my best printing TMAX100 negatives appear very thin on the light table. Remember, what looks good on a light table is not necessarily what will print best in the darkroom.<br>

I'll attach a photograph I made when TMAX100 first came out. It was developed in HC110-B and it appears very thin. Of course, the image here is a low-resolution scan so it doesn't show the real qualities of the negative.</p><div></div>

<p>Tom,<br>

Actually, Ansel does recommend 20 additional seconds of development after a presoak in The Negative - at least for sheet film and I see no reason why the same logic wouldn't apply to roll film in tanks or any other method of processing since the goal is the same. See page 211 about half way down the page.<br>

When I have not tested a film and am just going by the chart, I use this procedure because it makes sense for the reason Ansel mentions. However, when I test films, I start the timer as soon as the film goes into the developer (or developer onto film) and my results then take everything into account. In other words, I see no reason to make a separate step out of it. The test takes all variables into account and compensates for the effect Ansel describes.<br>

Best</p>

<p>BTW, you can see what a T90 is capable of at my website. With the exception of my large format stuff, most of the rest was done with a T90 although some of it was done with an F1-N. </p>

<p><a href="http://tjohnstonphoto.com/">http://tjohnstonphoto.com/</a></p>

<p>One of the few criticisms of the T90 was that it didn't have a mirror lock-up. Actually the camera can be modified to have that feature. You can find instructions for how to do that if you do an Internet search. However, I never found the lack of a mirror lock-up to be a problem with the T90 and I did some extreme macro with it... actually in the realm of photomicrography with magnifcations of 20X or more. I don't have examples of those extreme magnfications on my website but I do have some that are about 1:1 in my "Nature" portfolio.</p>

<p>As for weight: I never thought of the T90 as being heavy. But I like heavy cameras and my F1N with a motordrive and high-power NiCD battery pack made the T90 seem to be feather light. Then again, I'm used to lugging 4x5" and 8x10" equipment around so any 35mm camera seems super-light to me. I think weight is good because it adds stability to the camera. In fact, that may be why I never had a problem with macro work without mirror lock-up.</p>

<p>Just a comment: I have had a T90 since the late 80s and it still works perfectly. I only had one problem with it the first year I had it and it was covered under warranty. Being primarily a large format photographer, I haven't invested in digital except for my wife's little compact digital camera. To this day, I am still amazed by the incredibly intelligent design of the T90. Its great ergonomics set a standard that is still seen today. It's controls and functions are incredible. It's metering system, including multi-point spot metering is great. And when used with a 300TL flash, it could do things that many new cameras probably can't do although I'm not up on the latest equipment. However, my daughter just bought a mid-level Canon digital (12 MP, if I remember correctly) and my T90 has features that her camera doesn't have.<br>

I hadn't shot 35mm for a year or so but I got my T90 out a week ago and I am having a ball again! It is a wonderful and amazing piece of equipment and I like it as much now as I did the very first day that I owned it. In my opinion, it is one of the finest cameras ever made. I have always loved great design and the T90 is an example of a high point of design. Canon was so proud of the T90 that they published a special book about it. <br>

The modifications that you mention (PC socket and leaving the leader out) may have been done by Canon. When I had the repair done that I mentioned above, I asked Canon if they would also add a PC socket. They said, "Sure! No charge." Their policy was that if the camera was in for warrant repair, they would do all the work for a single set price and they would also do the mentioned modifications for free while it was in the shop. I'm so glad that I asked them about those modifications and I was delighted when they told me there would be no charge. </p>