tom_johnston4

I realize this thread is old but I want to describe my experiences with Ron Wisner for the benefit of those who may find this while doing research before buying a camera.

I ordered a Wisner 4x5" Technical Field camera field camera from B&H. I was leaving on a five week photographic trip and B&H absolutely promised me that I would have the camera before I left. Based on that promise, I sold my other 4x5" camera. The day came to leave on the trip and the camera hadn't arrived. B&H had, despite their assurances, accidentally sold the camera they reserved for me to another customer. Of course, that is not Ron's fault but what happened after that is.

B&H felt very bad for their mistake and because I was a good and long-time customer, they offered to give me a discount on the camera to make up for their mistake and also to keep me from buying it elsewhere. That was between B&H and me. When Ron found out about that arrangement, he told me that he would not allow B&H to give me a discount!!!!???? He said that if I got a discount, everyone would want a discount. (As if everyone would have experienced the same screw-up that I did.) Then Ron tried to talk me into canceling my discounted order from B&H and ordering it at full price from him. It gets even more bizarre! I refused to buy it from Ron when I was going to get a discount from B&H and Ron did not like that at all. The deal I made with B&H was absolutely none of Ron's business. It was between B&H and myself and the discount came out of B&H's profit margin. It cost Ron nothing. Well, he didn't like the fact that I wouldn't play along with him so he held up the order to B&H. After numerous calls, B&H finally managed to get my camera from Wisner. It was sent to them by Wisner specifically for me and it was then sent to me. The camera was loaded with defects! It's as if it was some kind of mock-up or prototype. Here is a list of just some of the defects it had: 1) There was a huge gouge of wood out of one of base cross-pieces. It happened after the finish was put on, obviously, because the finish was gouged off too. 2) The front standards had never received the shellac coating and they immediately turned black. 3) The levels were off by at least 10 or 15 degrees! It's as if a blind person just epoxied them in. They weren't even remotely close to being right. 4) The front centering dots were not on the standards. 5) The bag bellows were twisted in their frames. 6) The front latches were at wild angles revealing terrible and careless workmanship and one would not even latch. There were other defects too but I just can't remember them right now. All of these defects made an absolute mockery of Ron's claim that each camera receives a complete inspection. You didn't even have to inspect the camera to see the defects!

I contacted Ron and, to his credit, he offered to replace the camera. When I got the replacement, I found that two of three lens boards didn't fit at all. So much for his humidity control! I called Ron and he told me to sand them down myself. He never even offered to exchange them. Why should someone have to modify the lens boards that they buy from Wisner to make them work? I fixed them but not only did they have to be sanded on the sides but the step-up that fits the camera had to be carved.

Although my experiences with Wisner were lousy, the camera itself is nice. However, he greatly exaggerates his quality claims. Also there are several very easy changes that he could make to the camera that would make it better. Here are just a couple suggestions:

1) The tiny screws that hold the camera latches in place are prone to ripping out if the dark cloth slides across them. In fact, that has happened to me several times. That could be fixed by simply using a screw that accepts a nut and washer on the other side. Dark cloths do slide across the latches so they should be installed with that in mind.

2) The ground glass protector simply falls off the camera if you have a Fresnel installed. Ron should design it so it locks or latches in place. As it is, I have to use elastic bands to keep it from falling off. A simple latch mechanism would do it.

3) Despite Ron's claims that shellac finishes are the best for brass, that simply is not true. I have been a woodworker building museum quality period furniture for over 35 years and I know something about this. Believe it or not, Ron, advances have made in finishing technology over the last few hundred years. Shellac is beautiful for wood that is protected (often by a top finish of varnish), but it is very poor when it comes to moisture resistance. Your fingers have moisture in them. The brass on my camera started tarnishing soon after receiving the camera as anyone who knows about shellac would expect. A far better finish is common modern lacquer. I have brass hardware on furniture that I have built decades ago that I lacquered and it looks like it did the day I finished it. (One of these days I'm going to remove all the shellac on the brass of my camera and lacquer it properly.) Think about this: Lacquer is used on cars that have to withstand extreme weather, washings, etc. Shellac is not the finish for brass. Not in this century! If anyone doubts this, simply do a little internet research on the properties of shellac.

4) Other tiny screws on the camera should be backed by a brass nut and washer where possible. A tiny screw in wood that is about 1/4" thick with no nut and washer is asking for trouble. I find them loose and about to fall off regularly on my camera.

5) Get whoever it is that makes the bag bellows at Wisner to get some glasses. I know I am not the only one with twisted bellows because others have complained about this. However, the twist does not prevent the bellows from being used. It just looks bad and it indicates careless assembly.

6) The frames for the bellows are one application where modern materials should be used. High impact modern plastic would be much better. As it is, Ron's frames are made of four very thin and brittle pieces of wood glued together with lap joints in the corner. My bag bellows frames have simply fallen apart. The only way to avoid that would be to store them in a well-fitted protective box of some kind so if Ron insists on using lousy wooden frames for his application, he should at least supply a box to protect such a delicate arrangement. I am a traditionalist by nature but there are some things that should take advantage of modern materials. Ron could have infinitely stronger and almost indestructible one piece modern bellows frames made for his camera that would cost less than his delicate wooden ones. A photographer does not need to have his equipment fall apart in the field.

After all that, and in fairness to Ron, I do like the camera and I am satisfied with it but it does not live up to his quality claims.

Ron has a real problem with how he handles customers and his quality control.

I would like to hear any comments anyone may have regarding Nature

Photographer's Network. I stumbled across it today and posted a picture for

review. Then I started reading about their membership and what it entails.

For $39 per year, you can display your portfolio and, supposedly, buyers often

visit the site and contact the photographer to buy rights to images. Nature

Photographer's Forum takes no cut in any sales or so they claim. I am just

wondering if it is worth it. In the past, I have known of some scams that

promised similar things but, upon reading the info at the site, I don't see

the little tip-offs that would indicate a scam. As a matter of fact, they

have some very fine photographs posted and their critique sessions seem very

good. I did a little quick research on The Nature Photographer's Network and

I didn't find anything bad about it (yet) so I want to see if anyone here has

had experience with them.

Thanks

I found this thread very late while searching for something else but I still want to add something for anyone who may see it in the future.

The term "overexpose" is used incorrectly here when discussing using a lower E.I. rating for the film. When you purposely rate a film differently than the nominal rating listed on the box, you are not under or over-exposing film. You are exposing it correctly, based on your experience or testing with the film or films in general. You NEVER want to over-expose film EVER. Over-exposure, by definition, is incorrect exposure. Even if you gave the film much more exposure than normal for a special effect, you are still not over-exposing the film if you are increasing the film's exposure intentionally. Over or under-exposure is a term for an error or mistake in exposure, not an intentional increase or decrease in exposure. The misuse of those terms reflects a lack of understanding of the process and materials.

For example, if your tests or experience show that you are not getting enough shadow detail with HP5+ and you change your E.I. to 200, you are NOT over-exposing the film. You are exposing it properly. In fact, in this example, you would be under-exposing the film if you rated it at E.I. 400. Or to put it another way, people change the speed rating of their film to correct for over or under-exposure that they experience when they rate it at the published speed (on the box).

(In case you aren't familiar with the term "E.I." it stands for Exposure Index and it is merely the speed rating of a film as determined by experience or testing as differentiated from the nominal ISO rating listed on the box. For example, the ISO of Tmax100 is 100 but based on testing, I rate it at E.I. 64 like many users of that film. The terms should be used correctly to avoid confusion. I am NOT rating my Tmax100 at ISO 64. I am rating it at E.I. 64.

As a general rule, if I have not used or tested a traditional b&w film before, I cut it's speed in half or by about 2/3rds stop for T-Grain films. Later testing usually shows that that is just about right. Of course, that all depends on YOUR meter and HOW you meter a subject.

For HP5+, which is one of my preferred films for 35mm, I rate it at an E.I. of 200-400 for normal shooting. I often push this film to speeds up to E.I. 3200 when necessary.

You have nothing to be concerned about when rating HP5+ at E.I. 320. Just develop it for the normal time until you have refined your developing times. Remember, just as the published numbers for a film's speed are only general and often very rough guidelines, the development times listed are also just general guides. Only testing for film speed AND development time can show you what you should be rating the film at and how long you should develop it. If you have not done that testing, worrying about such fine points is pointless.

The only thing that matters is what results that YOU get. Everyone processes film differently. The quality of the water may vary. (I generally use distilled water for the development step to keep that variable constant in case I move or my water source changes.)

When you haven't tested a film, remember that it is better to risk erring on the over-exposure side than on the under-exposure side. If you really do under-expose, you will not have shadow detail in the film. If it isn't there, you can't get it back. But if you should accidentally over-expose the film, you will still have shadow detail but your highlights will block to some extent. But at least you have information to work with unless it blocks completely.

Meters and shutters in cameras also differ greatly. Most people are amazed when they learn of the huge differences between equipment.

Your testing can be done with a densitometer but that is not really necessary. You results are the best feedback of all. Make proper proofs (not corrected) of all your negatives. Inspect them carefully. They will tell you everything you need to know about your exposure and development. If you find you have to print most of your negatives using high contrast filters (for VC paper) or on high contrast graded papers, increase your film development time until you see a change. If you notice that you have to use low grade contrast filters usually, increase your film development time. Making a good proper-proof is perhaps the single most important thing you can do. Do NOT correct your negatives individually. If you do, you will be hiding exposure and development problems. Be consistent with all proofs. If you make them correctly and do not foolishly try to correct them, you will get constant feedback of your processing methods and it will steer you to near perfect technique. Just proof your negatives with your normal contrast filter (for VC) or on your "normal" grade of paper and expose it till the print just reaches maximum black where it was exposed under clear unexposed film (along the edges). I have a densitometer for testing but if I had to choose between proper proofs and a densitometer, I would choose proper proofs every time.

Lynn: Thank you very much. Your reply indicates that at least my thinking was correct about the adjustment. However, since I am only processing b&w these days and that is almost always at 68 degrees, I will open up the cold all the way and then gradually turn up the hot to get it in the ballpark. If I did it the other way, I would be restricting volume as you said. If I was processing color these days, I would do it as you suggest. My cold water is always cold enough and my hot water can get very hot.

Thank you very much for your response. It was very helpful.

I have an idea how they work but the Lawler valves - at least in their online manuals - are not the same design as mine. They work on the same principle, of course, but the parts and their arrangement are not the same so their online manuals aren't really any help.

The inlets are clearly adjustments and they are not to simply be opened. I think I can assume that they have to be adjusted to get the water within a certain range of the temperature set on the valve. If they were just opened, the thermostat would not be able to set the temperature properly because the incoming water would be too hot. I think I can figure that out (as above) but I was just trying to find the specific recommended procedure for doing so.

Thanks

Thanks guys.

Alexis: I contacted Leedahl but they never responded except to say that parts were still available for the unit. A follow-up contact did not produce a response.

Conrad: I actually found the information on your website when I first got the valve and, in fact, I think I have saved it for future reference. Unfortunately, it does not describe the valve that I have or how to adjust mine. They are different. I have had mine completely apart but, unfortunately, it is not as described in your article. I will re-read it, though, but I think I read it carefully twice. Also, Leedahl does not have manuals to download on their website. But thank you for your tip on adjusting the inlets until they are flush with the housing. I will use that as a starting point. I did notice, however, that they were not set that way when I received the valve which had just been taken out of service. Without further instructions, I think I will just set them so that the give me a temperature close to my usual 68 degrees when the temperature adjustment knob is about in it's middle position.

Maybe I'll get lucky and the Leedahl guy will see this. They have not responded to my emails to their location in Chicago.

Can anyone tell me how to adjust the hot and cold water inlet

adjustments on a Leedahl temperature control valve? Even better,

does anyone have a copy of the owner's manual for such a valve from

which they could scan those instructions. I purchased such a valve

used and I disassembled it to clean it up but I am not sure how to

adjust the cold and hot water inlet adjustments. A call to Leedahl

proved futile. I would appreciate any info you may have about how

those adjustments should be made. I can probably figure out how to

do it but I would like to know what the "official" procedure is for

doing that. Thanks.

I had a bad experience with Ron Wisner myself about five years ago. I won't go into it here in great detail but you can probably find what I had to say by doing a search for "Wisner camera review." But, briefly, what happened was that B&H had screwed up my order for a Wisner 4x5" Technical Field Camera and, after admitting that they had goofed, they wanted to make up for it by offering me a discount on the camera when they finally got it. That was strictly between B&H and me and had nothing to do with Wisner. B&H was simply giving up some of their profit margin to keep a loyal customer and that is their right. But Ron Wisner caught wind of it and contacted me and said that he would not allow B&H to give me a break! He said that was going to refuse to send the camera to B&H. He had some bizarre reason for this involving the idea that if other people found out that B&H was doing this for me, everyone would demand the same thing and he would no longer be able to control the selling price of his cameras. (Rone apparently does not believe in competitive market forces when it comes to his products!) After a long dialog with Wisner and B&H, Wisner finally sent me a camera directly although it took a very long time to do so. In my opinion, he sent me a piece of garbage on purpose. It had glaring defects that could never have possibly made it through even the most cursory of quality checks. For example, a huge hunk of wood was gouged out of one of the rails; the bubble levels were not even close to being zeroed properly (about 10 degrees off!); the front standards had not been lacquered and they turned black almost immediately; zero position indicators were missing, the catches that lock the camera closed were mounted on a ridiculous angle and wouldn't latch, etc., etc. When I contacted Wisner, he offered to fix the camera but there were so many defects that I told him that I wanted to exchange it. He did exchange the camera but it took a very long time for him to do so. What I received was built properly although the wood itself was not of the quality of the first camera I received. The camera now works fine although there are some very simple and basic changes that could be made to improve it that would involve almost no cost for labor or materials at all. For example, Wisner should put nuts on the tiny screws that hold the latches because they are easily torn out if the darkcloth brushes over them. I am, however, satisfied with the camera and I am glad that I have it but my experiences with Ron Wisner were not positive. At one point while talking to him, I almost felt like Rod Serling was going to step out of the shadows and tell me that I was now in the Twilight Zone. Ron said some very bizarre things to me that had me wondering about him.

That said, if you order a Wisner camera and if you get a good one, you should be very happy with it. It is a fine camera. Ron just needs to learn how to run his business and he needs to get control of his manufacturig process. I can say with all honesty, that if I could run that shop, I would have the quality problems fixed within one week.

I have acquired a used Leedal temperature control valve but I need

to know how to adjust it. I have taken it apart, cleaned it up, and

reassembled it but I am not sure how to adjust the cold and hot

inlet adjustments. Ideally, I would like to find a manual for this

valve but I have had no luck finding one. Leedal is still in

business and parts are still available but inquiries about a manual

or adjustment procedures have gone unanswered. Does anyone know

the proper procedure for adjusting this type of valve. There is no

model number on the exterior of the unit but when the cover is

removed, there is a plate and it says it is a model 7N1. Any

information about this valve and how to adjust it would be greatly

appreciated. Attached is a picture of the disassembled valve. The

picture only includes the main parts, though. Thanks.

I am having a problem with my Epson Perfection 2450 scanner.

Lately, when scanning 4x5" transparencies, it can't seem to tell

where the transparency is. It will either scan a small band of it

or it will think I have two slides instead of a single 4x5"

transparency, splitting it up into two scans. This problem is new

although I have had rare occasions where the scanner didn't pick up

part of a 35mm slide and I had to change the orientation of the

slide in the holder for it to get it right. I have reloaded all the

drivers but it's still not working. I am wondering if anyone else

has experienced this problem and, if so, how they were able to fix

it.

Thanks

I am having a strange light leak problem that has me stumped. It

happens with my 8x10" Ansco/Agfa camera which was completely rebuilt

before I bought it not long ago. The bellows are brand new and light-

proof.

There is no consistent pattern to the fogging. Approximately 1/2 of

the sheets that I shoot are badly fogged. The other half are

perfect. The camera is totally light proof which I have tested

repeatedly by removing the lens board and looking into the camera

while under a sealed dark cloth with inserted holders in both

vertical and horizontal position and with the slides in and out and

by checking from the back with back removed and operating the

shutter.

The fogging is different on each sheet which provides a clue but I

have not been able to figure out what is causing the problem.

Sometimes the entire sheet is fogged so badly that you cannot see the

exposed image. Sometimes the fogging comes from one corner and fans

out across part of the sheet and sometimes it comes from another

corner. Sometimes the edges are clear and sometimes they are

fogged. Sometimes part of the edges are clear while it is fogged in

other areas. I even had one sheet that was fogged all over with

the exception of a small relatively unfogged area several inches long

and a couple inches wide near the middle of the sheet!

The fact that sometimes the film is fogged on the edges would

indicate that something is happening when the film is not loaded but,

as I said, sometimes the edges are free of fog.

I have been shooting large format for over 30 years and my loading

and processing methods have never changed and I have never had a

problem like this. Consistency is my watchword. The film is loaded

and unloaded at the same time and under the same conditions. In the

field, I use a changing bag and, when on the road, I sometimes load

and unload film in a hotel bathroom with not only all lights off in

the bathroom, but with the hotel room dark and at night so there is

no possibility of leaks around the door. Besides, I have had this

problem when the film was loaded in my normal changing bag which I

also use to change all my 4x5" film which has never been fogged. I

load both 4x5" and 8x10" film in the same sessions and under the same

conditions.

After first experiencing this problem, and after checking the camera

carefully for light leaks, I suspected that the film holders may have

not been seated totally. I found that it is possible for them to be

seated incorrectly with this camera if care was not exercised but it

is easy to see if they are inserted correctly once you are aware of

this. In fact, I was confident that this was the problem. So the next

time out, I very carefully and consciously checked to make sure they

were seated properly. I thought for sure that the problem was

solved and was very surprised to see fogging again. Just out of

curiosity, I checked the camera with the lensboard removed and a

holder inserted improperly but there were still no light leaks unless

it was the holder was grossly unseated.

My processing is the same as it has always been too although I

recently switched from tray to line-tank processing for sheet film

when processing large amounts of film. However, before I switched, I

had the same erratic fogging with 8x10 processed in trays while all

4x5" film was fine. In addition, about half the 8x10" sheets that I

load and process together (in the same batch) are fogged while the

other half is fine. For example, last week I processed 51 sheets of

4x5" film that all came out fine as usual and then, in the same

session, I processed 4 8x10 sheets in the same tanks with the same

chemistry (replenished between batches). The four sheets were

processed side-by-side in holders which where in a rack for lowering

into the chemistry. Two sheets were perfect and two sheets were

badly fogged. By badly, I mean that one was so bad that you could

not see the image at all except for a small area in the middle of the

film and the other was fogged so that you could only see the image on

about 1/2 of the film. The fogging gradually faded as it neared the

center of the film leaving about 1/3 of the sheet fog free. But,

perhaps not coincidentally, the two good sheets were TMax100 and the

two fogged sheets were TRI-X. Unfortunately, I can't remember if it

was only TRI-X that came out bad in previous runs so it is possible,

of course, that I simply have a bad batch of TRI-X but it would seem

to me that the sheets would have fairly uniform fogging if that were

the case and it wouldn't explain why sometimes the edges of the film

are fogged and other times it's clear.

Last time out, as an extra precaution, I left the camera covered with

my very large dark cloth right up to the lens and removed and

replaced the slides with the cloth covering the camera. There was no

change. Half the film was still fogged. I always minimize the time

that the dark slide is removed. It is the very last thing that I do

before releasing the shutter with the exception of instances where I

am waiting for a lull in a breeze to still moving grasses or plants

in the foreground but that was not the case with the two bad sheets

this time. The subject was static without changing light levels so

the slides were only out long enough to make the exposure. I remove

slides completely.

One last thing. I have a variety of new and older (but sound) film

holders but the film that fogged this time was in a brand new (never

used once) Fidelity Elite holder. Both sheets were of the same

subject, shot one after the other.

What I know is:

1) All my film, both 4x5" and 8x10" is loaded and processed under the

same conditions and at the same time.

2) I have never had light leaks of any kind ever in 4x5".

3) I got fogging with a brand new holder.

4) Testing from the back and front of the camera shows no light leaks

at all. The fogging has occurred both before and after my lens

received a CLA and total checkup from Grimes. Unfortunately, I only

have one lens for 8x10" (14" Kodak Commercial Ektar).

5) It is possible that I have only had this problem with TRI-X but,

unfortunately, I can't remember if any TMax100 fogged previously.

When this started happening, I thought it was an equipment problem

(light leak) and just never thought about that (like a dummy).

I have always prided myself in being able to logically analyze and

diagnose technical problems of all kinds but this one really has me

stumped. It's erratic. I would appreciate any ideas you can share.

I apologize for the long post but I reviewed other threads on this

topic and I wanted to answer questions that would be asked if I

didn't go into detail.

William:

That's a big help. Since posting the original question a while back, I found another battery pack - I forget the model, but it's the one where you can just insert AA or NiCD - it has the battery drawer that slides out. But I would like to get my high-power NiCd pack working again and I really appreciate your information. I will be sending you an email asking for your instructions later.

Thanks again.

Tom

Although I have not used Durst equipment, I know that it has an excellent reputation. However, I realize that your question is about enlargers that will handle medium format film.

Keep in mind that the end results that you get with different enlargers will be identical if you use the same lens and the enlarger is aligned properly. A more expensive enlarger will NOT make a finer print although it is possible that it may be easier or more enjoyable to use in some cases. Enlargers are like large format cameras... you will produce the exact same image with a beater as you will with a top-of-the-line camera as long as its bellows are light-tight, the lense is the same, and it is in reasonable mechanical shape. The lens is the only real difference. Well, the light source makes a difference too but you generally choose that separately anyway.

If you are not restricted by space, I would not get a medium format enlarger at all. Instead, I would get a 4x5" enlarger. The market is flooded with very good medium format enlargers now since so many labs have closed and that's what they used primarily. (I just wish the market was flooded with 8x10" enlargers! I need one and have been looking for one for a while now with no luck). I use a Beseler 45V-XL but that truly is a behemoth. But I also use an old Omega D2 and, in fact, I use that enlarger for probably 80-90% of my work simply because I have used it for so many years and I am comfortable with it. I also adapted a nice filter drawer for 6x6" contrast filters for it too - something more difficult to do with the VXL because of its design.

The D2 is compact - not much bigger than a medium format enlarger. Mine is mounted directly to my concrete block wall and it has angle iron supports coming from two sides to the top. It is so solidly mounted that I can literally hang from it! And I weigh 255 pounds!

Any of the Beseler 4x5" M series enlargers are extremely good. After all, they were good enough for Ansel Adams!

The bottom line is that I wouldn't buy a fancy brand new and expensive medium format enlarger when great 4x5" enlargers are so available and so inexpensive now and they're better! I wouldn't even consider buying a medium format enlarger, in fact. And what if you decide to shoot 4x5" in the future? And remember that that big light source will produce more even edge to edge illumination than a medium format light source. I also had a Beseler MF enlarger at one time but I had no use for it and sold it on eBay. I use my 4x5" enlargers for all formats except 8x10" which I contact print (until I find a nice 8x10" enlarger).

I am a bit bewildered about why anyone would even consider buying a medium format enlarger unless they simply couldn't fit a 4x5" enlarger in their darkroom. 4x5" enlargers not only offer technical superiority, in most cases, but they are built better and more stable than medium format enlargers, in general. And they are less expensive too if you buy a used one. And a good used enlarger is as good as a brand new one for all practical purposes. Remember, enlargers are very simple devises. No need to get fancy and expensive when it won't improve your prints and isn't print quality what it's all about anyway? The only reason that I stress this so much is that your question makes it clear that you think that spending a lot of money will be better for your needs. Save your money for a good enlarger lens!

There is one thing that I would strongly recommend. I would get a good alignment tool if you don't already have one. I use a laser alignment tool that is incredibly fast and easy to use and extremely accurate. It is so easy to use, in fact, that after I make test prints and all my settings are locked in, I check the alignment again before making final prints.

If possible, get a good used 4x5" enlarger. Just make sure you use a good lens and your results will be equal to any enlarger made as long as you keep the enlarger aligned and, if anything, better than just about any medium format enlarger made.

If you are printing b&w, I would suggest a cold light although that will probably stir up some debate. I have used every type of head imagineable including condenser heads, dichroic heads, point light sources, and a pulsed xenon computerized head (Beseler/Minolta 45A) and, although I can produce a good print with any of them, I prefer a cold light. I suspect that you are already using a cold light yourself.

As for Kaiser enlargers.... I don't know a thing about them. I don't know anybody who owns or uses one. That tells me that parts would probably be hard to get and expensive. Why buy an unusual enlarger when there are so many great large format enlargers out there for dirt cheap? They were good enough for professional labs to use day in and day out. They are used by most professional printers shooting in any format. They are used by most colleges in their photography departments. In fact, I have never seen a medium format enlarge used by any of those people.

Get a 4x5" enlarger. Stick with a well-known brand. A Beseler M series would be great. Parts are commonly available if you ever need them but they are so well built that you probably won't ever need them. Save your money for good lenses and a good head.

I thought I would share my experience with out-of-date Velvia in case

anyone else is interested.

Last winter I was doing some work in my basement and I unplugged my

large deep freeze to use the outlet for a power tool and I forgot to

plug the freezer back in. I didn't discover my mistake until about

two weeks later. It was a real mess! The freezer is divided in

two with one half used for film and papers and the other half used

for food. After getting rid of all the rotten meat and food items,

I started in on the film and paper side. I lost some 16x20" and

20x24" b&w and color papers in the standing water caused by melting

ice but all the other papers and films were high and dry,

fortunately.

While digging through my film, I discovered two bricks of Fuji Velvia

35mm film, two 50-sheet boxes of Velvia in 4x5" and about a dozen

rolls of Velvia in 220. They had somehow been shifted to a

different place and I simply forgot about them. (I also found some

other assorted films - color negative portrait films, etc., but I

have not tested them yet.) All of them had expired between three and

seven years ago. My first thought was just to throw them away but,

before doing so, I decided to give them a try in side-by-side tests

with fresh film on a trip to Maine that I just got back from.

Besides, all that film cost a lot of money!

I shot all important stuff on fresh film, of course, but I also

backed many of them up on the out-of-date films. To keep factors as

even as possible, I shot the 35mm film in cameras that are calibrated

the same and used the same lens for all 35mm shots. With the 4x5"

film, I was able to keep all factors identical, of course, except

that the exposures were made a few seconds apart. But I only did

tests when the light was even and unchanging. I could not do side-

by-side tests with the 220 film because I only had one MF back but I

went ahead and shot the old film.

Well, I just got the film back from my lab in Chicago (Gamma) and,

even upon very careful examination, I can distinguish no difference

between the fresh and out-of-date films at all. My eyes are very

sensitive to even tiny variations in color and contrast from many

years of shooting and printing. I examined the images side-by-side

on a light table with a lupe and a high-powered hand microscope. No

differences! But just to be certain I checked them with my

densitometer and all color and visual readings were virtually

identical. Contrast was identical. As a last test, I let a

photographer friend of mine try to determine which shots were made

with the old film by inspecting them side-by-side with the new film

on a light table. He boasted that he would definitely be able to

tell the difference. Well, he couldn't! I'm not a gambling man but

I wish I had taken him up on his offer to bet me that he could tell

the difference.

As I said, all of the outdated film had expired 3 to 7 years ago.

Some of the film had probably remained in the freezer since I bought

it when fresh, but I know that some of it was cycled through

thaw/freeze cycles when I took it on trips. I store all my film in

soft-shell cooler bags to slow down thaw/freeze cycles and to keep

film as cool as possible for as long as possible on trips. Some of

the expired film had almost definitely been thawed and refrozen up to

a dozen times!

Well, the moral of this story (for me) is that I won't be so quick to

throw out outdated film in the future. If I had tossed all that film

in the trash, I would have wasted a lot of good film. I am leaving

on a one month trip out West in a couple weeks and I will now shoot

the old film with total confidence. Of course, I can't guarantee

that someone else would have the same experience depending on how

they store and handle their film, but my experience shows that Velvia

is a very robust film.

On another note, I also found a box containing two exposed sheets of

Velvia made at Shiloh battlefield. Someone I had forgotten about

them too. I have been to Shiloh three times in the last ten years

and my records show that those exposures were made three years

ago. They look just fine! They are marketable images. Of course,

I don't have anything to compare them to with precision but I did

make other photographs at that time in similar settings and the old

film compares very well with the film that was processed shortly

after exposure. That was a very pleasant surprise! One of those

shots is attached.

<div></div>

Jammer,

I know how exactly how you feel when you get responses such as some above. I am in a position that sounds like it is similar to yours except that I shoot almost exclusively in 4x5" and 8x10" and in those formats I really don't see a viable digital option for field photography. I would assume that I would have to buy some incredibly expensive scanning back, and have to carry around a laptop computer with lots of memory, cables, batteries, etc., and the results would be inferior. Film is a wonderful in large format, in my opinion. (Of course, studio photographers have different needs). On the other hand, I have been out of touch with the latest digital developments in those formats.

However, I also shoot in 35mm and I am just now thinking of buying my first digital camera for a trip I leave on in a couple weeks. I would only use it for "snapshot" images. Decisions decisions! All this endless techy talk about color spaces, calibration, etc., has turned me off to digital so far. But I do scan my film and work with it in Photoshop.

I think your question is very valid and I apologize for some of the responses that I would have found flippant and a bit rude myself. I asked a question about an 8x10" enlarger a while back and got nailed with the "film is dead" folks.

As far as your specific question goes, since I don't yet own a digital camera, I can not say too much but, as I mentioned, I do scan film and I have been able to get very good results that, to me, look virtually as good as lab prints. Since I do not understand all I should about calibration, color spaces, etc., yet, I have to resort to trial and error. If a print comes out slightly magenta, say, compared to what I see on my high-quality monitor, I just make it slightly green on the monitor and re-print. That is with film capture but I also done a fair amount of work on digital images in Photoshop too and I can get very nice prints with trial and error.

The primary reasons that I have not embraced digital so far are 1) I am a large format photographer and 2) I don't like to invest in expensive equipment that will be obsolete in a matter of months and, up until now, I think that's how it has been. I remember one of the first professional digital cameras that came out. It cost, if I remember correctly, around $25,000 (10 years ago or so) and you had to carry a PC around with you! And it probably had pathetic resolution compared to even cheap digital cameras today. But newspapers could justify such an investment at the time. More recently I am very impressed with digital image quality and - well, let's face it - it's really wonderful. No labs. No film to keep cool and process. So I guess it's time to put my toe in the water.

I wish you the best of luck as you move into digital. I'm right behind you and you are not alone. I have been shooting for over 40 years now - about half of that time professionally, and I am only know thinking about buying a digital camera.

Now I will probably be flamed! lol<div></div>

Thanks for the reponses. I must not have had my automatic email notifcation turned on so I didn't know that I had answers.

Yes, I agree that mailing film is not such a good idea but I have done so on the very long trips that I like to take and have never had a problem. It beats keeping it for an extended period of time after exposure. I also use top labs in major cities when traveling when possible but I tend to steer clear of large cities, in general.

Processing my own E6 is a idea to consider. I have always processed and printed all my b&w work and, on occasion, I have even processed my E6 film and even C41 film (which I rarely use). But since the E6 process is standard, I have always felt that it is best for me to have a lab do it since they probably have tighter control of the process than I could expect to have. It is something to consider, though. That sure would free me up from the lack of good local E6 labsin my immediate area.

As for distance, Gamma in Chicago has always been considered to be one of the best labs in the world. In fact, I have known people from other countries who send their film to Gamma for processing. But, for me, it means driving 25 miles to drop it off, 25 miles back, and then a repeat of the trip to pick it up - 100 miles in heavy traffic. Not good. The reason I didn't want to mail it to them is for the reasons mentioned above in a reply. Also, there are many occasions when I only have 4-6 sheets to process and that makes all the hassle even worse.

Thanks

After responding (above), I got curious about why you are asking what people do with 4x5" transparencies after you bought a LF camera. It would seem logical to know what you would do with 4x5" transparencies before you bought the camera, not after. I'm really just curious why you would ask that after buying the camera not before.

In any case, they will make great prints if nothing else, either traditional or digital.

Best

Tom

Hi,

Does anyone know of a lab in the western suburbs of Chicago that can

do E6 processing of 4x5" and 8x10" sheet film? Or possibly a lab

that could at least do E6 processing of 4x5" film? I know that

Gamma does good E6 processing in Chicago but I am looking for a

closer lab for when I just have a few sheets - a lab in the general

area of Naperville/Wheaton/Lisle/Aurora Illinois preferably.

Also, if distance is no object, I would like to hear what E6 labs

some of you would most recommend. For larger batches of film, I

don't mind mailing it but sometimes I just have a few sheets or I am

doing tests and sending it out or driving to Chicago to drop it off

and pick it up is a pain.

Thanks<div></div>

Thomas,

I saw that camera. Incredible! And the best thing is that it folds up to fit in a shirt pocket!

I use two heads like yours and I have never had a problem with them getting anywhere near what you would describe as being hot. As someone else suggested, I think it would be a good idea to stop using the head until you have it checked out. Also, as someone pointed out, you should leave the heater plugged in.

Unlike some others, I have never had a problem with output inconsistency either. And I live in an old house and while I'm printing my washer is running. It drains into a sump and a sump pump is cycling on and off which could cause voltage fluctuations but my prints are still beautifully consistent. Go figure!

(You may find it interesting to know that the scientist that someone mentioned above who designed products for Fred Picker is Dr. Paul Horowitz. He also designed the Zone VI modified meters and other useful products. He is the scientist in charge of SETI - Search For Extra Terrerstrial Intelligence. No...he is not some crackpot. He is a Harvard professor who uses a large array of huge radio telescopes and stuff that searches for unusual radio waves originating from space. If you watch PBS shows, you have almost certainly seen him in NOVA specials, etc. Interesting guy.)

Once you are confident that your head is working properly, you may want to get a voltage regulator. You don't even need one made specifically for your head but you do have to make sure that its specs will allow it to be used with it. They are available on eBay or through electronic supply companies.

Just out of curiosity, I am going to try to upload an image here. I just want to give this a try.

Best<div></div>

Can anyone suggest a source for a new ground glass for an Ansco/Agfa

8x10" camera? Because of the design of this camera's back, the

corners of the ground glass are cut off. A picture of the camera is

attached (or at least should be if I do it right). Of course, I

could cut them off a rectangular glass and, for that matter, I could

grind the glass myself in a pinch. Now that I think about it, does

anyone know what grinding medium should be used when grinding a

ground glass?

Thanks in advance.

I have been using it in "gooey" form for many years with no problem at all. Just be sure to pour the mixing water into the measuring beaker used for the HC110 repeatedly to get it all.

A very interesting thing about HC110 is that Tmax100 film is incredibly unresponsive in it. HC110-B is my standard developer for my Tmax100 large format negatives and it is almost difficult to achive N+ development with it! Long ago, someone from Kodak explained why that is so but I have forgotten the reason.

Actually, I am just responding to this question to see if my old account is still up. I used to be a regular contributor to these forums and some of you may remember me but I just took a break from it (for several years!). I also greatly reduced my photographic activity....just needed a break - but I am getting back in to it. To show you how out-of-touch I am, I just learned of Kodak's new Tmax films. Damn! I will have to do recalibrating! Luckily, I still have a large supply of the old emulsions frozen.

Greg,

Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my question about batteries for

the F1 camera. It sounds like I finally found someone who knows what they

are talking about. But I am a little confused. Could you clarify a

bit...

The High Powered NiCd pack that I have always used has 12 NiCds as opposed

to 6 NiCds in the NiCd Pack FN. (Thanks for letting me know that they are N

sized. I never heard of that size before). You seem to be saying that

NiCds could overload the drive but the NiCd packs have NiCds in them.

That's where I get confused.

As for charging... What I was asking was whether the Canon Charger FN could

be used to charge regular NiCds that I put in a Battery Pack FN (the

battery pack with the battery drawer). It would seem to me that the

circuit would be the same as it is in the Canon NiCd packs. Of course,

there would be no problem with taking the AA NiCds out of the drawer and

charging them with any standard NiCd charger - but I was wondering whether I

could leave them in the drawer and charge them with the Canon battery

charger.

Thanks for the info on changing the N-sized batteries in my NiCd pack. I

found a website with the process described. However, it was not too

complete and it didn't say anything about how to get the leatherette off.

Also, it didn't say anything about the original batteries being N types.

The person who wrote that description as well as a Canon technician that I

talked to replaced the batteries with regular AA sized NiCds except that

they had solder terminals on them. One of them offered the tip that each

set of 2 batteries that are soldered together should be put in a heat-shrink

tube after being soldered together.

Anyway, just so I don't burn something out, could you clarify the following:

1) Since the Canon NiCd battery packs use NiCds without a problem, how

can regular AA NiCds put in the Battery Pack FN (with the drawer) overload

the drive?

2) Would NiMH batteries cause any problems if I used them in the battery

drawer of the Battery Pack FN?

3) Could the Canon Battery Charger FN be used with the Battery Pack FN if I

put regular AA NiCds in it? Isn't the circuit the same as that of the High

Powered NiCd pack that I use now? The terminals are the same.

4) Do you know why Canon warns the user not to use NiCds in the Battery

Pack FN. Again, since the High-Powered NiCd Pack (12) and the NiCd Pack

FN use NiCds anyway, why would Canon warn about using NiCds in the Battery

Pack FN (with drawer)? It would seem that, if anything, Canon should be

telling you to use AA NiCds rather than alkaline batteries since they are

similar to the NiCds in their NiCd packs.

Also, as far as I know, the motordrive isn't really an AA motordrive since Canon's NiCd packs us NiCd batteries. Again, that is what really throws me about this. Canon's own NiCd packs use NiCds (obviously) but they warn you NOT to use NiCds in the Battery Pack FN (????). Wouldn't NiCds put in the battery drawer of the Battery Pack FN look just like NiCds in the Canon NiCd packs to the motordrive?

Again, thanks so much for your answer. Being a dummy about stuff like

this, I was just confused because it seemed like you were saying that I

could use NiCds in the Battery Pack FN but then you seemed to warn that they

could damage the drive. If you could clarify, I would greatly appreciate

it.

Thanks Again,

Tom Johnston

Thanks Douglas and I certainly would use NiMH batteries if possible rather than NiCds (with their memories), but that really wasn't the question. What I am asking is IF you can use NiCds (or NiMH) batteries in the Battery Pack FN. As I mentioned above, Canon very specifically warns the user NOT to use NiCds in this pack and to ONLY use regular alkaline batteries. That doesn't make any sense to me but Canon goes out of their way to make that warning.

Have you used HiMH or NiCd batteries in a Canon Battery Pack FN?