james_chinn2

You have overexposed by 2 stops which is not a huge disaster

depending on subject matter. Most people will rate their film down

by one stop to ensure good shadow exposure. 2 stops might lose some

highlight detail.

<p>

If the roll has important images, i would expose another roll of 400

rated at 100asa of the same or similar subject matter in similar

lighting conditions and then clip it in fourths and develop each one

with a one minute differential starting at 10 and ending at 7. Then

make some contact prints of each.

<p>

This may sound a little tedious, but it will allow you to better

understand the relationship of developing time to neg density. You

may discover you like the look of your "mistake". Also, if you are

serious about photography beyond the class, you will be doing ths

same type of thing (called testing) with all film and developers you

use to learn how to get negatives that suit your style.

<p>

Finally, if you are a student learning about photography, there are

no stupid mistakes. Quite a few photographers would agree that

making mistakes (or breaking the "rules" on purpose) is actually one

of the most efficent ways to learn the craft.

I have done a little research on my own and all I have been able to

find out is that the camera is basically a metal version of a 2D,

manufactured in 1937. I don't know if the movements are the same as

a 2D. One reason i am curious about the value is that after looking

at the camera it looks as if it would be relatively easy to modify

the front standard to allow for tilt similar to how the rear standard

is set up for tilts.. If the camera is substantially worth more than

$200 I might not want to mess with it and destroy any resale value

for the future.

I have stumbled across one of these cameras that appears to be in excellent shape, very clean, with only a couple of pin holes in bellows needing repair. All knobs, springs hinges etc are good and work smoothly. Has extra extension rail included. Ground glass is not original but seems to be custom designed with a vareity of grids superimposed. I was curious if anyone knows a little background on this camera. I can pick it up for $200. Did Kodak build these cameras or did someone else? When were they sold and is it worth more than $200? I assume it is from the late 50s early 60s because of the style and aluminum design.

<p>

As always, thanks for your responses in advance.

I would just add to my previous post that you definitely want a deep

portion, about 16" deep by 20"-24". This allows you to clean trays

and equipment, provides a temporary print washer, water temp bath

etc. For my sink if I need the space for trays, I have a piece of

stainless with a drain hole that I can cover up the tub.

Matt,

<p>

I think quite a few people who take the plunge into LF from other

formats are at first disappointed. They envision Westonesque

masterpieces but not the effort involved. For me the effort was more

then the physical, it was learning, really learning, how to use LF as

a tool to produce certain images and understanding its advantages in

certain situations.

<p>

A LF camera, no matter what brand or lens is simply a tool. As

photographers we need to evaluate what it is we want to communicate

and then choose the tool that best makes that image. A prerequisite

is you need be comfortable with your gear. If medium format produces

the results you are happy with, then stick with it.

I agree with the previous post. IMHO HP5 has a better tonality range

and gradation especially in 8x10. Have not shot TriX since I started

using HP5. Ilford also is more committed to B&W these days so I tend

to throw more business that way. Only Kodak B&W I use now is Tmax

100.

I would really like to see the current character of the site

maintained, and if that is done best at photo.net, so be it. This

site has a tremendous wealth of knowledge shared by long time

practitioners that filters down to those of us who are not

professionals but pursue image making with large format as a passion.

There is no other site on the net where I can ask a question about

some arcane lens I have located and have a dozen responses on

manufacturer, image properties, design, coverage etc. At the same

time a person can propose a discussion regarding non techie subjects

and ther is always a spirited discussion.

<p>

As far as a site for the critique of images: please stop now before I

lose my sanity. You only need to read so many "to dark at the top" ,

should have cropped this or that side, NICEST IMAGE YET!, what filter

did you use for this or that effect in photoshop etc. If people want

their images seen and critiqued, ask them to provide a URL for their

own site or at least a completely seperate forum for critiques.

I would just add to previous posts about contributions. The only

problem is do you charge an access fee? If so I think you eliminate

the most important audience and that is the newbie to large format.

This site is invaluable for answering the many technical questions

about the format, but I fear that charging a mandatory fee, unless a

small one time registration fee would discourage those that get the

most use out of the forum. Remember, the more people that use the

format, the better it is for maintaining availability of film, papers

etc.

Between the options given, i would vote to merge with Photo.net.

This site seems to attract quite a few people interested in moving up

to large format and as someone else stated, the widest possible

audience the forum can be exposed to the better for all of us in the

long run. And by all means, keep the archives, it is a valuable

storehouse of info that I look to first before posting questions.