fred1

You make an enlarged color contact (something of a misnomer, to be

sure, since there is actually no contact between the film and the

paper)pretty much the same as you make any other large format

enlargement. Lets say that you have a 36 exposure roll of film. You

take the roll, cut into strips of six, lay them out on an 8x10 glass

negative carrier, and then place the carrier into either an 8x10

horizontal or vertical enlarger and project to the size you require.

Some labs offer a maximum of 16x20, but I have done them to 4'x5'.

Each individual image, at this size, is approximately 7"x10".

I think there are probably several things to consider here. You don't

really state what type photography you plan to do, or just how

important movements are. My feeling is that, unless you are

attempting some pretty serious architectural work, this camera should

me more than adequate for most applications. I'm not at all sure that

I understand your problem with associating back tilt with focusing.

Achieving proper focus and perspective control involves a combination

of movements between the lens stage, the negative stage, and a proper

point of focus.

<p>

So far as the lenses are concerned I would highly suspect the

Wollensak, but I have no experience with the other two. I think

(contrary to what David Clark has to say) that the Betax #3 shutter

is a fine unit so long as it has had some proper maintenance. I used

a triple convertible Turner Reich lens for many years and was more

than satisfied with its results. Behind my computer, on my wall, is a

4 foot by 5 foot duraflex print shot with the 8x10 and some old lens

and it is wonderfully sharp, but it falls off on the edges some. This

does not bother me in the least and, in fact, draws one's eye into

the center of the photograph (confederate area of Oakland Cemetery in

Atlanta, GA.)

<p>

I guess my point is that I would base the decision on the camera and

not the lenses. I remember owning a Steinheil years ago, but I really

don't remember its performance characteristics. They must not have

been very good.

<p>

You can do some wonderful with old gear, you just must learn to make

it work for you. I acquired my first 8x10 from a friend in a trade

(with the Turner Reich lens). At the time I had 4 or 5 top line

Nikons with motors and all the lenses as well a bunch of medium

format stuff. After a period of time I realized that I was only

shooting 8x10 so I sold everything else! Used the 8x10 for years and

loved it! I now own a 30 year old Canon 35mm with 2 lenses with a

total investment of $52. Everything I do now is digital (on a

personal level) and the photographic lab business is going that way

also.

<p>

Fred

<p>

Imaging Services

<p>

NASA

<p>

Marshall Space Flight Center

<p>

Huntsville, Alabama

I have used the Ilford 500 in commercial situations for many years

and think it's great. One often overlooked feature of this system is

the ease with which you can burn in a negative at a different

contrast grade than your base exposure, assuming you are using a

multi-grade paper,which everyone seems to be going to even in fiber

base materials.

<p>

fred

I second Sean. This is a great tripod although somewhat bulky. I used

one for years with a Calumet C-1 and never had a problem with it plus

I lucked into a great deal by buying it from a friend who was

shutting down his business. I got the legs, head, and some other

stuff for $25. Couldn't turn that down! Don't know what sort of deal

you may be able to find on this, but as far as I'm concerned, for

both field and studio use, the Majestic can never be beaten. As an

aside, when I first got the Calumet 8x10 I was using the top line

Bogen also and was never comfortable with it. I love Bogen tripods

for smaller formats, but the 8x10 (I felt) was just too much for any

of their combinations.

Mark,

I know where there is a DeVere 8x10 extended column with color head

and the large baseboard as well as a Durst 2501 horizontal autofocus

for sale in Huntsville, Al. Either one could probably be bought for a

good price (possibly with enough savings to justify the trip + you

could visit the U.S. Space and Rocket Center while you are here). I

used both of these for several years with a previous employer and he

has gone totally digital and is trying to sell all of his analog

equipment. So far as I know they are both in excellent shape although

there is a learning curve involved in setting up and using the 2501.

If you are interested go to http://www.qpsdigital.com and see of

there is an e-mail link. I haven't visited their site in some time

although I speak with them on the phone regularly (256-539-448 -- ask

for Cecil if you give them a call).

<p>

Good Luck,

I'm not familiar with RS developer, but my vote is to dump it. Years

ago I did the replenishment stuff, probably with d-76, and it just

was not worth the effort. Same with stop and fix, but I am a tray

developer advocate. I have run roll and sheet film in 3.5 gal tanks

with a water bath commercially (with self formulated d-23), but I

still often dumped the tanks to ensure fresh solution. If you are

only running six sheets at a time now then I think you should explore

tray developing. I often run up to 15 sheets of 8x10 at a time in

11x14 trays with no problem--does take some getting used to and the

techniques are different--will probably involve adjusting development

times, but everyone I have taught this technique now believe in it.

<p>

Fred

I don't know where you are or what lab facilities you have near you,

but have you tried contacting them to ask if they would consider

letting you read values on their densitometer? I have been in the lab

business for many years, and if anyone ever asked if they could read

their tests I never hesitated in saying yes. Most good quality

control people will help you in plotting your curves if that is what

you need. You really are only concerned with transmission qualities

unless you are running machine control strips on a paper processor.

My recommendation would be to talk to your local lab people first and

see if they will help you. I think that you will find that most will.

Bill,

My hero! Ingenuity! I love it! I have long felt that we were

needlessly being separated from our hard earned dollars by those with

the perfect solution (at a price). Anything with the

word "photographic" attached suddenly doubles or triples in price! I

have watched this for 30 years with amazement. I applaud your

ingenuity in finding your own solution at a reasonable price and hope

that others will follow your example!

<p>

Fred

Jason,

Can you post a picture for us to look at. I kinda think I know what

you have, but more information would be helpful. What sort of

options are too many to list. These could give some valuable

information to those of us who may be able to help you!

Bob,

Did you really mean the Minolta flash meter V? If so then I don't

think you can go wrong with it. They are great meters. I'm not much

for keeping up with new equipment so I was puzzled by your reference

to a Pentax flash meter V. Never heard of such an animal.

Which enlarger are you using? Indeed some 8x10 enlargers need

adjustments to either the head or the baseboard. I have used Durst

184 with rotatable heads which sometimes needed adjustment. I have

worked with a DeVere which always needed baseboard adjusting. I am

currently working on an 8x10 DeVere which stays right on.

Malcom,

Why are you ruling out simple tray processing? This gives great

results, and I routinely processed up to fifteen sheets at a time in

an 8x10 tray. I learned this technique from George Tice at a workshop

many years ago when I was much younger and I have always had really

good success (guess there is no such thing as bad success) with this

technique, but it does require some testing for times. The negatives

are placed in the tray emulsion down, after the last one is placed in

the tray the bottom negative is pulled and placed on the emulsion up

on the top, tap it down to ensure that the chemical solution is

making good contact, and then continue your rotation. I taught this

technique to a co-worker several years ago when he first started

shooting 8x10 and it works well for him although he limits his

processing to fewer sheets. Tice swears that at the end of the

processing cycle, when it is time to remove the film, that the first

sheet you put in is the first that you pull out. I never tested this,

but I was never disappointed in my negatives. What developer do you

use? I used the technique with D-23 and the Kodalk bath. My friend

basically does the same thing with some modifications he has made to

his formulae. I'm not sure that I would recommend this with a high

energy developer like HC-110. I have used tanks and reels (didn't

know anyone was still making the reel processing tanks or reels). If

you want some more details let me know and I will try to help.

Stay with the Tachihara and upgrade your lenses when need be, buy

film when you need it, and use some of the extra money for workshops.

Unless you need something significantly different then learn how to

use what you have and enjoy it. For the price I have been impressed

by the Tachiharas for years.

Nathan,

We probably need a bit more information. Is your house on a

foundation or on a slab? A slab would be extremely difficult, but not

necessarily overcomeable--just depends on where your lines are in

relation to where you want to put the darkroom. Plumbing is not very

difficult, but it does require a great deal of thought and planning.

Give us some more details about your layout.

Douglas,

lets work backwards for a moment. Are you focusing your negative at

the shooting aperture? Wrong move if you are. Focus wide open and

then stop down. I HIGHLY recommend the Chromega fine grain focuser

(I'm not sure what they call it these days, but it will set you back

about $300 and it will be the best money you can spend if you want

critically sharp prints). I have used them for years. If you are only

taking a 4x5 neg to 8x10 print size or 16x20 print size then you

should see no discernable difference either close up or at a normal

viewing distance. I have taken 35 mm (kodachrome to 8x10 interneg) up

to 14 feet (yup--feet) and it has looked good. This was for Coca-Cola

so it had to be right.

<p>

I don't understand your Lambda/Lightjet comment at all. There should

absolutely be no problems here given a good file size and the

percentage enlargement is not huge.

I strongly disagree with Bill about the 210mm lens for tabletop. If

you are using movements for perspective control this lens is about as

good as you will get. The 150 is a bit short and the 300 is far too

long. I echo Bobs advice. FWIW (my 2cents worth)!

<p>

Fred

Kazuhiro,

sorry pal, ain't gonna happen with what you want to do. The table top

spec is the one which will be a problem although I understand that

there is some sort of 8x10 conversion for the Beseler 4x5 enlargers,

but you will never even come close to getting a 20x24 print unless

you can find a wide angle enlarging lens which will cover the 8x10

neg. and still go to 20x24 on the tabletop, and I don't know of any

(especially reasonably priced). 8x10 enlargers are commercial

machines and I have used the Durst, DeVere, Carlsson, Elwood, and

some I can't remember and they are monsters. I happen to know where

there is a large column DeVere with color head, lenses, timer, and

power supply for sale at what would be a good price, but getting it

(wherever you happen to be) could be a problem. This enlarger is in

Huntsville, Alabama. Also, if anyone is interested, this same person

(lab) has a Durst 2501 horizontal enlarger for sale. I'm sure the

price would be good (all things are relative), and I printed on this

unit from the time we bought it until I moved on to the government

beuracracy which launches persons into space. Come to think of it,

this lab also has one of the DeVere (ZBE) autofocus enlarger which

could be a hell of a deal. In the 30 years I have printed I consider

this to be the finest enlarger I have ever worked on, and I very

highly recommend it for work up to 4x5. If anyone is interested in

any of this stuff e-mail me and I will put you in touch with the

owner. Digital, for better or worse, is drastically changing the way

all labs do display work. (whew, didn't mean to make this so long!)

<p>

Fred

Jon,

Large format is certainly not dead, and my feeling has long been that

anyone who seriously wants to learn photography, not just the

technique, but also the "seeing", should start out with large format.

I feel that you are choosing the best path available in the quest to

becoming an accomplished photographer.

<p>

Fred

The collaboration between Jon and Richard should yield some pretty

contrasty results!

Your problem may be that you pull the plastic stopper before you

insert the film holder. the plastic stopper thingy is designed to be

pulled after you insert the film holder in the camera. Is this an

online version of candid camera?

I agree with the above posts, but would like to add that many of the

old-timers (one of which I am rapidly becoming) considered a small

bubble such as this to be the sign of a superior lens-one not to be

passed up.

<p>

Fred

All of the joking aside, I do not understand your processing steps.

The initial processing of the prints seems fine, but I would have

fixed for a bit longer. I'm not much of a glaciel ascetic acid fan, I

have always preferred water, or a very, very dilute stop bath of

ascetic acid. I don't know what a wash as described by Bruce Barnbaum

is, but an adequate wash should be an adequate wash. From here on is

where I don't follow what you are doing. You say that you dried the

prints, left them for a few days, rewashed them, and then re-fixed

them. Why did you re-fix? that makes no sense! You then say that you

spot bleached, but you give no details of what or how you bleached.

Did you not thoroughly rewash after fixing and bleaching, and what

did you use to bleach with? To me this entire process is suspect. I

really do not think that your problem is a dirty piece of plex, and I

certainly do not think that you have a problem with your fixer

mixing. I think that you need to rethink your entire processing

procedure!

Fred

Charlies right,

Dumb move--don't do it. find someone who knows what he is doing

Fred

I have probably used almost all enlarging lenses ever made from 30 mm

to 360mm. If you are printing 35mm negatives I think that the El-

Nikor 63 (actually I thought it was a 62mm) is probably the sharpest

I have ever used without exception, and I am a huge Schneider

Companon S fan. I would recommend the El-Nikor without hesitation.

Fred

Imaging Services

Marshall Space Flight Center