fred_de_van1

I gave up on Omega enlargers (or they gave up on me) a long time ago

but when I was shopping last year for a new one I got stern advice

from my buddies at the Time Life photolab, avoid the D5500. They said

the D-5 was much better, but still not a Beseler nor a Durst. I trust

them and they based thier advice on experiance with both. They and I

all have Durst L-1200's now.

I use Balcars, and I think that the Balcar system is the most

versatile available. Do not overlook Comet, super rugged and reliable.

I have never over a couple of decades had a problem with any Balcar

but my buddies at SI say the the Comet is even more resistant to rough

handeling.

My Favorites are the Davis and Sanford Air and the old Gitzo Gigant 5.

There is always the Saltzman if you are into overkill. One you get

used to the Davis and Sanford you will find it to more or less

universal. At home with medium format but not stressed with something

as heavy as a 8x10 Szabad.

<p>

Fred

There is nothing quicker than Granview! 6x12, 4x5, 8x10

http://www.granview.com

Was your FlareBuster an older model? (metal Tabs) The newer ones have

a plastic tabbed clip that seems to be a bit stronger.

The Beseler 45H is one of the least known and best enlargers ever

made.I have a Durst L-1200 now and traded my 45H for a CB7, but there

still are moments where I miss the Beseler.

Ellis,

<p>

If you have read some of the stuff on here, you should accept that to

him, it was not reversed. Quit while you are ahead.

I was deep in the most rural areas of Haiti, and shot a photo of a

striking elderly lady in front of her mud and thatch home and had

given her a Polaroid as a thank you. She looked up with piercing brown

eyes and quietly said: (in creole)

<p>

"Your machine speaks the truth too quickly!"

FlareBuster's Flarebuster!!! http://www.flarebuster.com/

<p>

Walker's seeems to be the same from the description. I use them often,

and do not go out to shoot without one. They are very handy, no

weight, little cost answer to a myrid of problems and annoyances. Your

imagination is the sole limit on what you could use one for. It is one

of those things you did not know you needed until you have one.

<p>

Fred

I have owned all three sizes in the past. They are very accurate.

Great for long well timed exposures. The #5 is too heavy for many

wooden cameras. The cable is heavy also. They were wonderful for my

needs. Long out of production, and I understand there are few parts.

If I still had them and they worked I would keep them, but think twice

about buying them today. The lenses I had mounted in them were all

Voightlander APO's, and that may have had a lot to do with likeing the

shutters.

My fingers fell asleep... I typed this while on my way out the door

with my GranView, a 545, and a bunch of Quickload RDPIII.

<p>

Kodak supplies this information on thier web site. Fiji supplies it

with the instructions packaged with the Quickload film. It works.

Kodak supplies this information on thier web site. Fiji supplies it

with tye instructions packaed with the Quickload film. It works.

Fuji already has the technology and has been producing Polaroid sheet

films for decades. One is sold here under the Poloroid name now. The

only reason you cannot buy Fuji made Polaroid is licensing. Thet

restriction would fall away if Polaroid was to fail in the US. Konica

may also have it since they made a version of the 195 type camers for

Japan.

Either the B&H or Freestyle site will give you the color code for the

filters. The tape around the edges tell you what you have.

I have found my Zeiss (Jena) magnifying finder for the Pentacon 6 to

be a great transparency viewer. maybe a better lens than most loupes

and accurate adjustable focus. A quality item.

Try a Glycin based developer, like 777 see:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Harvey/harvey.html ,

or one of the Edwal formulas, 12 or 20.

Get Real Jorge,

<p>

The photo world was not concieved by Bill Gates, and everything Kodak

does does not have to be mass market. If Kodak had supported B%W

photography over the past 30 Years it would be much stronger today.

Kodak activly killed it off as best they could.

<p>

I doubt if Kodak ever lost a penny on B&W products that were good

ones. They just do not fit the tiny minds that run the place.

<p>

Even if B&W was a money looser, they still would have a lot more to

loose of they had not come up with the Disc system, Photo CD, APS and

numerious other very bad ideas. The way Kodak operated was/is the

problem, not the way the marketplace works. The manner in which they

bungled Photo CD, Digital, Medical Imaging, were all travisties, and

the demise of B&W is more of the same. This is an outgrowth of them

moving the military to systems they planned years ago, that did not

work fully. Without that big consumer they have no idea what the real

market looks like. I could go on and on about the stupid things they

did, but my point is, do not attribute common wisdom to Kodak. It has

no place there. There is no reason in this world why Kodak could not

set up small botique units for any product they cared to make and make

a sucess of it. Instead the fired or retired anybody who knew how.

<p>

It is not the effect the market is having on Kodak, it is a result of

Kodak's effect on the market. Everybody looses. We have seen it

before.

How I am solving a similar problem is; I have found a new belt for a

Pako 26W and am having an upholsterer cut a belt for my Beseler from

it, using my old belt as a template. That way I know I have good

fabric. I think I can get another Pako 26W belt, Email me if you need

one.

There is a photographer who sat beside Ansel Adams of the Board of the

Ziff Davis Foundation, who is just as comfortable with an 8x10 Sinar

as he is with a Leica, Linhof or Hasselblad. Who is involved in the

building of of a LF camera, and whose whose published work, especially

in the early part of his career, is mostly done with large format.

<p>

He will remain nameless because he rejects being identified as a Large

format or Afro American, photographer, since both are incidental to

his work. At one point he did accept an award from Langston

Hughes,(see: "Sweet Flypaper of Life" words by Langston Hughes,

photographs by Roy De Carrava), and that resulted in his being

identified as a prolific Afro American Photographer. The huge numbers

of published images were a result of the many TV guide covers he had

done. None of these photgraphs were remotely related to the reason he

was offered the award, so he somewhat ungratiously, declined the award

as being based on the absurd and that TV guide was not a measure of

anything he wished to be known for....

On a D-2 a 50mm lens must be mounted on a flat board (no cone). The

condensers remove by the 3 aluminum thumb screws. The correct

condensors are small 2" affairs mounted in a similar large alum.

Housing. The are many pounds lighter. Check the alignment since often

the light weight condensors do not meet flat with the neg. Carrier.

Basic design flaw of the Omega enlargers is that they lift the

condensers from one side, making the lamphouse skew to one side.