john_mcdonald

As for a generalization, I expose to place significant low-value

areas in Zone IV, and develop so that significant highlight values

fall high in Zone VII. The best way I have heard it said is John

Sexton�s �Nothing lives in Zone III.�

Jim Gallis photos are great, and great examples for discussing

the Zone system. Thanks Jim Galli.

http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AncientBristlecone.html

For his top photo, I would place the shadow side of the trees in

the lower right hand corner in Zone IV. The majority of the rock

surfaces I would develop to fall in Zone VII, the highlights would

fall in Zone VIII.

Jorge,

In a flat lighting scene, even if the light meter values show the

negative to have a normal range, I give HP5+ extra exposure,

much in part to push the highlights at the time of exposure.

Really, I now reach for a different film in flat light. At any rate, in

most cases the extra shadow detail is welcome and helps to

create more local separation at the lower end. In my own limited

and ongoing tests, I find HP5+ sensitive not only to the amount of

light, but to the type of light, more so than I have found with FP4+

or JandC Classic 200. This observed quality could be

flare-related, or something else with regard to my set-up.

I find that it does not like to be pulled or pushed very far at the

time of development, either, at least compared to a film like

JandC Classic 200. Classic zone system development contols

have severe limits with HP5+, in my experience, not in terms of

controlling the overall contrast in theory, but in terms of doing so

and still preserving crisp detail throughout the print. I do not

know this film intimately yet, but these are some observations I

have made.

I know some people who work with this film expose it generously

and develop it for a set amount of time, always, and use various

grades of paper, varying paper developer strength accordingly to

get the desired result. But I have not been able to produce

excellent results in varying conditions with this method.

Some photographers regulary bleach prints, but call the term

reduction. This takes place between the first and second fixing

bath. A wet print from the holding bath is viewed in good light on

a makeshift plexiglass easel placed at a low angle in the sink. A

solution of potassium ferricyanide and water is prepared�start

on the weak side, and evalutate the strength on a tosser print.

Squeegee the print of surface water, and evaluate what areas

need reducing in terms of the overall composition�perhpas

dense shadow areas, or a highlight that is a little too gray. Paint

on the solution, and rinse it off before it goes as far as you want it

to go, because it will keep working as you rinse it. You can

always squeegee and further reduce. When you are satisfied,

rinse, then fix the print in the second fixing bath.

For a Normal scene, I have arrived at about 11 minutes in

Rodinal diluted 1:50 at 68 degrees, with the HP5+ rated at 200. If

the light is flat, try lowering the film speed to 100 or 125 and

keeping the development time the same. These negatives

contact print well on Grade 2 Bergger or Grade 3 Azo.

To me, one of the appeals of working in black and white is that I

am able to expose negatives under a wide range of lighting

conditions, and still produce crisp prints. An "old technology"

emulsion like JandC Classic 200 responds beautifully to the

Zone System, as it was written in stone. If you can get the cat to

hold still, you can make a crisp print of it lounging in the shade of

an auto baking in the sun.

I aim to print on Grade 2. This allows a little wiggle room in case

I miss something important, so at an extreme I will end up

printing on nearby Grade 1 or 3.

If you want to print on Azo or Bergger Silver Supreme, you really

need to aim to make negs that will print on a specific grade, one

way or another.

I have owned and used one of these single-coated lenses, a

150mm f 5.6, made in 1957. It was sharp, but as you mentioned,

lower in contrast than some more modern glass. It had its own

distinctive look, meaning its personality shows in the

print�some will like it, others will not.

If you use it single cell shooting black and white, you might try

using a yellow filter. I have heard this helps image quality. I hope

you enjoy your lens.

Is it okay to use an acid stop and fixer, such as Ilford rapid fixer,

with Pyrocat HD, or is a combination of water stop and alkaline

fixer a must? If the latter, how does one fully stop development of

the first sheets out when developing by inspection? Thanks.

I have used a camera with a removable fresnel on the viewer

side of the glass (Wisner), and a camera with a fresnel on the

inside of the camera (Canham), behind the glass. I found the

veiwer-side fresnel relatively distracting in regard to

ground-glass viewing, while the fresnel on the inside of the

camera helps with brightness and focussing, but does not

otherwise produce any noteworthy distractions. I personally

prefer the fresnel on the inside of the camera.

I also have had very positive dealings at Midwest Photo. In fact,

they seem to go out of their way to deliver a good deal, and then

some. If it is large format I am after, I prefer to speak with Jim, if

he is available.

www.georgeury.com also has a mint 305 G-Claron for sale, and

he is very good to do business with, in my experience.

I believe Schneider Optics bought up all available new G-Claron

stock, and it is possible they still have some, in which case you

will need to go through an authorized Schneider dealer, which

includes Charles P. Farmer Photography. He got me a new

305mm G-Claron at a good deal, with great service, after the

new lenses became scarce.

I have a few Fidelity 8x10 holders. Today as I pulled a dark slide,

I noticed that a holder had a convex cupping across its width at

the end where the slide enters. I sighted across all of my Fidelity

holders, and was surprised to find that they all had a

pronounced cupping. No problems or light leaks at all, but I was

just curious if others have noticed this feature�perhaps it is

inherent to the design. I suppose the springs of the camera back

flatten the cupping when the holder is in the camera to make the

opening light tight.

Dan,

Do you mix the Pyrocat HD from the Photographer's Formulary

kit, or from scratch? If from scratch, do you use the phenidone, or

the metol as a substitute? I am not sure how to measure .2g of

phenidone accurately. Thanks.

I use your method of tapping the holder to make the film settle,

for long or multiple exposures. It solved the problem of film

movement for me.

I don't know, John, but SK Grimes makes a nice adaptor (new,

though!) that pushes onto the lens, and accepts a screw-in filter,

if that helps.

The f/64 is a great organizer for 8x10, assuming it is deep

enough for your camera. It is lightweight, too. I don't use the

waist belt�for longer hiking, I strap the pack to an aluminum

external frame, which makes for a comfortable set up. I like the

pack a lot.

Kodak Professional Photoguide advises, "Twelve hours before

departure...Remove film from freezer."

I recently did a shot at about 1:1, on 8x10, of a box, the inside of

the box, and the wall behind it. No movements would help focus.

I stopped down to f90, which I have done frequently in the field

with very sharp results on contact prints. But at the close

distance, the distortion was magnified, and the image was soft,

not out of focus exactly, but mushy.

Ed,

If the rod that goes through the holes at the bottom of the

standard has any play at all, it will allow your lensboard to flex if

you push on it, as Kevin mentioned�I am assuming this is a

design similar to Wisner. If the rod is brass, you can put one end

of the rod on something solid like an anvil, and peen around the

other end of the rod with a fine nail set lightly driven by a

hammer, working your way around the diameter of the pin. This

will make a tight fit, and is the way Wisner does it. Then peen the

other end. I tightened up my 4x5 Wisner Technical this way, after

talking to Ron Wisner on the phone for advice, and it is now very

solid on the front standard. That said, however, I don't think the

wiggle ever caused a photographic problem, but it is nice to have

the camera solid.

Thanks for the follow up and clarification, Eugene. I ended up

with a Canham JMC, by the way.

I would like to second the motion that Jim at Midwest Photo is

excellent to deal with concerning large format. He will tell you

exactly what he thinks about a camera, and will actually

discourage you from buying it if he thinks it doesn't fit your needs.

Eugene,

A few months ago I was having trouble locating an 8x10 Wisner.

Seeking an alternative, I asked on this board about the Zone VI

Ultralight. You replied, "John, The last time you asked this

question there weren't many responses. I still stand by the

response I gave you the last time. There are many better choices

out there. The Zone VI camera design, originally, was almost

identical to the Wisner, but the Wisner was constructed to much

higher tolerances." This seems to contradict your

recommending the Zone VI to Philip.

Yes, it is normal. Being used to the smoother sounding No.1, I

thought something was loose in the springy sounding No. 0

when I first fired it. But it just has a different sound.

The Ilford data sheet for FP4+ says 11 minutes with ID-11, 125

ASA, at 20 degrees C. I like 10 minutes. I use a cold light.