jnorman1

to answer the question in your header, film flatness only matters

when you are exposing the film and when you are printing a negative :-

)

i have put 1000s of negatives through my camera using the kodak

readyload system, and for the past 2 years, i have had a zero failure

rate, and have never noticed any type of film flatness problems.

after understanding what the issues were, it was easy to find methods

that ensure proper handling of the film packets to eliminate any

potential light leaks or failures of the holder in gripping the inner

film mount. i am now transitioning over to the new single sheet

system, which seems definitely more secure in its operation. it is a

wonderful system, as i am sure the fuji system is as well, and makes

it possible for me to carry hundreds of negs on my shoots. there are

days when i expose up to 200 negs - imagine trying to do that with

regular film holders!

there really isnt any contest between the archival life of RC vs

fiber-base papers. rc is viable for 60 years or so, whereas a

properly processed fiber-base print is archival for over 500 years.

the primary difference is that the emulsion is embedded in the grain

of a fiber base paper, while the emulsion sits on top of a plastic

coating on an rc paper. this not only affects archival qualities,

but also the tonality of the finished print. a fiber-base print

typically will yeild a much deeper tone than an rc print. good rc

papers do exhibit a nice range of gray tones, however, and because of

that, they make very good proof prints. no art museum or archival

collections that i know of will accept RC prints. one last little

item is the quality of the paper itself - a good DW fiber-base paper

simply feels more substantial and has a much more loveable surface

characteristic than RC papers.

since my CT printing is all digital now, i expose CTs the same way i

expose my b/w negs. i meter the brightest and darkest areas i care

about retaining detail, expose half-way between them, and bracket as

much as i feel like i need to depending on the conditions. the best

advice here is to experiment, so you have a personal feel for what

works and what doesnt. try not to turn it into some confusing,

mentally-challenging exercise. experience can often be a better

indicator than your light meter...

i used to use polaroid for exposure checks, but found that it was

much cheaper and easier to just bracket my CT exposures, and not

worry about it. there are applications where this can be handy, but

not for the extensive field work i do. i dont want to carry anythign

else, and i dont have time to futz around when i need to get 100

shots in a day. since all my CT printing is digital now, i dont

slightly underexpose CTs like i used to either.

working in the field of architecture, i find that the 135 is a very

useable focal length, and mine gets a ton of use (though certainly

not as much as the 90mm). i had a 150 nikkor for a while, but never

used it. i have used current model 135mm lenses from nikkor,

rodenstock, schneider, and caltar, and i cant tell a hill of beans

worth of difference in any of them - they are all superb.

doing HABS/HAER work, i have often found myself in some pretty

ridiculous exposure situations, in the middle of abandoned tunnels,

dark buildings, bridge abutment housings, unlighted machinery rooms,

etc. as mark mentioned above, it is pretty hard to overexpose in

those kinds of situations. if my meter reads 30 secs or 2 minutes,

or some such, i just wave my finger in the air to see which way the

exposure is blowing, and open the shutter. i wander around a little

while and come back and close it. i have never once had a bad neg

using that technique, and oddly, there doesnt ever seem to be any

noticeable difference between negatives exposed for wildly differing

amounts of time. i used to obsess about this kind of thing, but long

experience has taught me i dont need to worry about it.

bob - i went to your website looking for the item, since i have never

been fully satisfied with the short metal flex adapters i have used

for years (the metal sheathing tends to fray easily), but while i saw

the gepe pro wide angle gizzie listed, it did not provide a picture

or description. a couple of years ago, i tried one of the adapters

that is rigid and has a swivel right angle, and uses internal springs

and little ball bearings - that one failed on me the day i got it.

can you provide a description of the adapter or a picture? thanks.

while i have thoroughly enjoyed several of mr szarkowski's previous

books, i just cant imagine that the world needed another book about

ansel adams.

i would just comment that the library of congress does not consider

any method of dry mounting to be archival. all of the materials

which we prepare for exhibition purposes for HABS/HAER are mounted

with linen tape hinges. prints are flattened prior to mounting using

mild heat in a press.

i have no doubt that the 110 is an excellent lens, but my experiences

lead me to feel that i would not be able to substitute a 110 for my

existing 90sw nikkor, since it is all too often that even the 90 is

barely wide enough for many architectural situations. when i have a

bit more room, i tend to use my 135 for a bit flatter treatment. i

dont feel like something in between those two lenses would benefit me

that much. landscape is a very different animal than architecture...

i agree with bob - both of those are likely quite old, and i would be

very careful, especially with the hassy. hasselblads have SO MANY

moving parts, it is problematic to find a C that is in realiably

usable condition. it is not nearly as problematic to purchase a

older view camera, in terms of mechanical operability, but with the

older technicas, you have to watch out for compatibility with newer

accessories, boards, etc, and that can make quite a difference. if

you really want a hassy (i used that system for several years and it

is truly superb, but unbelieveably expensive), buy a newer model, at

least a mint 500CM with an accumat screen. since the shutters are in

the lenses, buy the newest, mintest condition lens(es) you can

afford - this rule also applies to view cameras - put your biggest

money in the lenses. with the technica, check the model #, as bob

suggests, get some comments from him about current useability before

purchasing. square is a great format for portraiture, but not the

best choice for landscapes. i did enjoy square for a long time for

fine art meanderings, but i do architecture for a living, and my

heart is 4x5. i dont even own any smaller cameras any more...

i have been using a cambo/calumet 45NX with a reflex viewer for

almost 20 years for HABS/HAER architectural work. the cambo system

has a wide range of affordable accessories that are easy to find even

used. it is a rugged workhorse of a camera that has never let me

down even though it has gone in the river and down the cliff. as

hard as i try, i cant seem to wear it out. for several years, i have

been able to afford any camera i want, and i just cant find any good

reason to buy a different camera. it is everything i need, and at

this point, it is an old and trusted friend. i am afraid i will

breakdown before it does...

i dont think you can beat a good used cambo/calumet 45NX. my

apprentice just picked one up for $500. she got a schneider 135/5.6

for $250, and a bogen 3021 w/3047 head for $150. the older crown and

speed graphics are great cameras, but for learning, i would recommend

something that has good, full movements and more flexibility.

sandy - please take a look at my last book, "oregon main street" (by

james norman, pub by OHS (oregon historical society) press, available

at amazon.com, powells books, etc), which may give you some good

ideas. i compiled a series of about 50 historic main street views

from cities and towns across oregon, and went back to each location

and reproduced each view as it appears today. the images were

presented in the book as then and now pairs, and i had a team of four

of my historian colleagues write descriptions of each pair of images

describing the changes, both architectural and cultural, that had

occurred over the past century, and a chapter on the development of

cities in oregon. i wrote an introduction chapter that gave an

overview of the rephotographic process. all the contemporary images

were made with a 4x5 in black and white, with perspective control and

vantage point matching the historic view as closely as possible. the

project was immensely enjoyable, and the OHS museum in portland

prepared a wonderful year-long exhibition of the materials that has

now become one of their most rented-out traveling exhibitions around

the state. also check out the dover book "main street usa in early

photographs". there are several non-scholarly "then and now" books

available for most of the larger cities in the US which can give you

a good idea of what those city's main streets look like now. if what

you want is towns which show little change from the past, look for

places that have been bypassed by the interstate freeways, or even

better, bypassed by the railroads when they were built in the 1800s -

check out jacksonville in southern oregon in my book - the current

views look almost identical to the historic views. good luck on your

project.

for the LF CTs that i submit to the library of congress, i have

completely converted over to digital prints. i have found that

scanning the CT and making a digital print on crystal archive (FUJI),

yeilds a much finer print than you can get from any reversal paper.

large prints from these scans are simply superb.

sandy - two of the books i have had published by the oregon

historical society included large numbers of photographs of private

residences and commercial buildings. the lawyers for OHS assured me

that there is no legal restraint on taking photographs of anything

that is within clear view from public-owned property (anything you

can see from the street is fair game). you do not need releases from

any of those property owners.

as i have been told, yes, you can use the old holder with the new

single sheet packets. however, it is probably best ot upgrade your

holder as soon as you can since the new holder is supposedly an

improvement over the old holder. i have two on order for as soon as

they are available.

hand check works fine - they usually want to open the box if it is

not sealed, but that doesnt hurt anything. i had to hand carry 23

boxes of readyloads the last time i went on an out of state job - no

problem. however, i have also run plenty of readyloads through the

check in Xray machine and have had no problem with that either. i

just dont worry about it.

a slight correction to bob's response - jack boucher is the principal

photographer for HABS, and jet lowe is the principal photographer for

HAER. i have had a few opportunites to work with jet, and he is

superb, both in his technical abilities and sense of composition, but

also in his extraordinary depth of knowledge on the history of

engineering.

i do HABS/HAER recordation for a living. if you email me your fax

number, i can fax you the standards. the process to prepare these

materials for submittal to NPS i quite involved, and i have a full-

time assistant that does nothing but process all my work for

submittal. all the work is large-format and black-and-white, unless

LF CTs are specifically requested by paul dolinski (HABS) or eric

delony (HAER). each negative must be archivally processed, and

labelled in the margin with the accession number. each print is on

fiber-base paper, also to archival standards, and labelled on the

verso. each negative goes in its own archival sleeve which also must

be labelled, and each print is mounted on a card, also labelled. for

many projects, we also must process the historic narrative

materials. all materials are tested upon receipt at NPS, and if they

do not test properly for archival stability, they are rejected. btw,

i use permawash :-)

dont know what kind of camera youre using, but i gave up on dark

cloths many years ago as too slow and awkward for my needs. i use,

and highly recommend, reflex viewfinders - mine is a cambo and cost

only $150 when i bought it. i would not want to work without it.

i have alwasy used WD40 on a cloth to just wipe things down, and then

wipe off any residue with a clean cotton cloth. however, a young

lady posted on here a few months back on this same topic, and

recommended using a dry silicon lubricant, which is non-oil based,

and that seemed like a good idea. i'm just too old and set in my

ways to change now :-)

you can do lots of good work with a decent press-type camera. i have

a 1948 crown graphic that i use with a rodenstock 135mm 5.6 when i

need to be in a position where i cannot use a tripod. yes, the

movements are limited, but they are functional. it is not often in

my HABS/HAER work that i use much movement anyway - very slight

shifts take care of probably 80% of the views. it is only in tight

downtown conditions trying to shoot very tall buildings that extreme

movements are usually required. OTOH, i would never try to use a

field/press camera for normal architectural work - they are far too

awkward, limited and slow compared to a monorail. press cameras can

be fun to use, and are flexible enough for a wide variety of

applications, and if that is all you have access to, by all means use

it. but if you are buying a camera to do serious work with, get a

monorail.

frankly, bruce, with the films you mention, the issue is really not

grain structure, it is color saturation and depth. each of those

films are very fine films, and it really depends on which film

appeals more to you personally in terms of hues and color balance.

it also has something to do with what type of work you do - each

seems to have its strength in a different area.