matt_long2

Pat and James:

 

<p>

 

With the exception of the last tongue in cheek comment, I am

merely paraphrasing an AP report of a subject that has been the

topic of discussion in this forum. Take it or leave it, but don't

make assumptions of what I may or may not have seen at

Delicate Arch.

 

<p>

 

I might suggest a 1:1 dilution of single malt scotch to soothe

ruffled feathers.

On Feb. 1, Michael Fatali was sentenced to two years probation

by a federal judge in Salt Lake City. During this period, Fatali is

prohibited from entering Arches and Canyonlands national

parks. In addition to 150 hours of community service, Fatali had

been ordered to pay $10,900 in restitution to the Park Service.

 

<p>

 

During court proceedings, Fatali also admitted to setting two

fires in the Needles district of Canyonlands in 1997. Federal

officials have seized all the negatives, originals and prints of the

firelight photos.

 

<p>

 

While the Assistant U.S. Attorney had asked that Fatali be

banned from all NPS lands in Utah, the judge denied the request

saying that the penalty would be "onerous."

 

<p>

 

Watch out Zion National Park!

I was wondering if any of you have noticed a difference in rigidity between the older Gitzo tripods and the newer MkII versions. In terms of eliminating play at the connections, it seems to me that having the head mounting platform resting directly on the shoulder of the tripod (old version) would be preferable to having the platform located above the center column locking collar. Any thoughts?

Velvet Elvis caps!! You might be onto something, Dan!

 

<p>

 

-- Matt

 

<p>

 

P.S. -- I wonder how difficult it would be to add the word

"Rodenstock" in sequins?

Chris:

 

<p>

 

When I read your post, I went to your website and viewed your

images. (Good idea to increase those site hits!) After all, with a

blanket condemnation such as yours, I figured that you must certainly

be on the cutting edge of art photography.

 

<p>

 

Yet upon viewing your images, (which by the way are very good), I

have to ask you this: Are you the first person to photograph moss

covered trees in the old growth forests of the Pacific N.W.? No?

Then why do YOU take photographs of pretty nature scenes that have

been photographed before. Do your images scream "This photo was

taken by Chris Jordan"? Is this art or another hackneyed

interpretation of nature?

 

<p>

 

I suspect that you photograph these scenes because they appeal to

you. Why we photograph what we do is a very personal, and at times,

unexplainable decision -- something inside of us just "clicks." (No

pun intended). We make photographs because there is something that

lies before our eyes that appeals to us and sparks a creative

interst, not because it meets some self serving interpretation of art

ala Susan Sontag. If similar subjects have been photographed before,

so what? If a person draws inspiration from a subject that helps

them to grow in a way perhaps known only to them, who are we to say

that their efforts lack meaning?

Matt:

 

<p>

 

FWIW, I have the 150 APO Sironar-S that folds up with my Wista

SP. I can fit a lens with a front filter diameter of 52mm on a

lensboard that has the hole drilled in the center (Wista

pre-drilled boards have an offset hole). Hope this helps.

Dave:

 

<p>

 

While I cannot directly answer your inquiry regarding the use of the

3263 geared head, I can offer a little food for thought. If you like

the features of a geared head, consider the Bogen 3275 compact gear

head. I have used one for years with my Wista 45SP without any

complaints. At 2.75 pounds, it is three pounds lighter that the

3263. It has a feature that allows you to disengage the gearing for

rapid, coarse adjustment while the gearing allows you to fine tune

your composition. However, if you need the load capacity of the

larger 3263 head, I would go with the Arca B1 -- it's a fine piece of

equipment and weighs a fraction of the big Bogen head. Good luck!

Hagai:

 

<p>

 

You can fold up any of the Wista technical field cameras (RF, SP and

VX) with the 135mm Sironar N. When using a lensboard with a hole

that is centered (some predrilled lensboards offset the mounting hole

slightly), you can close the camera with a lens having a front filter

diameter of 52mm. I have a Rodenstock 150mm Sironar S with a 49mm

filter diameter that fits with both offset and centered lensboards.

Your 135mm has a 40.5mm filter size -- I see no problem whatsoever

with these cameras.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

Matt

Just a quick question to other LF shooters. Do you have any favorite areas in Vermont and New Hampshire that you would recommend during the first couple of weeks in October? Any comments and/or thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Of Cows and Bellows -- While the word "cow" is the term for the

female of the bovine species (as well as a few others), you would get

a few raised eyebrows, even here in Montana, if you exclaimed to a

rancher, "My, you sure have a lot of bovines in your field!" Now

bellows is another matter, although bovines are known to bellow.

Using my Montana guide to linguistics, I suggest using the

term "stretchy thingamajiggy" when referring to this camera part in

order to avoid confusion with loud cows. Matt.

In case you people haven't noticed, this site is known as the

Large Format PHOTOGRAPHY Homepage, not the bitch and

click forum. Lately several thread have degenerated into

sophomoric pissing matches by people with slightly bruised

egos. If you feel that you must response to a particularly

egregious comment that you take as a personal affront, please

do so outside of this forum. If a posting is factually incorrect,

provide the proper information in a constructive fashion. If you

feel that you must assert your photographic superiority, go bash

some newbie in the 35mm discussion group. Remember, this

site is for the sharing of information and ideas regarding large

format photography, and many of us have little time to waste on

postings cluttered with petty accusations and intellectual

posturing. Let's get back to photography!

Richard:

 

<p>

 

I use a Maxwell screen on my Wista SP with lenses ranging from

90 to 300mm and have found that it provides a noticable

improvement over the stock Wista gg/fresnel. However, if you

are using lenses wider that 75mm or so, you may have to

acquire a dedicated screen for use with those focal lengths.

Give Bill a call and he will steer you in the right direction for your

particular setup. Good luck in your search.

While doing a little equipment daydreaming (and drooling), I was wondering if forum users have had any hands-on experience with the Art Panorama 617. I like the fact that you can use your existing LF lenses (within a certain range) and that the camera body is considerably cheaper than a Linhof or Fuji. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

While considering the purchase of a bag bellows, I have one question to which I hope fellow LF users can provide some information. When using Wista's wide angle bellows (bag bellows) with one of their technical field cameras, i.e., VX, SP or RF, is it neccessary to remove the bellows to fold up the camera? Any info or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

I wasn't too keen on the offset hole on the Wista boards. I simply

purchased the blank boards and had a local machine shop bore

the properly sized hole in the center. Yes, the board comes with

a pilot hole off center, but this does not come into play when

centering a larger hole. The Wista boards are excellent and

considerably cheaper than Linhoff. Good luck in your search.

Dmitri:

 

<p>

 

My initial guess would be "no." In the case of my Wista SP, the

Wista folding reflex hood replaces the folding focusing hood on

the gg frame. So unless the dimensions and the hinge/latch

arrangement of the Wista are identical to Horseman, I say it

would be unlikely. Perhaps others readers who have compared

both cameras side by side could provide a more definative

answer.

Sorry to post a question that has been answered before. Could

one of you readers please provide contact information regarding

Robert White? Thanks for your assistance.

Charles:

 

<p>

 

My two cent opinion for a single lens in 4x5 is the 150mm APO Sironar-

S. Excellent image circle and razor sharp optics in an extremely

small package. I particularly like the fact that I can fold up my

Wista 45SP with the lens attached -- quite handy!

David:

 

<p>

 

I second the garment bag suggestion. I have used this setup for

years and it has provided a clean, dust-free environment for drying

negs (normal room drying, no forced air) at a minimal expense.

Ross--

I purchased a screen from Bill Maxwell last summer and have been quite

happy with this product. In our phone conversation, Bill indicated

that for my particular camera, a Wista 45SP, it would be necessary to

send him the g.g. frame so that he could install the screen/fresnel

according to factory specs, thereby addressing the concern expressed

by Bob S. If this was the case with your camera, Bill would have

requested the same action of you. Bill knows what he is doing, and

his product is a marked improvement over my Wista's factory fresnel.

 

<p>

 

Happy focussing!

Roger:

 

<p>

 

Go to your local "________-Mart" and check out the line of insulated

lunch totes from Artic Zone. I found a padded nylon, box-style lunch

tote that fits my Wista 45SP perfectly -- all for around $12. They

also make a "sack-style" tote that holds several 4x5 film holders

quite nicely. If I want an extra amount of padding, I put my camera

in a large Op-Tech wrap prior to placing it in the padded tote. All

of these cases then go into my Osprey pack and I'm ready to go!

 

<p>

 

Outdoor Research makes similar backpacking items called padded cells

to protect delicate items when placed in a typical climbing pack.

However, they are much more expensive and their dimensions are not

sized quite as well for the needs of the 4x5 photographer as the Artic

Zone products. Give it a try -- you can't go wrong for the price.

Good luck.

Alan:

 

<p>

 

I posted this info a couple of months ago, but it may still be timely:

 

<p>

 

"You might want to check out eBay. I recently purchased a new-in-box Agfa D104 densitometer for $107. More are for sale. The seller of these units acquired several from a business that was closing, and as part of the purchase agreement, Agfa required that the name be obscured before the units could be resold. While the name has been scratched out somewhat crudely, the densitometer is in otherwise like-new condition. I have found this densitometer to be compact, easy to use and accurate. At a little over $100, I think that's a pretty good deal."

 

<p>

 

If you do not find any postings for this denisitometer, e-mail me and I will provide you with the name and number of the seller. Hope this helps. Cheers.

Paul --

 

<p>

 

When testing for effective film speed, vary your exposures by changing the aperture rather than the shutter speed. Try to use 1/125 or 1/60 for the majority of your test exposures -- these speeds tend to be more accurate in leaf shutters. Variences in the accuracy of different shutter speeds can introduce a slight error into the determination of your effective film speed.

 

<p>

 

Also, in your procedure, are you taking the base + fog value into account when you establish Zone I? At the risk of being redundant, remember that the proper determination of your effective film speed is essential for proper shadow detail. The Zone I value should be approximately 0.1 above your film's base + fog density. The highlights, of course, are determined by development time. Since the determination of effective film speed is the first step, an error here could have an effect of subsequent calibration procedures.

 

<p>

 

Admittedly, sensitometry can at times be frustrating, but the end result is quite rewarding because everything is keyed to your individual method -- your own camera, shutter, exposure meter, developing, printing and seeing. Good luck!

You might want to check out eBay. I recently purchased a new-in-box Agfa D104 densitometer for $107. More are for sale. The seller of these units acquired several from a business that was closing, and as part of the purchase agreement, Agfa required that the name be obscured before the units could be resold. While the name has been scratched out somewhat crudely, the densitometer is in otherwise like-new condition. I have found this densitometer to be compact, easy to use and accurate. At a little over $100, I think that's a pretty good deal.

Given the discussion among various threads regarding processing techniques and HABS/HAER requirements, I have come across a subject that may prompt some interesting responses in this forum. I recently received a publication from the National Park Service entitled HABS/HAER Photography: Specifications and Guidelines. The guidelines require that all film must be processed by hand using the dip and dunk technique with tanks and hangers -- no tray development or use of automatic processing equipment. This publication specifically states that "Films and prints developed by automatic processing machines have repeatedly failed stability tests are are not considered archival." I have alway thought that archival stability could be obtained using a variety of development methods, as long as one paid close attention to proper fixing, clearing and washing techniques. Comments, anyone?