michael_kadillak6

The Bostick and Sullivan kit has a "filler" material that comes in a jar that can be spread lightly if only pin holes need to be filled. If is grey out of the jar, but dries a flexible black after the cure period. If applied in light coats (as any remedy for pin holes should)and is allowed to cure properly, you would not even know that it was there relative to using your bellows.

 

The kit also comes with some cheese cloth that is for areas where separation of the bellows (for example along a pleat) may have taken place and the fabric is used to provide a venue to hold the bellows together with the filler material. Considering the price of a new bellows, the kit is a bargain and was designed by folks that are photographers who use it themselves. Hope that helps.

Most of my large format lenses are Nikon with the exception being the Fuji 450 and 600C and the Rodenstock 75mm 4.5 offering. I acquired it from a good friend that had a long term fixation for a 75mm Zeiss Biogon that finally got sequestered and did not want to keep both. I saw what the Rodenstock recorded on some test shots under 20x magnification and I was literally blown away. Sharpest damn lens I have seen. Took me about two seconds to tell him I would take it. As much as I love my Nikon lenses, the 75mm Rodenstock is on a recessed Linhof lensboard and in my shooting bag. Good Luck.

Sounds like you need Rust-Oleum Grip Guard textured Rubber Coating to plug up those nasty holes. This is the same product that you can use to dip bare metal grips of hand tools to give them a flexible textured grip. Costs about $8.00 a 14.5 ounce can at your local hardware store and it comes in black. Make sure that you let it dry for several days before you fold up the camera. Another alternative is the Bostick and Sullivan bellows patch kit that can be found on their website. www.bostick-sullivan.com

 

Good Luck

I am in the market for a reasonable priced (under $500) flatbed

scanner and am completely ignorant about the current offerings. I

want to scan up to an 8x10 and have the ability to reverse image

(positive/negative) with reasonable (not wall hanging) quality. Ease

of managing the scanned image and previous customer satisfaction

would rate high marks in my search. Thanks in advance for your

recommendations.

Hello Richard.

 

The old Zone VI made two for this purpose. A leather "pistol" style one that sat upright and a square nylon one with a closing flap that also has a ring on the side to prevent a dropped meter from hitting the ground. I use the nylon one that could sit nicely beside the Spectra on your belt and keep the rain and dust at bay.

I also do not believe the lens will cover 8x10 adequately. I have a Nikon 150mm SW and it will cover 8x10 with an image circle of over 400mm. I have found that the quality of images of many lenses tends to start to degrade when one gets close to the coverage limits. Some lens designs are inherently better in this department than others. As a result, since I want to continually utilize 100% of the negative, I find the "insurance" of having much more coverage than I need rather comforting.

There are two Kodak Master 8x10 cameras right now on E Bay. Fine camera for the field. 12# and plenty of movements and bellows. I just re-finished one back to 100% (new bellows and wrinkle paint) that I will be selling soon if the above are not to your liking.

 

Good Shooting!

Maybe there is an opportunity here. When I used to regularly probe the Big Horn river in Montana for large sized Brown trout the good old fashioned way, there were those that flew in from wherever with little real time to do it right and simply went to a guide and paid big bucks for what they (felt) that did not want to do themselves. I have personally seen these guides take clients to the same spot on the river time and time again to catch the same pint sized fish and pay $250 a day for the convenience. You would have to look hard to distinguish the fish from the hands of the fisherman. In any event, we put in the leg work and had staked out several spots I found productive that the guides drifted by because it was more financially productive for them to pull in several nominal sized trout than it was to take the precious time and make the effort to appeal to the 3# + Browns that were in abundance. One time a guy from Boston about fell into the water when he saw my friend land a massive trout and he came over to me and asked "How does one go about getting one of these units?" I simply told him that you need to get your butt out of bed at 6 AM and put in the effort and you will be rewarded. He promptly called the office to say he was going to stay three more days, paid the $75 rebooking penalty and while we worked his ass off with us on the river from 6 AM to 7 PM, he said that he had the best fishing trip he had experienced in over 20 years. My point is that if you really are that pressed for time - get a guide to take you to exactly where the shots can be made. I am sure that there are plenty that are willing ready and able to walk you to the exact spot where you could accomplish your objectives stated above. If you really want to be excited about the process of putting your interpretation of one of the most visually stimulating areas in the United States on film from your perspective, get the maps, do some research and give yourself the time to really experience the event. Just my opinion to ponder - nothing more.....

Having shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 I can tell you that when one increases the format, the logistical issues compound expontentially. It is not only the increase of the size of the camera. You also need to consider the larger film holders, possibly larger lenses to cover the format, larger and heavier dark cloth and the sturdier tripod. Simply put, finding the balance of image quality versus manageability is a continuous (but wonderful)struggle. In the art of compromise, I find that 5x7 gives me the additional negative size over 4x5 I was searching for without unnecessarily sending me to the chiropractor for a regular tweeking when I want to pursue images that are off of the beaten path. I still marvel at the 8x10 negative when the situation pleasantly presents itself, but do not put myself unnecessarily over the edge because I have a very viable alternative in the 5x7 format. Film is not a concern anymore for this format and many manufacturers are selling them briskly. On the used market they are readily available cheap. Ditto with film holders. Many of the 4x5 lenses I use work fine on 5x7. I also like the proportions. Just my $0.02 opinion.

This subject has been kicked around many times over the last few years. While I find my Linhof finder invaluable and an important component to the composition equation in 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10, your question has two correct answers. If you can afford an older one for $150-$200, that is great. You will find it very worthy of a lifetime of use. The newer $750+ view finders from Linhof are strictly for those shooting hand held Master cameras with cammed lenses. Now if you are not able to afford one I suggest finding an old Zone VI viewing filter for B&W and tying knots in the laynard at the distance from your nose to the filter for the focal lengths of the lenses in your camera case. You could do the same thing with a piece of stiff cardboard or plastic. Without years of experience behind the ground glass, shuffling a camera on a tripod with all of the accessories to another "better" location even if it is only 10 feet away is a hassle squared. I for one want to know that when I drop legs, I am reaching for the right lens and am preparing to make a photograph, not fiddling with what I thought was going to be on the ground glass that is not what I am seeing there.

Kinda makes you wonder why there are so many used Nikon 450's for sale on E-Bay and from the brokerage houses? It has been quite a time since I saw a 450 Fuji for sale used. In the art of compromise, I do not find the Fuji 450 difficult to focus at all. Plus you can buy a quality screw in filter in 52mm for $20 and nearly 1.8" of additional coverage over the Nikon seals the deal. But each photographer needs to balance their needs for themselves. Good Luck and let us know what you select.

Jeffrey is correct:

 

Nikon 450 M -

50 degrees angle of coverage

4 elements in three groups

440 mm of coverage at f22

 

Fuji 450 C

57 degrees of coverage

4 elements in four groups

486 mm of coverage at f22

I obviously love Nikon glass as evidenced by the fact that the majority of my large format lenses are Nikon. But I will tell you that after using one, I decided NOT to get the Nikon 450. Great lens, but after using the Fuji 450 with its 52mm filter in a Copal #1, the massive Copal #3 used on the Nikon 450 was was to big and heavy for me. I use the 450 Fuji on 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 and it is sharp as a tack with a massive image circle of over 400mm. I have no problem focusing it even in the evening and morning as the image is so contrasty that it literally jumps out at you. The older I get, the more I appreciate intelligent design in light packaging. Why Nikon could not use the same criteria thaconcept thatThe Nikon 200 and 300m series is bwyond me. I have both of these and they are constantly in use whe I photograph. Good Luck.

Thanks to all that responded. After a suggestion from a respondent, I dug a bit and found a great article written by Gordon Hutchings on the Bergger 200 film in the Sep/Oct 1998 View Camera magazine (page 56) that includes a film curve (yes the film does appear to exhibit a considerably extended straight line through Zone X and is very close to Super XX film) and additional pertinent information on this film.

 

Why Bergger does not use this data is beyond me as it is highly complimentary from a very well respected authority in the large format community.

 

Happy shooting!

Thanks for the honest and direct response Jeff. I for one suspected that this was the case. Nice to see it confirmed.

 

One of the many reasons why Badger has such a reputable name in the Large Format community.

Anyone have access to a standardized film curve for Bergger 200 sheet

film. As it has been touted by many as the modern version of Kodak

Super XX, from my perspective, a picture would be worth a thousand

words. Thanks in advance.

 

MIKE

Checked with Stephen Stuart - No Luck.

Midwest, Clayton Camera no longer carry them. Person that was making them bagged it.

Glen View is was to expensive as I do not care about getting an original board.

Richard Ritter's e-mail bounces back. I will try to call him tomorrow.

Should have stocked up when they were available. Bummer.

I have been attempting to find a replacement Copal #3 lensboard for

my Kodak 8x10 Master camera and am having no luck. Classic Camera in

St Louis used to have them, but they appear to have progressed to an

internet seller and I cannot get them to respond to my questions.

Midwest said that the person that was fabricating them is no longer

doing so. Any suggestions on where I can acquire one (or more)?

 

Thanks in advance.

I acquired the infamous macro arm several months ago from Robert White and because I have not have the occasion to use it, I set it up to see if it worked properly after reading this post. Not a problem here. I have a TK 45S and after loosening the black knob, it was a precise fit. Not the least bit snug or to loose. Quite honestly, exactly the precise fit and feel that I have become used to from Linhof. I am disappointed that you and the previous respondent have had a problem with the accessory. Maybe it is time to do some precision micrometer work to ascertain where the problem lies?

 

Good Luck

While the A100 is on the heavy side for personal packing (I have one), getting the best out of Milly is where I feel the solution is.

 

Growing up in Montana, I learned early that you always want a balanced load and never want to leave anything sticking out to get caught on branches. As a result, when I pack my gear in, I use a simple hook scale to measure both sides of the panniers that fit over my cross buck saddle. I acquired a smaller Gitzo tripod for my use, but if I were packing your Ries, I would wrap it and lash it to the center position of the crossbuck that would essentially put the tripod down the center of the animals back. The rifle sling would not work as your tripod is to long and top heavy. Seen to many horses and mules throw loads when rifle slings get out of whack.

 

There is no way that I would attempt to put this tripod on a backpack. Not only is it to long, it is heavy as hell. I would recommend Robert White for a carbon fiber that will easily lash to the side or platform of your frame. You will go further on the trail and you may even take a couple of more holders. Good Luck

I do not have a Color, but I have a Bi and after checking with my Linhof research books, it appears that the main rail is similar on both the Bi and the Color. The rails have a center recess on the top and a screw in cap on the ends. With a similar rail, the center clamp should also be the same. Maybe Bob Solomon will chime in for the definitive answer.

If your tempratures are on the money as you stated, then I believe Henry has hit the nail on the head. The developer has characteristics that cause it to allow you to arrive at the manufacturers film speed. As long as you are getting consistent density in your negatives and your densitometer readings are where they should be, all appears well. Have you tried expansion and contraction tests yet to see how they are plotting?

Can't imagine that pre-soak has any difference. I do it for evenness of wetting at the introduction of the developer.

 

Since it is hot as the dickens this summer, have you considered measuring the temprature of your developer pre-JOBO? I was having some inconsistency with testing and found to my surprise that my chemistry had attained rather high tempratures ambient. Sometimes the JOBO can go beyond the desired temp as well so I keep the programmed temps a bit lower that needed and continue to monitor back and chemistry temps. Temprature can have a tremendous effect on your results and was about the only thing that I could imagine would cause this.

 

Good Luck.

I have a metal 5x7 Canham with a 4x5 back and shoot with several friends that have the 4x5 version of the same camera. You will notice the increased size of the camera more than the weight as they are both designed to be very light weight cameras. If you were to leave on the 4x5 back and get the new roll film back as well, you could easily do just fine. I would encourage you before you make this decision to go this route if you have not done it already to find someone with a 5x7 camera and work with it a bit. You may find like many of us that the 5x7 is really a wonderful proportion and in that instance, you are not committing yourself to the extra size of the larger camera just for the 617 opportunity.

 

There are other roll film backs that can be adapted to a 4x5 camera that may do just fine if you find out that you are indeed a 4x5 shooter that you will probably be much more comfortable in the long run. My point is in the give and get art of compromise, if you are not into the base format of the camera, eventually you will be asking yourself why you are dragging this larger camera around?

 

Good Luck.

Never considered using Skips method of maintaining a utilizing a wet drum because I find it challenging enough to get the film in the proper position in the drum without having to deal with the dry/wet situation simultaneously. Since the drum needs to be clean for each run, drying it correctly and doing your water pre-rinse in the drum rotating is not that big a deal for me. But the beauty of this forum is the diversity of the individual to do your own thing and if it works for you, that is great.

 

I have found like many others that while the JOBO is a marvelous piece of equipment, it is not very good at dealing with highly dilute development in compensating mode. Even so, I would be lost without my CPP2. Have Fun.