marv5

I think we also got teflon out of the space program. If you cook any

of the above on teflon it tastes like........chicken!

<p>

So if every thing always taste like chicken....why not just eat

chicken?

<p>

But back to the original subject, sort of, until I get my check to

produce my art, I want my ten cents back.

Just a couple of observations Mr. Webb.

<p>

I have used a MXII, main difference is a tapered bellows I believe,

for 25 years. I have used a Beseler condenser head, Zone VI cold

light and at present am using a Zone VI VC head. I contact 8X10

negatives that tend to be a little on the dense side (gotta love

those highly technical terms!) and the times are in the 30 to 45

second range for the soft light exposure and an additional 5 to 10

seconds for the hard light. I guess I don't know if that makes it

high or low intensity (it gets a little hard to see through those

8X10,s sometimes). I do some printing for a local pro of the high

school teams in 645 format. She has negatives that run from 5 seconds

to 25 seconds depending if she is inside with flash or out in the

sun. (I know these times are not entirely relevent but give you an

idea.)

<p>

As to used I can't see a down side except maybe finding one. I

occasionally go to Iowa City Iowa where the university is and at a

small camera store they have one on ocassion. I am not sure how to

age a Beseler (I believe they date to the 50's) except that they go

from green to blue to black, MX, MXII, and MXT. If someone knows

different I stand corrected and humbled by thier knowledge! A little

digging might uncover one, maybe an ad in the classifieds. I had a

friend call one night wanting to know if I wanted an Omega enlarger,

no charge. Well the price was right! I went over to his house and it

turned out to be an old 4X5 enlarger in need of some tlc and a cord.

His neighbor had aquired it some where along the line and was going

to set it out for fall junk pick up. It's now on semi permanent loan

to a friend along with the Zone VI cold light head. The point is they

are out there and not everyone is either aware of thier value or

cares.

<p>

As far as the motor blowing out I haven't had a problem and it has

made a few trips up and down the column! There should be availabiltiy

of parts and assemblies, it has been around for a while.

The ones that I got for my Zone VI timer are made by Treadlite. Cat.

No. T-51-S, Linemaster Switch Corp, Woodstock Conn. I also have one

that has no name on it but it looks exactly like the others. It was

designed for running a piece of equipment such as a band saw, I use

it to turn on my light box. You may find them with a "funky" plug to

fit a particular piece of equipment; that is easily dispatched with a

side cutter. As Michael said a well stocked hardware store is your

best bet.

I would like to address the VC cold light head vs. cold light head

with VC filters. Having started with a cold light and doing split

development in Selectol Soft and Zone VI developer using graded

papers I thought I had a pretty good system. After the latest

generations of VC papers came out I dabbled, using VC papers and VC

filters with the cold light. Lousy experience. Great images. Why? VC

filters just aren't made for a cold light. They are to widely spaced

and can make exposures painfully long. Good theory, bad practice.

<p>

But the results were there; the split printing allows to you

to "easily" control high light and shadow values.

<p>

Now, move to a VC head, mine is a Zone VI. By utilizing a couple of

different techniques you are working with 2, 3 or however

many "grades" on one sheet of paper. (When you move to this type of

printing "grades" become moot. You are in a realm of tones and

texture where you are going for the right "look" not a grade value.)I

start with a test using the soft light only, establishing my high

value exposure. Print a picture at that exposure and do a test strip

with hard light only over it. This time I look for the low value

only. After determining that time I make a print for the soft light

time, turn it off and turn on the hard and print for that time. All

this while NEVER touching the negative stage of the enlarger. Now you

have determined an overall "contrast" (I prefer tone and texture) for

the image you can use your test strips to determine if there are

areas of local contrast that can be adjusted. Could the high values

be a bit harder, maybe a shadow could soften up just a bit. I feel

this is as close to toal control in the darkroom as there is. A real

low tech photoshop that still requires you to get your hands wet with

smelly chemicals!

Lioe Sean say's....yes I do like mine! (Haven't forgot about you

Sean, it's just been a busy spring!)I can't attest to 90mm, haven't

tried it, but I have shot a good few with a 121mm Super Angulon and

it...almost...covers...8X10. Takes a little tilting back of the front

standard, but is easy to do. Make it 7 1/2 by 9 1/2, with a really

neat perspective but not much movement (I haven't need much with that

wide an angle lens). There may be lighter 8X10's, but when comparing

the weight of elephants it is just relative, they all are heavy.

<p>

It handles a 19 and 25 inch lens quite well, longer and you do run

out of bellows closer than infinity. The movements at 10" to 15" are

very good and the controls all work smoothly. Like a previous poster

said, wood can generally be fixed, I haven't had to yet thank

goodness. I don't know what you are shooting now, but the switch to

8X10 is a bit daunting. Aside from the camera itsself I just found

the transition from 4X5 to be more than I expected. Everything is in

the same place but the places are further apart. Try to stop down a

19 or 25" lens from behind the camera! All in all though I found it

to worth the work, there is nothing quite like that big negative!

I use Brian Ellis' daub method and no photo flo. Straight from the

wash to the drying line. I have never had a water spot on 4X5 or

8X10, smaller formats are a different story, who knows why. I daub

with a clean towel, you don't have to touch the film with the towel,

just touching the water will wick the drop off of the film.

<p>

I may just be lucky that our tap water is clean enough to do this,

otherwise you can use distilled water as was also suggested.

Having made prints from hundreds of glass plates ranging in size from

2X2" to 8X10" I can attest to thier quality. For what ever reason the

old plates can make very beautiful prints, as alluded to by Josh.

Although the print exposure times ranged from f32 at 1/2 second to

f5.6 at 7 minutes, 90% of all of the plates I printed made prints

that rival any made off of a modern negative. When the exposures were

right on the prints have a depth that is amazing.

<p>

That being said, having read exposure times off of the negative

sleeves,(f22 @ 1/10 second in BRIGHT sunlight for example), I

wouldn't give up the modern emulsions speed. I had one batch that

even had street addresses of buildings, unfortunately in the

intervening years the city fathers changed all of the addresses in

that area so it takes some researh to compare them to todays

buidings.

<p>

If you ever get the chance to print from some of these negatives it

can be an interesting history lesson. One set even had a couple of

pictures of the photographers darkroom dating from around 1900, funny

he never did show his enlarger!

Probably the hardest thing for me to get used to was a lack of a

depth of field scale. Coming from a 6X7 that had a excelent system it

was difficult, but once you figure out the process it becomes almost

second nature.

<p>

First the hyper focal rule of thumb (remember this is a broad

generalization and depends on how your image is set up) is to focus

on a point one half of the distance between the hyperfocal point and

the furthest point in the scene. If you have the chart for the lens

it will say that at (this is an example these figures are not

correct) f22 when the camera is focused at infinity the hyperfocal

distance is 100 feet. You would then focus half way between 80 feet

and infinity. It takes some practice determining where these spots

are at on a view camera and in the scene. This is also a complicated

process, but kknowing how it works gives you a base to work from.

Even if you are not at the half way pooint the next tip I give you

will help compensate for teh error.

<p>

The most useful tool is back tilt. When using back tilt, focus on the

far (the bottom of the ground glass) and tilt the back until the near

(the top of the ground glass) comes into focus. You will have to

refocus on the far and re tilt and re focus on the near

until "everything" comes in to clear focus. You may find that the

very center stays a bit out of focus. It takes a little fussing until

you get used to it. Now stop down and watch as the center comes in to

focus. I think you will find that with a 150mm, f22 to f32 should

give you good depth of field.

<p>

Lastly, don't be afraid to use f45 or f64 if you have them. Getting

everything in focus is better than worrying about a diffraction

problem that may only be noticable at a room sized print. You are

starting out and I would suggest that using every available aid be it

tilt, fstop, etc. would be the best approach. If after you have

polished your technique you find diffraction is a problem then work

to eliminate it.

I use the dark slide from the film holder. All you want to do is keep

sunlight off of the lens and it doesn't add any extra weight or gear

to accomplish the mission. Just be careful with wide angles not to

include it in the frame. It can never be forgotten, lost or misplaced

and it gives you something to do with the slide while you expose the

negative.

If you are doing one sheet at a time you have a couple of things to

try. Besure you have enough developer. At least 2 1/2 to 3 inches if

possible. DON'T DON'T DON'T rock the tray. Lift the film out and

slide it back in, by the end and by the side alternating the ends and

sides. Emulsion up and emulsion down with constant agitation. USE

GLOVES and see if the problem goes away.

<p>

I have not had a problem with PMK and damaged emulsion. I do 6 to 8

sheets and "shuffle" them like cards, alternating sides and ends with

the emulsion down. Puling the bottom sheet out and putting it on the

top using constant agitation.

<p>

Good luck, these probl;ems can be a bear to isolate!

I was able to find a hard lens hood that slipped over the barrel of

the lens, after applying a couple layers of tape to the inside of the

hood it fits snug. I then found a 67mm adapter ring that fit over the

threaded part of the hood. By gluing them together I can utilize my

67mm filters on the lens. It cost less than $10.00 for the two pieces

and a little time. The "adapter" fits on both the front and rear

maiking it useful for use behind the lens when the lens is converted.

You mention elitist and exclusivist reasons for maintaining our

seperate identity here, I preferr to look at the reasons more as a

matter of pride. Pride in the fact that the base or core users of

this site havent't required a password to enter; the site hasn't been

shut down because of racial, ethnic and other offensive material;

there are very few un-related posts and those that do appear are

given a polite and accurate response, not yelled at and told they are

stupid or worse just deleted.

<p>

We have one of the very few sites that is productive, civil,

interesting and at times even amusing. If others want to find this

site, it is here, we all found it. If it is a lack of traffic, I see

days when there are actually more posts on this site than photo.net,

of course who knows how many are deleted over there or never make it

because of a spelling check they have.

<p>

Elitist, no just concerned that we don't get "acquired" by the big

fish; ask Chrysler how they feel about thier merger of "equals".

We were just in the Phoenix area a week ago. East and just north of

Mesa/Apache Junction there are a number of good spots. Take nearly

any road off a black top and you can find "stuff". Just be aware

there are few if any signs as to private property etc. Spent 6 or 8

days on day trips and never saw any trouble, and very few people,

pack a shovel to fill in washouts (the little ones) they have had a

LOT of rain and the desert is green, literally, and full of flowers.

<p>

The trip to Tortilla Flats (the Flats are very touristy)has good

light in the P.M.but lots of power wires to shoot around ( I forgot

my power wire filter), beyond Tortilla Flats is a 23 mile road to

Roosevelt Dam that we spent 5 hours on last year, average speed 7.5

m.p.h., including photo stops but what scenery!

<p>

If you go to Mt Lemmon in Tuscon, and I do recommend it, be aware the

road is closed on two different days of the week, I think they are

Tuesday and Wednesday. You can get to the ranger station at any rate,

it cost $4.00 a day beyond there. Just before the ranger station is a

pull off, walk down the trails and there are some great granite

boulders with a stream (at least there was last week)that were good

in the afternoon light. The road up to the station has some nice

features, may require some walking.

<p>

Have fun and enjoy!

Ah then.......that is the thing that sets Large Format apart from all

other photogaphy.

<p>

The feel of fine mahogany, the gleam of brass against a rich finish,

the soft click as the shutter is released, the smooth sound of a film

holder being inserted before the exposure, the firm feel of the

focusing knob and the scene dancing on the ground glass, the window

that gives you an image you can SEE. The smell of leather and wood as

you throw the dark cloth over your head and become immersed in an

image, the outside world shut out, no distractions, no excuses, no

electronics, knowing that the exposure is f32 at 1/30th of a second

because of the way the light looks and if it were winter it would be

1/15th of a second.

<p>

A camera, a lens, a tripod and a film holder or two; and knowing that

4 sheets of film will be enough because it takes work, mental and

spiritual awareness to visualize the images you wish to capture. And

at the end of the day you develope the sheets and you have a sense of

accomplishment, not from quantity but quality.

<p>

Large Format photography is a discipline, as much as an art, the

miniature formats can never hope to match because they don't have the

advantages that we do. Less convenient? Hardly, the right tool for

the job is never an inconvenience.

For a lot of photographers of my era, I am 47, Adams was the one

source of information on the zone system that was readily available

when we started in L.F. photography. Add to that his penchant for

detailing how he created his images and you have a one stop source of

information. A photographer who was passionate about his craft and

unlike many of his contemporaries WILLING to share his secrets and

thoughts. He desired to have his images used by the next generation

as learning tools, he compared the negative to a score, able to be

interpreted in many ways. He was bigger than life to many of his

students and "fans" if you will, and he was, in the field of

photography, very much sure of himself. Maybe vane, maybe not all

that prone to crediting his photorgaphic fore fathers, but willing to

give of his time, talent and knowledge. I suppose he could have

destroyed all of his negatives as some have done, but he felt that

there was value to using his images in the future, I beleive he would

have loved to see what could be done in Photoshop 10 somewhere in the

not so near future.

<p>

I hope you see a trend in my thinking, I feel that his sharing of the

knowledge, even if you had to buy the book was possibly his greatest

legacy. He was, is and in all probability will be a controversial

figure for years to come. The one thing he won't be is forgotten

soon, his was more than 15 minutes of fame.

<p>

At one time I thought he was the only photorgapher worth looking to

for inspiration. I have found many more, but they all took a LOT more

looking for than Adams. But if I had not had him as a model I

probably would not have sought out the other photographers that mean

so much to me now; it was his persistence in producing the very best

he could that I took away from my studies of his works.

<p>

Personally I don't buy into having to acknowledge your heritage at

every turn. If you are interested in the history of photography, you

will see the influence of other's in someone such as Adams work. I

prefer that he share HIS knowledge with me not his spend time

crediting someone who won't share thier thoughts, theories and

technique. that doesn't help me, his sharing did and still does.

<p>

There is an old saying that some times a cigar is just a cigar;

somtimes a beautiful images is just a beautiful image regardless of

who did it or why.

Iwould definetly consider Mt. Lemmon. We took our time driving up

with lots of stops and sight seeing, unfortunately all I had was my

digital camera and a real yearning for the 8X10, and made it back

down in 35 to 45 minutes driving straight through. We were there in

February and there was still snow in the protected areas, you travel

up to nearly 9000 feet I believe. The scenery goes from Saguaro catus

fields to alpine firs, with a lot of places to stop and view along

the way. It cost $5.00 I think for a day pass and was well worth

the "donation". It is easy to get to and the roads are all paved.

I can't speak directly ot the 58mm on 4X5, but I do use a 121mm on

8X10 frequently. As these are roughly equivalent wide angles for the

formats I can say that the fresnel doesnot make the viewing any

easier and in fact the corners suffer from the fresnel becoming

blurred. I have found with these wides the only real solution is to

do the "dark cloth bounce" and move your head around.

<p>

The lenses from the 110 up should all benefit from the fresnel; as

you noted the longer the lens the better the viewing. teh wicer the

lens the less benfit I have gained, I presume having used a 90mm on

4X5 a good bit that the 80mm will react alot like the 58 does.

Just one other comment, when converted and using black and white you

should use a yellow or orange filter behind the lens and focus at the

taking aperture with the filter in place for best results. Removing

the element changes the formula of the lens. The filter reduces

fringing from the colors of light being focused at different

distances from the film plane. With the filter in place and the lens

converted there is a focus shift that occours as the lens is stopped

down hence the need to focus at the taking apeture.

Dittos to Sheldons recommendation of a 12-19-24. I have use one

converted to 19 and 24 extensively over the last 3 years and if used

properly, i.e. with an orange filter behind the lens and focusing at

the taking aperture with the filter in place when converted, they

produce excellent images.

<p>

I am especially fond of the 19 inch focal length in 8X10, but you

really do have an excellent lens in the Nikon. As the others have

said, explore that focal lengyh, and see what its limitations really

are. I used a only a 135mm on 4X5 for 14 years and really got to know

and appreciate that focal length. As luck would have it 12" is pretty

close to that length in 8X10 so the move over was easy from the stand

point of composition but if I weren't as familiar with the focal

length, I would have been truly starting from scratch.

Are your chemicals fresh? Start from scratch; fresh paper, developer

and fixer and see if that helps. The most expensive thing I have ever

done in the darkroom is use old chemicals, have problems and have to

re-do a bunch of prints wasting time and materials. It is hard to

discard chemicals you "think" are good, but muddy prints and used up

chemistry go hand in hand!

I started out with a 135 and a 210, added a 90mm Super Angulon along

the way. I ended up about 40% 210, 30% 135 and 30% 90. All the while

I had a 150 on loan from a friend, which was just to close to the 135

to be of much use for my purposes. I stumbled across a 180 at a price

I liked and went ahead an picked it up. Now I use about 40% 180, 40%

90 and 10% 121 Super Angulon.

<p>

I realize that is kind of a long story but I use it to illustrate how

sometimes equipment does make a difference, and you don't know how

much until you try. As to brands, I have Rodenstock and Schneider,

and access to a Fuji and frankly I can't tell the difference in Black

and White from one to the other. A quality modern lens is going to

perform well beyond the naked eyes ability to discern a difference.

<p>

By the way I vote for 180.

Better yet, lets combine our resources. If you see a question that

you can help with, feel free to jump right in. Let's keep our

resource of information right here, one stop shopping if you will. Us

regular viewers of this forum would be glad to have you join us,

the "RVOTF"("Regular Viewers of this Forum"),and share your views.

<p>

If you are worried about quality I think you'll find the group here a

bunch of straight shooters with thick skin that don't believe in

flames or arguments and strive for accurate and helpful answers.

I finally got my site back up and working (@Home made some changes,

thank you very little) and am in the process of getting things

reformatted so there may be some inconsistency in the way pages look.

That being said, here's my site:

<p>

http://www.members.home.net/mthompsonn/start.htm

<p>

Like so many of the others I have enjoyed seeing all of you folks

labors, congratulations and thanks for sharing.

If we are all talking about the same image, and I beleive we are, he

took it late in the day (quiet light I beleive is the term hence the

name of the book and it is definatley that)and even used his dark

slide to cover the front lens element from reflections and glare as

vehicles passed by with thier lights on.

<p>

That being said, it really is the time of day and not neutral density

that gives the images the quality and look you are seeing. I beleive

that the light being from such a broad source, the length of the

exposure, the processing necessary to accomidate reciprocity, the

balance between high and low values and the Hand of God on the

deserving photographer all play heavily into this "look" (with heavy

emphasis on the Hand of God!).

<p>

The more I used quiet light the more I came to love it. It does take

some scouting to find what you want to shoot because you are limited

on time and you can save some on film because one or two images a

night, or morning is about all you are going to get. I like to refer

to these exposures as f64 @ Tuesday, especially if it is Thursday

when you are making your exposure (or maybe you had to be there).

It's interesting how when we become familiar with equipment, and are

able to concentrate on the creative process, the equipment becomes

secondary. I used a 4X5 for 12 years or so and became quite used to

where eveything was when the camera was set up. I was amazed when I

moved to 8X10 how much BIGGER the camera is. I hit my head a number

of times while moving and using the 8X10, just because I was used to

moving in a certain pattern around the setup. I have heard it said

that we must do something different 21 times before it became a

habit, ie., putting your coat on left arm first instead of right arm.

I was able to change this pattern in about 4 good smacks; pain can be

such a good educatior! (The tripod still gets me now and then also!)