nick_jones

"Preconceived" is a particularly odious concept when, as in academic circles, it means that a person embarks on a search with mind already firmly made up about what the outcome of that search will be. So the investigator sees only the conforming evidence, passing over everything else--the very stuff that, were it acknowedged, might lead to a quite different result. Applied to photography, the "preconceived" photograph means that the subject was never seen in its own right but only in terms of some predecessor's image of it or of already deeply held cherished ideas or approach, etc.

 

Perhaps there are photographers who are engaged in this kind of work, but I have yet to meet one outside of the usual run of snapshot or studio imaging. That's why it's important to add that hyphen, pre-conceived, which is what previous posts have made clear we're talking about here. Yes, a semantic distinction, but an important one since to each corresponds a distinct approach to photography.

 

I'm a firm believer in the notion that to get from point A to point D, you have to go through B and C first. So, DJ, you mentioned the dissatisfaction that followed when you finally got all those longed-for shots. But, unless you'd gone through that stage first, could you have arrived at your present understanding of what it's all about? Also (and I say this with due respect for your many penetrating contributions to this forum), be careful about supposing that others you witness or imagine are pursuing that same earlier course of yours are also themselves harboring the same misapprehension that you did. Just maybe they have a pretty good idea of what they're doing and why they're doing it.

 

"Growth" frequently comes up in these discussions, and this one is no exception. Three points. One, insistence on growth may reflect the mindset of a more youthful set--if not literally in terms of age, then with regard to some other process of personal development. But what's the point of growth unless it leads eventually to some conclusion, to (in the case of photography) some satisfactory and settled vision? A person with a half century of living behind them might be less concerned with still more growth and more concerned with expressing the vision that prior growth had culminated in. Two, "growth" is sometimes used as politicians use "change"--that is, without specifying what kind of change, change from what to what, change for whom, change for what purpose, etc. The same questions could be posed to the usually unqualified mention of "growth" as though it were an unquestioned universally accepted notion requiring no further justification. Three, having paid some attention to the whole business of images as we now know it (criticism, museums, academics, popular vs. highbrow culture, and so on), I fail to see how anyone in this pluralistic environment we now find ourselves in could possibly endorse some particular esthetic as the goal that we should all be growing towards.

 

Respectfully,

Nicholas

After spending a year or more working through five different sheet

films in various developer combinations, I concluded that the best

option for me is Tri-X in either HC-110 or D-76 (the latter, with

paper developer Dektol, the "Holy Trinity", right?). Tri-X is

relatively fast and forgiving in the darkroom--in my case hand-

processing in trays. I just want to say how happy I am with Kodak's

decision to continue with the "venerable" b&w films. Maybe this was

a strictly dollars-and-cents business decision, but I would also like

to think that Big Yellow recognizes some obligation to do its part to

support the medium and technology that it did so much to create and

develop in the first place.

Erik,

 

<p>

 

Another vote for Oriental Seagull G. Nick.

Michael's original question concerned Rodenstock and Schneider WA's,

which he says require CF's, in comparison with the Nikkors, which he

says do not. However, most of the ensuing discussion has concerned

only the Nikkors and from it, where my own needs and interests are

concerned, I've concluded that I could probably use the 150SW on 8x10

to shoot b&w without worrying too much about fall-off, although I'm

still very unclear whether or not this has anything to do with some

peculiar design feature of the Nikkor.

 

<p>

 

But what about Rodenstock and esp. the Schneider super symmar 150XL

under similar conditions? Has anyone used the 150XL with b&w on

8x10? As Kerry puts it, the best way to find out if you need a CF is

to use the lens without one. Some help here would be valuable, since

the B+W 4a CF for this lens is so expensive as to wipe out any price

differential vs. the Nikkor 150SW (at this point, I'm uninformed on

alternatives to the B+W). Any informed input would be most

appreciated. Nick.

Thanks, Pete Caluori, for your thoughtful and precise responses to my

questions about paper speeds. Now that I know to what the

manufacturer's data refer to, how P numbers are related, that nominal

paper speeds are less consistent than film speeds esp. between

different manufacturers, and that sharpness is not (as the case of

film might suggest) related significantly to paper speed, I think I

can improve my printing.

 

<p>

 

I begin by making test prints of all negatives on Polycontrast III

RC, always initially at the same exposure, then perhaps one or two

additional sheets to establish an approximately correct exposure.

The trick then is to move on to any one of a half dozen or more fiber

papers that I select from according to subject (landscape, still

life, portrait, etc.) in relation to surface, contrast, stock and

image tint, and response to toners. The P number may not be as exact

as film speed, but it seems to me the only rational starting point

(my papers range from P200 to 640), and, if the number does prove

inaccurate (because the result does not correspond to what the P

number of the test print would indicate), at least I can come to some

definite conclusions about the accuracy of the particular paper's or

manufacturer's data.

 

<p>

 

It seems to me that the greater number of paper options I have, the

greater my photographic palette and potential for expressing my

interpretation of the subject. I agree with Pete that photographic

printing is not merely a matter of numbers, but all we're dealing

with here is predicting the response of a given paper at a given

exposure precisely in order to enhance one's artistic options and

flexibility. Simply put, Doug, I could never get by with your one or

two papers.

 

<p>

 

I'm still amazed that the standard introductions to LF photography do

not take up the question of paper speed. Manufacturers' ISO film

speeds are notoriously inaccurate (usually too fast), so we have our

exposure indexes, either worked out independently or suggested by

experts (for example, Steve Simmons, Using the View Camera, pp. 73-

74). Why can't we have similar working numbers and tables for our

papers? Nick.

Hi everybody,

 

<p>

 

To my surprise the archives seem to have nothing on the subject of speeds of paper (contact or enlarging), nor do I find anything in my manuals or paper manufacturers' spec sheets. My problem is a simple one: when I've determined the correct exposure for a given negative on a specific paper, how can I calculate with precision the correct exposure for another paper or papers. I realize that I could run my own tests (and to an extent I've already done so much in a hit-and-miss way), but this seems to be an area (as with the much-discussed matter of speeds of films) where pooling of experience might be of general benefit to many on the forum. My questions:

 

<p>

 

(1) Nomenclature. Take, for example, Oriental Seagull fb dw glossy G-3: ISO speed P400, ISO range R80. To what do "P" and "R" refer? What is the range?

 

<p>

 

(2) Relative speeds. The same paper as above in the very hard contrast G-4 grade is ISO speed P200, ISO range R60. How are the G-3 and G-4 numbers related to each other in terms of exposure?

 

<p>

 

(3) Are paper speeds consistent from paper to paper and from manufacturer to manufacturer? Are all P200 papers equally sensitive?

 

<p>

 

(4) Are sharpness or other image qualities, all else being equal, related significantly to paper speed? Contrast is not an issue here for the purpose of this question.

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance for any replies. Good light, Nick.

Urs, The two formats also differ of course with respect to aspect

ratio, which bears in turn on subject matter. 5x7, though not quite

as elongated as 35mm, is noticeably less square than 8x10 and

therefore more appropriate to certains scenics, portraits, etc. But

for me the main consideration is the amount of detail

or "information" in the image; the more the detail, the larger the

image required. So I keep my 5x7 contacts as simple as possible,

preferring head-and-shoulders portraits, still lifes, or modernist-

style studies. I agree with Joe's good point about the use of

smaller prints in portfolios as opposed to wall hanging (after all,

the images in most photography books are often no larger than 5x7),

although I find that a 5x7 matted at 8x10 and framed looks fine on

the walls of my house. But even an 8x10 print with mat, as I

recently discovered at the recent Ansel Adams exhibit at the

Rochester House, will look puny on big gallery walls whether or not

alongside larger prints. Good light, Nick.

 

<p>

 

P.S. Although I do not have an enlarger big enough for 5x7, I

occasionally shoot a 5x7 of a larger format subject just in case some

day I have access to commercial equipment capable of scanning and

printing a neg this big.

Perhaps something can be added on the matter of intent (not, I think,

a futile exercise) and then, in the light of this point, on the

matter of "greatness" (which almost certainly is).

 

<p>

 

In the late 1920s Abby Aldrich Rockefeller began acquiring American

folk art (portraits, theorem paintings, cigar store Indians, etc.),

objects at that time thought of as possessing only antiquarian or

historical importance and value. Today, her 424 pieces form the core

of the collection in the AAR Folk Art Center in Williamsburg, Va.

Now the interesting part. "Mrs. Rockefeller's interest in folk art

was a direct result of her appreciation of contemporary art. A

founder and active supporter of the Museum of Modern Art, she knew

and patronized many of the artists who exhibited there" (Treasures of

American Folk Art, ed. Rumford and Weekley, p. 8). So here,

paralleling the case of Atget under discussion, we have a problem

concerning intent. Whose intent counts? The artist's? The viewer

or collector's? What difference does intent make at all?

 

<p>

 

Although I am, as a consequence of my LF b/w work, very sympathetic

to modernism, I just can't bring myself to view American folk art as

though it were modern, esp. because it is precisely the lack of

training in "academic" art of the (usually unidentified) artist that

accounts for his/her works' "folk" qualities--the very qualities that

give the modernist viewer the false impression of modernism.

Modernism lay a century or more in the future; and even if that style

had been in currency, the folk artist by definition would not have

known of its existence or, had he/she known, have appreciated it.

 

<p>

 

Something like this situation may obtain in the case of Atget. My

previous post suggested he viewed himself as a supplier of subjects

for artists' use, conscientiously but not (in his own estimation)

artfully recording scenes which, probably because in some cases they

were soon to cease to exist, might appeal to "true" artists, i.e.

painters. Admittedly, this is a caricature, and God knows I'm no

authority on Atget, but the Newhalls' biography suggests that there

is an element of truth here.

 

<p>

 

Where esthetics are concerned, it's a free world, and we all make

what we want of our visual and other sensory experiences. Jeff

certainly makes a good point about how differing approaches yield

contrasting interpretations of the same image; that even the

artist/photographer may be confused or wrong about his own intent;

and that biographical details may be beside the point (New Criticism

rearing its menacing head again?). But when we talk (as several

posts on this and other threads do) of "greatness" we can't avoid

being drawn into questions of place and time, teachers and pupils,

museums and shows visited or not visited, other artists known or not

known--the stuff that photographic history and criticism I've read so

far seems to be made of. Once unpacked and made

explicit, "greatness" would I think turn out to have something to do

with one's predecessors (say, the artist who brings a movement to its

climax) or one's successors (the seminal or influential figure who

gives birth to something new), but in either case "greatness" will

have a historical context. This is why I'm reluctant to give up the

notion that the "great" artist must be conscious of, and intend, what

he or she is doing. A photographer's work, or a particular image,

could be influential by accident, or when misinterpreted or otherwise

misunderstood, but in that case I think we'd have to find another

expression to describe the phenomenon.

Before closing this discussion, perhaps we should consider how Atget

himself viewed his photographic activity.

 

<p>

 

Beaumont and Nancy Newhall's brief biographical sketch in Masters of

Photography, p. 92, contains some suggestive hints. Apparently

abandoning early attempts at painting, Atget decided around 1898 "to

be a photographer, a photographer of art; already his ambition was to

create a collection of all which, in Paris and its environs, was

artistic and picturesque"--i.e. "art" in Atget's case resided not in

the photographic image but in its subject. Reportedly, he took

pleasure when shown paintings which Utrillo and others had based on

his photographs. And the door of his atelier-apartment bore the

legend "Documents pour Artistes."

 

<p>

 

That is to say, Atget it seems did not view himself as an artist but

rather as a servant of art--a recorder or provider of subjects

or "documents." Much of his work in fact seems to have been devoted

to creating a visual archive of old mansions, churches, streets, etc.

that were marked for destruction, in response to what would seem to

be an antiquarian rather than an esthetic impulse. The fact that the

photographing of the Parisian brothels was done on commission leaves

open the question whether any artistic purposes animated work that

Atget is said to have found "annoying."

 

<p>

 

This all suggests to me that Atget's work, whatever reactions it may

arouse in us after the passage of 75 to 100 years and the emergence

of entirely new esthetic possibilities, actually antedates the

pictorialist notion that photography may ascend to the level of art

by imitating the conventions of painting, not to mention the

currently prevailing notion that photography is an art in its own

right. Are we therefore anachronistically reading into these

admittedly arresting images something Atget himself did not intend

for them? Nick.

When I moved from 35mm to LF, I stuck with TMax, but for what now

appear to be the wrong reasons. That tabular fine grain is great for

enlarging from 35mm to 5x7, but unneeded for 5x7 and 8x10 contact

prints. Besides, I've had problems developing it since many of my

8x10s (but not, for some reason, the 5x7's) have bands of irregular

density that render them unprintable. Perhaps a light leak of some

kind, but I suspect the real culprit is uneven agitation. Several

posters on the archives have complained about problems with

development of TMax sheets. I decided not to pursue the matter

further and am now perfectly happy with Plus-X,Tri-X, FHP4+, and

HP5+. Good light. Nick.

Angela,

 

<p>

 

Two modern readable, informative, and well illustrated introductions

are "Large-Format Photography," Kodak rev. 2nd ed. 1998; and Steve

Simmons, "Using the View Camera," rev. ed. Amphoto 1992. After

reading one or both of these, you'd be able to move on to more

technical manuals and to this forum and its archives. Nick.

If price is a major factor, anyone wanting to get into an 8x10 field

might consider the Tachihara double or triple extension. Our 3X has

served us well. It is well constructed and rigid, and has sufficient

movements for uncomplicated outdoor landscape, exterior architecture,

portraits, etc. Yes, it's relatively heavy--just over 12 lbs--but we

would not attempt to pack an 8x10 any distance in any event. 4x5 and

5x7 reducing backs are available (we use the 5x7). I couldn't agree

more that you should try out the cameras on your short list prior to

buying; in fact, it was as a result of comparison of competitors in

our price range in a showroom that we arrived at our final decision.

Good light. Nick.

To answer Micah's original question, in my own case "effort" is

certainly not what makes LF photography attractive although use of a

big camera does provide some satisfaction to an exponent of an old

fashioned earn-your-own-way, DIY work ethic. After 30 years of

fairly serious 35mm, with some b/w processing and enlarging, the

exciting cause of my own turn to LF was simply a desire to produce a

better 5x7 or 8x10 b/w print. Some study suggested 4x5 as an

attractive format, but my initial plans ran aground on the

realization that I would need a new enlarger and lens that might

equal or exceed the cost of the camera itself. But a way out of this

dilemma opened up when I read in Charis Wilson's biography of Edward

Weston that at the time of their meeting in 1934 all of EW's 8x10's

for sale in his studio in Carmel were contact prints (Through Another

Lens, pp. 5-6). That was good enough for me. I upgraded the camera

and decided to do contact prints in the style of this great artist.

 

<p>

 

But there is a more personal, autobiographical dimension to my

decision to take up this (as it must seem to many "outsiders")

arcane, even obsolescent artistic endeavor. It is this dimension

that to my surprise I have found absent in this and related

discussions in this forum, since most shooters stick to the technical

merits of LF or comment on more philosophical issues but hardly ever

explain what got them into LF in the first place. In my own case, my

father was a professional studio photographer and besides his routine

commercial shooting of portraits of children in a trailer back in LA,

he also did some nice darkroom work of his own. A 5x7 and tripod,

film holders, and evening loading of sheet film in a closet are among

the distant memories that finally after nearly 50 years prompted me

to try to figure out what he was doing. An additional motivation was

the prospect of returning at least in our minds, after many years in

a foreign country and now in Pennsylvania, to the West Coast of our

birth and early years--our homes, a university community, and the

landscape. Further reading revealed that among the more immediate

founders of American LF photography were Adams, the Westons,

Cunningham and others whose biographies and subjects so closely

coincided with our own experiences, even if a generation or so ahead

of our schedule. But it could have been Arizona or New Mexico, or

Pennsylvania, or New York City, or anywhere else that our art form

has been practiced.

 

<p>

 

But I agree that much of the reason for going to such trouble,

expense, and, yes, effort in pursuit of our craft has to do with its

technical features. For me it's all hand work, and there is great

satisfaction in following the entire process from previsualization to

framed print. Photography is creative in contrast to many merely

passive hobbies or pastimes; it produces a tangible result that you

can display in home or office or make a gift of. Out of necessity

where large or heavy gear is involved, LF makes for companionship;

and during the short time we have been taking the rig out we have

enjoyed the frequent, sometimes well informed and usually well-

meaning questions posed by strangers--an excellent opportunity, I

might add, to spread the gospel of LF photography.

 

<p>

 

So, my own reasons for doing LF photography are largely a function of

my own space-and-time circumstances, but above and beyond the

personal element, we have found shooting to be a satisfying and

rewarding activity. Process is a lot of it, but frankly I'd find

something else to do if I couldn't have produced a decent print after

a full year of peparation. Results do count, but at the same time

our goals our modest: a few well-crafted prints to hang of the wall

that give us--not critics, or a potential buyers, or web-browsers--

some personal satisfaction even if our whole Weltanschauung is

hopelessly dated. Because I don't have to shoot LF for a living, I

can enjoy the luxury of seeing photography as a hobby. Like oil

painting, pottery-making, or playing the oboe or banjo, LF doesn't

make a whole lot of sense in a technological world, but the big

camera still gets respect and it's not so eccentric as to isolate the

photographer from other human beings. All the best,

Nick.

Hi Everybody,

 

<p>

 

The spec sheet on my Tachihara triple extension 8X10 gives the "minimum extension" as 135mm (maximum, 840mm). (The owner's manual for the selfsame camera gives 105mm as the "bellows extension", but this is presumably a misprint). Since it is my belief that, for a given lens, an extension equal to the focal length is required in order to focus at infinity, I assumed until recently that my camera would accommodate a 135mm lens (albeit with loss of some movements).

 

<p>

 

To test this assumption I placed a 300mm lens on the camera, focused at infinity, then tried to find a measurement corresponding to this lens' focal length. It is approx. 300mm from the location of the film in the film holder to the plane of the lens board. But when I racked the bellows all the way in to its stopping point (at the front swing plate), the same measurement gave not 135mm but 150mm.

 

<p>

 

Since I want to determine with some accuracy the shortest lens that can be focused at infinity on my camera, my questions are:

 

<p>

 

1) How exactly is the relevant measurement taken? My manuals mention the node or the diaphragm of the lens as one terminus, the film plane as the other.

 

<p>

 

2) Can users of the Tachihara 3X 8x10 shed light on my problem by drawing my attention to features of the camera (or its descriptive lit.) that so far have escaped my notice?

 

<p>

 

3) And, while we're at it, can someone define for me "flange focal length" and comment on its bearing, if any, on this question.

 

<p>

 

All the best, Nick.

About the time I was returning a pathetic synthetic "cloth" to B&H

the Sept./Oct. 2000 View Camera arrived with Gordon Hutchings'

article "How to Make a Darkcloth," pp. 64-66, which I highly

recommend. Fortunately my wife and companion shooter Marilyn is an

excellent seamstress and we were able to put together a DC following

Hutchings' suggestions.

 

<p>

 

We needed a big cloth for our 8x10 field, but the bolts at our

neighborhood fabric store measured only 60", so we decided to sew two

pieces together, which was necessary anyway since we couldn't find

the broadcloth recommended by Hutchings. Black 100% knit cotton is

not completely opaque, but it is nice and stretchy. Marilyn sewed 3

and 1/2 sides together, then turned it inside out; the final portion

of the fourth side she sewed all the way through on a sewing machine

("whipping it together" she calls it). The final product is 7 by 5

feet; we use it sideways. The extra length allows adequate room for

pulling and replacing the dark slide under cover. We looked for the

chain bead that Jeff mentioned and couldn't find it, but the sheer

weight of the cloth holds it down under most conditions; if it were

any windier, photography with a big camera wouldn't be possible

anyway.

 

<p>

 

When folded, the cloth goes into our soft carrying bag on the side

opposite the GG, offering some protection.

 

<p>

 

This may be a horseblanket, Grey Wolf, but it gets the job done,

although admittedly I am still dealing at this early stage with some

so far undiagnosed light leaks. Good shooting, Nick.

Scott,

 

<p>

 

Let me piggy-back on the preceding reference to the Ansel Adams

exhibit in San Franciso since I happened to have seen last week the

exhibit at the George Eastman House in Rochester, NY "In Praise of

Nature. Ansel Adams and Photographs of the American West" (running

until Sept. 16, incidentally). Ansel's signature was exceedingly

small (as well as faint), hardly visible except at close range. So,

on my 8x10's mounted on 14x17", my reveal is 3/8" on top and sides

but a full 1/2" at the bottom to allow room for writing

(corresponding to Ansel's own recommendation for prints 16x20 and

larger, Print, p. 156). But the ultimate test, as with a photograph,

is what it looks like when you hang it on a wall. Best, Nick.

Hi John,

 

<p>

 

The Logan Simplex 750 Plus mat cutter has a 40" cutting board.

Compared to what you might pay for professional equipment with

comparable features, it is reasonably priced.

 

<p>

 

As far as Light Impressions is concerned, I have been very satisfied

with the people who take their telephone orders, their prompt

delivery, and excellent customer relations: they immediately replaced

a defective frame for me at no cost and when an order was abnormally

delayed made a partial refund. Their sales and bulk discounts (esp.

in combintation with a sale) can make a big difference for a large

order. So, I think I've gotten my money's worth. But of course the

question of whether this or that board material is superior is

another matter altogether. Best, Nick.

William,

 

<p>

 

I realize your problem is solved, but for the benefit of others I

would like to add to Brian's post since I too use the Bogen 3057

heavy duty head (on the 3036/3236) with our Tachihara 3X 8x10, which

weighs about 12 lbs. Big and solid (nominally 4x4" 3297 plate, 4.4

lbs--whether w or w/o the plate I'm not sure), it has proved rock

steady for us. The plate attaches by inserting screw into camera's

threaded hole. Since both the locking lever and the safety lever

have to be operated in order to release the plate, the camera is

unlikely to be accidentally separated from the tripod. But of course

it is difficult for one person to handle so large and heavy a system,

and I consider a second pair of hands almost a necessity for both

mounting (which requires retraction of the locking lever) and

detaching the camera. (Another difficulty is presented by short

handles on the head's controls). But if steadiness, even at the

expense of weight and ease of operation, is what you're after, the

3057 is one good way to go. Good shooting, Nick.

Scott,

 

<p>

 

My practice is the same as yours. Like a previous poster, I increase

the width of the reveal roughly proportionally to the size of the

mountboard/overmat. But I would add that I would make the bottom

reveal wider than top and sides *only if* I intended to add date,

title, and signature. Even when the bottom of the mat is deeper (and

I follow the 45% top, 55% bottom formula suggested in an earlier

thread), a proportionally deeper bottom reveal to my eye demands the

presence of writing. Without writing, I would make the reveal the

same all the way around. Best, Nick.

Thanks to all of your for your responses; they provide valuable

information as I make my choice between these two equally (though

differently) desirable lenses.

 

<p>

 

Michael, I couldn't agree more that the bottom line for a

photographer is how pleasing an image is to the eye, but the question

remains just what are the qualities that give pleasure. My Group

f/64 sensibilities place a high value on sharpness, esp. in an image

that by its subject, design, or place in the tradition clearly

suggests that it is *trying* to be sharp. No, as you say, specs

(resolution, lines per mm.) do not contribute to the viewing

experience, but the quality(ies) represented by those specs in my

estimation clearly do. Besides, while sharpness can't be added to a

negative, contrast, as we all know, is a variable subject to all

sorts of interventions.

 

<p>

 

We do work out of the trunk of our car. Camera and tripod alone weigh

about 25 lbs, but there are always at least two of us and we can

manage short walks with the outfit. The Nikon would add only about

8/10 of a pound; I put a UV filter on each lens anyway and make only

very sparing use of other filters. My High Sierra backpacking days

are behind me now, but as I look back on those long solo cache-less

marches (including the high and rarely flat John Muir Trail), I

realize that nothing on earth could have persuaded me to carry even

the lightest LF outfit. My hat goes off to all of you backpacking

shooters!

 

<p>

 

Special thanks to you, Michael, and to Tuan and Kerry, for providing

some comparative evidence. The Nikkor M 450 may be "soft" or lacking

in contrast against a larger background of LF lenses (including

earlier Nikkors), Geoffrey, but I'm working here within a narrow

range of possibilities. The Rodenstock lenses mentioned by Armin, as

well as the Fuji CM-W 450/8 (520 mm. image circle) and Schneider APO-

Symmar 480/8.4 (500 mm. image circle), fit my focal length

requirements but they are also 2 to 3 times the cost of the Nikkor or

Fuji C450.

 

<p>

 

Let me also emphasize for the benefit of later visitors to this

thread a datum no far not mentioned, that the Nikkor is more than a

full stop faster than the Fuji C450. In fact, at f/12.5, the Fuji is

the slowest among the new lenses in this focal range, which all fall

between f/8 and f/9. I don't expect my subjects will be confined to

sunny landscapes; and the Nikkor 300/9 I work with now already gives

me all the focusing headaches I can handle.

 

<p>

 

So, Michael, if you should ever make it to Pennsylvania or, next

summer, California, I may be collecting on that cold (NA) beer. All

the best, Nick.

Greetings everybody,

 

<p>

 

Previous posts have briefly compared the similarly priced Nikkor M 450/9 and Fugi C 450/12.5 (note, not the faster and more expensive CM-W 450/8). Posters observe that the Fuji has a more convenient filter size than the Nikkor (52mm vs. 67 mm.), is fitted with a copal 1 rather than the Nikkor's copal 3 shutter, and (at least in part as a consequence of the shutter) weighs far less (270 vs. 640 grams). Coverage is comparable (Fuji 486 mm., Nikkor 440), in both cases more than adequate for my 8x10 landscapes, etc.

 

<p>

 

Filter size and weight (since I'm using a big, relatively heavy system not prone to shake) are not factors in my particular case. My question concerns optical quality, esp. contrast and sharpness. Does anyone have experience with both lenses, if not at 8x10, then at 5x7 or 4x5 (apparently an important consideration since the Nikkor M is a Tessar and therefore allegedly loses sharpness towards the edges of the image circle)? Can anyone give an informed opinion of the relative optical qualities of the two lenses? Lines per mm. would be nice but I value subjective impressions too.

Cheers, Nick

Scott,

 

<p>

 

We use a Logan Simplex 750 of recent manufacture and are very pleased

with the results. So far, no problem with curving cuts, but we do

have two other small difficulties not mentioned in previous posts:

(1) the mat guide tends to stick unless pressure is applied to the

black knobs in precisely the correct fashion; (2) when using the

bevel cutting head, a slight overcut is required in order to avoid a

hanging corner. Personally, we don't find a slight overcut at all

unattractive; in fact, they leave the (correct) impression that the

work was done by hand. But the Simplex 750 is not cheap, and it

might take quite a few mount jobs to realize a savings over custom

work. (Custom work does not appeal to us because we often have to

trim our contact prints slightly before mounting). Good luck. Nick

& Marilyn.

We recently visited and shot Ohiopyle Falls southeast of Pittsburgh (and near Fallingwater), trying out various shutter speeds and exposures for moving white water, and now we think we're sufficiently prepared for a shooting trip next month to the granddaddy of them all. We'll be taking our 8x10, with 5x7 back, with both sets of holders loaded with HP5+ (which has the fastest EI I know of). Our one lens is the Nikkor 300mm/f9 which has very little excess image circle at 8x10. Problem is, it's been years since we were at Niagara, and even then without a LF camera, and we won't have enough time to explore all possible positions for the tripod. All suggestions--choice of film, shutter speed, exposure,as well as shooting location--will be gratefully appreciated. Nick.

Hi, everyone:

 

<p>

 

In view of the high prices of new LF lenses, it is always tempting to try the used market, despite uncertainties about the past history of a given lens (e.g.was it ever dropped?) and the absence of the warranty that would normally come with new product. The particular lenses I have in mind are pre-owned models of lenses in current production by Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon, Fuji. My problem is knowing a good (or not so good) used lens when I see one. Two questions:

 

<p>

 

1)At the place of purchase, say a camera store showroom, what are some visual tests that can be performed? Let's assume that I have my LF camera, appropriate lens board, etc. with me.

 

<p>

 

 

2) After purchase, on the assumption of a trial period of a few days, what are some diagnostic shooting tests that might quickly reveal problems not apparent at the time of purchase?

 

<p>

 

Any responses will be gratefully appreciated. All the best, Nick.

Paul,

 

<p>

 

We too have recently acquired a Seal 210M and are now just beginning

to use it, and you may find our experience helpful since so far

emulsion damage is not noticeable.

 

<p>

 

We just mounted a half dozen 8x10s on 11x14 rag boards, all Oriental

Seagull fiber dw G2, 3, and 4, glossy. We set the press at about 175

and pre-dried prints and boards, with release paper top and bottom,

for about 60 sec. We use Seal archival Buffermount, recommended

temperature 170, minimum 160. Our sandwich (from top) consists of

silicone release board, Seal ColorMount coversheet, art, and release

paper. Time in press about 60 sec. when guage read around 170, maybe

90 sec. when the temperature dropped, but never higher than 180. So

far as I can tell, the mounting took and with no signs of damage to

the emulsion. Beginner's luck, I guess. As suggested in previous

posts, I suspect it's either because your temp is too high or your

time too long, or both. Hope this helps. Nick.