david richhart

I know Michael...that is why I think it would be helpful if other

photographers could pass on the information on the older lenses

because they have had the experience. It's a trial and error process

at best. And if the results of past experience were stored in one

easily accessable location, it could prevent a lot of problems. I

think a list like that could be helpfut to a lot of people!

I fully understand what you are all saying...I just think it would be

great to check out EBAY and know for certain if a "72mm Tiffen

filter" will screw onto my "14 inch Koday Commercial Ektar lens"

without an adapter. It's frustrating when you mail order and things

don't fit! So many fine lenses are available in large format, that

it's hard to find a definite answer to such a simple question.

The sizes of filters and other attachments for lenses, are usually hidden by the different manufacturers with an undecipherable code of names and numbers. Probably an attempt to sell their own products. Wouldn't this be a great website to begin a chart listing the various lenses with the sizes of the attachments that are compatable? I think the experiences of others could make things a lot simpler and less expensive.

Thanks to all for the help, especially Don, because that is just what

I needed to know. Companies so often disguise simple measurements

with complex code numbers. Probably in an attempt to promote their

own products. This website would be a great place to begin a

reference chart of the various filters and other attachments that fit

the many lenses in use!

Yes, the comments from Richard Rankin are extremely elegant and

valid. Camera stability and ease of movement are very desirable. Many

fine cameras are available. Unfortunately, the finer cameras can be

expensive. They cost more because they are worth more. But some

photographers are confined to a smaller budget, and must make

choices, if only for monetary reasons. A camera can only be as good

as the lens allows. In keeping with the idea of Ron Lawrence's

origional question of whether priority should be placed on the camera

or the lens? I will vote for the lens everytime!

A camera is just a light-tight box that holds the film at one end and

a lens at the other, the lens produces the image! I am using a

monorail B&J Grover 8x10 with a 14" Commercial Ektar. The system

works great. The camera is not too expensive and has a wide range of

movement. The lens produces sharp images and has adequate coverage.

The only problem I see now is that I want to buy additional lenses,

and the bellows extention may be prove to be too short.

I am using a "14 inch, Kodak Commercial Ektar lens" for 8x10 work. Can anyone tell me what size filters will screw into the lens? It seems to measure 72mm, but I want to be sure before I buy. Thanks!

I'm looking for a "recipe" to make a good quality fixing solution using SODIUM THIOSULFATE as the base. I intend to use it primarily with "Oriental Seagull G" papers. All information is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I have always thought it best to leave as many options open as

possible...Don't commit yourself until it's absolutely necessary,

because you don't know what you may want to try in the future!

Storing negatives in archival sleeves seems to fit these criteria

very nicely.

It's been more than a few years since I worked in large format photography, and now I'm anxious to get my fingers wet again while "shuffling some film". I liked the sharpness of Panatomic-X film in Microdol-x developer, but that film is no longer available.

Has anyone tried the combination of T-MAX 100 film and Microdol-X developer? What exposure compensations should I use? Will I get images of fine grain and contrast?

I know I need to experiment, but a little help in the beginning can save a lot of money. Thanks!