rob_rothman

I've had good Ciba work done by Duggal in New York.

I believe that what Evercolor used to do was actually a pigment

transfer process, rather than dye transfer -- akin to the tricolor

carbro process which has been defunct for many years, but which,

according to no less an authority than Eliot Porter, produced even

better prints than dye transfer. The twist is that, instead of

making the separations optically, Evercolor made them digitally -- an

interesting mix of the old and the new.

 

<p>

 

Alas, they no longer do these prints; instead, I believe they use one

of the laser enlargers to make what is essentially a type C print

from a digital file.

I own the 210mm Symmar-S (I believe that mine is one of the last

before they switched to the APO model) and am quite satisfied with

it. While I've never done a side-by-side comparison of photos shot

with the Symmar-S and the APO-Symmar, I can say that the older lens

produces wonderfully sharp and contrasty work. Remember, until

Schneider introduced the APO version, this was one of the standard

lenses for commercial illustration work, so many of the shots you see

in magazines and billboards were made with it--and I never heard

anybody complain that they were not sharp enough.

 

<p>

 

For what its worth, I bought mine used (in close to mint condition)

in 1993 for about $500.

I don't know if Joe Englander is still offering large format

workshops, but if he is I heartily recommend them. I took a view

camera workshop that he gave a few years ago, and wished that I had

taken it earlier, since it would have helped with the learning

curve. Most of the large format books that I've seen are geared to

the tabletop still-life shooter; Joe's workshop focussed (no pun

intended) on the practical issues posed by using LF for landscape

work.

I tend to carry Quickload film in a ziplock bag. Individual sheets

are flexible and easily damaged; however, if you put 20 or so sheets

in one bag, lined up in a block, its stiff enough that I've never had

a problem with damage. Better yet, using one of the large (I think

its gallon size) ziplock bags, you can put in 40 sheets in 2 blocks

of 20. This takes up almost the whole back and forms a nice rigid

package.

I wonder if somebody fitted a shutter/diaphragm to the lens without

bothering to calibrate the aperture ring. With the exception of the

first stop (marked from 2.8 to 4), each marked stop on your barrel

actually represents two stops, not one. I'm not sure how to

calibrate this lens properly, but you might try going under the

darkcloth (to exclude extraneous light) and taking readings off the

center of your groundglass with a spotmeter as you stop down the

lens; this should at least give you a ballpark idea of whether you're

stopping down two stops or one each time.

Pardon my ignorance, buy why in the world would anybody want to shoot

4x5 at motor-drive speeds? If one really needs to shoot lots of

frames of fast-moving action, there are plenty of good 35mm cameras

on the market. To me, working slowly and carefully, investing a lot

of time, energy and thought in each sheet of film, is what makes LF

so attractive. Burning film like a 35mm motor-drive freak defeats

the whole reason for choosing this medium.

Have you considered one of the collapsible monorails such as the

Linhof Technikardan or the Toyo model? If you really need the

extreme movements and precision of a monorail this might give you

what you need with a greater degree of portability than a standard

mono. On the other hand, if you're only going to do landscape work,

do you really need those features?

If you have a local lab that you can bring the film to (instead of

mailing it), the easiest approach is just to leave the film in the

holders and drop off the holders. The lab will unload the film for

you and return your holders with the processed film. That way, you

don't have to worry about a light-tight container or about keeping

dust off your film in transit. I suppose its possible that labs

might also do this for mail-in processing orders (if you can live

without your holders for the turn-around time), but I'm not sure.

It's been a long time, so I really don't remember just what

tolerances are considered "acceptable." I've just been using my

camera the way it is; frankly, if a photograph is not razor-sharp, I

feel that it's just as likely to be my own fault (sloppy focusing) as

an out-of-alignment ground glass. Most of my photos are sharp enough

for my purposes (I generally don't print larger than 16x20). The

point of the exercise, at least as I interpret it, was not to

demonstrate that all of our cameras are junk; rather, its that there

are a lot of different factors which can affect sharpness; one of

them, which should not be taken for granted, is GG alignment. If

you're not getting pictures which are sharp enough to satisfy you,

then maybe that's one of the things you should look into.

 

<p>

 

As for the actual measurement procedure, my recollection is that Joe

used a machinist's dial gauge which was mounted in a flat metal bar

so that the shaft of the dial gauge was precisely perpendicular to

the bar. First, the gauge is zeroed by holding it against a flat

surface such as a pane of glass. Then, after removing the camera

back, the bar is held against a flat surface on the back, and the

plunger of the gauge is depressed until it strikes the inside of the

groundglass. The measurement (which represents the distance from the

reference surface to the GG) is noted. Then, the same measurement is

taken with a film holder inserted. In theory, the difference between

the two measurments should be no more or less than the thickness of a

sheet of film.

A few years ago, I took a workshop taught by Joe Englander. At the

first session, using a micrometer system, he measured the groundglass

placement of all the camera being used by everybody in the workshop.

Amazingly, almost every one was off. The moral of the story seems to

be that just because we pay lots of money in the name of precision

doesn't necessarily mean that we get it.

You might try asking Henry Wilhelm, who is reputed to be the

repository of all knowledge with respect to longevity of photographs.

I use an off-the-shelf Pentax digital spot (without the Zone VI

modification) and have been quite satisfied with it. You didn't

mention what type of film you shoot. Since Zone VI modifies the

meter to match the spectral response of black & white film, and since

various color stocks have (presumably) totally different response

curves, it doesn't seem to make sense to pay extra for the Zone VI

version if you shoot color.

 

<p>

 

As for the general handling of the meter, it's as simple as can be:

just point the meter, pull the trigger, and read the displayed

number. Then, rotate the calculator dial to that number and read the

exposure. Yes, you do have to compensate manaully for bellows and

filter factors and you have to remember your resdings at various

spots, but none of that is very difficult. Large format, by its very

nature, requires a fair amount of direct involvement by you, the

photographer, and keeping track of a few exposure-related factors

becomes second nature before very long.

 

<p>

 

Among those of us who shoot landscapes, the Pentax is pretty much

standard equipment. There must be some reason for its popularity.

My first view camera was an Iston. For what its worth, here are my

thoughts on the camera:

 

<p>

 

On the positive side, it has a nice long bellows--about 16", I

think. If you do the kind of work for which you need this, it gives

you a longer bellows than any other inexpensive camera--to match the

bellows draw, you'd need to spend another grand or so and move up to

a Wisner or a Zone VI.

 

<p>

 

Its drawbacks were twofold. First, I found the limited movements--

particularly the lack of swings--to be somewhat limiting. There is

no swing on the front. The camera is advertised as having a rear

swing, but I didn't find it very usable. Basically, the entire rear

standard can slide forward on a track (you need to do this to use

short lenses); there is enough play in the mechanism so that one side

can slide forward more than the other. It doesn't really swing about

a fixed axis, and I found it impossible to control.

 

<p>

 

The second drawback was a lack of quality control, although, to be

fair, the distributor and the manufacturer stood behind it and sent

me a new camera when, after one year, the bellows developed a lot of

pinholes.

 

<p>

 

I bought the camera to test the large format waters without making a

major investment. If you're sure you're committed to view camera

work, my advice would be to pass on the Iston and get something

you'll be using for a while. If, like me, you want a relatively

cheap way to try out large format work and see if you like it, you

might be better off with something like a Tachihara unless you need

the bellows draw. If you want to test the waters and also want the

long bellows, try an Iston--but be aware that, if you stick with

large format, you'll probably outgrow the limited movements fairly

soon.

 

<p>

 

By the way, there seems to be no market for used Istons.

One further thought on reducing dust which originates in the

environment in which you load your holders: I load mine in a blacked-

out bathroom. Before loading, I vacuum the room, and then I run the

shower on hot for a few minutes. This puts some humidity into the

air, which helps the dust to settle. Then, I brush out each holder

before I load it. (I keep the brush, a 1" paintbrush, sealed in a

ziplock bag between loading sessions so it doesn't pick up extra

dust).

If you do want to use a high magnification loupe, consider the 9x

model which Edmund Scientific sells as a "graphic arts comparator."

It's a 3-element coated model available in various configurations--

the one you want would be the model with the opaque apron. For the

price (a lot less than the Schneider or Rodenstock loupes), it's a

wonderful piece of glass. I don't use it for focussing, but do use

it for checking chromes on the light box.

According to something I've read recently (sorry, I don't remember where), the new X-ray machines used in U.S. airports use such a high dosage that even the FAA and the airlines have admitted that they can fog film. Although I believe that, in the US, we are technically entitled to hand inspection on demand, personnel at some airports either don't know or don't care about the rules and are likely to insist on running film through the X-ray machine--insisting on the rights which the law gives us is likely to result in arrest at some airports. Moreover, I think we large format shooters are more likely to have a problem than the 35mm crowd, simply because the guards don't see much large format film and are less likely to know what it is. Unfortunately, I don't know of a solution, but I get nervous every time I have to bring film through an airport.

Well, I've finally done it. Despite being a charter member of the John Henry society and having a statue of Ned Ludd in my apartment, I've bought a confuser, ordered a copy of Photoshop and signed up for a course in how to use it.

 

<p>

 

My intention is to continue shooting on conventional film, have decent scans made, and work from there. I'm not really interested in "special effects" or composites; I'm more attracted by the ability to have some of the control over my photos that goes along with conventional darkroom work, without having to put my hands into toxic chemicals.

 

<p>

 

Can anybody make any suggestions for additional resources to learn more about the subject? Thanks.

 

<p>

 

Rob

Although I've never used a Tachihara, I've heard good things about it, and a number of landscape photographers find it's all they ever need. My sense is that the mian thing you might get from some other choices which you wouldn't get with the Tachihara is a longer bellows. Whether or not this is likely to be important to you depends on your style of working. If you use a 150mm as your "normal" lens, I believe that you can get down to 1:1 with the Tachihara's bellows, so you may not need anything longer.

 

<p>

 

Just as an aside, when I first started in LF I knew that my style of working was more suited to slightly longer "normal" lens, so I settled on a 210mm. Because I like to do moderate (and sometimes more than moderate) closeups, a long bellows was my priority. Not wanting to spring for an expensive model before testing the waters, I bought an Iston. I soon outgrew it (due to very limited movements) and bought a Zone VI. While, with hindsight, it might have been a better choice to go for a better camera right off the bat, I don't regret my decision.

 

<p>

 

In any event, I don't think you'll outgrow the Tachihara's movements for the type of work you're talking about, so if the bellows meets your needs, you might well go for it and not find a need to upgrade.

 

<p>

 

Good luck and welcome to the large format world.

 

<p>

 

Rob

The original Carl Zeiss factory was in Jena. After WWII, because Jena was located in East Germany, US law prohibited lenses made in the original factory from bearing the name "Zeiss." Instead, they were just labeled "Jena." Lenses from that era which do bear the name Zeiss were made at another factory in West Germany.

 

<p>

 

Since your lens, which was made in Jena, is labelled Zeiss, it must have been made before the war.

As far as which movements you could do without, if you're not doing studio/tabletop shots or serious architectural work, you don't need rise/fall or lateral shift in the rear. You could proably also get away without lateral shift in front, but it's nice to have. The movements which are pretty essential for most field work are tilt and swing on both standards, and rise/fall in front--and that's exactly what most field cameras have.