wayne_firth3

I had this happen when I first got my wide Fuji (45mm). A Fuji tech guy told me to bend the silver roller out a bit to provide more pressure on the roll. I did and it hasn't happened since.

Jeff,

Put your finger tip under the film speed dial and lift and rotate until desired speed is next to the white pointer on the left side. It can be set for any speed on the dial.

Thanks, Todd, for the excellent report. I would imagine that it would be hard not to be inspired after a visit like that.

Ron,

 

Yes, the polyester film is clear and it is coated on both sides with gelatin. I wonder if one side could be coated with the sensitized emulsion and the other side stained with a dye for an anti-halation coating which would wash out in the process.

 

BTW, Eastman's first films were nitrate based using colodion which was cast in large pieces on large tables. Later a large drum was used to cure the product so that continuous pieces could be made. This material is the infamous explosive nitrate based film that was in use as late as the 1950's. The next step was acetate and then polyester.

 

There is no telling what can be learned when reinventing the wheel.

I would guess that coating film would not be too much different than coating glass. Except for saying that you did it, I wouldn't think that, as a photographer, it would be a fun or useful project. For a scientist or a tinkerer it might be interesting. I have one suggestion, however. Kodak makes a product called roller transport clean up sheets that might be useful to you. They are a polyester sheet coated with gelatine. They are used to clean processing equipment. The polyester is dimensionally stable and the first coat of gelatine is already firmly attached. You might ask this question on one of the alternative photo lists.

The HP PhotoSmart scanner does a good job on 35mm panoramic film. No stiching required. They are very cheap now, as low as $100. These were originally about $450.

 

BTW, don't assume that panoramic means using a wide lens. Panoramic has more to do with aspect ratio of image than it has to do with angle of coverage of the lens.

 

I use Xpan, a great camera, a lot but there is a lot to be said for using a 35mm panoramic back on a MF camera such as Bronica or Mamiya that permits a wide selection of lenses. A Bronica ETRs with 40mm lens and 135w back will give a good wide view without the vignetting of the xpan 45mm.

This is a very common lens and is probably in a Supermatic shutter which is a pretty reliable shutter that can be serviced. These lenses are not expensive and you might find another one with a working shutter for about what the repair charge would be. The lens could be mounted in a modern shutter but the cost of the shutter and labor charges would be more than the lens is worth. It is not just a simple matter of screwing the lens into the new shutter. The Ektars are good lenses but they predate the standard shutter sizes.

Funny story. I'd be interested in updates.

 

I think you should get a crown Graphic or Busch Pressman and practice and then do the buffalo. After all that is what these cameras were made to do. The sports finder would be best. I'm old enough to say that I used Graphics hand held for my first several years in the business. Actually nobody used them on a tripod. It will not be long before you are comfortable with a Graphic. They are just as fast as a medium format SLR. A Graphmatic holder would speed up the shooting and the sports finder would allow you keep an eye out for OC while composing.

 

I'm looking forward to the next installment of this story.

Polydol was a general purpose tank developer used in a lot of studios because of it's long keeping properties with replenishment. The stuff would last almost forever. I used it in a nitrogen burst tank line. I haven't used it for 30 years so I forget all of the details.

 

From an old photo lab index:

 

"Polydol developer is free from the high peak of activity charcteristic of most developers when they are freshly mixed."

 

Just for reference: Tri-X in tray @ 68 deg. is 6 min. with continuous agitation.

 

Short answer is probably that it will work just fine.

 

 

My concern would be that you might have a 3.5 gallon mix and you should not try to mix a partial batch. All or nothing. If you open the can and the powder is brown, then I would toss the developer and use the can for pencil holder.

Try Presto.

http://www.framingsupplies.com/

 

Nice people, quick service, good prices.

They were easy to use in the camera but the trouble began in the darkroom. The film was glued to the paper on one end. After the paper was ripped off there was a litle strip of paper left that would soften up in the developer and make a mess. They were an odd size and would not fit regular hangers. There were curved developing hangers for the pack film but the film usually fell out of them in the developer. Most people, I think, tray developed the film. Getting the film to stay flat in the enlarger was another problem. I don't think too many people missed the pack. One of the pluses was being able to "rob the pack" by opening the pack and removing the exposed film and reassembling the pack in order to use the remaining film.

I just now put my 58 SA on my Crown Graphic with the bed dropped. The bed is not visible in the field of view. I hope this helps until someone tries a 55mm for you. Remember that you could have the hole drilled slightly off center on the board if you need a little extra help with your 55mm.

Some of the best platinum/palladium photographs are made by Kerik Kouklis. His site is http://www.kerik.com/

Bob, you have precisely summed up this topic.

 

BTW this apparently is not a new problem. I own a permit that was issued 1905 permitting a photographer to photograph the U. S. Capitol on one specific day and, even then, only during certain hours.

In response to Ellis:

<<<<<<<<<<<This is not a public policy issue as some have been over quick to point out. It is instead a private property issue: the managers don't want the building photographed. And yes I agree it is absurd, but then nobody ever accused private security guards of being particulary smart.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I agree with you on the point about private property but I have to disagree about the public policy. Yes, it is public policy in the United States not only since 911 but long before. I have been a staff photograher at the U. S. Capitol in Washington for nearly 20 years and even as an employee, I have always been required to have a tripod permit in order to do my job. The public is required to have the same permit. The rule is very strictly enforced by full fledged heavily armed police officers who have no sense of humor at all. I have asked but never received an answer about the origins of this rule but I know not to challenge it. Congress is famous for arbitary rules. Similar but different and more arbitary rules apply off of Capitol grounds when photographing the monuments in Washington that are administered by the National Parks Service.

 

I work closely with security officials as part of my job and I can assure you that the mentality is very narrow and getting narrower each minute. No one has accused the publiclly paid security officials of being particularly smart either. Power and secrecy begets more power and secrecy. George Orwell's 1984 is here having arrived 20 years behind schedule.

David, A 121 f/8 SA will have a lot of coverage since it just covers an 8x10. A 90 f/8 SA will just cover a 5x7 with a very wide view but you might want a CF for the 90. The 121 is, physically, a little bigger than the 90 but they cost about the same. I have a simple homemade wide 5x7 with the 90 and I like the perspective but I'm not asking it for movements. I also made a Hobo-type 8x10 and use the 121 on that one, also without movements. These lenses could do double duty on your regular equipment when you are not in the woods.

Wayne

Wally, this is a pretty old camera (about 80 years) but not bad if you can get one in excellent condition. It is fairly lightweight. There is a good chance that if it has it's original bellows that it will need replacing. They used a fabric that didn't hold up with age. Use a light to check for leaks because the bellows will look good but it will not be lighttight because the coating between the fibers has deteriorated. Also check out the gears since they can become stripped. Make sure that it has the extension track because you will need that for long lenses. It's not an overly strong camera so check out the construction for loose joints and hardware. $200 might not be a bad price for one in excellent condition but you should check it out for defects and deduct accordingly. Backs are probably out there but other than *bay I don't know where to get just a back. Might be able to make any old 8x10 back work with a little woodworking skills. If you mean to step up a 5x7 camera to an 8x10, I wouldn't do it. I would look for an 8x10 model. I have a full plate version (6.5x8.5) and I like it but I need a bellows. It cost $75 plus whatever the bellows will eventually cost. It is an economical way into large format.

Here's an previous thread.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0033Bl

 

I have one and IMHO the money could be spent in better ways. The Gran View is about the size of a Busch pressman, costs more and is less functional.

Dagor 77 is a smart fellow. He knows that most bidders don't know how to play the game so he is not afraid to start even very valuable items at 77 cents because he knows that many bidders will bid against themselves and he will always get at least a fair price.

 

He is a pleasure to do business with.

The focal length is not the problem. That will work fine although it is a little longer than normal. The problem might be that the lens is too large for the lensboard and the front opening of the bellows.

This is an amusing thread. US40 and I40 are entirely different highways. Only Wesley answered the question correctly. :)

Some "old timers" would blow smoke under the lens during a printing exposure to soften the image. Some would also use the cellopane from a cigarette pack under the lens for a portion of the exposure. Could these be the tobacco filter? I think the tobacco colored camera filters are a relatively recent invention. I think they came about with the square plastic filters.

Henry is right. You should clean the holders before you go dark. The film is clean in the box. If your darkroom is clean all will be fine.

As for the static master. Yes it will fog the film if you hold it against the film for a few minutes. You will get a definite image of the the grill that covers the strip.

There is nothing to prevent you from putting an RH-8 mechanism into

an RH-10 shell. This mismatch occurs often on the used market which,

of course, is the only market for these. This would result in eight

exposures on a back that had RH-10 on the nameplate. The outer shell

for each format can be found in both the 4x5 size and the small

camera format and the internal mechanism is interchangable from one

to the other. Sometimes it is possible to find the outer shell

without the internal parts so you could have both for one internal

film carriage. Just make sure that the formats match by matching the

number on the exposure counter with the number on the outer shell.

I use this format and know that a 90mm f/8 SA will definitely not

cover the format. My widest lens that I use on the format is the

121mm f/8 SA which is very wide. It can be very impressive for some

shots but I find that I agree with the idea of using a lens that is

closer to "normal." I really like shooting 4x10 with a 240mm G-Claron

which gives a nice perspective and is small in size. Remember that

panoramic does not mean you have to use the widest lens available. I

have a Canham 4x10 but because I use it for landscapes I find the

movements are not important enough to justify dealing with the Canham

so I prefer to use my homemade 4x10 camera which is light and compact

enough to be hand-held if necessary. As for film, I cut 8x10 Tri-X. I

use a hole punch with a stop so that it only nips the film a bit. I

do this over the floor rather than the table. So far none of these

crumbs have found their way into the film holders.