william_whitaker1

There's no justification. ;-)<P>

 

Start with this web site: <a href=http://ulf.janvanhove.com/>http://ulf.janvanhove.com/</a>. Also don't forget to research the archive here at photo.net.<P>

 

Regards,<BR>

Will

Wisner and company were most accommodating. I simply removed the front standard and shipped it to them. They exchanged it for the cost of shipping in spite of the fact that I did not buy the camera new; I bought it on Ebay. <I>And</I> I got it back in two weeks. :-)<P>

 

It <I>is</I> a lightweight camera and good for a travelling LF kit. It's not perfect, but so far it's the best solution (for me) that I've found.

I have a Wisner 4x5 Pocket Expedition and can use a 75mm lens with limited movement using the standard bellows. I do have a bag bellows (it's available), but rarely use it.<P>

 

I will add that I had Wisner replace the front standard with their <I>"simple"</I> front standard. Now it's like a tech field front, but it retains the geared rise. For my purposes it works much better. I did not care for the complicated <I>"pocket"</I> front standard. It's a good camera and it works well with short lenses.<P>

 

Will

The dark blue is the anti-halation coating from the back of the film. That is normal.

 

I use a pre-soak when developing film. In fact, I began using the pre-soak when I started developing 8x10 film in a JOBO 3005 drum using PMK. That was an alkaline pre-soak and was necessary to prevent streaking and uneven development which I'd been getting until then. You don't need a pre-soak for temperature control. What the pre-soak does help with is to prepare the emulsion to receive the developer. But it's not always necessary. Only your own experience can determine that. Try it both ways and if your results with the pre-soak are better, then use it. Otherwise you're just adding extra work and wasting water.

I can't help but comment on this one because my first view camera was a Wista 45DX rosewood. I, too, thought it was a beautiful camera (and still do). I still sometimes regret selling it as it was certainly very capable. But at the time I wanted an 8x10 and I couldn't keep everything.<P>

 

Movements on the Wista are adequate for most anything you want to do and certainly more than adequate for portraiture. The major limitation is the 12" bellows. With a 240mm lens the closest you'll be able to get to your subject is about 5 feet. With a 210mm lens you can get as close as about 2 feet. Either should work for most portraiture. A camera with a slightly longer bellows would give you a little more versatility.<P>

 

If your work is primarily portraiture, you might consider an older tail board-style portrait camera such as the Burke & James Rembrandt. Both 5x7 and 4x5 backs were available for it. It has a fixed front standard, so the movements are very limited (rear only). But portraiture usually doesn't require more. The good thing is that they're often available for very reasonable prices. They use a 6" square board which is better for vintage soft focus lenses if you're so inclined. And a Packard shutter can be fitted internally for barrel lenses. But they're certainly not as pretty as the Wista!<P>

 

Best,<BR>

Will

Sounds like the film did not receive any exposure.

You may want to locate a copy of <a href=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1930238002/102-1637707-6257731?v=glance><I>The Photographer's Guide to Yosemite</I></a>, by Michael Frye. While not aimed specifically at large format photographers, it does provide a lot of advice on the park from the viewpoint of a photographer. Fall is a beautiful time in Yosemite if for no other reason than because the summer's crowds have dissipated. Unfortunately, too, so has the water. So don't expect to see waterfalls. Weather patterns can change quickly and with the first snow Tioga Pass and the Glacier Point road will be closed. Don't plan for too late in the season or you'll spend all your time in the valley. Not that that's a bad thing...<P>

 

As I think has already been stated, there aren't really any flat hikes in Yosemite except maybe the walk to Mirror Lake (and don't expect to see a lake...). Much of what you do (and carry) will depend on your own physical condition. While I personally would opt for a 4x5 to keep the weight down, my own suggestion would be to work with the equipment with which you're most comfortable. Yosemite at any time of the year is a sensory feast. The less time spent fighting the equipment is more time spent enjoying the experience.<P>

 

Best,<BR>

Will

Trays are cheapest. But for daylight processing, the HP Combi-Plan tank is a good candidate. It will hold up to six negatives. Cost is around $60. A search of Photo.net will turn up some threads concerning its use.

There are some cine tripods which show up occasionally on Ebay which will work very well for large format still cameras, too. The problem usually is with the crown of the tripod. Frequently with cine tripods it's a "bowl" within which a fluid head sits and can be levelled. Some others have flat tops, however, which are more easily adaptable to standard heads for still cameras. I picked up one (a Miller) off Ebay a while back for about $150 and it works well. It has a small levelling head built in to the top to which I can mount a Ries head or Arca ball. It's very robust in spite of looking rather rough; cleaner versions demand higher prices, of course. Unless you know what you're looking for, however, I'd urge caution.<P>

 

A surveyors tripod can be adapted, too. Again, the stumbling point is usually the crown. But with some resourcefulness it can be done. Clyde Butcher uses a surveyor's tripod for his cameras because of the very wet conditions in which he works. He may be a source of information/inspiration.<P>

 

Unfortunately, tripods "come with the territory" with large format. There's simply no escaping it. You may with a bit of luck find something which will fit the bill. Otherwise the usual response is, "Get a Ries".<P>

 

Best,<BR>

Will

For metal lens boards, I've used a boring head on a vertical mill. But if you have access to a lathe as you indicate, that would work well, too.

At this point in time it's a buyer's market for used enlargers, especially big ones. I would not even consider the prospect of purchasing an 8x10 enlarger with the idea of reselling it for profit. Even if you got it for free, the effort required to transport and store the beast would far outstrip any profit you might see. Furthermore, there is unfortunately little to no support for DeVere in the U.S. That makes parts and service difficult and expensive.

 

On the other hand, if you're looking for an enlarger for yourself, you may be able to find a good deal.

Possibly 16mm or maybe Minox, but it looks a little "fat" for the latter.

I have to second the advice given above (TC and GAVH). If you're going to regain access to the enlarger in the fall, use the time now to photograph. Your portfolio will be much better for it than if you were to dive into new formats.<P>

 

Moving to a new format, especially 8x10 or larger can be seductive. The cost of a camera is but a fraction of the overall cost. And you can't stop with just one lens. (Don't ask me how I know....)<P>

 

Make new photographs; print in the fall. In the meantime, you <I>can</I> still contact print 4x5's. Heck, Paul Strand did.

The Agfa backs are a little strange because the ledge upon which the glass rests "bends up" in the corners necessitating clipped corners. It's easy enough to make your own ground glass as mentioned already. One of the photo magazines (I don't recall which) had a good article within the last year on making a ground glass. Another material you can use is P95 Plexiglas from Tap Plastic. 1/8" is good, but make sure you get the kind which is ground on one side. It can be cut pretty easily or even scored and snapped. It's cheap, it works well and it's virtually unbreakable.

 

Another option is the Tachihara ground glass/fresnel. It has clipped corners and it's very nice to use. Midwest Photo sells them. I have one on my Masterview and really like it. The grid overlay provides protection for the relatively soft fresnel material, so it's better to go ahead and get it rather than try to pinch pennies. Alternatively, 1/16" Lexan from Tap would probably serve well as a cover piece.

If the tripod clamp from a 4x5 Grover is the same as that for a 5x7 Grover, then I have one which can be yours for the cost of shipping. Contact me off-line, please.

Ask what the best LF camera is and you'll get deluged with answers. Everybody has their favorites; I do, too.<P>

 

What caught my eye in your post was the inclusion of "Linhof Technika" and "wide-angle" in the same breath. I may ignite fires with this, but from <I><B>my</B></I> experience, the two don't go well together. When I had a Technika I found it very difficult to use lenses 90mm and shorter. The 90mm was usable, but it was awkward (for me), what with dealing with the drop bed and such. (I took Bill's advice above and chose option #2 and I didn't lose any money.) The further problem is that what is a wide-angle lens for 4x5 (e.g., 90mm) is just about normal for 6x9, which you indicate you're interested in using. A wide-angle lens for the smaller format is shorter than for the 4x5 and this only aggravates the situation.<P>

 

The Technika is a beautiful camera and there are several well-known photographers who use it very effectively. But given your preferences, it doesn't sound like the best option.<P>

 

My first 4x5 was a Wista 45-DX. Given the limitation of a 12" bellows, it was a very capable camera. I should never have sold it. Much has been written in this forum and others about the Wista, Tachihara, Nagaoka, Anba, Shen-Hao sorts of cameras. They're all quite capable cameras. They don't weigh a lot, so they're good for backpacking. And they can be found used for prices which will perhaps leave you some money for lenses and film. Search the archives and see what others have written.<P>

 

For the record, my current 4x5 is a Wisner Pocket Expedition (purchased used), the front standard of which has been exchanged for the non-twiddly "simple" front standard as comes on the other Wisners. I love the camera. It's not perfect, but it's very lightweight and has a decent bellows range (19"). I can use a 75mm lens with the standard bellows and without having to drop the bed.<P>

 

Just my 2-cents,<BR>

Will

Are the positive images really positive? Sometimes if you view a B&W negative against a dark background it will appear positive, especially if viewed in a glancing light.

I think you've already answered your own question. Keep the Leica gear.

<BR>

<I>"However, if it were flow and agitation related why would the pattern only manifest itself along the bottom half of the film, even when it is in the middle of the tank?"</I><P>

 

Philip,<P>

 

If it <I>is</I> a flow issue, then maybe the reel is the culprit, or at least a key player. Regarding dilution, if you use straight XTOL, your development time will be reduced substantially and lack of adequate agitation may become a problem, especially if it's inadequate at to begin with at 1:1. (Furthermore, it's not as economical!) Before you change your dilution, I would look at changing your agitation pattern. By pattern, I not only mean the <I>way</I> you lift and invert the tank, but <I>when</I> and <I>how often</I> you do so, too. Perhaps you could try agitating for a shorter period every 30 seconds instead of 60. My intuition is that if it's a flow pattern problem, then more agitation rather than less would be the direction to head. All the more reason for not using straight developer.<P>

 

The problem I experienced with the Nikor 4x5 tank was also with the film at the center of the reel (cage). While a leak in the light trap might be a possibility, the construction of the lid is such that I really doubt that's the problem. My agitation pattern (and yours) may be inadequate to provide proper agitation within the central area of the tank. Turning and inverting is usually centered around that area and perhaps most of the agitation is really occuring at the edges of the reel, leaving an eddy in the central core. In my own case I probably exacerbate the problem by topping off the tank so that there is little to no air inside. I know I always fear that if I don't top off the tank, then I might run the risk of not fully submerging the film in the developer. But that may be working against me. I recall Gordon Hutchings in <I>The Book of Pyro</I> writing something to the effect that when inverting a tank, it should be done swiftly so that the trapped air burbles to the top almost like a nitrogen burst tank.<P>

 

This has piqued my curiosity now! I'll see if I can repeat the problem, then maybe find a solution. It would be nice to be able to use that old Nikor tank. It sure beats trays.<P>

 

Best,<BR>

Will

Variations in density can be caused by variation in development. I would venture to suggest that you're experiencing uneven development. I have encountered a very similar effect using one of the Nikor stainless steel tanks for 4x5 sheet film. While the problem occurred originally using a staining developer (Pyrocat HD), as recently as two weeks ago I encountered it again using XTOL 1:1. The pattern on the film is the unmistakable pattern of the central spirals of the film cage. It does, in fact, resemble a shadowgram. However, flow patterns and eddies can occur which can inhibit or strengthen development in a local area. If the negative already has density (which it should), then a strong flow pattern is going to manifest itself as a variation in density in the basic shape of the flow pattern: in our case, the shape of the internal structure of the reel.<P>

 

Rather than to correct the deficiency with using that tank, I simply switched to tray development, something I was having to do for larger negatives anyway. Consequently I've not investigated the problem further. However, I did resolve a similar issue with a JOBO tank. This time streaking was the issue. It's still basically uneven development, but with a differently shaped pattern. In the JOBO case I used an alkaline pre-soak for three minutes and the problem disappeared. (The pre-soak was simply the "B" solution (sodium metaborate) of PMK by itself. PMK was the developer I was using at the time.) I also monitored very closely my agitation pattern to try to maintain consistency.<P>

 

Does your problem occur consistently with the Hewes set-up? (I'd almost bet that the wire coils of the Hewes reel are of a thicker gauge than the Taiwanese reel.) Does it occur with a different developer? Try changing your agitation method and pattern and see if the problem follows. And try an alkaline pre-soak rather than plain water. I'd be interested to hear if the problem remains.<P>

 

Best,<BR>

Will

I did the search above out of curiosity and I believe that online manual is for one of the earlier Plaubels which is a completely different camera. I checked and I <I>do</I> have a copy of the Plaubel Makina 670 manual. If you would like a photocopy, please email me privately and I will make a copy in the next few days and mail it to you. If I can figure out how to save to PDF files, there are several manuals (including this one) I'd like to make part of my web site. The www is such a great information sharing tool.<P>

 

Operation of the Plaubel Makina is pretty straight-forward. It's also a little quirky, but the quirks you get used to with practice. To close/open the camera, the red button on the camera body to the bottom left (photographer's left) of the lens panel should be depressed and the lens panel then moved to the open or closed position. It will snap into position. With mine I've found that the lens really needs to be at infinity focus to close correctly, although the instruction book doesn't mention that.<P>

 

Be gentle with opening and closing the camera. Don't try to open it one-handed like a switchblade. To do so is only asking for trouble. Comments have been posted elsewhere about the fact that the wiring harness is attached to the "lazy tongs" lens extension mechanism. While I've not yet (knock on wood!) had any problem, concern is valid as the wiring flexes with opening and closing the camera, and undue stress on it should be avoided.<P>

 

The meter switch is the small button on the back of the camera at the top and near the right. It's about where your right thumb would find it without too much searching. Correct exposure is indicated in the viewfinder by a green dot LED, overexposure by a "+" and underexposure by a "-". The green dot together with the "+" indicates approximately 1/3 stop overexposure (and conversely underexposure with the "-"). The switch is momentary, so to use the meter, you need to hold the button down. When you let go, it turns off. The shutter has discrete steps, but the aperture is continuously variable without click-stops.<P>

 

A couple more notes are in order regarding the 670. To open the back, the latch mechanism has an additional button on the latch which must be depressed for the latch to slide down and open the back. The pressure plate inside must indicate the appropriate film size (120 or 220) for what you're using. And the winding mechanism is the double-stroke type. It takes two full strokes of the winder to advance the film one frame. These last three items are specific differences between the 670 and the earlier 67.<P>

 

I'm particularly fond of the Plaubel Makinas. They're not without fault, but they fit own way of working marvelously. Enjoy yours and if you have any more questions, let me know.<P>

 

Best regards,<BR>

Will

Steve,<P>

 

Your lens takes the old style Hasselblad series 63 filters. These are a drop-in filter, held in place in front by a threaded retainer or the appropriate screw-in lens hood. The retaining rings can be found easily enough. 67mm threaded filters <I>might</I> work. I don't think the thread is exact, but I've been told it works. I defer to others with more experience on that point!<P>

I have the old 50C Distagon myself. It's one of my favorite lenses.<P>

Best,<BR>

Will

The Plaubel Proshift 69W is a wonderful camera. It is the marriage of a Schneider 47mm f/5.6 Super Angulon lens with a Mamiya 6x9 back. The camera dates from the early 80's and, as you've probably surmised, is long out of production.<P>

 

Its biggest feature is a front lens panel which offers front rise or shift (but not simultaneously). The optical viewfinder tracks with the lens movement to give a pretty good idea of framing. Focusing is by estimation using the scale on the lens mount and the DOF scale.<P>

 

A couple of web sites with more information on the Proshift are <a href=http://digilander.libero.it/clabo/mamiya/69w/>http://digilander.libero.it/clabo/mamiya/69w/</a> and <a href=http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/plaubel69w_proshift/index.html>http://www.mediajoy.com/en/cla_came/plaubel69w_proshift/index.html</a>. Proshifts show up occasionally on the used market for somewhere between $2000 and $2500 at last check. A used camera should include the optical viewfinder, although there's a built-in collapsible wire-frame viewfinder which can be used in lieu of the optical one. Extras which were originally available for the camera include a center filter and a small post which screws into a tripod hole on top of the camera. This post allows the camera to be mounted upside-down on a tripod so that the front rise may be used as a front fall.<P>

 

While the Proshift is no longer made, there are some other medium format cameras on the market which offer viewcamera movements and roll film capability. Two which come to mind are the Silvestri (<a href=http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/silvestri.htm>http://www.bromwellmarketing.com/silvestri.htm</a>) and the Horseman SW series which is available in 6x12 and 6x9 formats (<a href=http://www.horsemanusa.com/faq_sw.html>http://www.horsemanusa.com/faq_sw.html</a>). These cameras use current generation optics. The prices are pretty intimidating, however. I'm quite happy with my Proshift for now.<P>

Regards,<BR>

Will

Have you already looked at http://www.canhamcameras.com?

I use my dark slide.