steve_wiley1

The biggest problem with the Calumet processor is the plastic crank.

I've rented the processor three or four times and the crank has broken

off twice during transit. Calumet should have designed it with a

removable crank. If your using it in the field, make sure to bring

pliers to use in place of the crank if it breaks. If the Polaroids are

your end product, practice a couple of times to find the proper crank

rotation speed that avoids banding across the image. Although the

Calumet version is easier to use in the field, the Polaroid brand

processor, even used with hand crank, gives more consistent results.

The method described by Tony sounds like lot of work, particularly if

you do more than one print at a time. I'm also highly suspect of the

claim that there won't be any "dry-down". "Dry-down" is really about

the amount of light reflected from a wet print vs. that of a dry one.

Fiberglass drying screens are very easy to make, or can be purchased

from Calumet or B&H. The blotter paper works just as well. A dry mount

press, in my opinion, is a necessary investment if your going to using

FB paper. There are lots of second-hand presses around. Use the method

described by Gene, but allow the flattened prints to cool under a

heavy sheet of glass.

Assuming you'll be using a glass carrier for your 8x10 negs, using

filters above the neg would mean two more surfaces to keep dust-free.

Also, filters in that size are really expensive. Use the filters below

the lens, but keep the distance between lens and filter within one

quarter inch.

Print Space doesn't have an 8x10 enlarger on their B/W floor. Best bet

is Beth Shiffer (Photo on Four). They have a Fotar with a Chromega

head. Only drawback is that processing takes place in a different

room. But, it's only $14/hour and the facilities are quite new. I

would not recommend Duggal. Kelton Labs is easily the best in town.

I'm researching 4x5 field cameras (I'm upgrading from a Super Graphic). I've narrowed it down to the Walker Titan or a (used) Wista SP, although if I had the $$, I might opt for the Canhamn metal 5x7.

Criteria is a robust and versatile field camera that has enough movements for simple architecural and portrait work. Although I haven't ruled out wood fields entirely, I think I would prefer a more rugged camera like the one's listed above. I doubt I will ever be using extreme WA lenses.Does anyone have experience with these cameras? Has anyone used the Wista 5x7 adapter? Thanks in advance for the advice!

Edward, I've used a Super Graphic with a 150mm Xenar for years and

it's served me very well. Movements are obviously limited and not

very elegant, but if your looking for a light-weight and robust field

camera, you won't be disappointed. I've used it for both personal

projects and advertising campaigns and its never failed me. That said,

if the funds were available, I would prefer a Linhoff or a Wista.

BTW, check Stu's Midwest Photo Exchange. Great prices and helpful

sales people.

Try the Bergger NB. It can be difficult to find due to past

distribution problems but is worth the effort. Addorama in NYC has

started to stock limited amounts.

Back to the original question. Is the CPP mechanically better?

Is the build quality higher, or is it just the cold water solenoid and

digital readout that adds to price? If I'm only processing B/W, can I

add my own $40 digital thermometer to the CPA and be just as happy?

As always, your collective consideration of this matter is deeply

appreciated.

Thanks to everybody for the generous advice. I'd ruled out deep tanks

because:1) I prefer one-shot to replenishment. 2) I'll be processing

film with grey backgrounds and have had problems with surge at the

film edges with deep tanks. 3)I routinely print negatives processed at

various labs in NYC and the film processed at Kelton Labs, who use

Jobos, is far superior to the other labs who I know use deep tanks.

4) I would love to use the Expert drums for my own large format work.

Thanks again.

Tri-X @ EI 6400 yields far superior results. I've found that HP5 can

barely handle a one stop push.

You may want to verify this, but I believe FP4 has a wetting agent

built in to it that promote even development. Pre-soaking film removes

this, resulting in less even development. Although I've never used

Jobo processors, I've had good results processing FP4 in PMK in

Patterson tanks without a pre-soak.

Try Kelton Labs in NYC. They use Jobo processors and their negs are

easily the cleanest, most evenly procesed negs I've ever printed from.

Try TMZ @ EI 1600 and develop in Dektol straight or 1:1 for 5 minutes

@ 68 deg.