dave_willison

John:

<p>

I built an 11x14 Pinhole several years ago as a bridge to larger

format cameras. My 11x14 pinhole has a focal length of about 5" and

uses a .016" pinhole. This arrangment covers 11x14 although you do get

the light falloff characteristic of pinhole shots.

<p>

If I remember correctly, the relationship between focal length and

image circle is approxiately 1:3.5. Thus, a 1" focal length pinhole

camera will produce an image circle of 3.5". For the larger film

formats you will need a minimum FL starting at about 5-6 inches.

<p>

...................................

Bill:

<p>

I bought my C-1 about 7 years ago for a little over $600. The camera

came with a 300mm/500mm Schneider Convertible Symmar. It also has a

4x5 reduction back. The Schneider is fairly sharp although I rarely

use the 500mm option. It also works well on 4x5 closeup work in

conjunction with the reduction back. In addition, the lens actually

covers 11x14! The 300mm Convertible Symmar is heavy and, thus, might

not make an ideal choice for scenery. Of course, if you have the

stamina to carry the C-1 and a tripod into the field, the size of the

lens probably won't bother you.

<p>

If you are looking for a moderate wide angle, I would vote for a

210mm. I use a Fujinon 210W which was purchased used several years ago

for about $500. Obviously, many other manufacturers make 210mm lenses

and a Nikon, Rodenstock, or Schneider would give good quality results.

<p>

There are several keys to picking up good, inexpensive lenses. First,

buy used. Second, don't be afraid of older lenses provided that they

are coated and have minimal damage. There are all kinds of older,

post-WW II lenses that would meet your needs including the Kodak

Commercial Ektar and the Goerz Red Dot Artar. Third, look for bargains

where the same basic lens is cheaper in a larger minimum aperture (an

f8 Super Angulon is normally less than a f5.6 Super Angulon). The

image on the ground glass will be darker, but you will save money in

the short run. Fourth, consider a barrel lens. You will need to shoot

longer exposures (2 plus seconds) and use a lenscap/hat, but the

inconveneince could save you $100-200.

<p>

If you buy new, consider a lens optimized for closeup work such as the

G-Claron. These lenses work well as lanscape lenses. In addition, many

individuals on this forum have purchsed new lenses from overseas

dealers at a considerable cost savings. Take a look at Robert White's

site for example.

<p>

I hope this helps and good luck with the C-1.

<p>

..........................

Joe:

<p>

You can use wood, metal, or plastic. Wood is probably easier to cut,

drill, and finish but may be subject to warping. To help overcome this

problem, I use 1/8 sheets of plywood which are available from

Rockler.com. The plywood comes in walnut, cherry, birch, red oak, and

white oak and costs from $11-25 depending on the type of wood. Each

sheet is 24x32 inches. I normally use an exacto or utility knife to

cut the plywood. This insures a clean and exact cut and is generally

safer than using a table saw or bandsaw. I also use a drill press and

forstner bits to cut holes for the lens. You can also use a hand-held

power drill.

<p>

..........................

Andre:

<p>

For storage purposes I normally use Visual Systems Tru Core Drop-Front

boxes in 8x10 (8 1/2 x 10 1/2) and 11x14 (11 1/4 x 15). The boxes come

in 1 1/2" and 3" depths and cost about $8-10 depending on the size.

According to Visual Systems, Drop-Front Boxes are designed for the

long-term protection of prints, documents, and artwork. All Drop-Front

boxes are made of either .060 TrueCore� board with a pH of 8.5 - 10.0,

or .055 TrueCore� board with a pH of 8.0 to 9.5. Both boards are

buffered with calcium carbonate, 3% reserve. The tan board is

light-fast and non-bleeding. The black board is pigment-based and

light-fast. Both boards are acid-free and lignin-free, high

alpha-cellulose purified pulp. Both pass the P.A.T. These heavyweight

boxes have metal reinforced edges for added protection. Each box has a

fully removable cover and a drop-front bottom so the contents can be

inserted and removed safely, without bending or damage.

<p>

Visual Systems also makes a wide variety of portfolios and

presentation binders. If you plan on producing a large number of

portfolios, however, I would suggest that you make them yourself. The

process is simple and you can use the same material (True-Core) noted

above. Pick up a copy of Franz Zier's book "Books, Boxes, And

Portfolios" (also avilable from Visual Systems).

<p>

Hope this helps.

<p>

.................................

Wooden's Large Format Optical Reference Manual lists a 12" f4.5 Ross

Xpress and indicates that it covers 8x10 with an angle of view of 58

degrees. There is no listing for a 12" f4 Wide Angle Express, but I

would guess that it also covers 8x10.

<p>

Regarding the second part of your question, Wooden lists five Ross

wide angle Express lenses:

<p>

(1) 4" f4. covers 4x5 with an angle of view of 70 degrees;

<p>

(2) 4 3/4" f4. covers 5x7 with an angle of view of 70 degrees;

<p>

(3) 5" f4. covers 5x7 with an angle of view of 70 degrees;

<p>

(4) 5 1/2". covers 5x7 with an angle of view of 70 degrees;

<p>

(5) 20" f4. covers 16x20 with an angle of view of 70 degrees.

<p>

You may also want to look at the Bostick-Sullivan web page which lists

coverages for a variety of older lenses including Ross. See:

<p>

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Alt_cameras/large%20format%20lenses.ht

m

<p>

I hope this helps.

<p>

......................................

Duana:

<p>

This is often easy to do but difficult to do well. You might try

looking more closely at the work of 19th and early 20th century

photographers to determine what factors give the photo its

characteristic look. Sometimes its a function of the older

photographic emulsions and their differing light sensitivities. The

slow character of 19th century plates forced photographers to use

longer exposures and often this shows in their work. Older emulsions

were also orthochromatic which resulted in lighter than normal sky

areas in landscapes. In addition, these photographers used large

negatives in combination with very basic lenses of a simple design.

The large negatives provided a level of detail not seen in modern,

small-format cameras. The lenses, however, were not coated and were

prone to flare which lowered the contrast of the final print. It is

also worthwhile to note that many older lenses were not corrected for

certain optical distortions and these distortions were evident at the

edges of a typical print. Also, many older lenses did not cover the

film format and this resulted in vignetting (light fall-off) and

softness in the corners of the negative. The character of older

photographs is also associated with the type of paper and the process

used. Fiber-based paper is an obvious choice as is the use of older

processes like platinum and POP with gold toner. If you are really

looking for a challenge, you mught even think about photogravure.

<p>

If you are looking for some simple solutions, try sepia toner in

conjunction with vignetting and a soft-focus filter. You can also use

bleach without toner (part 1 of the 2 part sepia toner) to produce the

blown-out look of an older photograph.

<p>

I hope this helps.

<p>

..............

Kevin:

<p>

Take a look at Stephen Shuart's site (http://www.stephenshuart.com)

and Pacific Rim (http://www.pacificrimcamera.com/catalog/menu.htm).

Both of these sites have a fairly extensive list of Graphic/Graflex

parts, etc.

<p>

..................................................

Emile:

<p>

Take a look at Jay Bender's site. He sells a modified slide for a

standard 8x10 filmholder which allows you to shoot two 4x10 shots on a

single sheet of 8x10 film. The slide lists for about $24.

<p>

http://www.benderphoto.com/4x10pa.htm

<p>

.................................................

Jonathan:

<p>

I use the Bogen 3057 on a Bogen heavy duty tripod (3058?) with a

geared center post. The head supports an old metal Calumet C-1 which

is probably one of the heavier 8x10's. The head is solidly built and

the quick release system that comes with the head is rugged and

reliable. I recently purchased several extra quick release plates and

use them to quickly mount two handmade ULF cameras (11x14 and 8x20).

<p>

.........................................

Mike:

<p>

Here is a simple method that avoids the precision routing step.

Purchase a sheet of 1/8 inch plywood available from Woodcraft.com in

walnut, cherry, birch etc. Using an exacto knife, cut a 6x6 piece to

fit your camera using the old board as a template. Drill a hole in the

center to match your lense/shutter diameter. Cut several thin (1/4-1/2

inch) strips of the 1/8 ply and glue them to the front (or rear) edge

of the lensboard. The idea is to build the overall edge thickness of

the board up to 3/8.

<p>

Drop me a line if this is unclear.

<p>

...........................................

Dick:

<p>

You might try hooking up with some area LF shooters through one of

Clyde Butcher's workshops. His web page can be found at

http://www.clydebutcher.com.

<p>

..............................................

You might take a look at Roger Hicks' book on hollywood glamour. I

believe he discusses lighting setups including Hurrell's. Also take a

look at Mark Vierra's (sp.?) book on Hurrell and his view camera

article several years ago.

<p>

As the above post(s) suggest, Hurrell's technique was a function of

his negative retouching in combination with the use of high-powered

hot lights and soft-focus lenses. If I remember correctly, he used

several Mole-Richardson 1000W lights and often employed booms to

acheive just the right placement of light. His lenses varied over the

course of his work. I believe his early portraits were taken with a

Wollensak Verito, a variable soft-focus lens. Apparently, he used the

Verito stopped down to achieve a balance between sharpness and the

characteristic soft-focus halo look of the Verito. Later on in his

career, Hurrell switched to a Goerz Celor.

<p>

.............................................

Take a look at the following link:

<p>

http://www.photocourse.com/12/12-03.htm

<p>

..........................................

David:

<p>

I would try to avoid a "destination-based" trip. Instead, focus on a

specific type of subject matter or, more broadly, some type of concept

or theme. Then let the concept drive your destination. At the end of

your trip you will hopefully end up with a more coherent body of work.

<p>

You could also try something random, such as a series of dart tosses

at a map. (How would John Cage have planned a road trip?)

<p>

Finally, you might try depicting the road itself or documenting your

relationship to it. This approach has been taken by a number of

photographers and, with a lttle research, you can look at plenty of

inspirational material in advance of your trip.

<p>

................................

Scott:

<p>

First, take a look at the following article on the LF homepage. It

covers B&J view cameras but the same issues will apply to Deardorff.

<p>

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/burke-james/restore

8x10.html

<p>

Kodak also has a generic article on restoring antique cameras

(http://kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/a511/a511kic.sh

tml) and there are a couple of general books including:

<p>

Antique Camera Restoration for cameras before 1928, Compur, Compound,

pneumatic shutters, wood, leather and brass refinishing. (available

from http://www.edromney.com/)

<p>

Restoring Classic & Collectable Cameras

by Thomas Tomosy (avaialble from Amazon.com)

<p>

If you are looking for parts (especially rack and pinion gears) take a

look at the following web pages:

<p>

http://www.smallparts.com

http://www.reidtool.com

<p>

In addition, see http://www.micro-tools.com for camera repair

equipment,tools, and supplies.

<p>

There are also several articles on camera refinising in View Camera.

Check their article index or drop me an e-mail and I'll give you the

specific issue numbers, pages, etc.

<p>

Finally, take a look at the various posts on this forum listed under

repair/restoration.

<p>

I hope this helps.

<p>

....................................

Gavin:

<p>

Take a look at the Hicks/Schultz Pro Lighting book series. Each book

covers a specific type of subject matter ranging from portraits to

food shots. The books are well illustrated and include specific

diagrams showing the positioning of lighting equipment. They also

describe what equipment choices are available to you.

<p>

...........................................

Andy:

<p>

Dan Burkholder has his own site which, among other things, provides a

table of contents for his book on digital negatives (see

http://www.danburkholder.com/).

<p>

I have used digital output for photopolymer gravure and

screenprinting, but I have not had any experience producing negatives

for platinum or gum bichromate work. From a quick reading of Dan

Burkholder's table of contents, however, you get the impression that

the quality of your output depends a great deal on the quality of the

original scan and the type of print device used. According to the

table of contents, his book spends one chapter (CH 12) on the inkjet

and describes it's limitations and potential for future use. Most of

the book, however, seems to deal with non-desktop equipment including

high-end imagesetters and drum scanners.

<p>

My sense is that the combintion of a high quality drum scan and output

to an imagesetter will provide excellent negatives, even by some

traditionalist standard. On the other hand, a deskstop scan combined

with output to a typical inkjet printer (even the new Epson) will

yield different and, for some printers, less desirable results.

<p>

IMHO it depends on the type of image you are attempting to create and

the look you try to achieve in your work. It may also be a function of

your own feelings about output generated by the inkjet. Some

photographers like the appearance of inkjet prints and some don't. By

the same token, some will use injets to produce digital negatives and

some will require imagesetter output.

<p>

.....................................

Bill:

<p>

If you break alot of glass or are inclined towards DIY, take a look at

the following web page. This site discusses how to grind your own

glass.

<p>

http://rhoadescameras.bizland.com/Camera%20Creation/Ground%20Glass/gro

und_glass.htm

<p>

If you need a quick (and cheap) replacement, you can use plexiglass

and some sandpaper. Plexiglass is more durable although it is somewhat

more difficult to focus and somewhat less translucent when sanded. A

random orbit sander is useful for sanding random patterns although you

can use hand sanding. Plexiglass is easy to cut using a draw tool

available from most hardware stores and home centers for less that $5.

<p>

<p>

...................................

Bill:

<p>

Take a look at the following page. This particular hand-built camera

uses two 65mm Super Angulons, although they are not mounted on a LF

lenseboard and camera.

<p>

http://www.ghouse.com/daniel/stereoscopy/equipment/index.html

<p>

I believe that the older 65mm SA (often mounted in a syncho compur

shutter) is less than 60mm. In fact the widest part of these lenses is

the front element which measures about 55mm using the lenscap as a

guide. In addition, the rear relement is about 42mm and the retaining

ring is approximately 30mm.

<p>

If my calculations are right, two of these lenses would require a

lensboard that is at least 4.25 inches wide. This is based on the

assumption that the lenses are mounted side-by-side and spaced 65mm

from center to center. I don't remember the exact requirements for

stereo, but this figure seems about right depending on the subject

distance. This also assumes a 1/4 inch margin around the lensboard

holes and adequate space for some clearance between the front

elements.

<p>

It would be easier to mount these lenses on a 5x7, but your 4x5 may

work if the camera has a large lensboard. The other problem to keep in

mind is whether your camera belows is compact enough to focus a 65mm

lense at infinity.

<p>

I hope this helps and let me know if you need more exact dimensions on

the older SA.

<p>

................................

Charlie:

<p>

I use a Fuji 6x9 with the 65mm lens and a 6x7 with a 90mm lens. The

cameras are solid and produce nice sharp negatives. I use the 6x7 as a

general purpose camera and the 6x9 primarily for landscapes.

<p>

I would echo the limitations mentioned above, particularly with

respect to timed exposures which are inconvenient. I would also add

that the Fuji's are not very useful at close distances (under about

3ft) and that the rangefinder view is slightly obscured by the camera

lens. You will also have to adapt to focusing a rangefinder unless you

have previous experience with these types of cameras. If you buy a

used version, inquire about the number of rolls shot with the camera.

On my model, there is a mechanical meter on the bottom which advances

with every roll shot. I hope this helps.

<p>

...................................

Peter:

<p>

Take a look at the following site which lists test resolution data for

the Fujinon 210 W along with the 210 Nikor, Rodenstock and Schneider:

<p>

http://hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

<p>

I have used the Fujinon 210W for about four years and have been very

pleased with the results. I find the lens to be extremely flexible and

I use it on 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. It functions well in a studio setting

and as a landscape lens. I normally shoot at small apertures (f22) so

I can't speak to the performance of the lens when used wide open. I'm

a big fan of Fujinon lenses, particularly since they tend to cost less

on the used market than some other prominent lenses. I also use two

medium format Fujinon rangefinder cameras (6x7 and 6x9) and I find

that they produce similar results.

<p>

.................................

Dan:

<p>

I remember seeing an add in the classified section of Shutterbug that

advertised Morroccan leather for camera bellows. You might give that a

try, although I suspect that it could be very expensive. Also, I read

somewhere (perhaps in this forum) that others have used the shutter

curtain repair material available from Micro Tools. (see

http://www.micro-tools.com/Merchant2/restore.htm). Micro Tools' web

site lists small sheet sizes, but I believe you can special order

larger sheets. The other possibility is to search for the vinyl

impregnated cloth used to make awnings or boat tops. This might be a

good alternative if you live in an area with a large number of marine

suppliers.

<p>

....................................

If you can locate a copy of "Beyond the Zone System," Phil Davis

includes plans for a modified Pentax spotmeter. The modifications he

outlines are meant to convert the spotmeter so that it functions as a

densitometer. This is similar to the conversion you are thinking about

and it may help. One other thought: Are you shooting in a studio

setting using tungsten lighting or outdoors? If you are shooting with

tungsten, you may need to lower your film speed. As a general rule,

ISO ratings for tungsten lighting are lower for any given film when

compared to daylight. Good luck!

<p>

...............................................

Russell:

<p>

The price difference is partially due to the age of the lenses. Ilex

produced lenses until they were aquired by Egleet in 1963. (For a

brief history of Ilex and other Rochester lens companies, see:

http://www.cif.rochester.edu/~ardavis/history/kingslake.html). Ilex

was probably better known for it's line of large format shutters (see

http://www.skgrimes.com/ilex/index2.htm).

<p>

The Ilex-Calumet Caltar lenses were manufactured by Ilex and

labeled/sold under the Calumet name. Calumet had similar arrangements

with both Schneider and Rodenstock. I believe that Schneider produced

Calumet Caltars during the early 1980's along with a series of double

convertible lenses in varying focal lengths (180mm/300mm, 215mm/360mm,

and 240mm/420mm). New and recent Calumet Caltars are often attributed

to Rodenstock, although you would have to contact Calumet to confirm

this.

<p>

I don't know of a specific, on-line source for data on Ilex-Calumet

Caltar lenses. You might look at the following links, but I believe

that they only list Ilex lenses--not Ilex-Calumet:

<p>

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/lenseslist.html

<p>

http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/Alt_cameras/large%20format%20lenses.ht

m

<p>

The only other source that I can think of would be Wooden's "Large

Format Optical Reference Manual." This manual is not available on-line

so you would have to track down and purchase a copy. The manual lists

some data, although the image circle information is more complete for

Calumet lenses made by Schneider and Rodenstock. Complete data for

Ilex-Calumet lenses is listed for the 305mm and the 375mm Ilex-Calumet

Caltars.

<p>

As far as resolution, you might look at the following:

<p>

http://hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html

<p>

Unfortunately, I believe they only provide test data for one Ilex

lens, the Paragon.

<p>

I hope this helps.

<p>

..................

Ben:

<p>

There are any number of alternative packs, bags, and carrying cases

that will cost less than a dedicated camera bag made specifically for

large format. If you use several cameras (4x5, 8x10, MF, Pinhole,

etc.) you will most likely search for a less expensive solution to

carrying equipment. I often rely inexpensive nylon coolers and book

bags to transport my cameras and filmholders. These types of bags can

be modified with padding and often disguise the fact that you are

carrying expensive camera equipment. In addition, many cooler type

cases are water resistant and insulated. Your rucksack idea is

probably a good solution, although you may find something even

cheaper. You might also consider looking for a case that is easier to

unpack than a rucksack/duffle bag. It sounds like you may have to do

some digging around to get your equipment out of the bag. A

square/rectangular case might be easier to organize and would alow you

to open your case and view filmholders, camera, meter, etc. Good luck.

<p>

............................................