ben_calwell

Where are all these cheap enlargers you guys are referring to? A new Zone VI 5x7 is way out of my price range, and the Saunders 4x5 enlargers are still around $1500 and above. I wish the prices would drop to maybe around $500 to $800.

Brian, you crack me up, man. Windshield wiper motors from 1956 Renaults -- that's great.

Bicycles (I'd like to have a recumbent too) and playing half-assed jazz on our beat up old Kimbell piano. But what I really want is a Hammond B3. I'd like to see Jimmy Smith in concert someday.

You're right, Michael. I'm going to tell my "inner critic" to shut up. My post was a little over the top (tried for self-deprecating humor, but failed miserably).

I share Robert's view on this topic. Sadly, most of what I shoot ends up in boxes in my closet because I never think they're good enough to show to anyone or sell, much less give away. I've made a few good photographs over the years and have those framed and on the walls in my home.

When I look at one of my prints, I try to imagine what other photographers might say about them.

For instance, "Bad print color," "Yeah, it's flat," "Gee, you should have cropped this out," "You don't have a good black in this print."

The worst response to my photographs is a sickly half-smile, followed by something like "Oh, yeah, that's nice."

I've never gotten an "oooh, wow, look at that!" response to an image.

My wife, bless her heart, loves everything I do.

And by the way, I think 4x5 matted contact prints are wonderful.

Robert, you wanna go bowling with me?

Ansel would probably roll over in his grave if he saw me work. I'm definitly a half-assed zone system kind of guy, and I'm glad to know there are others out there, too. I place the shadows where I want them and then check to see where they important high values fall. I then develop accordingly. Early on, I tested everything to the 'enth degree, but I got tired of agonizing over it and photographing gray mat boards and trying to locate a densitometer. Now, I just take pictures and make corrections along the way if they don't look right. Maybe I've lowered my standards, but I'm having more fun with it now, and my photos (at least to me) look pretty good.

Don't forget Midwest Photo (www.mpex.com) in Columbus, Ohio. They've got a great selection of LF, new and used. Ask for Jim.

Cecil,

 

I don't know how old your Linhof is, but my Linhof 5x7 was made in 1954, and I use regular, modern 5x7 holders in it with no problems.

Thanks, Ellis

We're flying out tomorrow to spend time with my inlaws in

Wimberley,Texas. Taking my field camera, but am out of Tri-X 4x5

(local camera store where I live out of stock). Is there a photo

store in either San Antonio or Austin where I can buy a box of 4x5

Tri-X? Thanks for replies.

Pete,

 

In my experience with landscapes, it often doesn't take much tilt -- just a hair of a tilt -- to snap things into focus. You can see it happen with a loupe. Maybe you're being too heavy-handed with the tilting. Put a loupe on the ground glass and then just barely tilt and see what happens.

I know this isn't related strictly to LF, but I need help with a

tripod-related issue. I just purchased a new Bogen 3021 tripod for my

Wista, but I'm having trouble installing my old 3029 head on it. I

removed the old head -- plate and all -- from the center post of my

old 3001 legset, but I can't get the head off the old plate. I

unscrewed the three set screws, but I can't unscrew the head from the

main center screw on the old plate. It won't budge. Any suggestions?

Thanks for your advice.

Ray,

So far, no problems printing PMK on vc papers (contact prints using non-cold light enlarger head as light source). As I've posted before, the PMK/vc papers work well, as least for me, on night scenes. Neon signs print with great detail. I recently shot some daylight stuff (a white church in diffused sunlight)and contact printed them on vc paper, and they look good (at least to me, they do). The only thing I don't like about Pyro is having to wear gloves.

George,

 

I've got two index cards on the way to Canham; one for a 5x7, the other for their new lightweight 8x10. Can't wait till they arrive!

Geoffrey,

What's worked for me over the years is brushing the holders out with a clean, small paint brush or camel's hair brush. Using the handle of the brush, I tap the sides of the holders to dislodge dust and then brush it away. I then always, always, keep the holders in plastic bags or sealed in tupperware holders. I never let them sit out uncovered.

To celebrate the first annual Large Format Appreciation Day (April

1), all major manufacturers of view cameras are sponsoring the "Why I

Like View Cameras" essay project. On a 4x5 inch index card simply

write down why you like view cameras, and then send it in to the

camera manufacturer of your choice. Spelling and puncuation are not

important. In return, you will receive the view camera of your choice

absolutely free, with a complimentary accessory of your choice. The

deadline for submissions is Oct. 1. (If only this could be true.)

A few years ago, Carl Weese wrote an article in, I believe, Photo Techniques Magazine, in which he raved about pyro negs printed on VC papers. My memory of the article may be faulty, but I recall that the big deal with this combination is the ability to print long-scale subjects with ease. Apparently, the yellow-green stain acts as a built-in mask, which helps in bringing in the texture on those really dense areas of the negative. I'm just starting to experiment with PMK and have found that it works great on night scene shots when printed on VC papers.

John,

 

I wish I was as gregarious as you. I can't stand having an audience when I photograph. I hate drawing attention to myself, and unfortunately, setting up a big view camera is like having a neon sign strapped to my back that says "look at me!" I always try to find photographic locations where I know there won't be many people. This weekend, I found an old white church several hundred yards off the main road. The location was quiet, secluded and there were a lot of interesting things to photograph. It was great day.

Thanks, everyone. I'll try to relax a little more when using Pyro and not panic if a little of it spills onto my skin or into the sink.

Well, I've used PMK twice now, and I'm happy with the results.

However, I find that my darkroom experiences now are tense because

I'm so worried about where and if I've dripped the toxic stuff. I

feel like I'm working with plutonium or something. I wear gloves, but

during the course of developing, I still must touch other things in

the darkroom, like faucets, etc. I try to make mental notes on where

the stuff has inadvertently dripped and what I've touched with pyro-

laden gloves so that I can clean it up later. By the way, working in

gloves is no picnic. Am I over-reacting to the dangers of this stuff?

Do I have to give my darkroom a complete scrub-down with soap and

after using Pyro? Can I just rinse everything with water? Thanks for

replies.

I, too, thank Bob Salomon for his direct and knowledgeable responses over the years. I'm glad that he monitors the forum.

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate it.

Bob,

 

If you're still out there, could you tell me the approximate age of

my Linhof 5x7? Serial number is 25354. Thanks

I'm fresh off my first experience with PMK, and I can tell you that it did the job for me on an urban night scene that I photographed recently. Compared to negatives of the same scene developed in HC110, the PMK neg wins hands down. A neon sign in my shot contact prints with wonderful detail from the PMK neg on multicontrast paper. The neon sign is blown out on the HC110 negs, even though I developed them at high dilution and with infrequent agitation. PMK may not be the magic bullet for all shots, but I was certainly impressed with the way it handled this scene, which was shot on 5x7 Tri-X. I plan to experiment more with it.

I use HC110 diluted 1:30 with 4x5 and 5x7 tri-x, but not from the concentrate in the bottle. I first mix it according to the directions and then dilute from that. I use it to tame extremely long scale subjects. My development time is 20 minutes, with a few seconds of agitation every three to five minutes. I give an extra stop of exposure if I use this development scheme. Another way, as described in an article by Bruce Barnbaum, is to dilute it 1:45 from stock solution and give 12 minutes of development with agitation for the first minute and then 15 seconds each subsequent minute. But in my experience, these methods tend to kill off the local contrast. I've never tried diluting straight from the HC110 bottle, but maybe that works fine, too.

 

Ben Calwell