cesar_barreto

Bob,

<p>

I made it for the Linhof 617, with 90/5.6 lens, but I suppose it

could also be done for any lens. Panels would be more angled, maybe

shorter, but the main concept should work anyway.

Considering that most of the light cone inside the camera is quite

useless, any shade on top and botton side will be rather welcome.

Even a grotesque project like mine.

<p>

Cesar B.

Dean,

<p>

The same question came to me last year and I made myself a prototype

hood for my 90mm lens. It looks awful, but works fine. With cardboard

I cut four panels shapped so to have angled sides and glued them to

black cloth. A piece of Velcro ties both ends. This foldable piece

can be mounted around a Lee holder or anything that fits the lens and

shows square sides.

The advantages of this clumsy solution come from not using the filter

thread, leaving room for my bulky Schneided CF,no vignetting and

still permit some sort of see-through viewing. It's also quite easy

to carry around. Although not so fun to use, but my lens/camera kit

suffers from horrible flare and I can't even think not using some

kind of hood.

Of course, if Lee, Lindhal or anybody else would design some clever

solution I'd rather prefer to use theirs...

If this description comes to be uncomprehensible, I could try to draw

and send it to you by e-mail. Or to anyone who thinks it's worth the

trouble.

<p>

Good luck.

Cesar B.

Keith,

<p>

For sure, LF inhibits our steps. And makes us think. And look

carefully. If thinking and looking carefully makes one less creative,

well... that's a problem.

It took me some fifteen years of 35mm to find out that I had allways

been shooting on LF way. Although a bunch of people say I'm a "great

artist", I just try to keep having fun with photography.

When shooting LF I sense difficulties as like climbing or playing

tennis. One doesn't look for the easiest way or heaven's help.

There's a inevitable sense of "doing things" when you deal with

tripod, dark-cloth, lens setting, etc. And that's fun!

After all that trouble - print on the table - I love the idea of

seeing some work that shows my fingerprints everywhere. Not a single

sign of AF, Matrix, dpi, bits or whatever alike!

After all, I can say: I made this picture.

Good or bad, it's mine. Mistakes make me laugh and, sometimes, they

look good, indeed.

So, whatever to expect?

Geniuses, real artists, create from nothing, empty board.

Photographers usually start from something quite real, almost ready,

lying behind their lenses. Accident, sometimes can help us making

some really terrific pictures. But we can't count on that. I think we

got strugle hard to put some personal stuff into our frames, whatever

we use Nikon, Wista or Holga. And it takes some thinking. Or

intuition, I'm not sure. But I suspect that using silicon-brained

cameras and weird photo-shop tricks, we're way apart from discovering

something personal on our work. Or about ourselves.

Time usually does it.

<p>

I hope you've the patience.

<p>

Best regards. Cesar B.

Karl,

<p>

Do you have any good reason to play at f/16?

Durst enlargers alignes quite well so you may be confortable working

with wider apertures. Short lenses usually work fine at f/5.6 or even

less, while the bigger ones (135/150mm) are OK at f/8.

You may also try Chyoda 250W bulbs, with the side benefit of being

larger and providing better light eveness.

Although I never use the column numbers it's understood that

exposures will change in the same order as the square-to-distance

table you find on flash exposure guides. I mean, as the picture's

area doubles the exposure gets four times bigger. And so on ...

<p>

Good printing. Cesar B.

Joe,

<p>

Unhappily, even new cameras can show some difference on focusing and

film planes. It must be checked and somewhere back in this forum you

may find some suggestions on how to do it. Maybe your camera was set

for a fresnel lens and it's absence can really make a mess on

focusing. But, anyway, don't despair. It's easy to find and fix those

small bugs. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Mike,

<p>

Special formulations that promise to keep grain under control,

usually steal one or two stops of film speed. So using a 100 ISO

emulsion can be the best solution, right from the start. If the

subject permits, take a tripod and go ahead. Or, as stated above, try

some larger format. C-41 films look great, if you can make decent

prints from them. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Lanie,

Give your reels another try! Devoloping 120 films with good

uniformity is already a difficult task with them. Using these apron

things chances are pretty low. Guess why no serious book or

photographer suggest them? Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Just a couple of suggestions: 1- VC acetate filters sandwiched

between glasses fit nicely on the side slot; 2- using 240 condensers

only may print AN glass texture on borders, if lens is too short. To

avoid trouble you may use a diffusion sheet above condenser house,

what can also help with light distribution with small bulbs.

By the way, it's a great machine!

<p>

Cesar B.

Hi Bong,

Just a minute question: which is the transmission factor of the lens

tested? If it's a zoom lens, a hand-held photometer can't be taken

for granted unless some sort of compensation is computed for many

glass elements. In-camera meter should mark this difference. Regards,

<p>

Cesar B.

Brian,

If you check the last decade tech-sheets from Ilford, you might have

some sort of an idea of any possible changes on their factoring. I

suspect they are investing their time on new chemistry. Have you

noticed that? Cheers.

<p>

Cesar B.

Kenneth,

You may try 1600 or 3200 ISO films overexposed for a couple of stops,

or even more, developed in Rodinal, HC-110 or something alike. Good

luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Justin,

After such a prolonged and strong toning, there's a good chance going

any further can start degrading density as a change in color may not

be translated into optical density. Maybe you could even try shorter

treatment. About fixing again, don't worry. Just give it a good wash.

Cheers.

<p>

Cesar B.

David,

Along with all the fine details you're going to print paper fibers,

any stains or written stuff on it's back, even trade marks on some RC

papers. So, be careful.

<p>

Cesar B.

Robert,

This lack of uniformity you mention seems a lot familiar with 120

films I've developed over the years for some different clients, and

once or twice, for myself. In all the cases, film was old and/or

exposed to high humidity situation, such as being used just after

been out of the fridge. On these cases, paper and emulsion seem to

develop some estrange reaction wich affects resulting image.

Have you tried your methods with some other film?

Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Shelley,

On B&W darkroom contamination isn't such a source of trouble. Keeping

different trays and graduates for developers and another set for the

rest will obviously minimize risks and save you a lot of water for

cleaning purposes. If you play a lot with toners, it may be wise to

keep a tray just for that. Developers are more sensitive to contact

with other chemicals, due to the risk of changing PH and it's working

strengh. Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

John,

Woody cameras may not suffer at all, as wood usually is pretty well

treated and varnished. But you should be quite careful about

condensation on lenses and, even worst, sheet films on holders. Here

in the tropics, those things happen quite often. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Hi, maybe this one:

www.vanguard.edu/DMcNutt/Photo/PhotoghaphicIntererests.hmtl

<p>

Cesar B.

Patric,

I hope you're shure about over-development, not confusing with over-

exposure. In the first case, reducing can be dangerous to shadows,

even if this formula is meant for reducind contrast. If, as you say,

it's only a little over-developed I'd think twice before trying,

prefering instead to deal the extra contrast in the dark.

But if you insist, anyway, make shure to work with well fixed and

washed negatives. Be also aware that any faults on density uniformity

may come even more noticeable. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Andrew,

You should be careful about using such small format, for bellows and

focusing considerations. Normal and WA lenses for this format will

leave you with pretty short movement possibilities, unless deep

boards are used. And not every lens feels confortable on some small

and recessed boards. So the matter of angle covering shouldn't be

your greatest worry. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Mike,

Fuji has a great film, 1600ISO. Can't say about price, but quality

will obviously surpass any pushed 400ISO. Give it a try.

Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Maybe it isn't too late to add some comments on center filters.

First, they really become a pain if one needs some other filters,

like usually happens in B&W. But, if contrast control acts in

development, N+1 or above, the fall-of problem certainly gets worse.

And it can be impossible to solve if the subject already shows some

kind of middle hot-spot. Exposure doesn't change while using such

filters, as the borders would be under-exposed anyway.

So, as a conclusion, I'd would never say never about center filters.

They can be quite handy sometimes.

Thanks to all,

<p>

Cesar Barreto

Justin,

Just to complete the post above, you should know this film takes

conventional development, as it's not really so IR sensitive. Any lab

should take it at normal expenses. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Todd,

On the technical side, there should be no much difference between

both lenses, as their design is quite similar. Perspective will show

a major step and should be considered carefully, although a quite

subjective matter. Once you have your subject filling the view-

finder, DOF will be the same as the usual trouble it brings to the

game.

Kodak had a very informative booklet on macro-photography, covering

everything from train models to baby-shrimps, including large-format,

where the optical question was covered on quite a broad and realistic

way. I mean, not trying to sell some piece of "magic glass". Maybe

it's still available, I don't know.

By the way, have you an enlarger lens?

Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Huw,

Coatings main function is avoiding internal flare within glass

elements. The first surface, obviously, don't contribute much to

flare. So, as stated above, keep the lens and relax! And, of course,

use the shade.

<p>

Cesar B.

Hi Mo,

I know nothing about digital stuff, but I know T-max since it came

around. It's a great emulsion and quite sensitive and responsive to

development variables. If you really trust this lab, maybe this

practice of sensitometry may work. Short toe helps detecting exposure

limits and testing your metering techniques. But contrast control can

be maddening if things in the lab aren't kept on clever hands. I hope

you're lucky and don't become one more to hate this film.

Regards,

<p>

Cesar B.