don_welch

James,

<p>

I had an MXT for 8 years. I loved it for most of that time. However,

it apparently got "warped", because from one day to the next it would

never align properly again. I worked on it for months without success.

Also, the focusing would jump. I hated getting rid of it, but I had

to. I bought a Saunders/LPL 4550 XLG. I've really enjoyed it, both

the alignment and the secure focusing.

<p>

That said, I agree with other posters about buying most equipment

used, and if the price is right, do it. My only fear about an MXT

after the problem I had is in knowing whether or not the one you buy

is aligned or can be aligned. This may not really be a common

problem, but since it happened to me, it would be a worry.

Jeff,

<p>

I'm sorry that I can't help you with accessories for the Cambo. I

just wanted to say that when I bought a Cambo years ago (and I still

use it), I called Calumet to see about a manual or ANY sort of

instructions. I was told there weren't any.

It's not a current model. Try Calumet for lensboards.

Not getting into the question about why Fred fired the 5 assistants,

I have to say that the yaw-free aspect of my Horseman is not just

marketing. If I use it for a while and switch back to my old Cambo,

I feel the difference in the efficiency of setup time. "Sensitivity

and true feel for the craft" can't be quantified objectively. (The

person that brings it up first can claim to have it, and that the

other person wouldn't recognize it if it bit them.) But I can

quantify and qualify efficiency of setup time, and I don't think that

lessens my craft or skill in using the camera. If I wanted an easy

life, I wouldn't be using a LF camera.

LPL enlargers are Japanese-made, distributed under the Saunders brand

name in the US. Calumet has a full line from 35mm to 4x5. Search

their website for "Saunders enlargers" and you'll get them.

<p>

I use a Saunders LPL 4550XLG. It has a variable contrast head, which

can quickly be switched out with a regular Black and White head or a

dichroic head. It has been a joy to use.

I use a Horseman LX-C, heavier and with some more movements than the

LE, but I would recommend you strongly conside the LE if you can

afford it. As others have said, 150mm may be a bit short for an only

lens, but I made out fine with a 180mm for a while before I got a

more rounded out group of lenses (over a period of years). 210mm

would be even better.

I agree with Jorge about the BTZS being an overcomplication. Of

course, some people think that ANY zone system is too much to deal

with, but like Neil Poulsen said, the point is to produce a

predictable printing situation. That can't be done consistently

without effort. Everyone sets out on this path and decides where to

camp out, but don't let the worry that you haven't found the RIGHT

system yet keep you from making photographs. Your experience with

your own equipment and darkroom procedures is your best teacher.

I agree with some of what Dan said. Pick one authority and stay put

until you really feel you understand what is being taught. It's

easiest to start with Ansel, since all the "beyonds" and "even more

beyonds" start there, too.

<p>

There IS a slop factor to LF gear, as Dan said, but it can be

minimized by careful work, without having to obsess over precision.

If adherence to any system takes away the enjoyment of making

photographs, it's not right for you. However, I find that careful

attention to detail, including knowing how well-calibrated my

shutters and light meter are, results in more consistently good

images (technically). Use the system you choose, and your equipment,

until they become second nature. Until you aren't thinking about

technique, rather you are concentrating on what no Zone System can

teach you: making art out of light and shadow. Get that part right

and you won't need Harry Pothead to make you feel good!

Obviously Steve and everyone but the last poster is aware that the

unsharp masking being discussed here (and especially as it relates to

Howard Bond) is not a computer filter choice, but a purely

photographic one. Perhaps the last post was "tongue in cheek"?

Ignoring for a moment whether there is quid pro quo affecting

articles and ads in View Camera, I think the most disturbing thing

I saw in the issue was the article on "View Cameras in a Digital

World". The images used in the article are fine when viewed from a

distance of 3 or 4 feet, but if you look at them from a normal

reading distance, all but one are unacceptably unsharp. I'm talking

about resolution, not focus. Five years ago this would have been

fine, but when you are using a Sinar camera for product photography,

and proclaiming ours to be a "digital world", I expect the final

image to rival film, and this doesn't come close. The article is not

of great length, it does point out some of the limitations of the

digital medium, and it underscored the ease of use of the images

after they are made as a big plus. However, as an "advertisement"

that might attract film users to ditch their film and go over the

wall, it fails. This is where I find fault with the magazine: I

would not expect them to devote space to less than the best examples

of traditional film images, either from an artistic or technical

standpoint, so this should apply to digital as well. I don't think

that if they are going to feature digital I should have to back up a

ways to make it look right.

Jim, this is obviously a very important topic to a lot of us. Scott,

you talked about the constraints that having little kids puts on you.

When my boys became teenagers, they had to have separate bedrooms, so

there went my darkroom for a while. When they were both in college,

and I finally had the money to do so, I completely rebuilt my

darkroom and furnished it with the best equipment. Of course, at that

point the very job that allowed me to finance all that took up all my

time, so I was just as frustrated. I finally settled on a schedule

of late night darkroom work, 2-3 nights a week, because my wife goes

to bed early to get to work early. Other nights I often have to go

back to the office to work. So I never sleep, I've cut years off my

life expectancy, but I do finally get to turn out prints from a well

planned and comfortable darkroom. The trade-offs are always there.

Like now, I have only a fuzzy memory of what my dreams were when I

was 25 or 30, or how I thought I was going to achieve them. Dreams

can evolve and should to keep you going instead of giving up.

To get really, really picky, the progression of bellows compensation

from infinity focus (with no compensation) to any other extension is

not linear, but logarithmic. For example, using the 13" lens just

cited, you would need a 1 stop adjustment (factor of 2) at 13" x

1.414 or 18.38", instead of half-way between 13" and 26", or 19.5"

Like I said, this is really picky, but if you are going to the

trouble of constructing a chart with a factor calculated at every

inch of extension as Jonathan did (which was right the second time

around) you might want to use the formula.

<p>

On the other hand, you probably need to balance out how much

precision you need in exposure calculation with how precisely you can

control your development process.

Larry,

<p>

If you were serious, you better say so soon, or this is going to

get to be too much fun.

I agree about the preferred use of TMax (or other more "normal" tonal

scale films) over TechPan for 4x5. There are circumstances that have

warranted its use over the years (very low contrast situations), but

I think you will find yourself fighting the contrast for little gain,

if any, over 4x5 TMax. BIG enlargments maybe, but still you won't

have the tonal control you would have with other films without more

trouble than it's probably worth.

No thanks, I have an enlarger that I'm enjoying just fine. I also

use my computer for printing color. I don't have to turn my back on

one to enjoy the other. They are not the same thing at all. I can

print three versions of any negative I have but that doesn't mean

that I should "get my head out of the vapors" like that is something

bad. The future has ALWAYS been here, so I don't have to make a daily

habit of turning my back on the past just to feel OK. Please

understand that I'm not speaking from an anti-digital point of view.

I use it a LOT. Piezography is great, but as many people have pointed

out in this thread, the comparisons are always between what digital

is becoming or can be, and what conventional photographs have been

for decades. I'm not looking to replace what I already derive

pleasure from as if it were outmoded. It's not.

Dave,

<p>

I can't address anything about the Arca-Swiss line. I do have a

Horseman 45LX-C. I bought it slightly used for a lot less than list

price.

<p>

It is very rigid. Movements are great. For studio or architectural

use, it's very nice. Now, is it heavy and bulky? You bet. I have

carried it, plus related equipment for miles up mountains or across

sand dunes because I can't afford another, lighter camera for the

field. On the whole, I have appreciated having that camera when I got

where I was going, because I wasn't giving up anything as far as

movements. If it were lighter, by a lot, it would be perfect. As it

is, I still wouldn't trade it, because when I don't have to lug it a

long way, it is very steady and dependable.

John,

<p>

Washing in the expert drum works fine. Have you looked at Jobo's

website? (http://www.jobo-usa.com) It has extensive information on

all aspects of using the drum, including washing. They recommend a

five minute wash, made up of 10 wash periods of 30 seconds each, so

that enough fresh water is used to produce an effective wash. They

also say that the washing intervals may be longer than 30 seconds

without harm, but that the number of water changes is important. Jobo

definitely recommends NOT using Photo-Flo or similar product in the

drum, because agitation causes it to foam and it doesn't clean out

easily. So do that in a separate tray or other container after

washing is finished, if that's a normal step in your processing.

Dave is right about framingsupplies.com. Their prices are the best I

have found, and they have all the accessories. I have been

frustrated by the several mat cutting setups I have used over the

years, but I spent the money and got a Fletcher and it has allowed me

to get the quality I wanted. Although you will find professionals who

are able to make good cuts with minimal equipment, if they do a lot

of cutting, they probably have top equipment. You have to figure how

much it's worth to you. If you tend to print a lot of the same sized

prints, Jeff's suggestion about having it done for you is good. I

don't have a standard printing size that would accomodate that. And I

often need it done NOW, so I couldn't wait.

<p>

Robert is right about sharp blades: they are essential for a good

cut. Beyond that, no matter how much you spend on a mat cutter,

practice a lot.

I spent 30 minutes looking for any obvious explanation on the

internet. I found reviews for 65mm and 75mm Nikkors in which the

users commented on obvious falloff, but which they reasoned was to be

expected with any wide angle lenses. I know this goes against

Jorge's experience with the 65mm lens. I think that Michael might

not notice it with his 120 and 150 lenses because of the greater

coverage and the fact that falloff is greater with shorter focal

length wide angle lenses. I use a 90mm Schneider, and falloff is not

a big problem unless I'm pushing the coverage of the lens, and

especially when the subject is evenly lit.

<p>

I think that Nikon lenses probably need the filters as much as lenses

made by other manufacturers do, but the confusion arises from the

fact that Nikon does not choose to make Nikon brand center filters

available. However, since filters made by Hoya and others will fit

the Nikon lenses, this is not a problem. I couldn't find anything to

support Nikon lenses being magically less susceptible to falloff, but

it is an interesting question that has crossed my mind before.

Actually, it is pretty standard in 65mm wide angle lenses that the

image circle produced is 170mm across. This compares to about 160mm

for the diagonal width of a sheet of 4x5 film, so a 65mm wide angle

lens would cover 4x5, but with no movements to speak of. You still

have a good question there about the lower price. Maybe less glass.

I don't know.

I would say that N+1 is the same as pushing the film 1 stop. However,

you will find "pushing" and "pulling" used for either exposure or

development changes, or both. The Zone System, in its many forms, is

more precise as to what constitutes a normal negative, or the

deviations from normal.

<p>

N+1 results in the increase of density of a Zone VII exposure to

match the density of a NORMALLY processed Zone VIII. This is

accomplished by increased development time. (Although you may have to

compensate for the slight increase in Zone I density by a slight

decrease in exposure, as I said in the first answer.)

<p>

N-1 is accomplished by reducing development time to the point where

the density of a negative exposed for Zone IX is lowered to match a

NORMALLY processed Zone VIII. (And you may have to slightly increase

the initial exposure to counteract the slight lowering of Zone I

density)

<p>

Other Zones react to the change in development, of course. Lower

densities react less and higher densities react more. If you expose a

scene that contains a full range of light values and develop it for

N+1, Zone VII will go to Zone VIII, by definition. Zone V will be

somewhere between a normal V and VI. If the scene contained Zone

VIII values to begin with, they will now be higher than Zone IX,

because they were denser than Zone VII to begin with, and they react

even more than Zone VII to the increased development.

Armin,

<p>

There is a review of the Splitgrade in the May/June 2001 issue

of PhotoTechniques. This is Vol. 22, No. 3. If you email them at

circulation@phototechmag.com you can get a back issue.

I don't think the previous answers addressed your question. First,

look at your "normal" densities. If you check out most film

calibration articles or books, the recommended density for Zone V is

in the 0.65 to 0.75 range, and the density for Zone VIII would be in

the 1.25 to 1.35 range, IF you are using a diffusion enlarger head.

The values for a condenser enlarger would be slightly lower.

<p>

If you develop your film for a longer time, the increase in density

is not linear for all Zones, which is what allows you to achieve the

desired effect of increasing the contrast of the negative relative to

normal development. The Zone I will not change very much, Zone V

will change more and Zone VIII will change even more.

<p>

To achieve an N+1 development, expose for Zones I and VII, and

increase your development until the Zone VII exposures match your

normal Zone VIII density. You will notice that Zone I does increase

some, and you might want to decrease your initial exposure by an

amount that brings Zone I into the normal 0.1 above base and fog

density. That might only be 1/3 stop or so. Development for higher

than N+1 would require greater reduction in exposure. How much

reduction is a function of any particular combination of film and

development method. You would have to experiment to find what YOU

need to do. This can be tedious, but it can be rewarding, too. Don't

get so caught up in worrying about it that you don't take pictures.

That can happen.

I use a CPP-2 and expert drum with TMax 100. The real challenge with

TMax is repeatability. You MUST watch your temperature to the tenth

of a degree, and your methods for diluting your developer have to be

precise. If you pre-rinse, as Sexton advises, get the temperature of

the pre-rinse water exactly right. Don't let your development times

get sloppy. Keep them carefully timed. Whatever developer/time

combinations you settle on are up to you, but careful darkroom work

is a big part of getting the results that the CPP-2 and TMax are

capable of delivering.

<p>

Don Welch

Peter,

<p>

I bought an X-Rite densitometer on eBay for about half price. It

was used but well cared for, and it works very well. Yes, there are

ways to use a spot meter instead, but it's not nearly as exacting as

a real densitometer. You are still going to be approximating real

density measurements, so you might as well get a step wedge and make

visual estimates of comparison prints.

<p>

If you are doing extensive film development tests, as I have spent

the last two months doing, a real densitometer is indispensable. I

could never have finished my testing if I had waited for chances to

use someone else's machine. It's not cheap, but it can certainly be

worth it in time savings.