doug_paramore2

Dave: Sorry. The lighting for Gen. Pershing should read "a strong

light to the right side of the camera and slightly high and a weaker

fill light to the left of the camera.

<p>

Doug.

Dave: Frank Lloyd Wright's portrait is lit with the "T"

or "arrowhead" lighting layout. A strong light is placed to the side

and slightly to the rear of the subject and high, and a weaker light

beside the camera. A fourth light may be used to lighten the

background very slightly (I don't see it used here) and at times a

hair light was used. Filters were not used, but Ortho film was often

used on men.

Gen. Pershing's portrait was lit with the main light on the right

side of the picture, with a lesser fill light on the right. A

background light of low intensity was used and I believe the

background burned in to leave the slight line. An overhead light was

directed to the hands and hair. I saw an exhibition of Karsh's

portraits a few years ago, and it was magnificent. What was amazing

was that his portraits of Krushev, taken in Russia with a Rollieflex,

still had the skin tones and sheen on the skin as does the 8x10

shots. I believe these two shots you showed are made with the 8x10

camera and 14" lens. Along with the exhibition was a video tape of

Karsh making a portrait, which showed the arrowhead lighting with

spot lights. The rest is pure talent.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Doug.

Thanks, Grey Wolf. I will try your method also. The rubber clips are

working fine, but your method may be easier. I found a couple of the

clips in the closet. Time to get out the fine tooth saw.

Dan: I am in the process of changing over to the drum and motor base

developing system after years of using tank and hangers and

occasionally tray development. I got tired of streaking caused by the

drain holes in the hangers. I have tried every agitation method known

to mankind, and a few I made up myself, and I still get streaking

occasionally. It usually shows up in the sky areas of scenic shots,

and only on shots with great cloud formations. I know there are many

photographers who use the system, but I am tired of streaks. As for

tray development, unless you do a few sheets at a time, it is the

best way ever invented to scratch negatives, regardless of what Saint

Ansel said (he didn't say he never got a scratch...he said he seldom

got one). The tank and hangers are a good way to develop a lot of

negs at once, but watch how you agitate and insert and remove the

film from the tank during agitation. I have been developing LF film

for more years than I care to admit and I am tired of streaks and

scratches. I don't get either with the drum system.

<p>

Regards, Doug.

Albert: I screwed a flash mount shoe off a junker 35mm camera to the

top of my 4x5. I mounted it directly over the center of the lens, so

the flash does not throw shadows to the side. You can also use a

bracket such as a Bachrach bracket to put the flash above the camera

and on center. I use Vivitar 283 flash, which has plenty of light.

The Vivitar flash has a provision for a flash cord to reach the lens

sync connector. It is an easy fix and it works great. I don't like

mounting the flash to one side of the camera, as it makes shadows to

the side.

<p>

Regards.

John, thank you very much. A couple of minutes with a razor blade and

an eraser and I was in business. The measurements really helped. I

have been running the drums with some old negs for about 10 minutes

with water in the tank and everything is working great. It's nice

when you don't have to re-invent the wheel everytime you try to do

something. Great thing about this forum...no matter what, someone has

been there and done that.

<p>

Regards,

I just got a couple of Uniroller film drums and base, and I need to know how the film seperators were shaped that keep the sheets apart when developing four sheets of 4x5. I found in the archives of this forum where they were made of rubber and that they can be made from an eraser. Does anyone know how they are shaped? According to the old posts, a slit was cut into the rubber that slid over the dividers. I think I can build some o.k., but it would be nice to know how the factory one were shaped.

<p>

Thanks,

Paul,

Wall mounting can work very well and is probably one of the most

solid of mounts. It does need to be on a sturdy wall and one which

doesn't shake if someone walks across the floor or if the wife starts

up the washing machine. If you own the house or intend to live there

for a while I would't hesitate to buy a wall mount.

<p>

Regards,

Mark,

There is at the bottom of the classic lens threads a post on the

Hypergons. Wisner is planning, or has, brought out a modern version.

All the Hypergons have huge coverage due to the design, but the 200mm

could be a bit rarer, I don't know. Good luck with your hunt.

I agree with Wayne that a Linhof Technika 5x7 deserves a good look,

considering that you are interested in portraits. It has a triple

extension bellows, which would allow you to focus long lenses closer.

Some pretty heavy duty LF photographers, including Cole Weston, Britt

Weston and Ansel Adams used the Linhof 5x7. I believe Bob S. who

knows about such things, wrote that the Linhof 5x7 had only rear tilt

on the lens. This has never been a problem for me on 4x5, since I

primarily use the rear movements. It is a good solid camera, and is

not overly expensive used compared to new ones.

<p>

Good luck in your quest,

<p>

Doug.

Matt,

It appears to be two different measurements. The first measurement is

from the front to rear of the lens, outside measurement. The second

would be the seperation of the elements at the diaphram when mounted

in a shutter.

Tony is correct. Use the back to focus with closeups, front to size

the image. At 1-to-1 closeup, not much focusing takes place with

moving the front. Also, with long lenses, it becomes very difficult

to reach the front focus knob with long bellows extension. This is

especially true with 8x10, where you may be using lenses of 20 inchs

or more focal length. Saves a lot of stretching. Except for technical

cameras, the better ones have rear focus.

<p>

Good shooting, Doug.

Is it possible? My goodness! Many thousands of weddings have been

shot with LF, and probably most of them with Graphics. I have

certainly done my share. I did many with flash bulbs and many with

electronic flash. It was pure hell. We used to think it was a big

wedding if we made 25 or 30 shots. If you would like to know what it

is like, tie a concrete block around your neck, take camera in hand,

fill a room with people and run back and forth through the crowd. I

would rather spend the time beating my head against the asphault. The

reason you don't see anyone doing it today is that photographers

changed to roll film just as fast as possible after good films and

cameras became available. In all seriousness, it can be done but it

ain't fun. You don't really gain anything by using LF in this manner,

you actually lose by slowing down the wedding and making fewer shots.

We used to use the 135 or 127 mm lenses for weddings. A 90mm was

considered a bit too wide by most photographers. You will need a

couple of dozen film holders or several Grafmatics, which takes a

while to load and unload. I love LF, but not for weddings.

<p>

Regards, Doug.

Paul: If the Fresnel is behind the ground glass, as I believe it will

be, it will have no affect on the focus plane. You won't be changing

the distance the lens focuses on. Store the Fresnel wrapped in

something soft and placed in a box. The lens side is easily

scratched. You may want to use it later or on another camera.

<p>

Regards, Doug.

Brad: What lens do you have for your 5x7? Some of those lenses will

cover 8x10. The Cooke and Turner Riech lenses for 8x10 are

convertable, as are the Protar sets and others. The Turner Reich and

Cooke were triple convertables of 12, 19 and 21 or 23 inch focal

lengths. I think the Protar was about the same. Since you are going

to enlarge the negs, you might consider a 4x5 back for the 8x10 and

use 4x5 film for portraits. A 12" lens would then work for both a

normal and portrait lens. A 12in. or 14in. would also work on 8x10

film for 3/4 or half length shots. A half length shot on 8x10 or

seated full length can look awsome with the big neg. Incidentally,

the Elwood is a great old enlarger with the lighting system it comes

with.

<p>

Regards, Doug.

Stewart,

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is your

personal opinion that matters with your work. If you are happy with

the look of a black film edge, go for it.

<p>

Now for my opinion on black edges. I do not care for it. I really

think it was a fad that has run its course. I don't like it for

several reasons, which you have every right to disagree with. First,

it looks sloppy, and gives the impression that you rushed through the

process and don't care enough about your images to present them

properly. Second, black borders on B&W prints tend to supress the

tonal values at the edges of the print. Also, with dark backgrounds,

it makes it difficult to judge where the image stops and the edge

begins. I frankly don't think an "uncropped and unenlarged" print is

a damn bit more "honest" than one which is properly cropped. What

is "honest" about the angle of view of the lens used? Would it still

be "honest" if the image was made with a longer or shorter lens?

Photography is not an "honest" medium. It can be made to show or

leave out whatever you want. I cannot take a photographer or

photograph too seriously if the photographer does not care enough to

make his prints look as good as possible. I have seen some 4x5

contact prints framed and properly matted in 14x18 frame size that

were absolutely stunning. It said to me, "look, here is a print worth

looking at". It looked a lot more "artsy" to me than an untrimmed

print. A good image does not need tricks or fads or gadgets to make

it art.

<p>

Strictly my own opinion. Feel free to disagree and disregard.

<p>

Good shooting, Doug.

Darn it! I sure hated to learn that my 12" Commercial Ektar ain't

sharp after all these years. Damn thing has been fooling me for the

longest time. I felt bad when I tossed it in the trash cause it ain't

sharp.

On a serious note, have you checked with Lens and Repro or Midwest

Photo Exchange? They both carry a lot of barrel lenses. I can't

recall ever having seen a Commercial Ektar in barrel mount, but that

doesn't mean they weren't mounted that way.

<p>

Good luck with your quest,

<p>

Doug.

I see no reason it won't work as long as you make sure it is stuck to

the base side. Most of us try to work out a method of marking film

once it is exposed and your way is good as any. Your post got me to

thinking about the small plastic envelopes inside the 25 sheet Ilford

film boxes. That would seem to be a good way. They are just slightly

larger than the film and fold over at the open end. If you could

figure a way of marking the envelopes that you could identify in the

dark you could slide the film into a seperate envelope for different

developing. Several of them would fit in a 100 sheet film box. Your

method with the stickers ought to work also.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Doug.

I have a 12" in a number 4 Ilex shutter. It may differ from the

number 5. Looking directly at the front of the lens, there is a lever

at 1 o'clock which is pushed down to cock the shutter. At the 12

o'clock position is a small pin with a cap that is pushed down with

the shutter cocked to open the shutter to focus setting. This pin is

different from the shutter release, which is located at the 10

o'clock position. Pushing the pin in opens the shutter, it is

recocked to close. Could your little pin assembly be broken off?

Perhaps the number 5 shutter didn't have one, but every one I have

seen or owned worked like mine.

John, you mentioned the water didn't circulate well. The Jobo I used

had pretty good circulation. Since you said you bought the Jobo used,

it could be stopped up partially. I would check the inlet to the pump

and also the hoses. If you disconnect the hose to the pump you ought

to be able to back-flush the inlet section. You could have a bit of

paper or other blockage. That would certainly make the heater act up.

You might hook up a hose to the outlet from the pump and flush it

out. It's worth checking.

I agree with Pete and K.H., a bit warmer developing won't hurt,

especially with T-Max. Are you sure your processer's thermostat is

shutting off the heater at the proper temp? The large volume of water

in the Jobo should not rise enough during developing to seriously

affect the development. Try turning off the temperature control, get

the water to the proper temp and see if it will stay within that

temperature for the length of the development, with only a degree or

two of temp rise. T-Max was designed for higher temperature

developing...the recommended temp is 75 degrees F for most

developers. I have read where photographers use up to 100 degrees F

for T-Max. I have developed a few rolls of 35mm at 90 degrees F when

it couldn't be avoided. The time for development needs to be reduced

10 to 15 percent with constant agitation in the Jobo, so your time

should be close to five minutes. If the heater is shutting off at the

proper temperature, the water bath shouldn't rise but very little in

five minutes. If it rises a couple of degrees, and it is that

critical to you, try starting a degree or so colder and then the temp

will average out. If the Jobo's tank is full, it should take a while

for the water temp to rise even one degree at room temperature. Does

the temperature stabalize at room temp or continue to rise? I used a

Jobo for years at work here in sunny Alabama and never had problems

with color or black and white.

I really like the cooler idea. I am gonna convert one. I think it is

a great idea for those of us who toil in the hot climes. I usually

don't leave my camera case in the van in the summer. That one time I

returned from a shoot, took out the exposed holders and was gonna go

back for the rest of the stuff. I didn't. Even though I live in the

boonies, it is a dumb idea to leave a camera case in the van.

<p>

I, too, have used film 'way out of date, including some that went out

of date in the late '70s. That film was the old Super XX Pan. I also

tried to shoot some Tri-X that had been frozen that was bad after 8

years. The Super XX picked up some fog, which I could print through,

but otherwise was o.k. That film had been refridgerated. I would have

reservations about film left in holders in a basement, which are

sometimes damp and the holders don't provide much moisture barrier. I

certainly wouldn't shoot anything important with old film.

Ric: I am not as versed in this type of photography as some of the

commercial shooters are, but I may be able to help a little. First,

you need to get the background lighting level up two or three stops

above the lighting on the blocks. You will probably needs light

screens to keep the light off the block. An easier method is to use a

white plastic background and back light it. You can also use a white

cloth or white nylon background with back lights close behind it. You

might want to get the block further away from the background than

allowed by the clear plastic box. That way, it is easier to get light

on the background. If you are shooting B&W, you can get the shot and

then block out the background on the neg with opaque dyes. Then make

a print and copy that to get a neg. I would consider a better support

than the plastic block. Seems it would cast a shadow, even though

slight. Hope this helps.

<p>

Doug.

Good idea about the cooler. I never thought about putting camera gear

into one of the big coolers. That's one of the great things about

this forum...all those good ideas. Seems like any time someone has a

jproblem, someone else has "been there, done that".

Try changing the distance from the filter to the front of the lens.

You may be getting a reflection between the lens and filter of just

the right focal length of screw things up. Also, make sure filters

are spotless. I suspect the distance is the culprit.