doug_paramore2

Check your local home center. I have found both the push-in and tube

halogen bulbs there. Lowes and Home Depot carry a lot of lighting and

speciality bulbs. If it don't say photography on it it is a lot

cheaper.

Raven,

 

<p>

 

I didn't read your post carefully enough. Polyfiber does indeed have

a long developing time, up to about five minutes. That would make a

difference.

 

<p>

 

Doug.

Note to Pat: Good to hear from someone in Alabama. It was kind of

dumb, wasn't it? Even my best friends, in their most compassionate

moments, have never considered me as being very smart. One of the

problems with a van is that you can throw stuff in the back and it is

out of sight, out of mind. Give me a ring if you get to S.E. Alabama.

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Doug.

Toss it. It ain't worth the risk. The holders aren't moisture proof.

I certainly would not risk an important shot or take it on a trip.

Even if you test a holder or two and it's o.k., the next holder may

be bad. You might shoot it up on some nearby stuff that you can go

back to if it goofs up. I speak from experience. I shot some Tri-X

last summer that had been in holders in my camera case in the van for

about two months in good ol' Alabama heat and humidity. I blew one of

the best cloud formation over the beach I have ever seen. Low

contrast and reduced film speed. I'm still kicking my own butt over

that one. I knew better. If it's 8x10 film, you will probably want to

cry at the expense of dumping it, but it is the safest way. Even with

the cost of film today, it is cheap when you consider the cost of

getting to a shot, your time, etc.

Good shooting,

 

<p>

 

Doug.

Raven,

 

<p>

 

Paper is usually developed to "extinction", that point at which there

is little or no effect if it's left in the developer. After that

point, there may be some chemical fog set in. The paper usually

develops fully in about 1 1/2 to three minutes. You may have been

getting some serious paper fog from either safelights or chemicals in

your college darkroom. Sounds like your current darkroom is not

fogging the paper. I have been in a couple of college darkrooms as a

visitor and was appalled at how bright they were. There was no way to

get a print with clean highlights. One of the darkrooms in a major

university had 60 watt bulbs in the safelights! The students had put

the bright bulbs in because the darkroom was too dark.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Doug.

Keith: If you haven't already, made a contact print to make sure the

rings aren't on the neg. Sometimes you can't see slight tone changes

on the neg that show up quite well on the print. Are the rings at the

same spot every time? Try a print without a filter. Is your Beselar

teh type with a bellows above the negative carrier? If so, try moving

it up or down to see if there is an improvement. Remove the filter

and try different aperatures. I have never had a problem with below

the lens filters, but I suppose its possible. Also, change the

distance from the filter to the lens to see if you have reflection

problems. Hope this helps,

 

<p>

 

Doug.

Sounds like you have a winner there John. You ought to get some good

stuff with that lens. My 150 Xenar peaks out at f16-22. I use f32

occasionally. Can get by with it at that aperature on 4x5. I like the

brilliance of the negs with the Xenar (tessar) formula lenses..

Good shooting,

 

<p>

 

Doug.

I have used Tri-X for more years than I like to admit to. It is a

fnie film. I use HC-110 for developing, solution B. I have also used

D-76 and T-Max RS. My favorite is HC-110. I like the edge effect. I

rate the 320 ASA/ISO film at 160 and develop for 5 1/2 minutes for

standard processing. Recently I have been using a lot of Ilford HP-5

rated at 320 and developed in ID-11. I really like that combination.

Excellent sharpness and contrast. Ilford is a bit cheaper and just as

good as Tri-X. I have made some beautiful images with the Ilford this

summer. It has great response to filters. I am sure I will continue

to use both films.

Good shooting, Doug.

Dan: That has been the pattern with a lot of our old favorites in the

large format world over the past few years. There just ain't enough

of us LF folks to make a difference. I would suggest you buy all you

can afford and freeze it, unless you have a wife who insists that non-

essientials like shoes for the kids cut into your film purchases. You

might also find another 5x7 shooter who would split a case of film

with you. I have used B&W film 10 years out of date that was kept

frozen and it worked quite well. If you can get enough to freeze,

keep it for the times you need that specific film and try and find

another decent film of another brand for general use. I have been

gradually changing over to Ilford HP-5+ and HP-4+ and I really like

the images I'm getting. I still like Tri-X, but I was happy to find

there are other good films out there. This isn't really a solution to

your problem, but maybe it will help a little. Good luck with finding

another brand you like.

Raven: I would go back to the 4-1 water to developer ratio as per

Kodak. Nine to one is less than half of the recommended strength.

Normally, water is not the problem with developer deteriation, the

problem is with air. I have found that T-Max RS lasts quite well in

tightly stoppered full bottles. I often divide a gallon into four

quart bottles filled to the top and it keeps well. After more than 40

years of amatuer and professional photography, I have found it best

not to vary much from the manufacturer's recommendations on mixing

chemicals. You might be able to tailor the mix a little to fine tune

your development to your way of working, but only minor changes. They

spend a great deal of money and time developing the products before

they are released for sale. If a lesser strength would work well, you

can bet they would save the money and dilute it themselves. Give the

full strength developer a shot and see if it doesn't make a

difference.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting,

Doug.

Appreciate the tip, Carl. I normally fix my prints in the powdered

Kodak fixer, then wash, fix again in Ilford fixer without the

hardener, and then directly into the selenium. I let myself run out

of everything at once. I will use the rapid fix on a test print and

if it needs hardening a little I will mix a weak hardening solution.

I am in South Alabama and our water is a little on the hard side. I

will see how it does with the test print.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Doug.

 

<p>

 

 

Regards

Thanks, Charlie. I will handle the prints gently until they are dry.

I ought to know this, but I don't. Is it o.k. to use Kodad Rapid Fix without the hardener? I have never used it before. I usually use the regular Kodak fixer (powder), but me and my supplier are out. I need to make some prints right away. Any keeping problems or loss of permanence if I don't use the hardener with the rapid fix? I want to tone the prints in selenium, so I don't want to use the hardener. Thanks.

John: The 105 Xenar I had was a good lens. I use a 150 Xenar as a

normal lens for 4x5 and love it. Great contrast and plenty sharp. It

works good close up. It is basically a Tessar formula. Not a lot of

movements, but adequate for me. I use my 150 with lens rise a lot.

you should have plenty of coverage for movements on 6x7 or 6x9.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting, Doug.

Bill: C.W. is correct. I tried to find a Packard Shutter web page but

it is probably listed under another name. However, Photographic

Systems in Albequerque lists themselves as a dealer for Packard

shutters. You ought to be able to find one used. They are great

shutters for the studio. It isn't difficult to convert an old one to

electronic flash. Most I've seen used have been converted. There is

about a ten minute learning curve with a Packard, then it's the

easiest studio shutter you can use. The whole thing is controlled by

the air bulb.

Bill: Have you priced a used Packard shutter? They are pretty cheap

compared to other shutters. I bought mine at a photo trade fair for

$10. A little cleaning and it was good as new. I use a bulb from an

old blood pressure cuff to operate it. I haven't looked up the prices

for a new one, but they used to be reasonable. Stores like Midwest

Camera Exchange which deal in LF equipment a lot ought to have a used

one. I have used a barrel lens on my 8x10 using a card covered with

black velvet. A little practice and you can time speeds pretty close.

I place the card on the front of the lens, pull the slide, let

everything settle down and then move the card slightly forward and

up. No shakes. It would be easier though with a Packard, and you can

use any lens on the camera with mount adapters.

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps, Doug.

There is a method to make very quick prints that are used by the fair

photographers. There is, or used to be, a supplier and maybe a

franchiser for the method called "Professor Bloodgood's Photographic

Emporium, Inc." They are based in California. They supplied

backdrops, clothes and supplies for the old time photographs. They

used to advertise in professional magazines and maybe Shutterbug. I

found them listed under "Rangefinder Marketplace" on the web. They

have an 800 number listed for Professor Bloodgood's. They may can

explain the process.

 

<p>

 

Regards, Doug.

Thanks for sharing the tip. I use a small mirror that helps. Check

with your dentist for one of the plastic mounted throwaway dental

mirrors. They are about an inch in diameter on an angled handle. Chop

off the handle to where it fits in a shirt pocket. Also, the small

size lady's compact is a good choice. It folds up to protect the

mirror. Buy one without the makeup or give it a good cleaning out.

You might talk your wife or girlfriend out of an old one. I don't

like the pink ones. Folks look at you kinda funny. The mirrors really

help when you have the front of the camera out over the edge of a

building roof or cliff. You don't have to turn the camera around to

set everything. I am gonna try the foil.

Q.T., I do the art show circuit with black and white photography, so

I have probably had several thousand people in my booth during the

past six years. I have found that many, many of them do see a

difference, although they may not be aware what makes the difference.

I have had people literally stand in front of a photograph and study

it for half an hour. They comment on the sharpness and contrast. Of

course, about every show someone will comment that they are "gonna

get some black and white film for their camera". I do get a lot of

comments on the sharpness, even though I am not a sharpness freak. A

lot of times I think they are seeing detail and shading in small

areas that are not strictly related to sharpness. I think modern 35mm

lenses are blazingly sharp, and probably sharper than any lens I own,

but there is a difference in prints and I think the customers see and

appreciate the difference. One of my best selling images, which was

made with a convertable element of an old Wollensak triple

convertable, is not that sharp when viewed under a magnifying glass,

but it looks sharp in an 11x14 print. The image has sold consistantly

for several years and has won ribbons and prizes at a lot of shows

and competitions. I realize I am beginning to ramble so I will close

with the comment that I think sharpness and apparent sharpness are

noticed by the public.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting, Doug.

The shutters have become fairly standard as to distance between the

elements, so the lens will probably work o.k. Some lenses use a thin

washer between the element and shutter to set spacing correctly. I

don't know if the Congo does or not, but probably not. Unless you

luck up and find a shutter with an f-stop scale that matches, you may

need to get someone like Steve Grimes to determine the stops and make

a scale. You may be able to do it yourself if you have a sensitive

meter. If you have to buy a shutter and then get everything

calibrated and mounted, you might be better off getting a complete

used 180mm Schneider or other lens. On the other hand, if you find a

cheap shutter, why not have a little fun with it and do it yourself.

Ric, the difference between a properly exposed and processed neg and

one that is close can be a subtle, but real difference. It can change

the mood of the photograph. Saying that, sometimes the "slightly

incorrect" neg can yield the best print. A couple of years ago, I

shot an old log cabin with a dogwood tree in front of it. I shot four

negs, with and without a yellow filter. The properly exposed shots

are just a dogwood tree in front of a log cabin, which is o.k. On the

first shot with the filter, I didn't change the aperature to correct

for the filter factor and the neg is thin. While experimenting one

day, I printed that neg through a #4 contrast filter. That print

really sings. The dogwood tree really pops out and the texture of the

old cabin really came alive. The depth is tremendous. It is one of my

most popular prints at the art shows. It is also very difficult to

print, but it is a much better photograph. I certainly don't

recommend underexposing and printing on a harder paper, but this time

it worked. If you know what effect you are trying to acheive, you can

vary the contrast and exposure. That is what is great about the zone

system. I have made many other photographs where I vary the exposure

from the meter setting or increase or decrease development, but you

first need to know what the normal is and what effect you want to get.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting, Doug.

Trevor: I carry 12 holders and usually shoot both sides on one scene.

That gives me 12 shots, which is a lot if you take the time to set up

the shot properly. I also will take a 220 Calumet back and a couple

of rolls of film just in case. I carry my holders in a small zipup

camera and video camera case I found at Walmart for $20. It just fits

the holders stacked vertically and has a pocket for filters, etc. The

shoulder strap makes it easy to carry. It is a black nylon bag and

works better than anything I have ever tried. I have also carried

holders in the nylon lunch bags in the school section of Walmart.

They close with hook and loop.

 

<p>

 

Note to Bill: The same guy determined that sheet film will have 25

sheets and wieners come in packages of 10 and buns in packages of

eight. Don't you hate to have one sheet of film left in a box! Not

only is it a pain in the behind to store, it probably won't match the

emulusion of the next box you open.

Mark: The Omega D-2 is a workhorse enlarger. So is the Beselar. You

can't really go wrong with either one. I use a D-2 with a cold light

head and have never wished for anything else. I also used a Beselar

at work for years without problems. Midwest Camera Exchange and other

camera shops get used cold light heads. I bought mine from Midwest.

There are two types of tubes for cold lights. The old standard is

heavy in blue light and you have to play with variable contrast

filters to get the contrast you want. Without the filter, it gives

you about a grade 3 paper grade with variable contrast paper. There

is also a more yellow tube designed for variable contrast paper. The

cold light drops into the head in place of the condensers. You might

like to use the condensers. A lot of people do. I just like the look

of the prints I get with cold light. You need a little lower contrast

neg with condensers. Either the Beselar or Omega will give you great

prints from 4x5 and smaller negs.

Q.T.: Thanks for the Tech IV scan. Good job!

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting, Doug.

Reply to Robert Z. Ansel Adams, who was pretty close to Edward

Weston, wrote that as far as he knew, Weston never used an enlarger

after he returned from his time in Mexico. I believe that statement

is in Adams' "Letters and Images etc." In the same book, a letter is

printed from Weston to Adams that he had the aperature of his lens

modified to stop down "two stops from the f64 it came with". However,

Weston was writing to say that he was having problems with the focus

of his convertable Turner Reich at that aperature. I have also read

that Weston copied smaller contact prints onto 8x10 to make larger

prints.