eric_boutilier_brown2

I use a Eureka backpack to carry my 8x10, and though the gear is much

heavier then my former 4x5 kit, the pack is a much better pack then

my former Lowepro pack, which sat on my lower back, as opposed to my

hips. I have walked for several hours with my filly loaded pack

(which weighs in at 40lbs or more) with no back complaints, which

could never be said for my 4x5 kit.

<p>

The backpack is an internal frame, and holds my Toyo 8x10 G which

measures 17"x19"x7" and weighs 20 lbs in a large top compartment, and

the lenses in a lower compartment, which is accessable thruogh a

lower fornt zippered flap. I carry the camera, a bag bellows, and

three lenses (150mm Nikkor SW, 240 mm Symar, and 375mm Optar) in the

back, and then seven film holders in a secondary daypack with is on

the front of the pack - it unzips for removal, so that once the

camera is out of the pack and set up on the tripod, you can take the

whole bag of film holders with you, without moving the whole

backpack.

<p>

I don't have any photos of the pack online yet, which is frustrating,

as I can't turn up the pack on any of my web searches.

I have just bought a Nikkor-SW 150mm lens, and have noticed the lack

of fall off - several times I have used it right to the edge of the

image circle, and it just dies, over 1/4" or so, with almost no

darkening before the severe drop-off.

<p>

Why? I suspect it has to be because of the lens design; when you stop

the lens down (to say f/22) and look at the lens opening on an axis,

it visually looks like a proper circle, not an elongated oval, like

some other lenses. I suspect this is why the fall-off is limited; the

lens is designed so the aperture looks like a proper circle form any

angle.

I use Xtol 1:2 in my 3010 and 3005 drums, for TMX TMY and HP5+. I use

the times recommended in Kodak's original documentation, which

provided times for 1:2 dilutions. Kodak have since dropped the 1:2

and 1:3 times, and replaced them with times for 1:1 only, due to

people having problems with not enough chemistry per roll (minimum

100ml per 80 square inches) but for sheet film, the 1:2 dilution

works wonderfully.

<p>

Eric Boutilier-Brown

http://www.evolvingbeauty.com

Hi, I've owned a GSWIII for two years now, and love it. I use it

predominantly for my colour work, but have also put a hundred or more

rolls of B&W through it, with great results. The Fujinon EBC lens is

stunning, even wide open, and I never hesitate to have the sun in the

image, if necessary, knowing the quality of the lens will win out.

Highly recomended - light, convienent and sharp as a tack.

<p>

Eric Boutilier-Brown

http://www.evolvingbeauty.com

Hi,

<p>

I have a Toyo 8x10G, and am looking for a used bag bellows for it; someone mentioned in passing that the Calumet/Cambo cameras used the same bellows as the Toyo...any one know if this is the case or not? I have yet to see a Toyo BB come up for sale used, so if I could use a Calumet/Cambo, I'd more then double my chances of finding one!

<p>

Thanks,

<p>

e.

<p>

Eric Boutilier-Brown

Halifax, NS, Canada

<p>

http://www.evolvingbeauty.com

I have built several sinks, one from plywood and epoxy, then one from

plywood and polyurethane (which worked five, three coats every 3

years was perfectly waterproof). Now I have an 8' stainless steel

sink (which I picked up used for $120 US) which came outof a hospital

or university...we suspect it is a morgue sink, but who knows. It

works perfectly, being 2" deep and 32" front to back. I made a stand

for it which is tied to the wall, making it more then stable enough,

and leaving tons of room for chemistry and drying racks below. I'd

beat the bushes for something used, and see what you can find.

I was told by an industry rep that Cokin can't call the grey filters

they sell neuteral density, as they have colour to them, and are not

accuate enough to be used as an ND. Could be true, could be

apocraphal, who knows.

<p>

e.

A 35mm neg is 1"x1.5" is size, leading to an area of 1.5 square

inches. A 4x5 is (approximatly) 4"x5" which has an area of 20 square

inches - 13 times larger. An 8x10 shee is 80 square inches, or 53

times larger in area.

Hi,

<p>

I've used the Jobo Reels and tanks for close to a decade now, in

various forms. I have done manual processing with a 12 sheet tank

(two reels) on a Beseler drum (with the alternating rotation), and

now use the Expert Dryms. With the sheet reels, I used 24 oz of

chemistry for 12 sheets, or 2 oz each. Now I use Xtol in the Expert

Drums, so I have to use more chemistry, but the results are worth it.

I have never tried intermittent agitation, as the drums are made for

rolling - I'd recomend picking up a Beseler roller (with alternating

rotation) and take advantage of the constant rotation/agitation.

Hi,

<p>

A friend and I have entered the world of 12x20 format, and in discussion with another photographer, a comment was made. He encouraged me to find "optical glass" for the contact print - this glass he claimed was absolutely flat and had a better transparency then regular glass. He had suggested talking to an office supply compnay and asking for glass taked out of broken copiers.

<p>

I had been intending to get a sheets of 1/2" plate glass, and use that in conjunction with a sheet of high-density foam for contact prints, but if "optical glass" would be better, I'd pursue that.

<p>

Any thoughts, comments of suggestions?

<p>

Eric Boutilier-Brown

Halifax, NS, Canada

Hi,

<p>

I recently have returned to the 8"x10" format, and have been trying to work out the easiest way to get the images onto my website. I've been looking at various scanners with 8x10 transparency scanning capability (Agfa DuoScans and others) but the thought occured to me to try a digital camera. I did so (using a 2.1 MP Canon) and thought the results (just using a light-table) were decent. Has anyone this experiance with doing this? It will be especially perenent once my friend gets his 12"X20" up and running, and we need to get a neg that size into a computer for reference.

<p>

Thanks,

<p>

e.