andrew_cole1

Ok, I bought my 8x10 about a year and a half ago, but I just finally got it out shooting on Saturday morning. Developed the negs on Saturday evening, printed them later that night, and both negatives are pretty uneven, variations of about one to two stops average density across a relatively even scene. The contact prints are significantly darker in some spots, particuarly close to the center of the image, but in an irregular shape. Doesn't look like a light leak, as the negative looks pretty sharp with no ghosts or fogging, just uneven, and possibly a little thin.

<p>

The particulars:

<p>

old B&J camera with Wollensak 12" vari-soft focus lens. Scene was a pretty evenly lit landscape, nothing too odd.

<p>

T-Max 100 film,

developed in D-76 at about 69 degrees, developer is probably a bit old.

stopbath was fine,

Fix may have been a bit old.

<p>

Developed in total darkness in an 8x10ish tray, rocking left, right,

center wait, left, right, center, wait, etc. 6:30 devel. for one, 7:10 for the other (to try to build more density in the second neg).

<p>

Stop for 15 sec.

<p>

Fixer, agitate first thirty seconds then every minute or so after that for 10 minutes.

<p>

Wash in water using an 11x17 horizontal print washer (water flows in through holes on one side, out through holes in the other side. Wash for 30 minutes.

<p>

The negatives came out of the wash with what looked like lots of little bubbles affixed to the surface, and dried with several white spots of various sizes.

<p>

I didn't notice the variation when looking at the negatives, but when I printed them and found the unevenness, I could match it up with slight variations in the negative. The variation is pretty subtle on the negative, but rather pronounced on the print.

<p>

The prints were made on an enlarger baseboard with a cold head (Zone IV cold head in Beseler MX45). I thought it might be the enlarger lens focusing the bulb on the baseboard, but it did the same thing at different enlarger heights/focus lengths.

<p>

I'm going to mix a new set of chemistry (it was probably six months old) to see if that's the problem.

<p>

Any thoughts on this? How do y'all prefer to develop 8x10 negs? I have a beseler drum that I may try using for the next one.

Ok, that diagram didn't come out the way it was supposed to, here it

is flipped 90 degrees . . .

<p>

_______________

<p>

o x

_______________

I see four planes of focus that you want to preserve. Each fence

line, the tower, and the ground. In the crude picture below, the

tower is the 'o' , the fences are the vertical lines, and 'x' is the

photographer. Forward tilt will bring all of the ground into focus,

but will compromise something on the tower. Getting either fence in

focus would involve a swing, and to get both, you would need

conflicting swings. To me (and I'll admit I'm not one of the LF

experts here, but I'm pretty strong in geometry) it seems like your

best bet is to maximize depth of field and possibly apply a slight

forward tilt (to bring the plane of focus more in line with the rough

average of the planes of focus in the image).

<p>

| o |

| |

| |

| |

| |

x

<p>

You can increase your depth of field, albeit with some change in the

framing/relational aspects, by going with a longer lens (would make

the tower smaller), or by using the same lens and merely backing up

more if possible (would make the tower more prominent compared with

the foreground)(you could crop the final image if necessary)

Although I'm the first to admit that the sharpness, etc. of the image

is probably comparable to a good mf image, the images from handheld

lf are definately not the same as mf. It's about getting a certain

look from the photos, not about being heroic by carrying an outdated

hunk'o'wood. Not sure I can be more specific than that, it's just

different.

As far as I know, all the Wisner field cameras have forward axis

tilts, I know for sure the Traditional does.

<p>

I would think that most decent field cameras have front axis tilt.

I've been doing this on and off with my Crown Graphic for the last

couple years. Most interesting looks were from the tourists on the

observation deck of the Empire State Bldg when I whipped it out of a

bag and started snapping shots of the NY skyline . . .

<p>

I like the effect of handheld lf, but in terms of outright quality, I

would think a well handled mf camera (handheld) would out-do the

quality of the somewhat awkward Crown with the relatively soft 127mm

Ektar.

<p>

As for film speed, outdoors in sunlight with T-Max 400 you can

usually get a decent exposure. With slower film it was just too much

trouble to get anything useful.

<p>

When I can afford it I'll probably look into a better rangefinder 4x5.

I agree with Neil, there's nothing wrong with attempting to fix these

by yourself, but you shouldn't start with an expensive piece of

equipment (i.e. one that you would be upset to throw in the trash).

<p>

A large format shutter recondition is only $40 or so (I think), well

worth it under most circumstances.

When you say your polaroids are in focus, do you mean a 4x5 polaroid

image? Checking the 4x5 image that the Polaroid produces isn't

terribly helpful since it can look fine even when things are pretty

far off (due to no enlargment). Try using a Type 55 Polaroid

(positive negative black and white film yields a small "contact"

print and an enlargable negative)and enlarge the negative. That

would demonstrate whether the polaroid was actually in focus, or if

it just looked acceptable in contact print size.

<p>

That's where I would start. If the polaroids are in focus when

enlarged, it's a problem with the film holder/camera junction. The

holders could be warped (probably not with the plastic ones though)

or you could be putting the film in wrong (see previous post on

bowing the film).

<p>

With the film that is coming out out of focus, try focusing on an

object set on grass about 10 feet from the camera (well within

infinity focus, using a low tripod). When you enlarge the negative,

some grass should be in focus, either behind or in front of the focal

object. The grass that is in focus should be a line in focus from

edge to edge, fully across the print. If it is only in focus at the

edges, or in the center, your film is probably bowed.

Look around for Besseler drums, they're pretty cheap, I think I got

my setup (8x10 drum, motor base and 16x20 drum) for around $25.00.

Mostly pleasure shooting, some freebie promotional shots for

charitable organizations that I'm involved with (generally for

magazine story illustration).

<p>

Scan only to sell on ebay or to put together website (which I plan to

do shortly).

<p>

Large Format - 8x10, 4x5, black and white traditional process only,

FB and RC paper, have not scanned any yet (actually, scanned one to

send to another large format guy for comments once).

<p>

Medium Format - black and white with some color, process and print

B&W myself as with LF, send out color for process and print. very

little scanned so far.

<p>

35mm - mostly color with some black and white. Send out all color,

do own black and white. Have scanned several for various purposes.

No manipulation other than simple overall brightness, contrast and

color balance.

I also have an older B&J 8x10 that I'm restoring (it works, but needs

some fixin). I got a Turner Reich triple convertible for something

like $300.00, you should be able to find something on ebay, but check

Midwest Photo Exchange also, they usually have a couple listed pretty

inexpensively.

<p>

I'm curious to hear what you're fixing on yours, please email

privately if you want to discuss restoration.

I thoroughly encourage you to get into large format. That said, have

you considered medium format (6x6 or 6x7 cm)? Medium format properly

handled will give you great looking 16x20 prints that far exceed

the "quality" of 35mm. Large format can produce more detailed

prints, but you pay a huge premium in the weight of your setup and

your working speed. Medium format is more or less a larger 35mm

setup. The camera holds rolls of film and takes interchangeable

lenses (most anyway). You compose through a viewfinder, click the

shutter and advance the film. You can shoot with just a camera and

lens, or you can pack a camera several lenses and a tripod. You're

ready to shoot as soon as the camera is out of the bag. Large

format, even handheld with a press camera requires the use of cut

sheet film holders, dark slides, external meters, etc.

<p>

Large format requires a great deal of physical space in your pack,

normally outweighs a medium format camera and lens by a pretty

generous amount, and your working speed is slowed to a snail's pace

compared with 35mm and medium format (which can be a good thing, but

should be considered).

<p>

Lots of people hike with large format, and obviously, we all love the

results we get from the larger negative (although many like the

process as much as the final product), but make sure you explore

medium format also before you make this jump. Look at some well

printed medium format images to see if it fits what you're looking

for.

<p>

Prices aren't as different as you would think between medium and

large format. You can dabble in either for under $400.00 or spend

thousands on each body and lens.

<p>

Anyway, not trying to dissuade you, just wanted to point out the

alternatives.

I bought one a year ago from a guy on ebay who makes and sells them.

I have no idea what his name is, but he might still be listing them

on ebay. Probably not as perfect as a factory glass, but perfectly

useable and very cheap.

>>"Incidentally, the Angulons are convertible also. "

<p>

Does this include Super Angulons?

I have a Besseler MX series 4x5 enlarger and like it a lot. I think

some people prefer the Omega, and it may be a bit sturdier. I've

found for non-commercial/institutional use, the Besseler is more than

adequate. I don't know about the cold light decision, I have one,

but it is a Zone VI that came with the enlarger (used).

<p>

If the motor blows, I suppose you could crank it up and down with

that little knob, but that would make 2-3 minute exposures seem to

fly by. Mine is pretty old and well used and the motor is still

going strong, I would think that should be one of your least major

concerns.

<p>

I use mine with 35mm and 6x6 negatives also and I like the way it

works. If the price isn't tremendously different, I feel you're

better off getting the 4x5. If you ever decide to get a 4x5 kit,

you'll already be ready in the darkroom. It's expensive to purchase

new, sell and repurchase.

<p>

For used equipment, check out Midwest Photo Exchange. I've seen used

MX 45s in their flyer from time to time.

Did the contract state when the proofs were to be delivered (or was

it stated orally or understood)? The statute of limitations might

not start running until that date (giving you more time to sue).

<p>

Although copyright is federal, your claim sounds more like breach of

contract which is what small claims court was set up for. I don't

know what jurisdiction you're in, but a lot of small claims courts

are geared toward parties without attorneys (Judge Judy style). Ask

an attorney friend his thoughts (make sure he isn't charging you) and

decide what it's worth to pursue it.

Lots of good posts re: the camera and lens decision. I agree on

leaving the more esoteric accessories to her, but since you're new to

view cameras, here is a short list of the things that you need to

make one of these work:

<p>

The Camera

The Lens

A Lensboard

A Tripod (with head)

Film Holders

Film

<p>

There are a ton of other things that are helpful (almost necessary),

but you can take a photo with these things alone, and you cannot

without all of them (except arugably the tripod).

<p>

If you buy a kit, there's a good chance you'll get everything but the

film and the tripod, but if you buy separately, and want to get her

a "complete" photo making machine, make sure you have each of these.

<p>

As for stores, I've been extremely happy with Midwest Photo Exchange

(mentioned earlier). Their staff is super helpful and guided me to

several of my first purchases. Their used selection is pretty

extensive too.

<p>

For new stuff (film especially), I really like B&H, very professional

and good prices. It's a much bigger operation than Midwest though,

and you might not get the same personal attention. B&H does have a

used department that is pretty good also.

<p>

I'm sure there are a bunch of other great stores that deal over

telephone/internet, but my experiences have been mostly with B&H and

Midwest. KEH is good too, but I've only dealt with their 35mm and

medium format gear, so don't know too much about their large format.

<p>

Now, for accessories that are not absolutely necessary, but pretty

much everyone uses:

<p>

Darkcloth

Focusing Loupe

Meter

Polaroid Back

<p>

The Darkcloth is the subject of great debate, but can be improvised

until she figures out what she wants. The Focusing Loupes can be

very expensive, but you can at least start with a simple <$10 one

that Ritz camera carries for looking at 35mm negatives on the light

table. The meter is going to be something she should probably pick

out herself based on what she's doing with the camera.

<p>

Finally, the Polaroid back. While arguably the least necessary of

the previously mentioned items, from a gift excitement point of view,

could be pretty cool. With the Polaroid back, she could pull the

camera out of the wrapping, go outside and make a photo immediately.

I'd bet that almost all of us shooting 4x5 have the 545 or 545i

holder in our bags, and she'd probably want to get one pretty shortly

after getting the camera anyway. They make a number of different

films for this holder (color print, black and white print, positive

negative [my personal fav.]).

<p>

Without the polaroid, she'd have to load film holders and process

film before getting a result, i.e. it could be some time before she's

able to "use" the camera.

<p>

Again, it depends on your budget, etc. The Polaroid holder runs

about $100 used and a box of film runs about $50-$60 I think.

I have this same lens, the price you paid is about right for a pretty

nice used one (I think mine was about $350)(I'm assuming you have the

chrome one). If I recall correctly, the rear cell of the lens is

smaller and black and from profile looks like:

________

| |

| |

<p>

instead of being conical like the front cell, but I could be mistaken.

<p>

When focused at infinity, the back element of mine is frighteningly

close to the ground glass. On my Wisner Traditional, there is no way

to focus this lens without base tilting the front standard back and

bringing the lens board back into alignment with a front rise and

axis tilt. My front standard almost sits inside the rear standard

when focused at infinity (have to use a bag bellows). Don't know

about your camera, but if it's a relatively normal field camera, I'd

suspect you have the same requirement.

My experience is with a Wisner 4x5 Trad. and a Crown Graphic. My

normal setup to photo time for the Wisner is probably several

minutes, but I'm not rushing it (includes contemplation of

lens/filter, movements if necessary, pulling out the darkcloth and

trying to focus my f8 lenses, etc.).

<p>

With the Crown, assuming its limitations work within your needs,

simply open the front, pull out the lens, focus on the glass (or

rangefinder) (faster than with my Wisner because of faster lens and

built in focus hood), film in and shoot.

<p>

I've used the Crown as a point and shoot wandering around New York

before, works great, not too slow to use, but does draw too much

attention if there are people around.

<p>

Now, as for comparison of the images, I only use the Crown for

handheld shots because its images are simply not as good (from a

technical standpoint) as the images I get from the lenses I use on my

Wisner. I am only using the 127mm lens that came with my Crown.

OK, I re-read your post, you seem to be asking how to get the camera

precisely centered in front of a seated (or similar) subject. This

can be done more simply without measuring to the edges of your camera

back. From a geometric point of view you want to make your camera

the top of an isosoles triangle (I was a math major a couple years

ago, but I'm sure I'm misspelling that) with the base being the plane

of your subject that you want to be parallell to, and then center the

subject in the frame. From a measurement point of view, you might

get more accuracy if you expand the base of the triangle for the

purpose of your measurement (e.g. place a yardstick or longer

straightedge centered on the center of your subject, parallell with

your subject plane and take your measurements from the ends).

<p>

Doesn't help with you needing a longer tape measure though. I've

never needed this much accuracy, I just eyeball it and compose based

on what I see on the glass.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question, but it sounds like you want

to take straight on shots with no perspective correction. Rather

than measure your film plane to subject distance on each side,

couldn't you just ensure your lens and film planes are parallell and

centered, and then just move the camera to the desired location for

framing?

<p>

If one leg of the chair is closer to the camera it will naturally

appear larger, using a longer lens with a greater working distance

would also help diminish this effect.

<p>

I know I'm probably missing something.

My wife has a print that someone gave her several years ago and it is starting to turn goldish in the black areas. I'm not sure, but my gut feeling is that it was not completely washed and had some fixer left that is now oxidizing (although I could be completely wrong).

<p>

My question is, is there anything I can do to save this print? Can I re-wash it, or re-fix and re-wash? What will eventually happen to the print if nothing is done?

<p>

Worst case scenerio, I plan to photograph the photograph on 4x5, and try to reproduce it, but I would prefer to fix the print itself if possible.

<p>

I think the print is on RC, but I'm not positive (it's in her office, so I haven't looked at it in a while).

<p>

Thanks