lukas_werth3

Foto Impex in Berlin get film from Banse und Grohmann in Wernigerode; you can order from both, they cut any amount to any size. Their 400 film is the same as Bergger bfp 200, a good film, only its sensitivity is not anywhere near 400.

Hallo,

 

ich lebe in Berlin und fotografiere mit Großformat-Kameras. Sie erreichen mich unter lukas.werth@rz.hu-berlin.de

 

oder 8226028

 

Lukas Werth

Aaron,

sorry, for some reason I did not read your first question.

About negatives: you have to try. In general, I would say, the

right negatives for salt prints have to be very long scale: if I am

rehearsing correctly, the process should be able to print 12 zones!

The gradation scale of HP5, for instance, has a shoulder at the

upper end which you have to overcome, or you will not get clear and

well separated highlights. Probably your kit contains some potassium

dichromate for contrast control: it has to mixed in the salting

solution. Very little, producing a barely perceptible colour shift in

the freshly salted paper, already effectively sparkles the print up.

But use too much, and the paper takes for ever to expose, and tonality

will degradate: this is a tool which helps you to optimize certain

motives, but not to beef up faulty negatives.

As for paper: I have tried once Rives BFK for palladium where it did

at first seemed to work, but did not produce optimal results. If you

are going to try this paper, maybe you should give it a hot bath

first, then size it with gelatine, and then - after drying - salt it.

This is at least what I would try.

Sorry, just a correction: half a teaspoon of soda to the fixer should

be enough.

Salted paper is not automatically as stable as Pt/Pd. It is rather

reputed to be pretty unstable if you don't process it correctly. The

silver particles which form the image are much smaller than those of

gelatine silver prints (this is true for other alternative silver

processes as well), which means that they have to be protected, or

otherwise the image deteriorates with time (though I don't know in

which time). Toning therefore is *necessary*, gold being the most

common choice, and platinum also possible.

Platinum prints also have to be processed corractly, or otherwise the

residual iron turns brown. The picture itself, being formed of

platinum particles, is absolutely stable.

One reason for salt prints is simply that they are cheaper to make,

but a gold-tomed print as a colour which many find attractive. It is

certainly not blue, but often of a cold, maroon shade of brown, with

quite deep blacks. The image quality of a well executed print is fully

up to the standart of the very best platinum prints. For me, it is

intriguing that one of the oldest processes known can deliver a

quality which is not surpassed by any other process.

Are you aware that you need negatives of an as long density scale as

for pure palladium? I highly recommend pyro negs, they take half an

eternity to print out, but may deliver outstanding quality.

A few suggestions for the printing: I don't know whether your kit

contains wither citric acid or sodium citrate: one such organic

substance is *necessary*, and these are the most common (I think). You

need to either mix sodium citrate into the salting solution, or the

citric acid with the silver nitrate (this is what I do). In the last

case you get some white precipitate, do not be concerned about that.

100 ml water take 12g silver nitrate + 6 g citric acid (store in a

brown bottle). Try this with a salting solution of 40g sodium chloride

to 1 l.

I recommend against coating the salting solution in some way, just

immerse the paper in it for some minutes. The silver solution can be

brushed on (habe brush or foam applicator), I prefer the glass rod,

because you spend less in this way (for an 8x10 print, I use 2 1/2

ml, with a brush I would need at least 5).

Paper: not all work. I normally use Fabriano Artistico. It is heavily

sized, and I don't need to size it further. Sizing, however,

is necessary with other papers, for example Arches Platine, and it may

improve the performance of any paper. I prefer gelatine to starch, and

I brush a 3% solution on with a foam applicator, then harden with

glyoxal (has to be washed out again). I would not use starch sprays,

because you don't know about the additives, and silver nitrate reacts

with almost anything.

For me, humidity is a factor: I only get good results when the paper

is very dry when coated and when exposed, which means on rainy days I

need some chemical drying help (calcium chloride, silica gel).

Print the highlights one stop more than you want it in the final

print. Be not concerned about shadow detail: it will reappear.

I take a rapid fixer on ammonium thiosulphate base, WITHOUT hardener

of course, and I add a teaspoon on arm and hammer soda in 1 l working

solution: this prevents that the fixer sinks too deep into the paper,

and the picture bleaches to a lesser extent. Use a washing aid, wash

extensively.

It is normally recommended to tone before fixing; I tone after fixing,

washing and drying. Before gold toning, I usually iron the print from

the backside, which intensifies the print, and further improves

internal tone separation.

Along with another instruction, this may get you started.

Just another clarification, before this thread goes into the

archives: Merklinger is certainly also a very good help in case you

have sleeping difficulties. I could not rehearse his math. BUT: it

gives you a very good possibility at hand to focus any view camera

very effectively with a minimum of movements in a minimum of time, and

it tells you what is important, and why it is. The crux is the hinge

rule, which says, in a nutshell, how much tilt is needed for a certain

focal length for the plane of focus to pass in a certain distance

below your camera. It takes some practice to estimate the best

distance in any situation to get everything sharp before and behind

the plane of focus (Merklinger has something to say about this, too),

but once mastered, the days of fiddling around are largely over.

 

<p>

 

I normally tilt the front standart, and I taped a list of the

necessary tilt degrees on each of my lensboards. But the method can

be easily adapted for back tilts, as well as for swings (Merklinger

even explains, at least basically, what happens if you tilt and swing

at the same time).

 

<p>

 

I have read Stroebel's book, and I don't share the enthusiasm for it.

It is a much more effective sleeping pill than Merklinger, and has

little to say about focussing in practice.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the other answers. Focussing a 90

mm lens may work, to a certain degree, by just fiddling around, but

for really sharp negativs you first of all need a magnifier to check,

and you have to understand how the tilt (or swing) works. Simmons'

(otherwise very helpful) book does not explain this properly, as I

know from own experience. My beginner's mistake was to use too much

tilt most of the time. Articles on this website may help; I learned

focussing properly and in reasonable time from Harold Merklinger's

book (check his website).

Just about every film should be available in 9x12 cm: it is the

traditional German equivalent to the Anglophone 4x5", and widely in

use here. Nowadays film holders have the same outside dimensions as

4x5.

 

<p>

 

So, try any German Photo store. If you want it on the cheap - which

does not mean less quality! - try Banse and Grohmann in Wernigerode.

As I have said before on this forum, they sell *any* film size (of

films of Eastern European brands) in *any* quantity. Their email:

bg_banse_und_Grohmann@t-online.de

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Thank you for all the answers. I have two follow-up questions:

 

<p>

 

First, what does MDF, presumably the material from which the Gandolfi

Variants are built, stand for?

 

<p>

 

Second, I asked my question primarily because I wanted to find

information about the 11x14 model. I haven't yet. Can anybody report

about this camera (which seems to have a different construction than

the other Precisions).

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Does anyone know what happened to Gandolfi cameras? I cannot find any information on the net. Are they still available?

 

<p>

 

Lukas

On a somewhat more optimistic note: another message below is about

Banse & Grohmann, a German company: they cut film to size *in any

quantity*. So much if you have film holders.

If not, then the decision must indeed be between a new camera or

modification. As for modification: Lotus view camera does such things,

and, as I have heard, for very reasonable prices. Their

website: http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/

But ask somebody, also the Lotus people, whether your camera is worth

it.

As for lenses: measure out the diameter of your ground glass and

select those with an image circle larger than that.

Banse and Grohmann phone #: (0049) 3943 544033, Fax 544030

Email: bg_Banse_und_Grohmann@t-online.de

 

<p>

 

Address: Ilsenburger Str. 40, 38855 Wernigerode, Germany

 

<p>

 

Lukas

I use the film of Banse and Grohmann, the 400 ASA variety. I develop

it in PMK. I like the film; it is, I think, made by Foma; B&G only cut

it, don't manufacture it. In fact I suggest it is just the same film

as the Bergger 200, Mr Grohmann on the phone was not certain about

this, but thought it likely.

Anyway, it behaves just in the same way in Pyro as the Bergger, and

sensitivity is also the same: much lower than 400 ASA, more like

60-100! I develop it in a double strength solution with amidol added:

I don't mind higher contrast, because I contact print for alternative

processes.

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Essential details are not visible in the picture. For example, I get

no clue of the size. But cameras of this style were, as far as I know,

frequently made without any name label. Here in Germany, they

occasionally turn up on flea markets. As far as I can see, the camera

does not even have a front tilt, and chances are you have to modify

the back to make it accept modern film holders. Three lenses are a

temptation, but I don't think they are in a shutter, and they are

probably not anywhere near modern quality. Negatives from such cameras

were mostly contact printed.

My advice: buy it if yo can easily spare 250 $, and if you like for

some reason the thought to take pictures with an antique camera (and

are willing to take some trouble for this), but if you want to get

into large format with some degree of seriousness, get a more modern

camera (plenty on ebay).

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Doremus,

 

<p>

 

first, I don't think you will experience any image degradation within

three months (nor within six months).

Second, I have developed 4x5 on journeys in the combi tank (I think

that is what it is called) and the dark tent (is that the name?? - the

structure in which you can put your hands, available, for example,

from calumet). I use the same structure when changing 8x10.

Better go to the alternative photography list to ask this question. I

know

several photographers based in the Netherlands are subscribed to it,

it seems best to me if they answer themselves.

The list info you find on the following website (search/look for

"alternative photography mailing list):

 

<p>

 

http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg/photo/faq.html

 

<p>

 

I live in Berlin, Germany, and I am practicing alternative processes.

If i can be of any further help, let me know.

 

<p>

 

Lukas

I have always felt that the diagonal provides the relevant comparison

for my vision: the ratio is then 3.6, and a 180 mm lens equals 50 mm

in 35. However, the movements vastly broaded the scope of application

for a lens in LF, and you can do much more with any one lens then with

an equivalent in 35 mm.

If you preference is on the wide angle side, I also would suggest you

look at 120 mm wide angle lenses: modern lenses have huge image

circles, and rather than getting a 150 mm, your next choice could be a

slightly longer lens (a 180 or 210 mm).

 

<p>

 

Lukas

I have been using PMK pyro exclusively for two years now, 4x5 in

the combi tank, and 8x10 tray developing with surgical gloves. I am

mostl printing alternative processes, but found it also superb or

silver bromide.

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Aaron,

look at the Gandolfi Variant line. I do not own such a camera, but

from what i have seen, I would buy it if I had to do it today. When I

checked last, they were sold at a reasonable price, with more

precise movements normally expected from a field camera. They can be

upgraded, too.

 

<p>

 

Lukas

I was jsut told in a shop that xrays in many airports of the world are no more film-save, as they used to be. As it happens, I was in South Asia rthis spring, and one 8x10 film got spoiled (a shadow line through each neg), and I always wondered why. I had the films in a suitcase, may this be the reason?

Is this true about xray machines?

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Well, I use step wedges all the time - the Stouffer 21 step, which is

cheap and efficient. But then I am mostly practicing alternative

processes. For gelatine silver, they can tell you what to expect from

a certain paper, they can be used to determine density when peeping

through a whole at them and at areas of the negative, and they give

you a systematic understanding of tonal gradations.

If you want one, buy the one from Stouffer, calibrated is not

necessary.

 

<p>

 

Lukas

Just another question to follow up: What happens if you do not use the

nodal point (as I have done when making dyptichon- and tryptichon

pictures)? Could people provide some information (literature/websites)

about this topic?

 

<p>

 

Lukas Werth

Thank you for your answers, they helped. The problem was indeed the

bellows, but as it may have some significance for other LF users, let

me shortly describe it:

I used the 240 (or 250??) mm Dagor on a Deardorff camera. The bellows

is replaced, but not at all sluggish. The lensboard on which the Dagor

is mounted was custom-made by a local carpenter, an it is a little too

thick to use the rise of the lensboard which the camera provides. In

the - in fact several - cases the problem occured, I had tilted the

camera somewhat - using the vertical format - and then set both

standarts vertical. This produced the cut-off described, which was

sharp, absolute, and SLIGHTLY ROUNDED, which let me astray, or I would

otherwise looked at the bellows myself first.

Well, the Deardorff bellows is cone-shaped, and in this extreme

position it does intrude somewhat between lens and image area at the

upper side of the camera. I could only detect this clearly after

sticking a small piece of white paper at the inside of the bellows in

order to locate its opsition by peeping through the cut corners.

It looks like I should be able to mend this problem through building

two brackets which lift the bellows somewhat in such extreme

positions - but this remains tricky, and needs careful checking in

every case.

 

<p>

 

Lukas Werth

Recently I took an architectural picture with my 240 Dagor of my 8x10", and I raised the lens as much as I thought possible. I seem to have moved it out of the image circle, but not at the top of the picture (the ceiling) where I would have expected it, but at the bottom (the floor), which should have been well coverec with a lens rise - or at least I thought so.

Can somebody explain this to me?

 

<p>

 

Lukas

I found Merklinger's book "Focusing the view camera" highly

instructive, and very useful for focusing: it may appear a bit

difficult at the beginning to estimate where the plane of focus should

run unter the camera, but with a little bit of practice you just tilt

once and then focus with the loupe. Sometimes I have to readjust the

tilt a little, but if necessary, this is also done easily and fast,

once the principle is understood. I have written the tilt degrees for

the different lenths of j on the lensboard of each lens, and patched a

rough angle scale on both of my wooden field cameras.

For me at least, this procedure is easier and faster than any other,

and I miss less scenes because the light changes before i am able to

press the trigger.