matt_sampson

<p>Brian<br>

You could try http://www.camerarepairworkshop.co.uk. They are in Milton Keynes. This is where Fuji UK will send you if you ask now. It seems that this is where all the spares and servicing went when the MkIII was discontinued. Many of the MkII parts are common to the MkIII and Camera Workshop have some though I just had to source some from the US. Hopefully though you won't need any.<br>

Matt.</p>

<p>Brian<br>

You could try http://www.camerarepairworkshop.co.uk. They are in Milton Keynes. This is where Fuji UK will send you if you ask now. It seems that this is where all the spares and servicing went when the MkIII was discontinued. Many of the MkII parts are common to the MkIII and Camera Workshop have some though I just had to source some from the US. Hopefully though you won't need any.<br>

Matt.</p>

Similar story to Dave...I just rang around. I paid similar money

with the motorised base.

<p>

Matt

A while ago I bought a Paterson Orbital processor with a view to processing 4x10 and 5x4 sheet film in it. I've finally gotten around to trying it but before I start on the inevitable testing I wondered if anyone else out there had any experience of this piece of kit. I've read a useful article by John Hicks on the subject. I'm processing HP5 in IDII stock. The process times I can work out for myself but any other pointers would be welcome.

<p>

Thanks in advance.

It has always been my understanding that short lenses mean very

shallow depth of focus at the film plane. This leads to the

rationale behind the Silvestri and Ebony non folding

cameras....everything stays absolutely parallel so that theoretically

the only variable left is the flatness of the film. Very short

lenses such as the Scheneider 47xl produce such shallow depth of

focus that it is extremely important that great care is taken when

using them. Worn backs and slightly missaligned ground glass will

lead to unsharp pictures no matter how good the lens.

<p>

On the subject of depth of field, (which as someone eventually

pointed out is VERY different to depth of focus),I ,again, have

always been lead to believe that regardless of the focal length of

the lens, depth of field is always the same only perspective changes

and I think that Hector's insightful contribution bears that out. At

the end of the day it doesn't matter things are as they are and you

have to work with the laws of physics not against them.

Is there anyone else out there who does their photography in their

spare time and who sees the darkroom as a break from staring at a

computer? I guess it depend what you do for a living but if you work

with computers, as many of us do these days, the last thing I want to

do is spend another couple of hours in front of one. I can see the

advantages of digital printing and every time I produce something

from my 200 Quid Epson I think maybe there's something in this but I

have yet to sentence myself to learning enough to match what I can do

in the wet darkroom. For me it's the hands on craft thing and the

physical effort involved that still wins out as much as anything

else. I think it is over simplifying things some what to think that

the love or hate of digital methods is down to whether you think that

they are better than conventional methods or not...I realise I'm way

of the point by now...so I'll call it a day.

<p>

Matt Sampson

Bruce is absolutely right. Have a look at the Ebony RSW45 with only

front rise and front tilt.... all the movements you will need for the

majority of the situations you describe.....more than something like

the Silvestri T30 or the cambo Wide which is designed specifically

for such purposes.

Perhaps I'm being a little unfair on the Sinars, but if you ever get

a chance to do a side by side comparison of a Sinar F1 for example

and an Ebony you will see where I'm coming from. That said I will

admit that there are thousands of happy Sinar users out there so

perhaps I should shut my mouth. I played with a Sinar Norma

recently...a beautiful camera which proves that light weight monorail

design doesn't have to mean wobble.

David

I have a 90XL..buy one...you won't look back or be dissapointed. As

for centre filters on BW with 5x4 you can probably live without it,

but with all the shift available to you, on trannies you may, only

may want to consider it. It depends on the sort of work you do..I

can here architectural and interior photographers out there drawing

breath sharply here. If you go for a centre filter buy the Schneider

one...neutral in colour and don't you think it strange that Schneider

make several different filters for their range of lenses but

Rodenstock only make two...and Nikon don't bother? Beware of the

increased filter size though...a good reason for deciding if you

really need it. In terms of price...what sort of lens panel do you

need.. you might get one thrown in if you shop around.

Sandy

Do you mean the sticky gunk that covers one side of the neg. If so a

solution of Sodium Sulphite will do theh job. I think Polaroid

recommend a 12 or 18% solution but in my experience a few table

spoons per litre does the trick. Too strong and it's quick, too weak

and it takes longer. Plain water will work apparently but not until

you've scratched the neg good and proper. Type 665 is not the

greatest stuff for working on location with...Type 55 is easier but

on your 6x9 Arca you don't have the choice. You've got to want those

wobbly edges and tonal range to be bothered with this stuff.

The suggestions that you buy a monorail to solve your problems are

sound as far as they go but unless you get lucky a cheap monorail

will wobble around all over the place withouit alot of care...I'm

thinking of the cheap Cambos and Sinars specifically here. An Ebony

gives you absolute rigidity...it is one of their not often mentioned

advantages over the competition. Most other folding camera can't

compete and the Ebony non folding cameras such as the 45S, RSW45 and

SW45 are absolutely solid. The monorail idea is a good one but

beware. I would give the RW45 another look as Paul suggests..it has

all the rigidity of the more expensive cameras and many of the

features, without the bulk of a monorail.

I've been lead to believe in the past, and it makes sense, that

taking lenses aren't keen on the kind of heat that could come out of

your englarger...damage to coatings and balsam etc. Your 90 will be

relatively close to your light source which presumably will be fairly

powerful to cover 6x17. You may have thought of this but watch out

it would be a shame to damage your lens.

I agree with the previous writer...why bother, you may as well buy a

Horseman back. Anyway how are you going to wind the film on?

Luis

You have discocvered the truth early on. Most field situations can

be handled with minimal movements. To many overspecified cameras get

lugged around the countryside wasting expense, time, (in fidling with

movements), and energy and getting in the way of taking pictures.

Landscape is a case in point. Much can be achieved with front rise

and front tilt, the tilt can even become swing by tipping the camera

on it's side if necessary. I can hear all those photographers out

there saying they can't get by without back movements but I have

found these two movements to be the most useful, even for

architectural photography with shorter lenses. The important thing is

that you are happy with your results and it seems as though you are.

Bear in mind that you only have the manufacturers claim for the size

of the image circle. Is the point at which the quality of the image

drops off arrived at using a calculation common to all manufactures,

as far as I know this in not the case. In my experience Schneider

for example have a tendency to be conservative in their published

lens specification. The capabilities of my 90XL never cease to amaze

me. The best indication as to the real capabilities of a lens is

usually the cost.

Dear Herr Meincke

My experience, through working in photographic retail supplying among

other things Arca cameras, leads me to be able to say, beyond a

shadow of a doubt that you were sold, possibly unknowingly, a camera

of dubious origin. It could not have been new. Arca Swiss quality

control is of the highest standard. If you had seen as many new

Arcas as I have you would agree with me. Sadly I know that you will

never be able to for one reason or another. I suspect that the damage

could have happened at your dealer without their knowledge. People

can be clumsy sometimes when they are examining things. Were you

knowingly sold an ''ex demo'' camera? This could be the cause of the

problem. Ex demo equipment is often a bargain and much sought after

but should always carry the same warranty as if it were new. It

sounds as though you have benefited from such a warranty and I hope

that you are eventually satisfied with the outcome. Arca Swiss

cameras are a fine product your experience is unfortunate and

extremely unusual.

<p>

Matt Sampson.

Theres not much left to say. I would agree with the philosophy of

whatever makes you happy. However go to some exhibitions find a

print that knocks you out and see what sort of paper it is printed

on. Dependibng on the reason it knocks you out you will probably

find that it is printed on FB paper. Personally I like RC paper for

its speed of processing, especially with toners, far less washing

time and a hell of a lot less water. However when it comes to hanging

one on a wall it's usually and FB print. As for archival permanance

I have never had any problems with prints fading or staining and some

of my RC prints are 15-20 years old now. Personally I think that the

world is overburdened by second rate photography, the creators of

which have had the arrogance to decide that we will want around in 50

yrs plus.

Matt

I would agree with most of the positive comments above. The

Tachihara got me started in 5X4 and produced some excellent

photographs for me. You will learn alot about 5x4 and where you want

to go with large format by owning one. Buy it.

<p>

Matt Sampson

Yes it is a minature view camera I had one on loan and loved it,

didn't want to give it back. It really works. You can't hand hold

but why would you want to? all the movements you need are there and

the fresnel system is excellent. It made me wonder why I was lugging

around a 5X4. Hasselblad really got it right with this camera. The

main drawback is the price. The Silvestri T30 would be the nearest

alternative and would allow you to shoot 6X9/6X12, but isn't quite

the same animal. The Arc was reviewed in View Camera not too long

ago. If you can find an index perhaps you could track it down.

<p>

Matt

Malcolm

When I started in large format film processenig was a major bugbear

of mine. I eventually came up with a minature deep tank line made

from Tupperware cereal containers using a Kodak hanger two sheets at

a time extending development as more film was processed. It worked a

treat. I tried I tried the Doran tank but it's hopless you can't

agitate the damn thing properly. I have heard good reports about the

Combiplan tank probably because you can invert it and achieve proper

agitation. This is so important. I have never had any success with

tray processing, I just don't have the gift. Having recently

succumbed to the wonders of Jobo rotary processing I have to say I'm

impressed, absolute consistency, and no standing around in the dark.

I would suggest that first off you give tray processing try if you

are successful you can be incredibly smug about it and save alot of

money.

<p>

Matt Sampson.