nick_morris

PS> If you decide to stay with tray processing, use gloves. I use inexpensive latex gloves, the kind used in hospitals. There is supposed to be a type of glove that is favored by those that tray process, I think they are "nitrile?". I don't really know much about them, whether that's a brand or material, though I suspect it is a material. Maybe someone else can comment on them.

Hello Andrew,

As you can see everyone seems to have a preferred method. I started out with open tanks, went to trays, and never looked back. I bought a combi-tank and never used it, I was so satisfied with tray processing. That's not to say I didn't scratch my first attempts. But once I got the hang of it, I found it to be quick, easy, with even development, and no scratches. These days I'm only using 8x10, and against all recommendations, process 1 to 4 sheets at a time in 8x10 trays when using Dilution B of HC-110, with at least 32 oz. of developer. I process by time and temperature and use a green safe light with a foot switch to identify those sheets that need more or less development. I'm fortunate to have a dedicated darkroom with an exhaust fan over the trays, but I believe I would continue to use trays in an improvised setting. Maybe its just me, but regardless of the process used, I think it takes some practice to get it right and to refine one's technique. Best wishes.

Hello Jay,

I find that it is a good idea to number the holders. Each film holder holds two sheets of film. I number each film slot of each holder, usually with a small self-adhereing label. The first holder is #1 and #2; the second holder #3 and #4; etc. If I carry 6 holders out into the field, I have 12 exposures. I keep a small notebook and record each exposure: the film slot/holder number; the subject; f-stop and shutter speed; any other information I feel is necessary. As mentioned above, the slide pulls have a white (unexposed) and a black side (exposed)side. When I load the holder, I turn the white side out, and leaving the slide in the holder pulled about half way out, load the film. To expose the film, I remove the slide, make the exposure, and then replace the slide with the black side of the pull facing out. Then I record the information in my notebook. This system is good for a number of reasons, but one important one is: if you mess up an exposure you can relate it with less difficulty to the holder. If you are consistently getting bad exposures from the same holder, its a good chance there is something wrong with the holder.

If you want to become proficient in using large format, I'm afraid you'll have to use large format film. There are more steps involved with using LF cameras than with most other formats. For me, practice was required to become proficient...and a good number of ruined sheets of film. For me, its been worth the effort. Good luck.

Super or Super Speed Graphic. Metal body, adequate front movements, compact and light, rotating back... I have one, and I like it vey much. Add a 203mm 7.7 Ektar lens and you're in business.

Hello,

The WF Ektar is also available in 100mm, 135mm, and 190mm versions. I have the 100mm and 135mm versions and like them very much for my 4x5. I would recommend the 135mm. The 100mm does not allow for very much movement.

If you want a lens in the 10" range, you may want to consider an older 9 1/2" Dagor (240mm). I also like the look of older lenses.

I thank you all for your help. I spoke with John at Focal Point. He said it sounded like decementing, but that he would have to see it. Being that the front group, which has the problem, is comprised of four elements, the cost of the repair will likely be over $300, plus shipping.

I shot with the lens, and the results were very, very good. At first, on one shot I thought I had serious flair, but after looking at the negative a little longer I realized that the behind-the-lens filter frame slipped into the path of the image. A long story, but certainly a "problem" that can be corrected. I made negatives at apertures of 8 1/2, 11 1/2, 32 1/2, and 45; and all looked good. Excellent shadow detail, and very sharp. Results were superior to negatives made with my 9 1/2" Dagor, which is a very good lens.

I plan to keep the lens. At what point I have it repaired, I don't know. I guess I'll keeping shooting with it until it shows a problem on the film.

Thanks for the responses. I have spoken with John of Focal Point, Inc. in Colorado. He said it sounded like lens decementing, but for the definitive answer, he would have to see it. This lens has four elements in the front (also the rear) group. It would be relatively expensive to repair, and the repair effort can be risky.

I developed three sheets film shot with the lens, and one showed what appears to be siginificant flair wiping out a portion of the scene, but the other two looked good. I haven't had a lot experience with problem situations, and I have had a similar flair problem with good lenses, so I'm not sure if I identified a problem with the lens, the holder or my technique. The two that turned out good were shot at relatively wide apertures (8 1/2 and 11 1/12). I have several other sheets to process, and I'm showing the lens to an experienced professional photographer Wednesday. I'm afraid I pushing this too hard, but it is such a nice lens in every other respect. I have an older, uncoated sample of this lens, which has a chip on the edge of the rear glass of the front group. I put varnish in the chip, and this has been a fine lens in use, comparable to the Dagors I have.

Hello, I just received a lens I bought on eBay. I was surprised and

pleased to find it was a "Production Standard Quality Control" lens,

but found that it has what may be a serious problem. It looks as if

you are looking into an eye when you look into the front component of

the lens with the shutter closed. There is a dark circle about a 1/2"

in diameter just off center, surrounded by a lighter, mis-shapen

circle. When looking through the lens, into the light, with the

shutter open, these circles are faint, but visible. They appear to be

below the surface of the glass. Several people I've discussed this

with (they haven't seen the lens) have suggested that it may be that

the elements have de-cemented. The lens is a 13" Wollensak Series 1A

Raptar for my 8x10, which has 4 elements in the front component. It

appears that this de-cementing, if that is the problem, may have

affected two of the elements in the group. I have put the lens on the

camera, and the image on the GG looked good, but I have been told the

problem may transfer to the film. Of course, the best way to know if

and to what extent the problem will manifest on the film is to test,

which I will do. However, I am interested to know if anyone has had

this type of situation? Did it have an affect on picture quality? Is

it a condition that gets worse? Any information would be helpful. I'm

not particulary afraid of less than pristine lenses. I have had some

very good results with some pretty crappy lenses, but those results

can not always be relied on with a bad lens. Again, any information

and experience shared is appreciated. Thank you.

Adam, that's an interesting piece of equipment. If the manufacturer is identified, you might try to contact the company, and ask them for suggestions. They might have an adapter already made for your use. A machine shop or metal fabricator should be able to make something for you. It looks as if some type of plate will need to be made. Good luck.

Todd, Thank you for sharing your experience, and the photos. I'm sure that for many particpants in this forum, myself included, Edward Weston and his work have been a tremendous influence and inspiration. As an East Coast resident, it is unlikely I'll have the oppurtunity to visit Wildcat Hill. Again, thank you.

Jari, I don't use pyro, but I have found using ISO 320 with 8x10 Tri-X resulted in very thin (underexposed) negatives: printable, but soft, and usually requiring grade 4 filter/paper. From what I've read of pyro, you need a well-exposed, contrasty negative for good print results. I don't know if changes in development time with pyro will help alot, if the negative is underexposed, but I would doubt it. I generally rate Tri-X at 125 to 160, which I develop in HC-110/B for the Kodak recommended 5 minutes 30 seconds for normal development, in trays, for filter/grade 1 1/2 to filter/grade 2 1/2 results. You may want to make some test shots at different ISO settings, and develop normally (as recommended) to first establish the best film rating that will give you the best negative exposure. It is recommended that once you establish the best ISO for "normal", you further test to determine development times for increasing or decreasing contrast, which are typically 10% to 20% more or less than the normal. I didn't really answer your question, but maybe this is of some help.

I would recommend the 203mm 7.7 Ektar. Very sharp, contrasty, compact, and designed to cover 5x7. Mine is in a Supermatic shutter. I typically have the shutters serviced on lenses I buy, CLA, as recommended above, and mine has been great. I don't think you'll be disappointed, if you get a good example of that lens/shutter combination. I had to make two tries at getting a good one through eBay. The first one was not in the condition described in the listing, but the seller was not very knowledgable, and refunded my payment immediately. The second one was a keeper. I paid a little over $200 for it, and another $50 for CLA. I haven't followed prices recently, but they may be lower now. Good Luck

Hello Butch. I wasn't able to access your site, but I have looked at your work before, on the web and in the recent View Camera article. But it doesn't really matter. I would answer you the same without having seen your work. I'm not a professional photographer, but I have taken some assignments from time to time. I don't really like getting in way of people who do it for a living. So most everything I shoot is personal work. That's pretty much the way I want it to be. Though I think it nice to sell personal work, that's not why I do it. I'm aware enough to know if I want to sell photographs, certain subjects and presentation sell, and all I have to do is do that...make pictures that will sell.

I think personal photographic work is both an intellectual and spirtual exercise, an outgrowth of the questions one has about the world around him. I think that over time, a body of work will evolve that reflects one's relationship with the ideas and things in the world that stimulate ideas, pose questions, or evoke feelings. The bottom line, to me, is: do the photos I make honestly reflect my relationship with the subject, the ideas I question, the feelings I have? If they do, then the photo succeeds; if not, it fails. It is my hope that over time I will learn to "speak" the language of photography with some eloquence, and that other people will "hear" what I'm saying. Even so, like religon and politics, I would not expect everyone to agree with my point of view. I would point to the difference between Sally Mann's Immediate Family work or Nicholas Nixon's Family Matters work and pictures that fill the typical family album. Not to discredit typical family pictures, but for me Mann's and Nixon's work reflect deliberate thought and a spirt not generally present in typical family pictures. For me these are examples of personal work that honestly reflect an intellectual and spiritual relationship with the subject.

So, I guess what I'm saying is, if its personal work, then it should be honest, and has to only please you. If you are comfortable with sharing it with others, do so.

I started with 35mm, then went to a Rollei twin lens (120 2 1/4 x 2 1/4), then to a 4x5, and now to an 8x10. All my "serious" photography is now done with the 8x10, for which I develop and print the film myself. I decided that if I'm going to take the time to put the camera on a tripod, then why not the 8x10. Of course, that logic can take you to ultra large format, but 8x10 is about as far as I can go cost wise. The point is that as the film size increases, the quality of the results increases. No, a 4x5 or 8x10 will not necessarily make you better photographer, but the larger film size will produce more open shadows, give you more detail in the highlights. Now that I contact print 8x10, I'm totally taken with the depth, the detail, the sharpness of the prints; it surpasses anything I've done with the smaller formats. There are trade-offs. You lose the mobility and quickness of the smaller formats, but you need to look at the large format camera as another tool in your bag, suitable for some circumstances, less suitable for others. The only way you will know for sure if its for you is to give it a try. I started in large format with a Super Graphic 4x5, which I still have. It's a very good camera. I found its movements more than sufficient for what I do. Like you, I'm not a professional, but work with a varity of subjects, and do land and cityscapes; portrait; table-top still life, etc.

The Jan/Feb issue of View Camera magazine features work by Luther Gerlach, who uses large format cameras, vintage lenses, wet plate process, and alternative printing processes. Some of his featured work is stylized nudes, like those you described. I haven't done that kind of photography (can't afford the models), but I too favor 1900 to 1930-era nudes. They should be relatively simple since they are primarily posed, and should allow for the longer exposures needed for 8x10. Some of the vintage portrait lenses might give a soft glow to the prints, but I think older non-coated lenses might serve as well.

Greg, I have a super graphic, and like some of the recommendations above, highly recommend the 207 7.7 Ektar. It is an excellent general purpose lens, very sharp. I also have a 10" tele-optar, and 100mm and 135mm Wide Field Ektars round out my lens set for 4x5 use. The tele-optar is the weakest of the set, and would probably go with a 9 1/2" Dagor. I have one, but haven't used it for 4x5, only with my 8x10. It is a very good lens. I'm primarily shooting 8x10 now, but if I decide to concentrate on 4x5, I would use the Dagor as my long lens, and probably add a 165mm lens, mostly likely a Dagor or Ektar. I've had the super graphic about seven years, it is my first, and has been my only 4x5. I'm not a professional, and I just haven't found a reason to replace it. It has been more than enough for table top-still life, landscape, cityscape, and portrait work. Good light, and enjoy.

George, you may want to try some of the local photo studios, the ones run by old pros, not the Olan Mills-type. Also non-chain photo stores. Most are run by folks with connections to people still using film, and may have an outlet for you. Traditional photography is still being taught in most schools, high school and college, and should provide an outlet. If you have access to Shutterbug magazine, many of the advertisers will buy equipment, and may be willing to pick-up. Midwest Photo Exchange, I believe, is one that will do this.

I have had the oppurtunity to see some of Ms. Mann's work in a gallery, some of her "Immediate Family" series and her later landscapes from Virgina and Georgia. Most, if I remember correctly, of the landscapes I saw were 30"-plus by 40"-plus. I must say that reproductions in books do not compare with seeing the actual prints. Her current work, which utilizes 8x10 camera, old lens, collidion (SP?) wet plate process, and tea staining is both deceptive and inspiring. It is easy to think that sloppy technique is involved, but she has control of her techniques, and the results are strong emotional statements.

Thank you all for your suggestions. Gary, good point about the white glass. Again, thanks to all.

I recently bought an old Retouching Desk, the kind that folds up, has

a mirror to reflect light through a glass to the negative, so that

the negative can be retouched. Sort of an early edition of Photoshop

type of thing. Hah, hah, right. Anyway, the glass upon which the

negative is placed is missing from my unit. Pictures of ones I've

seen looked as if a ground or frosted glass is used. Does anyone know

the best type of replacement glass? Is there a reason for not using

plexiglas or clear glass?

Thank you.

Peter, you have received good recommendations. I use 100mm and 135mm Wide Field Ektars, and a 203mm Ektar on my 4x5, and have found them to be very good lenses. The 203mm Ektar is excellent. I don't think you would be unhappy with it. These lenses can vary in price, but are not typically at the high end of the price range. Kodak Ektar and Wollensak Optar press lenses are usually less expensive, and are good lenses. They are generally available for 4x5 in focal lengths of 127mm, 135mm, 152mm, 162mm, 190mm, and 203mm. Goerz Dagors are also an option; excellent lenses (I have one for my 8x10), but can be more expensive. My personal recommendation for a first lens would be the 203mm Ektar, in a sync shutter. All my Ektars are in sync'd Supermatic shutters, and with CLA, have been very accurate and reliable. I'm not experienced with modern lenses such as the new Schneiders, but I have read very good reviews for the 203mm Ektar; it is supposed to compare very well with modern lenses. Look for one in good condition, these are older lenses, and subject wear and tear. You should be able to purchase one for less than $250, but it would be a good idea to allow for having the shutter serviced. Good luck.

To all, thank you for your responses. I bought the film off ebay for $5.00 - 50 sheets of Vericolor (sorry to get you excited Eric, but I made a mistake...I thought it was labeled VPS, but it is labeled Vericolor HC...are they the same? I don't know, but I don't think either are produced any longer) and about 40 sheets of Electric Output film, which is a transparency (SP?) film. I don't know how it was stored, but I thought it might be interesting to experiment with since I only work with B&W. The Electric Output film, I'll probably process in B&W developer, and the Vericolor I'll experiment with... cross process, etc. Again, thank you all for your helpful information.

Bob, I can't directly answer your question, but my 8x10 came with a Wollensak lens in an Optimo 4 shutter. I can tell you that the shutter mechanism doesn't operate like most newer shutters, and can be difficult to deal with. I sent mine to a very experienced technician, and he couldn't get it to operate correctly. Age and wear were likely a problem, but the mechanism is finiky as well. Assuming the shutter is functioning, the best choice may be to time the speeds as they are and adjust exposure accordingly.

I recently got some old (1989) 8x10 Kodak VPS color print sheet film.

I frequently use old B&W film, and generally, aside from having low

contrast, it is pretty usable. Has anyone worked with color sheet

film this old? What were the results? Any thoughts, or suggestions?

It will be processed and printed by a lab. My thinking is that

probably colors and contrast will be soft, very soft. I will need to

increase exposure. I also got a box of Kodak Electronic Output film,

and any information members can share would be helpful. I don't know

anything about this film, and couldn't find much on Kodak site. Last

question. Has anyone developed and printed color film (print and or

transparancy) in B&W developer, and if so, what were the results?

Thank you.

Hello Jorge,

This question came up in a slightly different form not too long ago. I posted to that one and I'll post here as well. As I noted in that posting, there seem to be as many different opinions as there are those who post them, a little like questions concerning religion. Your question, "Photography, art or craft?" is simply answered: in itself? no, it is a mechanical-chemical process for taking pictures, for this discussion using a camera and film, like typing is a mechanical-chemical process for writing using a typewriter. To use either requires some skill, but the result isn't necessarily well-crafted, or a piece of art. Can using photography result in art; is there craft? Yes, I think the practioner can develop craft, and can produce a piece of art. Cameras have been used to produce well-crafted pictures, and on occasion, pieces of art. Currators and collectors have said photographs can be appreciated as art, and buy them, display them as such; people have even bought some of my prints to hang on their walls. It seems to me that most of the people who participate in this forum strive to be good craftsmen, with a desire to utilize craft to produce work that communicates their vision, ideas, and feelings to the viewer. I think we do it because we enjoy it, like John said, "its fun", and in some cases, because we are compelled to do it. But, I think in many cases, we also want for others to connect with our work, and to get something from what we produce. It happens on occasion, even if it isn't celebrated as "great art" or makes the cover of Time magazine. You produce a photograph that is something special. Others like your work, understand what it took to make it, appreciate the craft, and connect with your idea, or vision. So maybe the photographer produces a work of art? I like to think so.