victor_loverro

<p>There is one issue with this film that you need to be aware of. There is a hole in one corner and if you compose an image on your whole ground glass, you will lose about 1/8 from one long and one short side. Expose or sacrifice one sheet of film, determine where the hole is in proper orientation, and mask your ground glass to the real useable image area. It will save you a lot of grief if you compose to the edge of your ground glass. Actually, you should do this with any camera and the film holders you use. There is often a discrepency of actual image space.</p>

For those lol at Mr. Soloman's input, let me say that I have the Calumet version of the Sironar N and it is a superb lens. It the Sironar S is any better, it must be a heck of a lens. Most of my work these past years has been with a 5x7 and enlargements with the 135 Sironar N on 4x5 match anything from my 5x7, much of it done with Apo lenses. This lens is compact and lightweight and has good coverage for this focal length. I highly recommend this lens or the Sironar S. The rated image circles are 208mm vs 200mm. But the N series lens has a 40.5mm front filter compared to 49mm for the S series lens. If your purpose is to set up a lightweight system for hiking, the N series may be a better choice.

If they are film holders, they may be used to achieve extreme film flatness, especially if pointing the camera down. This prevents film sag. I have some for 8x10 holders that sound like the same construction. I don't quite understand the film being 1" back. But by having the film against the glass with the back pressed against it, the film will be as flat as possible, and will not sag in the center. Used for vertical copy and product photography.

Are you sure that is a picture of the 8x10? It looks like the 4x5 to me.

I believe the yellow-green filter referred above is the #58 (not #11). There was an article in View Camera Magazine by a southwest photographer who recommended the #58 green for the reasons given above by MB. The experience of Weston was resolved by using a yellow filter without compensating by increasing exposure and then developing N+1. I have tried this in Death Valley and it works well.

Megapearls Acros

http://www.unicircuits.com/shop/index.php?cPath=27

I got Newton rings when I started printing from TMY400. Maybe it has a different base than the other films I had been using. I went to a local glass shop and got a leftover piece of non-glare glass for $5. I cut it into several pieces of contact frame glass for sizes up to 8x10. There is no loss of sharpness nor is there any grain or texture evident in the prints. I made prints from the same negative with plain glass and the non-glare glass. They look exactly the same. And no Newton rings. It is an inexpensive option worth a try.

Here is a comparison between TMAX 100 and Acros, but you might learn something about both from this:

http://www.butzi.net/articles/tmxacros.htm

Found a Nikon 300M for $700? That is high. You can buy one brand new from Badgergraphics for $625. They come up on E-bay all the time for between $450 and $550. As noted, they are an excellent lens.

Have you been to the Michael Smith web site? http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index_skip.html. Click on "Azo" on the bottom and that will bring you to several informative sections of the site. There is more information about Azo on this site than you are likely to find collectively elsewhere. Check out especially the article about printing on 100 year old paper. That may answer some of your questions. They also sell Azo paper.

From the Sinar site:

LINHOF LENS BOARD ADAPTER

441.91

For using lenses mounted on Linhof lens

boards on a Sinar camera (from Linhof

Technika IV and V, Master Technika and

Super Technika cameras).

Cannot be combined with Sinar behindthe-

lens shutters

A picture of what Ted is saying is on the Shen Hao website.

http://www.shen-hao.com/4x5.html.

See second picture, top row of thumbnails.

Here is an excellent review of the Toho camera:

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm

And probably much of what you see from that era are contact prints which minimize the unsharpness due to slight movement. A friend photographed me once with an 11x14 camera using a paper negative. I was standing with one foot on a stool and the exposure was 25 seconds. No other support. The print is surprisingly sharp.

For those of you who have not gone to Mr. McBlane's website, it is worth the visit. Stunning work. Glad to see such fine portraiture in black and white.

http://www.clearbags.com/?category|BAGS Item B720 are bags measuring 7 7/16" by 20 1/4" with a resealable flap on one end. Flap has a removeable tape that can be left in place. This provides a bag closed on three sides (four if you use the seal) and the cost is $15.00 per 100. No cutting, no open sides. They have bags that will cover 12x20 also.

You can order sleeves from Impact Images in quantities of 100. I am curious. Is there a reason to need to place such a large order? Or are the sleeves special?

I use mostly wooden field cameras and I doubt that many of this type of camera has a back or lens board that is exactly 90 degrees to the base. It always seems better to me to use a small torpedo level to check the back, and lens when necessary. If you only level the base how do you know the back is plumb and level?

Impact Images has acid free bags of many sizes that are very clear. They are great for prints. There is a bag size close to 7x17.

http://www.clearbags.com/?category|BAGS

Try T-Max RS. There are two T-Max developers. The RS version is designed for sheet film.

Try this: http://cameraquest.com/techs.htm

Have you tried brushing the print? This may help.

Before using E-bay was the way to buy, I bought a 5x7 camera from CCG that was listed in Shutterbug. The camera was listed as Excellent+. That sounds near mint to me. When the camera arrived, it was a wreck. All the brass was badly tarnished. The back was loose. The gearing was so bad, it would run off the track at the least movement. Nothing was tight on the camera. When I called them and questioned the Excellent+ rating, I was told it was "excellent for it's age". Which, besides being not true, the rating was outrageously inaccurate. I would never buy from Columbus Camera Group.

It is possible to bleach and redevelop the negative in a Pyro developer. There is an excellent article in Photo Techniques Mar/Apr 2000 by Patrick Gainer on the process using PMK. I have done this with good results. I don't see why it would not work with any Pyro developer. I am going to try the process with Pyrocat-HD in place of PMK. If you cannot find the article, e-mail me and I will give you the basics.

As an aside, I used to see an "alternative" newspaper around that had news and information on psychic and spiritual interests. And every issue would have a photograph of some psychic anomoly. These were proof of the spirit world making itself's presence known. And since there was no one else in the picture or the viewfinder, the photographer and witnesses were convinced that the anomoly could only be explained by the presence of a spirit. Need I say what shape these "spirits" took? You guessed it. They were frequently crescent-shaped.

On the other hand, maybe you didn't pinch the film, maybe.........