tim_curry

Al, Please remember what Mark Twain said about this subject.

 

"There's lies, damn lies and statistics."

 

A normal contrast negative (in spite of what the numbers might say) will print with a minimum of fuss on "grade 2" paper. This is different for grade 2 azo, graded paper, variable contrast paper or whatever you are using to print on (alternative process papers, platinum, etc.). However, what each of these have in common is that "normal" is defined by the paper being used.

The paper can "see" less contrast than the film. The film can see less contrast than the "real world" setting and the eye, so everything is being compressed to fit the scale of the paper.

 

This is normal?

Infinity for the 300mm Fuji tele lens is 195mm.

Peter, this was my solution to the problem, works well and the lens has enough coverage. I used the 110a model for the lens.<div></div>

Deniz,

 

I wouldn't get rid of 35mm. I shoot 35mm, 6x6, 4x5 and 8x10. Each one has its place. For fast shooting, 35mm is still my preference as lenses film costs and processing all add up, along with ease of use. It still has a place.

 

8x10 will be a very significant investment when film holders, tripod, camera, lenses, spot meter, filters and other odds and ends come into play. If you want a challenge and fun at the same time, give a thought to 4x5, contact printing and azo paper. You have the 4x5 already, so you have everythng you need to start shooting. With azo paper, you don't need a darkroom, just a small bathroom will get you going. A regular light bulb in a reflector for printing, some Neutol WA for a paper developer and a few small trays are all you will need to buy. Try looking at a small azo contact print (4x5) mounted on an 8x10 mat and tell me it isn't exciting.

 

I know larger is better for contact printing, but you already have most of what you need to get started without sacrificing your 35mm equipment. It seems to me that for a more expensive larger format, you still haven't scratched the surface of 4x5 if you haven't tried azo.

Just my $.02 worth.

As already stated, most modern lenses are capable of doing what you need. One brand I favor, which has not been mentioned, is the Fujinon series of new lenses.

 

Also as already stated, your choice of film may have more to do with a quality image than the lens itself. I would think you will be using one of the finer transparency films available and a good lab to do the work.

Pat,

 

Your choice of film and developer is a good one, so if it gives you the look you want, don't change it now. The first thing you will need to decide is which paper you will use. You already have one suggestion for Azo, and I will have to second it. It is the best there is when it comes to a comercially available product for contact printing.

 

Azo paper has a longer tonal scale than regular enlarging paper, so the real change you will need to make is in exposure and development. You will need a denser negative with higher contrast for grade 2, so give it more exposure (density) and develop longer (contrast). You will have to run some tests, but I would suggest starting with 4x5 for film tests to save money and time before you do the 8x10 work. The negatives you have now, which print well on grade 2 enlarging paper, will be about correct for grade 3 azo.

 

Michael & Paula's site is the best there is when it comes to technical information on azo, contact printing, films for use with azo and development. Do a lot of reading in the forum, first. Once you start printing, you will understand why people are using it.

Dimitri,

 

Amazing that people are so complicated. Try Efke 25 in PMK Pyro developer. Clean, sharp, crisp, slow but very nice. Take a look at the APUG gallery in their critique folder. You will have to scroll back a few pages, but look for an image posted by Francesco for me. I think he called it the "1720cc Beast" or something like that. It is a 35mm post card I sent him, but I've blown up this film-developer combination from a cropped 35mm negative to 8x10 with no grain showing at all. You did say you wanted sharp?

 

You don't need to get rid of your 35mm to do good work, but you do need to use a good tripod in order to take full advantage of the format. It neds to be rock steady for a decent shot.

 

Efke 25 is an excellent film (J&C Photo). PMK developer is very inexpensive to use. Try it with a tripod. Rate it at asa 12. Use 7 minutes at 70f with agitation cycles every 15 seconds (actually a 30 second presoak will be at 7:30). Use distilled water. Use a non-acid fixer and a water stop bath with good agitation. Use what you have!

Try ebay or some of the used dealers. I found mine at a photo swap meet here in Tucson (next one is March 27, just 2 weeks off). These things float around from time to time. Used mine to make a 4x5 reducing back for my 8x10 B&J. Works fine.

If you do your "personal E.I." testing (Fred Picker's book), there will be a lot of data generated which is useful for zone system testing and placement. Once you have your film speed nailed down, the tests you do for zone VIII development will provide an answer to your questions. Keep track of these development times, as they are the door to expansion and contraction of the Zone System. You will see a pattern, but it may take a while until the understanding sinks in.

 

This understanding is based on a subject I have not yet heard discussed in this forum, the "Personal Density Index," mine is actually quite high.

 

In general, a faster film will require more development time for expansion than a slow film. I use numbers based on a percentage of "N" development time for N+ and N-. A slow film may need 20% for plus or minus and a fast film may need 35% for plus and minus times. You will have to work out these numbers for yourself, that's why you need to pick one film, developer, meter and paper at first and stick with it for a while to really understand what is happening. Try it for a year and write back to us. It has taken me that long to understand what I did last year, hence my high "Personal Density Index."

Hola Pedro,

 

Rather than look at the slow/fast relationship of film speed and contrast, try looking at the film manufacturer's data with respect to the density curve of the film. This is usually represented as a line which starts with a "toe" and ends with a "shoulder." Pay close attention to the slope (pitch), toe and shoulder. The higher the "angle" of the middle portion (called the "straight line" portion), the faster the film responds to light and is hence, more "contrasty" than a film with a more gentle slope.

 

As a case in point, compare Efke 25's density curve to Efke 100's curve. Remember there is a threshold at the toe, below which light does not register on the film. At the top end, there is a point at which more light just piles up without making more image on the print, just shows as pure white. In the middle is the portion which has the responce to light which the paper can print and we see.

 

Different films, developers, papers, etc. all have an effect on contrast, just find one you like (buena suerte). You might try Efke 25 for portraits and nudes, as it has a much different reaction to red than most current films. Trade off is that it is so slow and needs good light to get away from long exposures.

Try Efke 25 and PMK Pyro. It will have to run at asa 12, so figure on a tripod and windless days, but you won't find any grain on the film with this combination. Efke 25 from J&C is a bit over $3.00 a roll. PMK will set you back about $25.00 for a kit that makes upwards of 50L. PMK is mixed each time and thrown away, but if you are mixing for each roll, it will cost about $0.18 per roll for developer.

I do film tests based of Picker's book "Zone VI Workshop" and find it is easy to understand and use.

 

Another good tool, if you don't have a densitometer in your back room, is the simple Stouffer zone strip. It is simply a small strip of paper which was exposed to varying light intensities and gives values for zones 1-9. If you use this in conjunction with your tests, it will make things much easier to judge values you want in a print. Cost is about $12.00 (US) and worth every penny to help get you started.

Rapid fixer withourt the hardener is not acidic and is not going to remove stain from a PMK negative. The alkaline fixers, in general, lend themselves well to the archival life of a print, if complete washing is done as is required. This is not to say that an acid fixer won't work.

 

TF4 from photographer's formulary is an excellent product and works well for film and paper. It is alkaline, versatile and well suited to work with PMK pyro. I have yet to see a complete formula with the breakdown of different chemicals, but I find it to work well for any needs I have in enlarging (RC papers) and film. For azo printing (fiber based), I stick with the more traditional mix-your-own versions of sodium thiosulfate (plain old hypo). See michael&paula.com for a complete set of formulas and procedures for archival life of azo and fiber based papers in general.

 

TF3 can be mixed with the darkroom cookbook's formula and is said to be another good fixer. I have not mixed any at this point. The big plus for most mixing at home is that the cost of bulk chemicals will be recovered over time if a constant supply is needed in the darkroom. This, and the ability to use fresh stock can be worthwhile.

 

There is a point at which buying "store bought" is cheaper if you are using a minimal amount throughout the year and don't want to invest in a scale and an inventory of chemicals that sit on a shelf for months on end.

-M-

 

Stick with what you have with the PMK you have already exposed and developed. There has been some talk of enhancements after film has dried, but it can get pretty involved and requires a lot of time in experimentation. Just think of your older PMK film as the step in learning you must make on this path to knowledge. It is still good film and, if exposed and developed properly, will print very well.

 

The ABC pyro you can buy over the counter I have never used. If you go to Michael & Paula's site, you will find complete directions for the formula I am using now for azo printing. The advantage with ABC is a nearly clear film with no apparent stain. The only evidence of stain is the dark look which the silver image itself has. It looks more like regular film, but is slightly different in color. Upon closer inspection, the structure of the film shows a very sharp image, almost "etched" into the film. Because there is no fogging from general stain, shadow values are enhanced and separation is very good in the mid tones.

 

The stain still works as it does with PMK, but it is more subtle and acutance is better. The trade-off is that there is no masking of grain so larger grain is more clearly visible. With contact printing this is a non-issue. Film speed is reduced.

 

Contact me off-list if you have further questions and I'll be glad to answer what I can. tim

It is very easy to make a spanner wrench for these rings. Find a peice of sheet metal which is the correct thickness. Measure the depth to clear the threads etc. and the width for the notch. Scribe a line to this depth then mark the width of the opening. Use a vice and file to make the opening. Check frequently until a good fit is made. After a good fit is established, gently file a small amount of "draft" or taper along the bottom edges, so that only the bottom corner which fits the notch makes contact with the ring. Otherwise, a flat bottom can scratch the back of the lens board.

-M-

 

The last I heard, using Kodak R/F without the hardener is acceptable, as without the acid, it won't remove the pyro stain after initial development.

The first I had heard mention of not soaking in depleted PMK came from someone who posted after a seminar with Gordon H. this summer. He is now saying that the afterbath is not necessary, does not help image quality and can reduce contrast. If you think about it, it does make sense.

 

Since the desirable pyro stain is involved with the actual silver particles in the emulsion, any stain which is not directly surrounding the silver is just a "general" stain, like a fog. The effect of general stain is to actually make the film somewhat cloudy and tends to reduce contrast. This will be most evident in areas of less silver, or shadows, where the separation of small values needs to be as great as possible (to maintain contrast within the shadow itself). This is why an acid fixer and the afterbath tends to reduce contrast in the shadow areas.

 

The only way to find out is to try it with development of two films. Take two identical shots and develop them differently. I think you will be able to see a very subtle difference in the shadow values. This is not to say that you can't get good prints any other way, but if you are trying for the best possible print, this will be as good as it gets with PMK.

 

Now with ABC pyro you will be able to........

Acid fixer with a depleted pyro after-bath is not really conducive to image stain. Try an alkaline fix and no pyro soak after fixing. The acid fix is stripping out the stain from pyro (back to normal development). The pyro after-bath is adding general stain, not image stain. The net result will be muddy shadows and increased printing time with no real benefits from the pyro.

 

Just because the film shows a general color of one hue or another, there is no guarantee of image stain. General stain just reduces contrast.

One problem may arise from the pyro afterbath, as it does with PMK. Using depleted pyro after fixing can indeed increase stain, but it is in general stain, not image stain. This results in a net decrease in contrast, especially in areas of fine gradations, to the point where a fogginess in the final image is present.

 

I have stopped using this approach with PMK and now develop without the afterbath. After stopping this practice, I did notice a firming of shadow values and better separation as was suggested to me by others.

 

Try taking identical exposures and give it a try, as I have never used the WD2D+ formula. It may help, but only a few tries will tell you what is really happening.

It sounds like you have a plastic focusing screen and a fresnel screen for light transmission. The fresnel is closest to the lens and disperses the light so it is easier to see into the corners. If there is not a piece of ground glass, does the flat plastic have a "ground" side and a clear side?

 

What is important to remember, the film plane must be in the same place as the ground surface of the focusing screen. When the film holder is slid into place, the ground glass (plasitc, or whatever) is displaced and the film face now rests exactly where the ground side of the focusing screen was during focusing.

 

If there is some concern while setting all this up, use a stack of paper, business cards or a depth gauge to check the depth. The film holder's film plane is the same depth as the depth of the recess in the ground glass back (to the ground side of the focus screen). All you are checking is the depth from the camera to the ground side of the glass and the outside film holder's face to the film face. They should be the same.

Next batch of developer and fixer, try using distilled water. If you go with "normal" developing times, these can vary due to water quality. A simple water filter on the faucet should be sufficient for the rest of the process, but try distilled water when you mix chemistry.

One thing I have found very useful in understanding 4x5 focal lengths is a simple "viewing screen." Mine consists of a length of solid brass wire (3/32" or 2.3mm) bent into a rectangle of about 4"x 5". I made it out of hardware store odds and ends. Cost was about $5.

 

It slides on a length of brass stock with lines marked corresponding to the various focal lengths of my 4x5 lenses (65mm, 90mm, 125mm, 180mm, etc.). It allows you to wander around, look at a scene, see a shot, select a lens and then take the shot (without having to set up the camera at all if you don't like composition or if lighting is wrong and you need to return at a different time).

 

Mine is a copy of a friend's who used an old 4x5 Linhof folding sportsfinder and a strip of metal to mark the focal length. You might also try a 5x7 piece of mat board cut out to 4x5 and a ruler or length of string with knots in it. In any event, forget about "normal" unless you intend to take "normal" pictures. As you can see, a discussion of "normal" still begs the question. A wire frame allows you to isolate elements from the surrounding scene better than a larger frame which blocks your view.

Try Ed Buffalo's site, unblinkingeye.com

Free advice is worth what it costs. Merry Christmas!

I use the 4x5 reducing back from time to time on my old B&J 8x10. The 300mm lens I have is in a copal 3 shutter and is really too big and heavy for my 4x5 field camera, so the 4x5 back makes sense. A recent picture was made on the 4x5 back because I didn't have the perspective necessary to take the shot in 8x10. I made the reducing back with an old Graflok back, so I can use 120 film if necessary.

 

One distinct advantage to using 8x10 lenses with 4x5 is the coverage and clarity. The "sweet spot" is generous, movements are nearly unlimited. Sort of overkill, but it works well enough.

If you do the math and take into consideration the fact that the corners are eating up a bit of the film in the film holder, a true measure of 11x14 is probably closer to 431mm. The 360 should have ample coverage when stopped down a bit.

 

The 300mm Symmar-S I use for 8x10 seems to have more coverage and movement than you would expect from reading Schneider's tables.