tim_curry

I just saw a sheet of film which was printed in my darkroom last night. It was from a 5x7 camera. I asked twice about the lens and was amazed to find that the picture was taken with the 127mm Rodenstock Ysarex from a Polaroid 110 camera. It was of a courthouse in Georgia and exhibited minor vignetting at all four corners. The image circle at f22 with infinity focus was about 7.5" or 190mm. I use one on my hand held 4x5 and could not believe that this lens is so good in coverage and image quality for 5x7. If used as a close-up lens there would be plenty of coverage without movement. Go figure.

Scott,

 

Try using the shutter at each setting for perhaps 5 or 10 tries before you do anything else. Make sure it is warm enough (not below 80f or so) and run a series of clicks at each setting. Many times the lubricant will be old and sticky. A few clicks will sometimes free up the innards with nothing more than warm weather. It is a machine which may not have been used for many years until now. It might just be a bit "sleepy" after sitting for so long. The slower speeds are usually the ones which are the most sticky.

I use 330ml of PMK (mixed in solution) per roll of 36 exposure 35mm film. This is correct for my tank and gives full development. I use 2 inversions every 15 seconds after repeated inversions for the first minute, with good results and even development.

 

Use distilled water or your times may differ from those posted.

Nice to see another entry level 4x5 on the market. Looks to be a nice compact design that is well thought out.

 

As to gear, lens and film related selling; this is the best time in history to buy good used equipment of high quality for low prices. I continue to be pleased to see "selling to go digital" only to see "buying back after trying digital" in some posts. Buy quality (cameras, film, lenses, etc.) and you still can't go too wrong.

 

Remember, we don't really own anything, we just get to use it for a little while.

Did you run film tests first? It helps if you do a series of tests in differing light conditions. If you got good contrast in flat lighting, it stands to reason that the contrasty secne has blown out highlights.

 

Try rating the film at your correct asa and expose a "normal" contrast scene. Make sure you know the values for zone v, shadow placement and highlights in the scene. Your shadow values should be firm and detailed, highlights should show textures.

 

If highlights are blown out, record the development time and next scene, try 30% less. Don't worry about the percentage, just record values, yime and results. If 30% was too much, GOOD! You now knpow where yuo are and how much under (over) you missed by.

They are hexagon in shape. Available with fasteners in both 1/4" & 3/8".

Milton, some of the older lenses had a terminal with "X" or "M" marked on the lens somewhere. "M" was used for older flash bulbs which took a little while to warm up and actually fire. The pulse looks like a ramp which took time to actually put out maximum light. The "M" sync had a built in time delay so the shutter was timed to work with this longer pulse. The "X" was used for a strobe type flash (modern). The old flash I use from 1980 (Sunpak or something like that, don't even remember) has a PC cord which winds around the back of the unit and isn't really obvious until it is unplugged and unwound. Take a look at older flash units as they will have a better chance of having this cord. A used camera store in your area may be your best bet for a decent, inexpensive unit.

 

Old-old type flash receptacle was a two pin setup with the pins projecting out from the lens at some point. The old press cameras had a receptacle on some models with the pins on the camera body but not the lens. Hopefully the lens in question has a single (female) receptacle.

I just use lens wraps for each lens/board assembly. My pack has been set up to accept the lens in wrap in each padded pocket. Took a bit of figuring, but it all stows well and is easy to get to when I need it.

One caution I would use with Pyro negatives, don't use the pyro after-bath as has been recommended in "The Book Of Pyro" by Hutchins. More recent tests have shown that dipping the film back into a pyro solution as a rinse to enhance stain has a net detrimental effect on the film. What happens as a result is an increase in "general stain" throughout the whole image. Where a normal pyro stain tends to enhance highlight separation, the increase of general stain only serves to reduce contrast and make lower values somewhat muddy or cloudy.

 

I don't know about the effects of selenium toning on pyro stain, as I have not used it on film at this point. The effect of enhanced highlights from toning of prints does not actually impart some color to the highlights, so much as it tends to deepen the lower values and solidify blacks. Because of this deepening of blacks, the whites look more vibrant and contrast is enhanced. Try some and you will find it very difficult to print without it.

Is there an issue with flare from the sky values as well? A lens shade may be in order, along with a ND filter to help the exposure. The polarizer may work, but if it isn't perpendicular to the axis of the sun, it won't work as well.

 

Try to meter the scene vlaues and then the sky values. With a transparency film like Velvia, there are only about 1 1/2 to 1 2/3 stops above zone V which will register with full values in the first place. Any more and something must be done to reduce overall contrast.

 

With negative film there is more leeway for exposure values, but the sky may still be an issue. In any event if you don't meter the scene, you will be wasting film by guessing and without taking notes on the scene values and comparing them to the finished film it will not be a learning experience. It will be like the mythical "Whiffle Bird" of old.

John had a good idea. Maybe you could rig up a set of "wheelie bars" similar to what the top fuel funny cars need to keep the front wheels in place. Two small casters which extend back a bit on flat stock of some sort might work.

 

Otherwise, a small set of bicycle tires (20"?) and some sort of frame might be what you need. A made to order cart out of scraps and bike parts sounds like the ticket here. One fellow had posted a picture of one he adapted to work, but I don't know the thread. Perhaps he is listening.

As far as a single use developer, I would say that PMK pyro would be a good choice. A kit from Artcraft will cost about $21.00 (U.S.) or you can mix your own from dry chemicals that you weigh out. It has a very long shelf life and works well for enlarging with your 120. It tends to give a very good print when all is done properly.

 

For a fixer, you may consider a dry mix chemical as well, so you don't have to worry about shelf life, just mix what you need and keep track of the number of rolls as it ages. Use the snip test with the leader to check activity level and dispose of when it is time.

The exhaust from a vacuum will move a lot of air, perhaps too much. I would think an enclosure made out of furnace filter pads would work just as well. In aircraft work we used a room with a special sign on the door: "Notice, simulated dust free environment"

In general, I think you will find that the older style, high silver content films are very flexible for minus and plus development. Ilford's FP4+ is good, sharp and responds well to manipulation. For a bit more leeway, try Efke films (25, 50, 100) or J&C Photo's Classic 200. The alternative process printers seem to think that it has a lot of latitude for extended contrast. Your choice of developer will have a large effect on these films.

 

If you don't mind using a tripod, try this for diffusion enlargement: Efke 25: asa 12: PMK Pyro 7:00 at 70f

For the life of me, I can't understand why the Yankee Agitanks (daylight) get such a bad rap. I use mine with PMK pyro and have had only one instance where there was a small amount of trouble with one batch of film. As suggested before, I was pouring the developer into the tank instead of filling the tank after presoak and then putting in the film, which I do now. My method is as follows.

 

1) Presoak film for 1 to 2 minutes

 

2) Fill tank with mixed developer and insert film (1600 ml for 4x5)

 

3) Agitate for 30 seconds to one minute continuously

 

4) Agitate vigorously for 5 seconds every 15 seconds

 

5) Dump developer back into beaker and pour in tap water for stop bath

 

6) TF4 for 5 minutes

 

7) Dump TF4 and then add water for wash, 10 minutes

 

8) Photo-flo for last rinse and hang film to dry

 

PMK is notorious for uneven staining, streaking and development. I have never had a problem with the tank, only my procedure. The "Pro" I got my enlarger from assured me that the Yankee tanks do not work and that only single sheet tray development was effective for developing film.

 

P.S. Anyone who wants to get rid of their tanks can send them to me. I have started a shelter for battered and abused tanks. Please contact me off list.

My worst case scenario with "old" film was this summer. A friend had given me an old box of Tri-x 8x10 dated 1968 and stored out on a shelf here in Tucson. I was never able to print through the fog, so be careful buying film from 1968.

Some developers are not capable of producing the proper tonal results with the manufacturer's listed film speed. Shadows can become completely black and without detail if film speeds are set too high.

 

In other cases, if a scene has too much contrast for "normal" development, for example the highlights will be pure white and without detail, the development time can be reduced to bring back highlights which otherwise might be gone.

 

Many of these decisions are based on a zone system approach, which allows for development of film to match the scale of the paper. With this approach, a shot which would normally be unprintable becomes more manageable.

The question to be asked is has anyone else done this much study of the two developers. Mr. King's research on this subject will stand for many years to come as an in depth study of staining developers. You would have to invest an incredible amount of time and money to do half of what he has, and has shared so willingly.

 

I think if you are able to read, digest and understand what is being stated, you don't need the pictures.

I would have to second Will's answer. I've built two 4x5 "point & shoot" cameras and I can tell you that it takes a lot of time and costs more than it would to buy an older camera that works or a basket case and just fix it up. I have all of the machinery it takes and 25 years of wood working behind me (thank God it is behind me now) and it took some doing. Yes they work, but I still ended up buying a new Shen Hao 4x5 when all was said and done because it had better features.

 

I don't want to discourage you from building, but I think your time would be better spent in lurking on web sites like ebay until you find one you can afford. If you can't afford an 11x14 or 7x17 right now, save your money and time, beacuse you can't afford one. Get a 4x5 Crown Graphic setup for a few hunderd bucks and make your mistakes on it. There is no reason that a 4x5 can't give you all of the learning available in 7x17 and at 1/6 the cost. Best of luck and make no small plans, but make haste carefully.

Ed,

Are you talking roll film or sheet film? I think asa 100 is somewhat optimistic for FP4+ and would normally expect it to show weak shadow detail at 100. I use 330ml for 35mm roll film and have no trouble with developer being too exhausted upon completion. I have found no shift due to increase or decrease in volume. Are any variables different: time, temperature, agitation cycles, water source, measuring devices?

 

Something is wrong somewhere. Go back to step one and see what may be different. I have found PMK to be very reliable when used consistently. I use it for 35mm in a tank, 4x5 in an old yankee agitank and for tray development of 8x10. Please let us know what you find out.

Take a look at unblinkingeye.com. Ed has a good list of films with PMK. I did't see you particular brand listed just now, but start by looking at the other iso 100-125 films. This will give you a good starting point.

 

Tips:

 

Always use distilled water for your developer mix or times will vary too much from those listed.

 

Start by cutting film speed in half to get decent shadow values and see what you get.

 

Always use a presoak of at least one minute to swell emulsion.

 

Use constant agitation for the first minute and 15 second cycles for remainder of the time. Do not deviate until you have some practice.

 

DO NOT use the pyro after-bath as seen in the Book of Pyro. It will give murky shadow values and reduce contrast. Stain will be there without it.

Age: 52

 

Sex: Male

 

Why: Quality and control of print. There is no other way!

 

Time: Graylab 300 / old Kodak red wind-up timer

 

Film: Efke 25 / J&C 200

 

Format: 4x5, 8x10, 35mm

 

Developer: Enlarger PMK Pyro, Contact ABC Pyro

 

Fixer: TF-4

It works well. Since there is little room for movement, I built this box camera with the Polaroid lens, view finder and focusing scale attached to the front by the lens board. Crude, yes? Works, yes!

 

This lens is very sharp in the center. There is a fall-off of quality at the corners as has been stated, but with 4x5 film, you can compose for a good image and have plenty of film to work with. This fall-off is really not too bad at all, especially considering the costs involved.

 

I have the Fujinon 125 CM-W which I use on my field camera and it is an outstanding lens, my first choice for normal shooting with plenty of coverage for movements. The Rodenstock is certainly a good lens for street shooting. With a tripod, the results are far above what you might expect for quality considering it was not designed as a 4x5 lens.I would have to say, just do it. Check lower speeds to make sure you have a good one. I've found one which is slow at 1/4 second and below, but the other two are fine.

Al,

 

Save the money on beer, Tylenol and therapy. Get a copy of Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop" and relax. He takes what Adams says and makes it easy to follow so you can do tests and then understand what you are doing.

 

Basically, the "straight line" segment of a film curve is not necessarily a straight line. Sure there is a toe & shoulder to think about, but each film and developer combination is different. If that straight line has a soft curve in the center, zone V can be above or below what your true zone V value is, but why worry? This is why film testing, although a P.I.T.A. is so important to getting good exposures. Once you have a combination which works (camera, meter, film, developer, paper), forget testing and just shoot. It will start to make sense once you have done some tests and begin to actually apply the theory to the practical.

You will learn plenty from your mistakes and triumphs. That's the fun. Please contact me off list if you have any specific questions. I just went through this over the last year and it does get better. There are many good people here with lots of information. Use it all with a large pinch of salt. tim

Regardless of manufacturer's ratings, I base my film speed on a negative which prints a correct zone I. When the negative edge prints pure black (like the paper without any film over it) and the zone I is a true zone I in the test print, I have a correct film speed. This should also give a good zone III as well. This exposure of the film on a contact print is "film base plus fog" and gives the maximum information with the minimum density.

 

Once this baseline has been established, I do development tests to establish zone VIII. After this, I forget about film testing and just shoot. Fine tuning is available from zone VIII tests which did not work, this is N+ and N- information.