david_karp

The most idiot proof developer is Diafine. It is a divided developer: 3 minutes in bath A, 3 minutes in bath B. Temperature (within a broad range) and time (beyond 3 minutes) do not make any difference. You can even develop multiple film types at the same time. As a two bath, it is inherently compensating. I find the acutance/grain combination good with 4x5 FP4+ and HP5+. In the past I used it with success with 35mm Tri-X and Plus-X.

 

The only problem with Diafine is that you can't do N+ development. You can, however, intensify the neg with selenium if you need to do N+1 development.

Sorry, I can't help with your problem. I have two Cambo cameras, and have never experienced the problem.

 

I can however help with the gentleman's name in the Calumet repair department. His name is Jose, and he has been very helpful to me on a few occasions when I called with questions about my camera.

There is a data sheet on Diafine at www.bkaphoto.com. Go to the page on black and white chemicals, then click on "How to Use" which is located on the left of the page. Next click on "Acufine Technical Information" button and scroll down to the Diafine sheet. There is some helpful information there.

 

The instructions call for 5 seconds of agitation after immersion, and 5 seconds each minute thereafter for both the A bath and B bath. I use hangers, and agitate for 30 seconds after immersion, and then 15 seconds of agitation each minute thereafter. I have not noticed a problem with my Diafine-developed negatives. Also, in the Film Developing Cookbook, Anchell and Troop state that 2 bath developers are good candidates for use with rotary processors (but they don't mention Diafine in their book).

 

The developer might not be as active at 65 degrees. I think that the best way to avoid a problem here would be to take some test shots that you don't mind losing and develop them to see what happens.

 

As far as replenishment goes, the procedure described on the box is not really replenishment. It is a means of maintaining the developer levels. This is described in more detail in the information sheet.

I have used Diafine with HP5+ sheet film. For me, the EI on the box is optimistic. I shoot HP5+ or Arista 400 at 200 when using Diafine.

 

Don't rinse between baths. The A bath has the developer in it, which is absorbed into the emulsion. Little or no development takes place in the A bath. The B bath is the activator. If you rinse between the two baths, the developer will become dilute and you will most likely not have full development.

 

There is a helpful information sheet on Diafine at www.bkaphoto.com.

 

Diafine works great in normal and contrasty situations. It can be problematic in very low contrast situations. You can't do + development to raise the contrast.

Try Midwest Photo Exchange in Columbus Ohio and talk to Jim. He will give you a quote on what he wants, and might be interested in a trade. You won't get as much as if you sold it to a private party, but I think what he will offer you should be fair when compared to any other photo store. Another option is KEH.com in Atlanta.

 

Sounds like you have all sorts of things I would like, but the photography purchasing department at my house is closed down for the time being [:-}].

The recommended temperature range for Diafine is 70 - 85 degrees F.

 

There is a helpful information sheet on Diafine (and other Acufine products) at:

 

http://www.bkaphoto.com/index.cgi?section=Black+White&show_page_in_frame=black_white_howtouse.html&heading=How+To+Use&cart_id=1672562.18733

Ilford does not recommend a presoak, but I have always pre-soaked when not using a two bath developer. Some photographers believe that the presoak helps avoid uneven development. I save the colored water, and use it as my stop bath between developer and fixer. I have not seen any problems associated with a presoak, so I see no reason to stop.

James,

 

I forgot to mention: I have processed sheet film in Diafine using the Kodak hangers with excellent results, and with a processing panel of the type described by Phil Bard (www.philbard.com) with similarly excellent results. I leave the film in solution A for 4 minutes and solution B for 4 minutes.

I agree that with sheet film the IE numbers on the Diafine box are a little bit enthusiastic. I have not used it with 35mm since I was a kid, but even then I rated Plus-X or Tri-X at their rated speeds. I rate HP5+ or Arista 400 at 200, I could use 400 in a pinch, but then lose some shadow detail. Diafine seems to last forever, I am sure that I dump it before I have to, but I just get too nervous to keep it any longer (6 months).

 

It is great for scenes with a broad contrast range. However, in flat lighting you might find that you want to intensify the negative in selenium toner to kick up the contrast a bit.

I agree with Paul. In my experience exposures of 20 - 30 seconds result in ghosts or no image at all if the people walk without stopping.

Mark,

 

You don't need your camera to "practice" working with large format. When you have some time, and your mind is not occupied, think about how you would use your camera in different situations. Run different scenarios through your mind. Then, try to set yourself up with your camera in those situations, and see how your solution works out.

 

Read your "how to" books (like Simmons' "Using the View Camera," Jim Stone's view camera book, the Kodak large format book, or Stroebel's books) again. I had Simmons' book for almost one year before I decided what camera I wanted (and could afford). I read it over and over.

 

I did all of the above, and it helped me to feel fairly comfortable with my camera when I eventually purchased one.

 

Also, since you have your camera. Pull it out at night for a while and focus it, swing it, tilt it, and shift it. Look at the groundglass. Get used to the controls. Turn it around and focus on something else.

 

I bought some past date Polaroid 400 speed black and white, and used that for practice around my neighborhood. This helped me to see some concrete results of my practice, but I don't think it was necessary. If you see the results of a tilt or other movement on the groundglass, that is what it will look like on a print too.

 

I have 4x5, 35mm and 645 systems. If I have the choice, and circumstances allow, I prefer to photograph with my 4x5. Don't get rid of your smaller cameras. You will want and need to use them, but force yourself to use your 4x5. It will soon become much more comfortable for you. (Or not, in which case you might decide to sell it.)

 

Finally, the best way to decide on what lens or lenses you might want next is to think about what lens you wished you had with you when out shooting. This will tip you off on what focal length to buy when you are ready for another lens. What I use, or anyone else uses is pretty much irrelevant. My strongest advice on lenses: Buy used from a reputable dealer.

 

I hope this helps.

If anything, KEH grading is very understated. If they say it is excellent, it is, and maybe even better than their description of the term. I think you will like the lens. I have the Grandagon-N version. I have a Caltar and would not hesitate to buy another one.

Ramiro,

 

I should also have mentioned that John Sexton mentioned this problem with D-76 during a workshop, and included a note about it in his workshop materials as well. He recommends using fresh developer if you are going to use D-76. That is another alternative, just buy it in quart sizes and then discard it after a few weeks. It drives up the cost and it is inconvenient, but this is what I did when I was using ID-11 all of the time. It is a hard formula to beat, especially when used 1:1 with 35mm negatives.

 

By the way, I found a pretty inexpensive digital scale made for weighing jewelery (I think) called a My Weigh MX-200. I think it cost under US$40, and measures in .1g increments. It works great for weighing chemicals. I purchased it from www.oldwillknot.com. I mix some of my own developers, and it works great.

This is a problem that Anchell & Troop report in The Film Developing Cookbook. Apparently, the ph of D-76 and ID-11 changes over time, and the this in turn promotes activity in the hydroquinone. In turn, this increases contrast. So, if you don't use it right away, this developer will give inconsistent results. Surprisingly, according to those authors adn many others, the hydroquinone in D-76 and ID-11 is inactive when the developer is first mixed (at the intended ph for usage). That is why they suggest D-76H, which is D-76 with a bit more metol, and no hydroquinone. You can find the formula in the Film Developing Cookbook and at www.unblinkingeye.com. I have not tried it, but D-76H is said to give identical results to ID-11, and uses the same times as standard ID-11 or D-76, the only problem is that you just have to mix it yourself, which you don't want to do.

 

I have used T-Max developer with HP5+ with good results. You might also want to try Ilfotec-DDX. If they can get ID-11 and Microphen at the local store, they can easily get some Ilfotec-DDX. I have not tried it, but have heard good reports.

I second thinking about used equipment. You will get a lot more for your money.

 

I suggest calling Jim at Midwest Photo Exchange. Tell him what you are thinking about doing with a view camera, and he will help you make a choice on what might be "right" for you. He knows what he is talking about, is very straightforward, and will give you a good deal. I have purchased lenses and other accessories from him, and have been very happy. Midwest has a wide variety of used (and new) cameras and lenses, so he should be able to provide almost anything you might want. There are other sellers that people have discussed here, like Jeff at Badger Graphics in WI, and Rod at Photomark in AZ. I have not purchased from them, but have heard good things about them.

Try Jim Galvin himself. He advertises in View Camera Magazine. I think he is in the Sacramento area.

Joe,

 

I use a device that is designed to hold a sheet of paper next to your computer monitor, purchased at Office Depot. It has clamps on both ends and a flexible "gooseneck" in between. I clamp one end on my front standard, and hold a 4x5 Kodak gray card that I carry in my backpack in the other clamp. Of course, you could use a piece of black mat board or cardboard instead of the gray card. Then I bend the gooseneck until the card shades the lens without intruding on the photograph.

 

I don't remember if I came up with this one myself, or if I read it on the old large format forum. Either way, it works, and it did not cost very much.

Jason,

 

Give Calumet in Chicago a call, and ask to speak to Jose in the parts/repair department. He has a wealth of knowledge of Cambo and Calumet view cameras and has always been happy to help me with questions on older Caltar lenses and Cambo or Calumet cameras. I was in a similar situation with an older 4x5 predecessor to the 45NX, and he was a great help in identifying the model.

 

Regarding the bellows, my old Cambo bellows made a similar crackling sound when I first racked it out to full extension a few times, but then settled (quieted) down with no cracks or leaks. I have never treated it, but I am sure that Jose can give you a recommendation for treating the bellows.

 

I hope this helps.

I second the use of Diafine, but do your own speed tests. I find that my film speed is lower than those suggested on the Diafine box. Diafine is a 2 bath developer. The A bath has the developer in it, with little or no activator. The activator is in the B bath. No stop or rinse in between. It is also a compensating type developer. The developer that soaks into the film is depleted more rapidly in the highlight areas. When it is exhausted, development stops. There is less silver to reduce in the shadows, so development continues after the highlight development is complete.

 

There are other 2 baths that allow you to develop different films together for the same time. Barry Thornton developed a 2 bath that works nicely with sheet film. A bath: 750 ml distilled water, 6.5g metol, 80g sodium sulfite, water to 1L. Bath B: 750 ml distilled water, 12g sodium metaborate. You can increase the sodium metaborate to 20g for plus development (it works). Another trick for plus development is to intensify the negative in selenium toner diluted 1:1. Time is 5 minutes in each bath for sheet film. 4 minutes for roll film. Here is a good discussion by Thornton: http://www.barry-thornton.co.uk/2bath.htm. Note that the formula changed in his book a bit from this web article. He e-mailed me that the version in the book is the most current. Adams also discusses 2 baths in his book "The Negative."

 

I don't think you will be disappointed with your negatives developed in either developer.

I have a Versalab and it works fine. Periodic HT2 tests bear this out. I think that Photo Techniques magazine ran a review of it several years ago and found that it performed properly to wash prints to what the author considered to be archival standards.

Ron,

 

I can't give you a direct comparison, but I can give you some more information that might help.

 

According to Kerry Thalmann (http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/mid-rang.htm), the Xenar is single coated. The new Geronars are multicoated. The Xenar is a Tessar type design with the same number of air to glass interfaces as the Geronar, which is a triplet design. The multicoating may or may not be seen as an advantage over the single coating.

 

Check out this article: http://www.wisner.com/coatings.htm. There, Wisner says that a single coated lens cuts losses due to surface reflection to about 2% per surface, while multicoating brings losses due to about 1/2% per surface. So, If I understand correctly, according to Wisner, the losses would be 12% for the Xenar, and 3% for the Geronar.

 

The Geronar has a larger image circle (180mm to the Xenar's 173mm).

 

It might be worth obtaining some lens test data from Schneider's website and from HP Marketing Corp. for the Rodenstock (or try Bob Salomon at bob@hpmarketingcorp.com) to do a comparison. This will tell you if the test results show whether the somewhat more complex design of the Tessar type lens results in superior performance over the Geronar in spite of the difference in coatings.

 

Of course, some photographers prefer older design, single coated and even uncoated lenses. It is all a matter of artistic intention.

 

All that having been said, I don't have a 150, but do have the Caltar II-E 210mm f/6.8 version of the Geronar and like it very much.

 

Hope this helps.

Canon FTb purchased in the early 70s, and an assortment of FD breach lock lenses from 28mm to 200mm that I have used over that entire time (especially the 85mm f/1.8). (Plus the Canon F-1 that my Dad bought the year before I bought my FTb.) I still use them today.

 

In 4x5 its a little harder to say. I think I get great value out of every piece of equipment I have. All but one item is used. Perhaps the best deal was the spotless Fujinon W 125mm f/5.6 for $275. A very fine lens that I use a lot. Oh yeah, perhaps the Cambo 45SF that I bought on an on-line auction with enough stuff that I did not need so that as I sell it off the camera will just about cost me $0.

Neil,

 

Here is a summary of what I do based on my John Sexton workshop notes:

 

Make sure the neg is fixed and washed properly.

 

Soak the neg in water for 3-5 minutes

 

Place negative in selenium toner solution at 1:1 dilution. You can use HCA instead of water. I find water is fine.

 

Soak neg in HCA for 3 minutes.

 

Wash and dry.

 

You can also paint the solution on large format negatives with a brush, Q-Tip, or a cotton ball (for large areas). Don't use a wetting agent. Sexton said that this causes unevenness of application.

 

It works great and adds about 1 stop of contrast increase.

Very sad news. Condolences to his family and friends.

Thanks for the response Brian. Sorry for the confusion. Calumet calls a Bosscreen a "Super Sharp Screen" so that is the name it is under on their website. (Back before I bought it, I did not realize it was a Bosscreen. When I went to the store to investigate, I saw "Bosscreen" on the box, and the name of the manufacturer, Stabilix. The one they carry is the version made to fit Cambo cameras, so I grabbed it.) I referred to it as a Bosscreen in my post because that is what it really is.

 

Calumet sells a combination they call a "4x5 Super Sharp Screen/Fresnel Lens Kit." Here is what they say about it: "This combination of our Super Sharp focusing screen and Fresnel lens produces an extremely bright and incredibly sharp image that can't be beat."

 

My understanding of the advantages of a Bosscreen are similar to those you related in your response. That is why I am curious about the combination and Calumet's claims.

 

By the way, I really like the Bosscreen. My curiosity is raised because I just came back from a trip where the light was often pretty subdued, and I was constantly fighting to see into the corners of the screen with my 90, 75, and even my Fujinon W 125mm f/5.6. (And also because if the combination is worthwhile, Calumet has Cambo Fresnel lenses on sale for $79.99.)