c_p_goerz

<p>Great article! It worked for me!! Although an old post one one wee tip….to get the front rim off use a rubber stopper, they can be found at beer/wine making stores and come in assorted sizes, they're usually a buck.</p>

<p>Indeed the little ball bearing/detent is TINY! maybe a single MM so its easy to lose, it took me about eight tries to finally seat the aperture ring with the bearing in place so don't give up hope.</p>

<p>Again, thanks for finding a solution to the puzzle, my 35CV is perfect again!! :-)</p>

<p>Although this thread is now ancient history I have to add a very simple and overlooked fact….Ilford Cibachrome/Ilfochrome was a B+W paper. I would make my own developer...a two part developer(farmers/beers? I can't remember but it was two part) that would allow me to vary the contrast from print to print by varying the amount of A and B solutions. I'd use the standard Ilford bleach(one min longer than the advised three for cleaner whites) and then fix in standard B+W rapid fixer. Wash as standard, Voila! I had prints that matched the chromes to the Nth degree.</p>

<p>For some reason when the contrast of the developer dropped the color swings became somewhat tame and easier to control, paper speed went up too. All in all though its a great paper but was expensive as hell and rejects became painful. </p>

A 300mm Artar will cover 8x10 with a TON of movement, even a 10 3/4" Artar covers 8x10 with movement. The red dots came out mid

fifties and were coated and the magnification ratios changed from the standard 1:1 with the non red dots to all different kinds ranging from

1:10 down to 1:2 etc.

Any camera that will make things cheaper/faster for the commercial shooter will always win

hence the success of digital in the pro and amateur ranks. When photography first came

about the 'death of painting' was on everyones lips but artists of any nature will still choose

whatever materials they happen to like the look of or have an affinity for....there are still a

great number of oil-on-canvas folks around even now in spite of a couple of hundred years

of photography.

Thanks for all the kind words and support guys and girls. The whole situation is a storm in

a teacup but obviously not to one person. Hope you are all busy taking some beautiful

silvery pics with some nice Goerz lenses!! ;-)

Hey there,

I have that same set up but it was brought to me in one unit already. I can send some pics

just let me know what you want a look at. Just contact me off the website at my standard E

mail address.

All the best,

CP Goerz/dagor77

Go ahead Dave, tell everyone what happened or are you more interested in just throwing

mud?

CP Goerz/dagor77/Andrew Glover

I was afraid of that, the easel I have has no grooves on the underside, its smooth. I think

its not the right model for this enlarger. Thanks for your help though!

Hey there,

I picked up a nice old Focomat 1 today and the baseboard has a series of grooves in it, what are they

for? As a follow up question...the enlarger came with its seemingly original easel which is a chunky

8x10 two bladed affair, does this 'clamp' down on the main baseboard in some manner? I can't for the

life of me see how it can since there is nothing to clamp onto on the easel...anyone out there have any

ideas?

Thanks for any help!!

Projection lenses tend to have sharp centers but the softness rapidly increases as you

move away towards the edges of the field. Portrait lenses (generally) are evenly soft all

over and this softness can sometimes be adjusted through aperture opening and closing

or in some cases through adjusting the spacing of the elements(Like the excellent Vitax).

As mentioned most projection lenses have no irises so you would have to have a slit cut in

the barrel ,between the cells, and slip in a waterhouse slot. Its not that tricky and you do

get some interesting effects...especially if you use slots with holes cut like an Imagon or in

a star shape etc.

I did the same test that you did before choosing a format, I cut out a sheet of paper to the

7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 format size. One look at the 8x20 format was enough for me to

see it had a good fit with my eye, it was a no-brainer...for me. Everyone shoots different

subjects in different styles and has a different idea of what 'fits' with their eye so there is

no right or wrong obviously.

I buy/bought film from PhotoWarehouse and J and C. I far prefered the J and C film to

Photowarehouse as that film seemed to have a number of random faults that were

maddening to say the least. I have a pretty good stock of film and have given up shooting

two negs of a subject so find I am buying less as time goes on.

As to lenses, this is probably the tougest part of the whole thing, 7x17 can use just about

any lens made for 8x10 with the exception of the WA's. A 14" lens on 8x20 does look

pretty wide and there are a number of them out there that can do the job. A good 12" is

the Series V Protar, though Protars are not my favourite lens design they are the only way

to cover big sheets at extreme angles.

One advantage of the 8x20 I feel is just its size, by the time you trim the edges of the

clear film from the contact print and possibly any extra cropping a 7x17 is now a 6 1/2 X

16 1/2. The 7x17 format 'to my eye' became too small while the 8x20 still retained its

integrity, it really has to come down to what your eye sees, don't think about weight or

lens choice etc.

No matter what camera you carry it will ALWAYS be too heavy! ;-)

I have an Agfa Duoscan T1200 that can take up to 8x10 negs/chromes and have always

been happy with it. I've seen them on Ebay for $50, they do need a SCSI connection but

you can buy a Belkin adaptor on Ebay too for about $20.

The lens will throw a circle a bit larger than 17" I found, the one that sold was the last

'boxed-as-new' I had, the others are just used. The F32 max is a pain but there are tech

guys out there who can adjust the iris so it'll close down more which may be someething

you can look into, either that or replace the iris yourself with one that gives a stop more to

your liking(Edmunds Scientific has a bunch).

CP Goerz

hey there,

The 19" APO Te$$ar wasn't the only one I've tried, trust me on that. APO Tessars according

to my process camera buddies are a complete joke, no-one in their right mind used

them...at least not anyone who cared about their work/customers. I don't imagine and

never would give myself any where near the amount of credit possible in being able to

affect the price of lenses, there are just too many out there and too many people who like/

dislike certain lenses/designs/makers etc. Peoples tastes don't just stop at that second

cup of coffee, it runs to socks, colour of car and all the way down to Carl Zeiss lenses. ;-)

I think its more fun to describe (what many believe is the greatest lensmaker in the world)

CZ the way I do, surely they have made a few clunkers haven't they? I've seen plenty of

them come through my hands, separation all over the place etc. Prior to gathering all the

Dagors in the world to one spot-my place! I shot and collected Protars and all things Zeiss.

It wasn't till I used a Dagor then an Artar did the blinkers fall away from my eyes! A

revelation of optical glory flashed before me in a clear, sharply focussed and brilliant blast

of apochromatically corrected light the likes of which hasn't been experienced by more

than a handful of fellow converts who were brave enough to admit that they were wrong to

follow false prophets. :-)

As for my incorrect spelling, whew! I cringe at some of my own mistakes when I reread a

description later on!! I'm not sure how you manage the two dots over the name, I'm not all

that computer savvy, I know enough to get by and thats about it. Quite a shameful

admission from someone who gets a good part of their income from the keyboard :-)

Anyone is indeed welcome to write awful things about Dagors and Artars, but as we all

know it would indeed be an incredibly fanciful task for a realistic and logical brain to

accomplish :-)

All the best for 2006 to all!

CP Goerz

Glad you like the descriptions :-)

The last time I used a tessar was when I had just started with 8x20 about ten years ago

and borrowed a 19" Apo(Ahh ha ha ha!) Tessar, its was terrible. I say with pride that I do

not own nor have ever kept a tessar in my camera bag. Any tessars I have are on a very

fast track to the junk pile for Ebay, I keep myself warm and cosy by surrounding myself

with Dagors and Artars....and Artara ;-)

CP Goerz AKA dagor77.

Shot all three, the 600-800-1200. Very Nice glass, good coverage given the design.

CP Goerz.

A well known car photographer I know never uses readyloads on a windy day as the

vibration from the sleeve caused the film to move and therefore blurred the shot.

Thats his experience...just thought I'd mention it :-)

CP Goerz

One type of glass you shouldn't wash is the Deardorff gridded type, the grid isn't a resist

applied to the glass its varnish applied after grinding/etching so when you pop it in the

soapy water all the grid wears off...take it from someone who knows firsthand!!

I have cleaned plenty of other types with no problem, In addition letting the glass air dry

leaves fewer marks, drying with a paper towel can leave wee bits that get stuck to the

frosted side, if the last rinse is in hot water it speeds up the drying, to get fancy pop a few

drops of photoflo in the water so you don't get streaks/drops. Hope that helps!

CP Goerz.

The lens was finally completed on September 23rd at 3.47pm 1903. The final optical

bench test was given by Otto Plankshaft who deemed it above average and gave it his

stamp before it was sent to the shipping department. Otto had just been given the news

that he was the proud father of twins and he was allowed to leave work early. Some

anecdotal evidence does mention that Emil von Hoegh slapped him on the back and called

him the true 'double' anastigmat and his nickname from that day was 'doppeldaddy'.

The lens was then sent via steamer to New York where it was coupled up to a shutter

about thirty years later. The lens has seen action in both world wars and was used as both

a portrait lens and as a landscape lens used for battlefront recon. A shellburst close by did

some damage(during WW1) to the front ring that was replaced at the factory free of charge

since the owner in the US was an expat with some connections in the food distribution

services for the British troops.

My records after 1950 are a bit sketchy but I hope that helps!

CP Goerz

Buy some large sheets of archival paper and cut them with a bandsaw in the shape of a

foldover and save a ton of cash and avoid the laminating problems you sometimes get

with longterm storage of LF negs.

CP Goerz

Ansel always said that his 4x5 negs were sharper than his 8x10 negs.

CP Goerz.

And lets not forget the Rollei SL66 which has rollfilm convenience and rather nice lenses in

conjunction with a front end that has movements. Its an excellent compromise and are

relatively cheap given other choices like the Fuji 6x8 which is larger and requires

batteries etc.

CP Goerz

I was going to use a knife but thats in my sock ;-)

Thanks for the info on contacting Leica directly, funnily enough thats the last place I

thought of looking!

CP Goerz.