c_p_goerz

I sold both on Ebay in the last year, I don't check pages there too often to see what anyone else is doing.

The Gundlach has a really nice look to it, lots of midtone action.

CP Goerz

I had a Cooke like the one mentioned and it didn't quite do 8x20, there may be versions that do but mine clipped out with an inch and a half vignette.

I have had a 10x12 Series V Protar that covered but the thing about ultrawide lenses on 8x20 is that they don't look that 'wide'. In the end I shot with a series V 8x10(183mm) Protar and that clipped out 2" short and had that stretched look at the edges of the image. The center was a bit brighter so you had to overexpose then underdevelop to try and bring things more evenly about.It really 'looked' wide so was fun to play with.

A couple of lenses that are wider and still cover are the 14x17 Ext WA Gundlach, it had a really nice image tone-about 10 1/2" in focal length. Another lens is the 10x12 Protar as mentioned-they are expensive and only just cover-about 8 1/2" in focal length.

CP Goerz

In addition to the above information..if the image you see is blurry

its because you are using a Zeiss lens, if sharp you have a

Goerz lens closed down. ;-)

CP Goerz

I scan my pyro negs in then drop the RGB to make it a grayscale

then do the contrast and brightness adjustments. If I need to add

print colour after that I change it back to RGB and adjust the

curves.

CP Goerz

I sell a few lenses on Ebay and when I pop a lens without a

flange up its because it came to me like that. I have a gigantic

box of flanges with sizes from a dinner plate down to pinkie ring .

Its so strange but when I go to find one for a particular lens I

have none seem to fit!

Process lenses usually have the flange thrown away with the

heavy and bulky lens plate. The plate weighs about 10lbs and is

machined from aluminum or steel. Older lenses like brassies

lost their flanges in the changing of cameras over the eons. You

have to remember that in those days each manufacturer had

their own specific thread pitch and flange ring size unlike today

where you have just a Copal #0,1 or 3.

I also write in the description that you can call a certain camera

store here in LA. I can assure you they give me no breaks/no

perks/no freebies no nothing. They don't even know I give their

phone number out on the net as far as I know.

They do charge a LOT less than $100+, they charge about $35 or

so if they have the one you need in stock which is pretty good. If

you have to have one made it is a painstaking process and if you

look at it in a 'per hour' way you'll see that even that isn't bad at

$100.

On the rare ocasion where I know I have a flange for a particular

lens I sell them at $25 a pop, hardly making a killing though it

does keep my Ferrari in gas for a day or two ;-)

CP Goerz

Wish I could help but I'm only familiar with yellow spots and

brown stripes, neither of which has ever appeared on a

Rodenstock.

CP Goerz.

With the point of a very sharp exakto knife cut the white part out of

the print and soak it in a weak solution of Spotone, when the

desired colour is reached after a few sessions glue it back into

the print. To get a nice smooth finish take a small tab of Scotch

Magic Tape and lay that over the cut area.

I don't spot prints myself but it seems like a good idea to me!! ;-)

PS:Eddy Weston used some gum arabic in his version of

spotone as it had a glossy finish when dry that matched the

paper surface.

CP Goerz

You can make a sharp looking 8x10 contact print from an

average quality lens so the ultra high resolution may be wasted

unless its enlarged enough. You can miniaturize the details to

the point that they won't be visible to the eye unless you plan to

hand a magnifying glass to everyone who views your

print.Towards that end I would use 4x5 as they can be enlarged

a lot more easily and conveniently that 8x10.

CP Goerz.

You are correct TS! When I first got my Series IV Dagor the iris scale was very badly scratched and the barrel gave no more info than focal length. I took the lens, measured it out and the iris calculated out to F12.5. It wasn't until much later that I managed to get a copy of the Vademecum and saw that it was an F11 lens not F12.5, unfortunatly though that F12.5 figure was burned into my brain and as you can see still pops up!

CP Goerz

Series IV Dagors are the very rare F12.5 versions of the F6.8 or 7.7 series III Dagor. The Series IV was made for process work (flat field). A 12" Dagor will cover 14x17 at F64 so you'll get plaenty of movement on your 8x10.

Berlins have slightly lower contrast but have slightly bigger circles.As soon as I get my darkroom I'll run a few tests and post the results and see if anyone can tell the difference.

CP Goerz

I have a few of those 'new' lenses, they are Goerz Dagors!! ;-)

CP Goerz

35 or 42" Artar, 24" Dagor.

CP Goerz.

There are over 100 different machine set ups invloved in making

holders. As someone mentioned making a camera is easy(just

look at W*$ner etc) how many people actually make holders??!!!

You may want to try Alan Brubaker at www.filmholders.com, I

have some of the first holders he ever made and ten years later

after the abuse I dish out they are still beautiful and functional.

CP Goerz.

Hypergons are very difficult to grind as the glass is so curved etc, The Hypergon isn't the best lens Goerz made, its just the most expensive and best known 'rare' lens. The Hypergon isn't that sharp really. As for best lens Goerz made I'd say The Dagor..no the Artar! mmm maybe the Pantar..Yes...the Pantar!! But wait theres the Trigor and then the WA Dagor...I'm so confused!!!! ;-)

CP Goerz

Gentlemen please!

Let us not confuse a newbie with all kinds of wonderglass that is expensive and ill suited to his first few foundering steps...let us set him on the path to photograhic assurity and greatness! We all know that there is one lens this person will make more good photographs with than any other, its not a wide angle or a tele, its the bread and butter lens that has satisfied so many large format users since the very introduction of its being.

AND to the modern user who asks..nay DEMANDS! a tonal richness that other lenses leave him feeling bereft. A lens that will smile with kind and benign munificence when exposure mistakes and developing errors are all too common. In other words a lens that will make him greater than the sum of all his parts! A lens that has been copied and 'borrowed from' but will still remain the sparkle in all large format photographers eye no matter how jaundiced or world weary.

The lens I know you all know, and love...the lens that you already sense...the lens that EVERYONE has used..The lens that has been used in every portfolio of every photographer for the last 100 years.........the 12" Dagor.

Gentlemen, I rest my case.

CP Goerz.

For small-read short focal length lenses for 4x5, you may want to look for a 105 Staeble or a 135mm Ultragon/repromaster. They are very sharp and have excellent coverage and contrasty too. They sell for approx $30-50 depending on condition. You can get non process WA lenses but you do have to do a bit more searching, I once found a 75mm Goerz Rectagon in barrel for $75 and thought I won the Lotto!

Older barrel WA lenses like Aristostigmats, Velostigmats of series III design are good too, if you like less contrasty images then take a peep at the Extreme Wide Angle designs of Wollensack and Gundlach denoted by their F16 starting apertures-they have wonderful shadow detail and rich midtones but as I said not as contrasty.

Hope that helps!

CP Goerz

The only real difference is the price, B+L Protars I have found tend to suffer less from separation than the Zeiss versions.Not that either company will ever be close to Goerz in quality control but the lesser devil is B+L.

Why do Zeiss cost more? name recognition and status, its certainly not based on the image quality of the lens. Some people just have to have a Louis Vuiton I guess ;-)

Ron W mentioned to me once that B+L took the Zeiss designs and improved them a bit when the patent date came up. He also mentioned to switch the front and rear cells when using a series IV Protar for better edge results, this does not work with the series V or III versions, there is nothing that can be done to a series II to improve it!!.Strange that a lens company gets its lenses backwards but...

CP Goerz

Maybe Ansel never used a Jobo in his 'constant agitation' tests,

did he ever say exactly how he developed that neg? I thought he

developed it in a tray with constant agitation and thats what gave

the overly contrasty look.

I have used tray AND Jobo for years and I LOVE that damn

machine!! I use PMK so it doesn't work for the larger sizes like

8x10 since the developer can splash onto a sheet (Expert

drums-I'm no cheapskate for my film!!)and give little specks, it

doesn't happen all the time but enough to pi$$ me of. Before you

post anything I did use a presoak and EDTA, nothing helped.

Now this is where it gets interesting, a year or so before I finally

bought the Jobo John Sextant did a film development article in

the magazine called Darkroom Techniques, in it he had

developed of film exposed to zone VI or so of a grey card-it was

evenly lit etc. He developed the film in a tray, a Yankee tank, Jobo

and with some contraption he had been cobbling around with. At

the end of the development test the negs were contact

printed..guess which one was the most even...?.... Yes! The

Jobo! It was TOTALLY perfect! I rushed out later and bought one

and I never had such beautiful skies...I had arrived!!!

Tray development is a pain when compared with the Jobo, you

sit in the dark and how that time drags as you slop the sheet

over and over in a tray hoping not to scratch anything, uugh!

There is no way around it for 8x20 etc so I'm stuck and will shut

up about it.

Now to the agitation, I have developed film for less than 5 mins

but I don't really like to, I never did have any problems but you do

get that little nagging voice in the back of your head. I used PMK

at 70 degrees for 7 mins with FP4 it came out great-60RPM by

the way. A film speed boost was provided by adding 1/8th TSP of

Amidol to the working solution prior to tossing it down the throat

of the Jobo. I ALWAYS filled the drum with nitrogen and

displaced the presoak water, this gives a cleaner base to the

film and less fog to print through. The developer comes out like

an iced tea shade as opposed to a heavily oxidized guinness.

If you do use HC110 etc then switch to a lower dilution and/or

mess with the temperature a little. For 'compensating effects' I

overexpose the film by a stop and pull it out the soup a couple of

mins earlier, I find that more controlable than than working it

from the chemistry angle. If you let the film sit in the Jobo forever

it will get contrasty but thats true of tray development too. With

tray development you also run the risk of uneven

development/scratching, and inconsistent results from the

developer heating up from your fingers or cooling down because

of the ambient room/counter temp. The Jobo has a constantly

maintained water jacket thats within 1/10th degree or less and

that keeps the developer/stop/fix and wash water all at the same

temp as well as the film and developer inside the tank itself. Its

very consistent whether Summer or Winter....I just realized I'm

writing an ad for Jobo and they aren't paying me so I'll end right

now!

CP Goerz.

Its just like a Goerz APO Artar in design, you'll get a couple of

inches of rise out of it on 8x10, stop down to 45 for best results in

the far corners to be safe.

CP Goerz.

Shoot it in 35mm would be my best suggestion but as an 8x10 shooter Hurrel used a 12" Turner Reich Triple convertible in an Ilex #5 shutter.

CP Goerz

One little titbit of info I was once given by one of the Zone VI chaps was the identification of a modified and unmodified meter. As you know Zone VI sold the stickers to place on a meter to make them easier to read and as a result many meters may look like a modified version but aren't. Take the meter and look at it from the lens end, the colour of the image from the viewfinder will have a slight blueish look, a non modified meter will have a magenta one. Its slight so may not be the most accurate test but if you are looking for a modified meter then compare it with your own unmodified one. Hope that helps someone.

CP Goerz.

Yes, use a sheet of glass for protection. If you use a loupe it will

scratch the softer surface of the Linhof and you'll end up with little

'black' lines all over the screen, its also easier to clean in case

you sneeze on your groundglass ;-)

CP Goerz.

Depth of field with long lenses is limited even with all kinds of swings etc so you'll end up stopping down to F45 at a minimum, throw on a filter and with some emulsions you are looking at one second, no need for a shutter at those speeds. With a WA or standard lens I can see why you would need shutter but with a longer lens a shutter is expensive and heavy, who needs it!

CP Goerz.

Its all I use! I just can't get a good print from a PMK neg on the (multigraded) stuff and even my pre-PMK negs always have a richer look on the graded.

CP Goerz

Its all I use! I just can't get a good print from a PMK neg on the stuff and even my pre-PMK negs always have a richer look on the graded.

CP Goerz