bob_salomon

Anyone who knows me knows that my family owns no photographic corporations or other commercial business. The closest would be my daughter and her husband who jointly own their own law firm and my brother who is Chairman of the GovernmentRelations Division of a large national law firm. None of them have anything to do with the companies hat I have worked for. Good try, but always verify your statements and postings. You will notice that all I have asked you is what this announcement is. I posted nothing about you personally.

William, H.P. Marketing was formed out of the remains of Zeiss Ikon Voightlander USA by the former President of Zeiss Ikon Voightlander, Herbert Peerschke. I joined HP Marketing originally as a sales rep in 1978 and then became an employee of HP Marketing in 1980. In 1983 HP Marketing was purchased by Gepe in Switzerland and Herbert Peerschke and his family were no longer part f HP Marketing. At no time have I been related to the Peerschke family. Gepe was then owned by Göeren Petterson and is currently owned by his son Sven. At no time have I believe related to the Pettersons. When Gepe decided to close HP Marketing last year I retired as the company was closed the month after I retired and next month will have been out of business for a full year. So I do not know where you get your information but like many other things, you should verify what you post, otherwise readers may think that everything that you post is accurate and true.

Is this an ad or a testimonial or what?

40.5 is a very common filter size, even today.

You want to focus wide open then tilt and check the spread at taking aperture, which, with most modern lenses, will be 22 for 45.

There is no interlock to release the film advance on a roll back on the adapter.

You don't, easily. It was made to mount a diVital back for a Hasselblad on to a 45

Linhof makes an adapter plate to put Hasselblad 500/2000 backs onto any 45 with a Graflok back.

Works fine if you cut and paste it.

Commas would help.

In the USA to Bob Watkins at Precision in Niles IL. Outside the US check with your Linhof distributor.

The Rodagon WA will out perform the Rodagon assuming a properly aligned enlarger and a glass carrier is used for printing. It is a superior lens.

Joe, you haver never found a Linhof sheet film holder with a pressure plate. What would it push the film against? What you saw was the Linhof Glass Plate/Sheet Film Holder. Not a Linhof Sheet a Film Holder. The Glass Plate/Sheet Film Holder had a spring loaded plate to adjust for the difference in thickness between a glass plate and a sheet of film. Additionally that holder has an ejection lever to push the glass plate or the film sheet part way out of the holder as glass plates are easily scratched when one tries to remove it from a holder. Lastly, both the Glass Plate/Sheet Film Holder and the Zlinhof Double Sheet Film Holders were available either with or without friskets inside the holder that printed a number on the film to identify which side of which holder a shot was taken with. The numbered holders were available numbered from 1 to 12.

Large movements are also very beneficial in landscape as well, if your camera has enough from back parallel movements it is very easy to setup next to the river, slide the front torwards the middle of the river and the back away and appear as if you are in the river. Or set up a shot form a desired point and manipulat the front and back to avoid distracting things directly in front of where the camera is placed. Having maximum movements front and back increases ones versatility.

In order to control shape you tilt or swing or do both on the back.... To control Scheimpflug you can tilt or swing the front or the back... Scheimpflug was an Austrian surveyor who dropped his transit one day and discovered everything was now in focus front to back. From that the Scheimflug rule was developed.

Rodeo Joe, you can not get most of the tilts and swings with a T/S lens. You can control Scheimpflug with one, yes. You will be able to get some shifts out of them indirectly, perhaps some directly but that is where it stops! A view camera with front and back movements allows you to control the shape of an object. With a T/S lens you do not have that control. Back tilts and swings allow you to control the shape of the subject. Front ones do not.

But you will have minimal extension so less bellows factor.

If you want greater then life size then the easiest way is with a lens like the M-Componon or a very good reversed enlarging lens like the Apo Rodagon N series. Linhof used to make a dedicated Macro Lensborad which consisted of the board with a tapered tube mounted on it with a O size shutter on the end of the tube. The later version of this board, with the Copal shutter, accepted standard Leica thread 39mm mounted lenses. The earlier Compur shutter version took special threaded macro lenses like the Zeiss Luminars. Depending on the focal length of the lens magnification of up to 32 times were easily obtainable. However lighting and depth of field is tricky. Linhof used the tapered tube design to allow positioning the lights closer to the lens, if desired. The easiest light would be either a good cold light system like the Kaiser of a good ring light. Using regular large format macro lenses like the 120 and 180mm Apo Macro Sironars or the 210 and 300mm Makro Sironars would limit you to, at best, probably somewhere between 3 to 5x life size but at the cost of great bellows extension and greater light loss then with the enlarging lens route.

William, having a test phase to perfect a product is a very common practice today. Name one, just one, company that does it the way these people are trying to do it. That one is for a company that actually brought a viiable, working product to the market.

Yes, it needs a lot of work. But that is not an excuse for them charging people, a lot of money, to be the testers. Until it is a proven product it should be withdrawn from sale. If they need users to test it during its development then they should supply it a no cost to testers. If they really had resources behind them they would send it to testers, have them sign non- disclosure agreements and pay them for their testing time and efforts. Then they could present a working, reliable product to the market and justify the price.

William, you do know that the main reason that Polaroid ended up going out of business is because the owner of Polaroid was arrested for running a Ponzi scheme, all of his businesses were used to try to repay his scammed victims, all were liquidated and he is in Federal prison. It isn't as simple as 55 just going away!

D means duplication. For MF to FF chip the 75mm 4.5 would be the best, it is also the least popular.

It would be much easier, as well as better, to use an actual duplicating lens like the 75mm 4.0 Apo Rodagon-D or the 75mm 4.5 Apo Rodagon-D or the 120mm Apo Rodagon-D.

Gee, William, I was involved with famous photographers too. Mary Ellen Mark, Richard Avedon, John Sexton, Bruce Davidson and many others where this was not a topic of conversation, never saw any using 55. Also were involved with many of the studios shooting our ads as well as commercial studios and they looked at chromes, not Polaroids.

Which two remarks? That the ISO varies? That the developer doesn't spread evenly? That it isn't usable in the field? That they are selling prototypes?