pete_caluori

Greetings,

I concur with most of the advise given so far. I have the Photo Trekker AW, but have no expereince with the PRO (it didn't exist when I bought mine.)

You'll have no problem fitting the equipment you listed in the Photo Trekker. The easiest way to carry a tripod is to mount it on the side of the pack using straps (not supplied with the pack) If you mount it on the bottom, it will not be very stable. You can fit an extraordinary amount of gear in and on the pack if you pack it properly, but with that said I find this pack extremely uncomfortable for the long haul. I use mine strictly for transporting gear on planes, cars, busses and the occasional short (1 mile) walk. When I'm really going on a hike, I use a real backpack and pack my gear in bags, clothing, etc for protection.

The Photo Trekker will conform to carry on standards, but not when fully loaded. The outside pockets will probably need to be empty in order to truly conform. A few years ago, some airports had templates surrounding the x-ray machines and a fully loaded trekker wouldn't fit, but with the pockets emptied no problem and it easily fits in the overhead storage.

For reference, mine is loaded with the following: 4x5 Canham DLC with Cambo reflex viewer. 135mm Schenider APO, 72XL Schneider, 210mm Rodenstock, 305 APO Nikkor and 159 Wollensack all mounted on boards. Additionally, I carry a Hasselblad 500CM with 50mm, 80mm & 150mm lenses. Two light meters, extra Hassy back, lots of filters and a bunch of other miscellaneous stuff. I don't always carry a Polaroid back and film/QuickLoads, but when I do it gets straped to the outside of the pack. I can fit it into the pockets, but then I have to rearrange stuff.

Regards, Pete

Ake, the image I posted is not an accurate representation of the light fall off characteristics of this lens. To answer your question, the fall off is not significant. That's not to say there isn't some, but it's not accurately represented in the image I posted. I would not hesitate using this lens on 8x10 and plan on getting one.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

Rob wrote: "For micro regulation as with E-6 you might need the cold water anyway, so the coil never overreaches the optimum temp."

I have been using a CPP for 6 years now and have processed countless sheets of 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 E-6 and C-41. As long as the the ambient temperature is several degrees below the processing temperature, the cold water never comes on - at least that's my experience.

As Robert stated, the unit can be brought up to temperature quickly by adding a significant quantity of hot water. If you need to drop the temperature then place ice cubes in a plastic bag, or freeze a Jobo bottle filled with water, and place this in the processor.

I highly recommend using the Expert drum (3010) but that limits you to 10 sheets per run. If you're processing lots of film, this will take time. Good Luck!

Regards, Pete

Hi David,

Here are corner and center closeups, but I don't know if they'll help. This shot was taking between rain drops and it was composed and focused very quickly, with little thought given to accuracy. The goal of this excercise was purely coverage, nothing else.

Regards, Pete<div></div>

Greetings Jay,

Yes, I have the 8105. It's not easy to describe in words, but I have photo copies. Drop me a line with your snail mail and I can send them to you.

Regards, Pete

There was no center filter used for this shot and yes, there does not appear to be any noticable fall off. Focus was very close to infinity, if not at infinity. I should mention, that the lens I used actually covered at f22 1/3 to f22 1/2, but I shot it at f32 just to be absolutely certain.

I will try and scan the upper right corner to check sharpness, but I wasn't concerned with sharpness when I took this shot, only coverage. It was a bit windy, so the trees may not have been still during the exposure. I'll try it tonight and let you know.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

A few weeks ago, I posted an image that I took with a friends 110XL

clearly showing that it does not cover 8x10. Well I'm embarassed to

say that I neglected to see that my friend had a step-up ring

permanently mounted to the lens, which resulted in severe

vignetting. I noticed this after I received numerous replies from

folks indicating their 110XL's did in fact cover 8x10.

The proof is in the print and since I posted an image showing that

it did not cover, I thought it only fitting that I now include one

that shows it truly does. This is quick image of my friend in his

back yard in between rain drops. It was taken with the same 110XL,

only this time the step-up ring was removed and it was taken at

f32. Sorry for my previous, inaccurate post!

Regards, Pete<div></div>

Thanks for the info Mark. I develop mostly sheet film, but the few rolls of film that I've developed had very good, distinct edge markings. I'll keep this in mind for the future.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

Assuming you are using roll film, it's very easy to determine if you have underexposed or underdeveloped. The edge of roll film contains the emulsion type and frame number, which are formed as proper exposure at the time of manufacture. If those marking have good density (compare it to a good roll) then you development is O.K. and you underexposed. If not, then you experiencing undevelopment.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

I just mixed some using 0.2g, which I measured on a calibrated Accu Lab Scale.

Regards, Pete

Greetings Maia,

A couple of suggestions: Hard water can and usually does result in mineral deposits on film. A water softner would help, or you could use some Calgon. I don't know the dilution for the Calgon and it is available under the more generic chemical name, which escapes me at the moment, but I'm sure someone will chime in.

30 minutes is a long time to soak in a wetting agent (LFN.) Usually the wetting agent is the last step and only requires a minute or two. When you remove the neg from the wetting agent, lift it very slowly from one edge. This allows any air bubles to remain in the surface film of the water and not adhere to the negative. Hold the negative by the edges and attach a dry clothes pin, or other mechanical devise to hang the negative. If you dunk the clothes pin in water it will drip onto the negative as it's drying, so it's imperative to use a dry clothes pin or hanging devise. Good luck!

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

You can get all sorts of step wedges from Stouffer graphics, both transmission as well as reflective. http://www.stouffer.net/

Regards, Pete

Sandy's comments are interesting and something I'll have to test. I recently developed some 11x14's in ABC Pyro (Michael Smith's formula) and they appear quite different from either Rollo or PMK; hardly any visible stain. Free time is at a premium, so I haven't had time to print these, or check them on a densitometer; nor have I had time to give PyrocatHD a try, but it's on the list.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

I use Rollo Pyro in a Jobo and wash film for 20 minutes, with excellent stain. I do believe stain builds the longer it is in the wash at least that's what I've read, but I haven't tested it myself.

All I do is change the water every two minutes or so and let the processor turn. I haven�t built a film washer yet, but when I do I�ll transfer the film to it so I can free up the processor. For ULF negatives, I periodically shuffle through a tray, changing the water now and then.

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

I know that Phenidone does not keep well in solution, but I was

wondering how well it keeps in the dry power state? TIA!

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

I've been using TF-4 for several years and find it has a long working life. The easiest way I've found to check its activity is with a small piece of unexposed, undeveloped film. Just like you should check your fixing time, you can check the activity of the fixer.

I have found that fresh TF-4 comes close to clearing the film in 15-30 seconds. After using it several times, I'll check again. If the time changes drastically, then I figure the fixer is exhausted and change it.

Regards, Pete

Greetings Dan,

Other than the previously mentioned considerations for UV and light, there is no change in development required for altitude. I live at, and process all my film at 6700 feet and make no changes in development for the altitude. Bread is a different story and if you want the absolute best, you are better off making it at or close to sea level and in a more humid environment.

Regards, Pete

Well, I'm quite embarrassed that I didn't catch this the first time I used this lens. Dan, and everyone else that said the 110XL would cover 8x10 are 100% correct - it DOES!

My friend uses his lens on a 4x5, so coverage is more than enough for his purposes. He has a step-up ring permanently mounted so that he can use filters without scratching the front element and this is what caused the vignetting. At f32 the 110XL fully covers 8x10! I took one shot with it (nothing great, it was raining) and will post a pix under a new heading to vindicate Schneider. This is an amazing lens; one that I will be getting soon.

Thanks to everyone for your comments and suggestions!

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

While I only do 11x14 at the moment, the vacuum frame is the way to go. You might be able to find one cheaply, by searching the printing (not photography) categories on eBay. NuArc, as well as others made these devices. The one I use is built in to the NuArc UV exposure unit and it only takes a few seconds (5 or so) to pump down.

Regards, Pete

Again I thank everyone for their comments. I will indeed see what's wrong with this and report back. It never dawned on me that the image I took doesn't even come close to the stated specs, so I to am curious... Several of my Lenses are Schneiders and I personally think their wide angle offerings are superb.

As for the seperation in the sky, that's a result of Azo and the light the morning it was taken.

Regards, Pete

I can't believe all the folks that are using this lens with success! I spoke to my friend and he told me that he acquired the lens in 1999. I'm going to try the lens again, but it may be a week or two before my friend and I can hook up. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks for all the replies!

Regards, Pete

Greetings,

I'm glad to hear that many of you have 110's that do cover. The lens I used was indeed a 110XL (that belongs to a friend) and no filter was used. The sharpness of this lens is quite amazing, right out to the corners.

Greetings,

There have been posts in the past that indicate the 110XL can cover

8x10 when stopped down. Granted, the specifications for this lens

clearly indicate that it will not cover the 8x10 format, but many

lenses cover more than their specifications indicate.

Dan Smith recently replied to a post indicating that his lens does

cover 4x10 and barely covers 8x10 when stopped down. I don't doubt

Dan's claim, but find it interesting, because the one I used clearly

does not. I know this is common with older lenses (i.e. Dagors) but

I would think that a modern lens, made by one of the foremost

manufacturers of LF wide angle lenses to be manufactured to a higher

degree of consistency. I guess this isn't true, becuase the proof

is in the print.

This image was taken with a friend's 110XL on 8x10 and it was shot

at f45, the smallest aperature, and at less than infinity, meaning

it would have had even less coverage at infinity. It's contact

printed on Azo and it has white borders, because of my contact

printing frame. If you look closely, I've scanned the entire sheet

of paper and this lens would not cover 4x10. Just curious Dan, but

I'd like to know the serial number range of your 110XL?

Regards, Pete<div></div>

Hi Ray,

I not sure how to answer your question, but I use the 72XL and it's an incredible lens! I've never used the 75, so I can't compare. I suggest you rent one, or find someone in your area that has one and give it a try for yourself.

How sharp? I don't shoot resolution test targets, but two shots come to mind. One was inside an abandoned mill taken at f16 with a 6 minute exposure: the lettering on century old machinery 75 feet away is perfectly readable and crisp. Another shot of a canon in front of an old church: the canon was less than a foot from the lens and the church was 300+ yards away. Every nuance of rust on the canon's muzzle is perfectly sharp and flaking white wash on the church also crisp.

There's a lot more to an image than sharpness, so I wouldn't obsess about it. If you're looking for a lens with incredible coverage and gobs of movement on 4x5, you won't be disappointed and no, I don't have any affiliation with Schneider. Good luck!

Regards, Pete