adrian_seward

As someone who goes through cases of the stuff...

Gaffer's tape is wonderful stuff and one of the reasons is that it is far less likely to leave

sticky residue behind than any other tape I know. When it does, it leave the whole

adhesive layer behind in a chunk. You can take another piece of tape and pick it up. So

that's great, but only for a certain period of time. After enough time it will start to dry out.

Really old gaffers tape gets hard and stiff and when you peel it of, it will leave behind a lot

of dried up adhesive, and getting that off is no joke.

I doubt that it will take the logos off your camera, and it should peel off very cleanly, so if

you are going to do it for a period of a week or so, I don't think you would have a problem.

If you decide to leave it on for a long long period it could be a disaster.

Also be aware that there are several brands and grades of gaffers tape, and you get what

you pay for.

Mr, Litman,

You started it. We were not discussing your cameras. There was no mention of them.

Can it be said any more clearly: GO AWAY!

I say develop them and see what you get. I'm sure it won't be too bad. Then adjust in the

future. If you're worried it's always better to err on the side of too much development. It

will increase contrast, but that better than getting a negative that's too thin.

I use HC 110 for FP4 4x5. I'm very happy with it. I get nice-looking negatives at about 8

minutes, but I usually go for 10 minutes (dilution B). That is because I an using printing-

out-paper which demands high-contrast negatives. I expose at 100ASA.

I wouldn't worry about switching developers. If you know that you want a specific

characteristic that HC 110 is not good for, then switch. Otherwise, I think it's just a matter

of working with what you've chosen and learning how it's going to work for you. That

learning process will be part of any developer that you choose.

Once you develop a few sheets you will be able to start picking out whether any problems

you see are due to exposure or due to development.

Andrew,

Nice shot! I have a crown graphic, and being able to shoot 4x5 handheld is a wonderful

thing! I agree that it looks like a focus problem, but take some more and see what you

find.

William-

No one asked and we are tired of this. If any of us could afford your camera we would buy

it. I respect the work that you have put into it and have no doubt that it is superior. You

should recognize that the reason people buy other cameras originally came down to cost.

However, at this point I think that anyone who reads what you have to say will not buy

your camera because of it. I wouldn't. If your camera is superior, say so simply and

graciously and leave it at that. As more people get to use it, it will speak for itself. This

harassment is bizarre.

The film was one roll of hp5 and one or two of tri-x. It made my new diafine quite pink,

but nothing that I noticed in the fixer. I can't tell whether the POP is stained or whether it

was actually the emulsion responding to something by turning pink. It's very odd.

I will have to see whether I can reproduce it and maybe narrow down the cause.

I've been using Kentmere printing out paper from Chicago Albumen works, with pretty

nice results. I've been using CAW POP toner from Photo Formulary and either Kodak

powdered fixer or plain hypo.

My most recent set of prints came out with a distinct pink tint in the highlights. Think of

if you put some red that bleeds in with your white laundry-- that's something like what it

looks like.

The only thing that I can think if is that maybe it had to do with the fixer. It was a new

batch of the Kodak, but before I used it for the POP, I put some film in it. The film turned

my developer pink, but I didn't notice any color to the fixer.

Any ideas?

Thanks

I still use a handheld light meter. If the sitaution is really tricky, I might use my Canon EOS

as a meter, but for the most part I just use the meter. I can stick it in my pocket when

travelling light, and it's jsut very convenient.

As far as expense-- I was really broke when I got it, so it's a Sverdlovsk 4 that I got for

$20 from the Ukraine. It far exceeds what I could have hoped for. It's quite accurate, has

a very great field of view (not as tight as a true spotmeter, but fairly tight-- very handy),

runs on pretty much any batthery you cram into it, and for $20 I don't worry about too

much about it.

I've been doing POP too- The Kentmere POP from Chicago ALbumen Works.

As far as the negative, I've found that I can get very nice results from FP4 in HC110. I

meter for ISO 100, and add 10-20% to the development time.

I also have found that I really like the effect of the edges getting more toning that the

center. Seems to happen pretty consistently for me. I'm using CAW POP toner from

photographer's formulary.

When I miss the sun, I've been using the flourescent lights I have for my plants. This takes

forever, but seems to give more contrast. The light has one cool 40w flourescent and one

40w plant and aquarium. Not sure which one is giving a contrast boost. The printing

frame has to be within a few inches of the light to get results, and it still takes at least a

half hour to get good density.

Years ago I was doing salted paper from scratch. I developed a very unconventional

technique, but I loved the results. I was able to print from good but "normal" looking

negatives. I was using _a lot_ of siver nitrate though. I didn't worry at all about brush

strokes, and where the heaviest parts of the coat were I would get an iridescent metallic

look. (I was using glossy paper-- I don't think you could get that with watercolor paper or

anything.) I really liked it. Maybe when I have some more time and space I will try that

again.

and....

Terry is right, it's tough to get a good deal. I got mine on memorial day last year. I think

people were busy doing other things, because no one was bidding. Mine was a real deal

because there were no pictures on the auction, so I was really taking a chance but I'm sure

the lack of pictures was why no one else was bidding very much.

Anyway, my point is that the prices seem to fluctuate in a weird way, so you may get a

deal eventually, but it's not easy. I swear the average price when I was looking for mine

was a lot less than right now. I saw a good looking one at a store yesterday, but I didn't

ask the price. The had a nice busch pressman for $300 also.

Good luck-- hope you find a good one on ebay. That's where I got mine. The two things

to watch for are the back and the shutter. Look for a grafloc or graphic back. These will

take standard film holders. Avoid the graflex back. It takes special holder that are hard to

find. Confused yet? Check out graflex.org. (back are pretty easy to change, but if you go

looking for a graflok back to add to a $100 camera you may find it costs as much as the

camera.)

The other really common thing is for the old shutters to be totally gummed up and

useless. That was the case with mine. Having paid very little, I took my chances and just

sprayed it with solvent and exercised it until it was free. (After removing the lens.) This is

_not_ the right way to fix a stuck shutter, but I didn't have any money left and I figured

that a proper repair cost about the same as a replacement shutter, sooo....

As for film cost... I figure about 75 cents a shot for 4x5.... plus a few cents worth of

developer. Not bad, and you won't be shooting 36 shots at a time like 35mm. Color is a

lot more expensive.

I do the same as Scott. I think this is the most common practice-- Every time I buy used

holders, there is some film left in them. It's always white side out. The empties are always

black side out.

I don't have a good way to differentiate exposed from empty, but that is not as crucial as

defferentiating exposed from unexposed.

Whatever you don't need to think about too much is the right way for you though...

I guess my logic is that film that no light has hit stays clear... white. After light hits it it

turns dark. So there!

It's a good thing I didn't know how much a crown graphic was supposed to cost. I thought

I should be able to get one for $100, so I did. LOL.

My $50 360mm caltar was the ultimate bargain though!

The graflexes really are good for handheld. Don't forget who primarily used these

cameras-- newspaper photographers. They do have limited movements though. There

are some cameras like the Meridian that combine both, but they're hard to find. I would

say start with a crown graphic and later on you can find a camera with good movements.

Once you have yourself all set up to do large format it will be easy and cheap enough to

pick up a monorail camera. You could even save some money by using the same lens on

both cameras. Actually, the main problem you'll run into if you want to use a lot of

movements is that you'll need a lens with good coverage, which means more modern and

more expensive. I know that some people have a lot of tricks for getting the most of the

movements on the graflex, but I gave up and got an old calumet, When I need movements

I use the calumet, When I want to handhold or need portability I use the graflex.

Anyway, I can definitely shoot in five seconds with my crown graphic. You need to be

prepared by metering ahead of time (or just making your best guess) and setting your

shutter speed and aperture. cock the shutter. put your film holder in and put the dark

slide in the handy little clip on the back of the camera.

Now you have two choices. Pre-focus using the distance scale and snap the picture when

the distance is right, or focus using the rangefinder, then compose using the viewfinder

and shoot. With some practice you could learn what part of the frame the rangefinder

sees. Then you could have a good idea what would be in the frame by looking through

the rangefinder and you wouldn't have to move your eye to the viewfinder. That might

work for moving subjects. Maybe I'll have to try it.

Otherwise, if your subject is moving you'll need to do the prefocus. If not, use the

rangefinder. They are very accurate and useful when in good shape. As far as the

rangefinder, there are two common problems. One is that the beam-slpitting mirror loses

its coating. These can be replaced very cheaply. The other common problem is that the

rangefinder is adjusted for a lens other than the one that's actually on the camera. That's

not a big deal. Just takes a little patience to re-adjust. Also, If you don't set the lens on th

infinity stops or if they are in the wrong place the rangefinder won't be accurate. It's easy

enough to set the infinity stops, but if someone doesn't know about that, they may think

the rangefinder is broken when it's fine.

Of course, whan all is said and done, you only get one shot. It takes some time to flip over

the film holder. And that will probably do a lot for your photos.

One thing is that you may get fewer shots of people without their knowing. On the one

hand, they won't know whether you took a shot or not. On the other hand, this thing is

big and conspicuous, and people love to talk about it.

What Mike said above...

Some cameras have some voltage regualtion built in. My canonet is one-- It's nothing

sophisticated, but I can stick any battery in and as long as it's at least 1.35, the meter is

fine. So give it a shot and see what happens. Compare it to a meter you trust. Be sure to

test in both very dim and very bright light.

If it is off, the next question is whether it is off consistently. if it's off by the same amount

in both bright and dim light, you can easily adjust by setting the film speed to

compensate. If it is off by different amounts in bright versus dim light, then you need to

either get the right voltage battery or find someone who has already figured out how to

modify/adjust that type camera.

You never know, you may get lucky. My Yashicamat's meter is hopeless with a wein cell or

with any other cell that comes close to the right voltage. With a 1.5 volt cell it's right on.

Whatever is wrong with the meter seems to be cancelled out by the wrong voltage. Pretty

nice.

Also, if you find that the meter is off with the wrong voltage, but that it is off consistenly

in different types of light, you will want to avoid alkaline batteries. A silver oxide or zinc

cell will have consistant enough voltage for you to compensate with the film speed. An

alkaline would tend to give you a differing error over the life of the battery.

Hmm, let's see....

X-xync is going to depend on what shutter you're using. If you use the leaf shutter in the

lens, it just depends which shutter you have. Some of the olders ones didn't have x-sync.

I have a crown graphic, so I can't tell you much about the focal-plane shutter. The leaf

shutter will be more useful for flash anyway.

As for accessories, if you're useig it like a view camera you'll want a cable release. Try to

screw in into the lens, as the release on the body takes a lot of force. Otherwise, the olny

thing you might want is a meter.

I tried processing in daylight tanks and got a lot of uneven development. I ended up with

the yankee 1/2 gallon tanks and got some old kodak hangers. It's hard to go wrong with

that setup. I develop in my bathroom too. I set the tanks on the edge of the bathtub for

use, and store them under the sink when not in use. Works well enough. I haven't

knocked a tank over yet. You can certainly use tubes-- some people swear by them.

Tanks and hangers were more in keeping with my tiny budget.

The only other thing that strikes me is that you might want to get either a grafmatic or

some regular sheet-filim holders. If you start shooting a lot, you'll end up spending a lot

on those ready loads. Of course, with regular holders you'll be fighting the dust battle.

Anyway, have fun! I love my crown graphic, and apparently everyones else does too. It's a

topic of converation every time I use it. It's obviously limited as a view camera, but it

makes a pretty good field camera, and it's great handheld. If you've got a working

rangefinder you can shoot handheld surprisingly fast and easily.

I'm working with printing-out-paper... I'm sure there are plenty of people doing alt

processes, but, like me, not saying much.

Yes, I should have been clearer. It's all c-41. And it's all exposed. What is a mystery is

what's on it.

So, I've got a bunch of old mystery film in my fridge. I have no idea whether it will come

out, so I want to get it processed CHEAP. Has anyone done the comparison shopping to

see who has the cheapest? I'm thinking negatives only a target/walmart/cvs type place.

Thanks,

Adrian

Am I really the only one who thinks of mesas and canyons and crates marked ACME when

the words "700mph rocket sled" come up? Make sure to get a shot of the pilot before he

realizes he is standing in midair and ought to be falling.

Seriously, good luck.

I say it's hard to beat tanks and hangers. They're cheap, easy and consistent. You can get

4x5 tanks and hangers fairly cheaply, and depending how much film you process, you can

keep the same chemicals for quite a while (if you get tanks with floating lids).

I just keep my tanks full until the chemicals are exhausted. (Replenishing developer is a

little tricky, but fixer lasts quite a while and is easily checked. Stop bath lasts

approximately forever.) That way when I want to develop some film, I just go dunk it.

Nothing to mix or set up. I also don't worry about temperature much-- unless it's really

hot weather, it's always right around 70. My tanks hold 1/2 gallon. If you were mixing

developer fresh for each batch and weren't using all 12 hanger slots, you could mix less

developer and put something in there to take up the extra space.

Sitting in the dark for a little while isn't so bad. A gralab 300 is a good timer for this-- the

glowing face won't fog the film.

I've tried various different daylight tanks, and had a hard time getting even development.

In many cases it just takes too long to get the chemicals in and out. Drums sound good,

but expensive- and the hangers seem so much simpler. Tray developing would be good,

but I was always too worried about scratches.

Are you considering mimicking the lighting that the dance is normally presented in?

The mainstay of dance lighting is lights directly from the side, pretty low. I'm focussing a

dance show just now, and the side lights are at 1, 3, 6 and 8 feet, which is typical. This

give you nice highlighting of the limbs and nice definition.

Hmm. I just got a response from Polaroid. They said they thought it was my holder, but

that they would replace the film anyway. I dutifully began to try to troubleshoot my

holder, but now I can't reproduce the problem. So maybe it was just a few sheets of film?

I don't know.... I'm pretty sure it was not me.

I was hoping to make some polaroid transfers, and I had to give up after five wasted

sheets. The problem is that after i pull out the paper envelope to make the exposure, I

can't get it to re-seat in the metal clip. I have a rather old 545 holder. This happened to

me with sheet after sheet of 59 film, but when I tried some other types I had around, there

was no problem. With the 59, the only way I can get the sheet out of the holder without it

coming apart is to slide the envelope back in as far as I can, remove the back from the

camera, and try to pull the clip up out of the bottom of the holder. If I don't do this, the

clip and negative stay in the holder while the envelope, pod, and positive come out. As I

said, I have some other polaroid and nave no problems. Is this just a bad box of film?

Anyone have any ideas?

Thanks

This is part of what I was saying. It's about the picture. If I had all the money in the world

I would collect beautifully made cameras. I don't, so I have a collection of fairly cheap,

beat-up cameras that work. They all work quite nicely and if I had to replace them I could.

If I had better cameras, I wouldn't keep them in the car all the time, and I would miss a lot

of shots. That's what counts right? You've got to take the camera out and often let it get

beat up if you're actually going to get pictures.