big toys are better

I've occasionally seen shims to make a 0 into a 00 and that would be better than putting another layer of plate on it. I recall that some of the old Graphic boards had those shims.

I was a little late posting on that M vs X synch. Unless you need to use the old style bulbs, lock it in X.

Glass bottles are the best way to store any of these, but keeping out excess air (as in oxygen) is the real issue. Stuffing your plastic Rodinal bottles into a covered crock or metal can will be a little help if you intend to store for years rather than months. Fixer ought be more stable but also aided by isolation.

I've almost always done semi-stand with diluted Rodinal, usually 1:100 or greater, and with anything from some 35mm but mostly with 120 & sheets up to 8x10. Tank size doesn't really matter much, just be sure you mix well for the first minute or two, and then knock off all of the bubbles. Pre-wetting with plain water will minimize the bubble issue and any uneveness due to developer filling, all of which is why I always do that wetting step first, but some don't bother.

$47 isn't bad given what that is, and if it is designed for the Calumet/Orbit cameras, then it's a good deal

since that particular lens board has a few quirks. Just be sure that the opening is the correct size for your

shutter which could be either a 00 or a 0 opening....

 

You may also need a curved cable release adapter....

As noted above, you do need to compensate for lens extension with any significant degree of closeup. You must also consider the effect of camera movements for the same reason since the film will be farther away from the lens on one side but just the opposite on the other. Adjusting lighting may be the most effective way to correct for differences in light at the film plane due to camera movements but no so for bellows extension where a relatively simple correction in time or aperture is all that is needed. Careful filtering with differential neutral density filters may work as well for the exposure effects of camera movements. If the final setup is complex, both lighting and filtering adjustments may be necessary (and perhaps even darkroom or digital magic still needed), but that is the wonderful thing about product photography under controlled lighting.

Don't forget to try Rodinal with contrasty films such as Ilford Pan F and the slower Efke films. These are things that do well with Rodinal and don't suffer the grain issues that the 35mm format will introduce.

I hope you got what you were looking for. I was just thinking you should have also posted to the Travel forum since that might have gotten more responses.

12" equals a bit more than 300mm, and this is fine for those lenses, but not good for much longer unless you focus will be at infinity (a 300mm lens would barely do infinity with that rig, and not focus much closer). I'll assume you have a longer bellows and rail in hand for when needed.

View cameras are wonderful tools for correcting perspective issues that a fixed lens camera will necessary be

unable to correct.

 

First things first--

 

IF you insist on the tracks being oblique to the camera, then you need to take advantage of an old standard

technique-- putting the planes of desired focus, the lens plane and the film plane all pointing to a common

point-- the farther away the better. IF you are focusing too close AND the angle is too great, then your depth of

field just can't accomplish your goal.

 

Take three yardsticks (or their equivalent) and place them in alignment with those three planes-- the film back

(back standard), the front (lens) standard, and the train tracks. Adjust these until you get them meeting at a

single point, then focus carefully and maximize your f-stop for maximum depth of field. Take careful note of any

focus shifts in the final image that are caused by stopping down the lens, and correct for this.

 

IF you still don't get the tracks in focus, then two more possibilities:

 

Either make the divergent angles smaller (thereby flatter, and thus their common meeting point is farther away),

or add in a second corrective shift by tilting the front standard forward to place the tracks in that plane of

focus as well.

Doing so makes the plane of the "land" that the tracks are on a little bit more within the plane of the lens'

focus plane. Of course, this may then place something else outside the final plane of focus, so be careful.

 

IF you read the books suggested above, this will be easier to understand....

A lot of people in the past had made a special enlarging table with slots in the bottom cabinet that allowed a

wooden panel to be raised and lowered with the reasoning that you got higher magnifications when in the lower

position, albeit with more difficulty in exposing the image. The system was very similar to the common Baker's

Rack, and If you can find one of those, then it will make an excellent frame for a custom made panel that slips

into the slots and holds the paper frame. In a pinch (or by design) you could even use a new baking tray

reinforced with plywood, plus some shimming to keep it locked in place.

 

If you do this, I'd also raise the top of the enlarger's column and set the rack so you can more easily expose

your paper. I'd also take the time and effort to make a stable framework for the entire system, perhaps with

either heavy wood framing or steel, and add something to dampen any vibrations, such as sand within the

framework. That will provide high mass as well as physical absorption of vibrations.

My notch code guide says that Kodak used the wide divot for low volume/special order color negative films, but I'm not sure what the small circular hole might mean in conjunction. You might try emailing Kodak with the question and maybe a good description of the film's physical characteristics.

I suggested some time ago that one could also use ABS tubes and various fittings to make a cheap lens extension.

 

However, your lenses should reach focus for infinity at a film to lens extension somewhere equal to your lens'

focal length, thus you ought not need more than about 375mm of back focus for the longer lens configuration, or

about 15 inches, and less than 10 inches for the 210mm configuration.

Erie Patsellis has the correct answer. The Omegas were usually of lower cost, had some lower quality components

and thus lower functionality, but still used the same lens boards, etc.. In particular, I think there was only

one version of the Omegas that had interchangeable standards and bellows, while the Toyos are generally full

system cameras where a 4x5 ( e.g., the 45C) can be converted to other formats such as 5x7 and I suppose also 8x10

if you wish to use the short rail.

Assuming you are talking about a 4x5 sheet film camera, the 150mm is a good universal lens (something like a

moderate wide angle in other formats), but you probably will want to eventually get at least a 300mm for your

closer shots since that is a moderate telephoto AND can be used as a normal on larger sheets of film (5x7 &

8x10). IF you can afford it, you might also ponder a 400mm telephoto such as the Fuji, Nikon or Schneider

versions as this will be like a longer telephoto-- very useful for those tighter portraits.

 

The 150mm and 300mm plasmats such as Schneider's Symmars are easy to find and quite reasonably priced used, but

the 400mm telephotos will probably be a bit pricier. IF you decide to go with a 400mm, then a 210mm to 240mm will

also be nice to own at some point. Look up past threads on lens choices and cross reference the G-Claron lenses

since they are available in a lot of different focal lengths, including 150, 210, 240, 270, 305 and 355mm

(possibly others in longer lengths). The G-Clarons are a slow process lenses but very small and light as a

consequence. Plasmats will be brighter and easier to use in the studio, but also likely to be more expensive and

less portable should you ever decide to work outdoors.

 

Whatever lenses you get, be sure you can focus the camera with that focal length (measure the maximum draw which

will need to be about 1.5 times the longest focal lengths you are using for portraits). Mine work OK with 300mm

and fine

with anything shorter, but some of the smaller cameras will be hard pressed to focus out far enough to use the

300mm as a portrait lens. A 400mm telephoto design may be a better choice for the more compact cameras if you

need tight closeups without distortion.

No. Omegas take the Toyo boards (6" x 6") and I think the Cambo will be a bit smaller and different in design. If

you want a better camera and still be able to use the old hardware (lens boards mostly), look to the higher end

Omega or the Toyo 45C, etc. Keep in mind that the Toyos are system cameras just like the Cambo, Linhofs, etc.

"It's not just about the grain or sharpness; XTOL will give you better midtones (to the expense of highlights), whereas HC-110 will give you snappy highlights (to the expense of midtones)"

 

I think that just as can be done with Rodinal, HC-110 offers the opportunity to use it at higher dilutions and reduced agitation to reduce the highlight density and improve midtones and shadows. As I have noted about Rodinal, it is the specific combination of dilution and agitation that controls density in the three areas since dilution reduces the developer's highlight activity through exhaustion and agitation increases it. XTOL also offers a bit greater opportunity at dilution, but it has not been tested at the very high dilutions that are often used with Rodinal and HC-110. It also has issues with stability due to oxidation problems-- the reason I no longer use it after one disaster too many.

As a beginner, it makes a lot of sense to start with a couple of forgiving films such as Tri-X or HP-5, and a slower film such as FP-4+ or Agfa 100, and souping in a HC-110 (very easy since it is a liquid stock and can be used at a variety of dilutions). Once you get your exposure and darkroom techniques down, you can try contrasty films like the slower Efkes, Pan F and the like, and I'd recommend trying well diluted Rodinal (also a liquid stock) for those.

 

Tabular films such as Ilford Delta and Kodak TMax need more care in their exposure and development, and so they ought not be part of your first attempts.

 

All of these films currently come in 35mm and 120 rolls.

 

Good luck.

So long as you work from liquid concentrates, you will suffer fewer problems. The highest risks from toxicity come from dust since the chemicals will be quite concentrated, and thus mixing a powered developer is especially problematic in close quarters. If you use HC-110, Rodinal or other developers that come as liquid concentrates you will minimize your risks, and the same goes for fixers, etc. The rest of the issue has to do with cleanliness since dried chemicals can be toxic if they then become airborne, and you should also avoid contact with the liquids when handling film or paper. Some of the older paper developers were particularly toxic, and I think that included the Amidol based developers which are still available from the Formulary.

Silver is toxic to bacteria, so unless you can eliminate it from your waste stream, it will add up. Don't dump any used fixer into it. Rinse water will have some but not so much.

A couple of hours equalizing to outdoor temps will be adequate to prevent moisture issues if you keep the film in a well sealed vapor-proof container. If you put your film in your vehicle first thing in the morning, that ought to be adequate. Hopefully, you will have access to very efficient coolers in your vehicle, or better yet a refrigerated cooler, so that the gear and film won't overheat while in the vehicle.

I seem to recall that someone had at one time made a field camera with interchangeable bellows; perhaps it was an older 4x5 Zone VI or Wisner, and perhaps someone still does make one. Regardless, recessed lens boards are a reasonable solution for many cameras although it makes the lens a bit more difficult to adjust. This should work for many 4x5 cameras and allow lenses as short as 75 or even 65mm, although it would probably be pushing one's luck to mount a 58mm XL Super Angulon on some of the 4x5s.

 

Shen Hao has been discussed a number of times in this forum and their owners seem to be quite happy. Higher quality cameras may have finer fit and finish but most any decent camera can take a good picture in the hands of a competent photographer. Try out some of the options at local stores if you can find them, and hook up with local photographers as well to get more information.

 

I also agree that disposing of your older equipment is a bad decision since you may want to return to it after the large format bug wears a bit thin, and this would make for a costly error. Instead, you might want to start out with a very modest 4x5 package and add to it as money allows. But good luck no matter what you do-- photography is a wonderful passion to pursue.

My first wedding (unfortunately it was one where I was hired by a friend) was a disaster, including a stuck motor

drive release in the middle of the ceremony (the vows), and that had followed a roll of film that jammed in the

camera while taking pictures of the bride getting ready-- all embarrassing and lost opportunities.

 

My next weddings went more smoothly, but I've always tried to avoid doing much flash during the ceremony,

preferring natural lighting if the location allows, and staying a discrete distance away from the parties during

the ceremony. Simply said, those that place the taking of their own pictures well before the sanctity of the

marriage process are rude, and need to be corrected quickly (a small cadre of strategically placed ushers is

useful to prevent a continuing problem, and it would be wise to also place some sort of written notice at the

entrance to the ceremony). The hired help need to understand the ceremony's limits before hand, but follow

general rules of courtesy anyways, all while hoping that a disaster doesn't strike.

I guess it depends on just what you are shooting, and just how high you sit when doing it....

"A 300mm or 360mm will be very useful for general use but neither is a particularly good portrait lens,"

 

Everyone still seems to be pushing the "short" normal of 300mm for 8x10, which I still don't consider to be a particularly appropriate focal length for "portraits", although "environmental portraiture" is a somewhat different animal. A 450mm or 480mm (Schneider, Rodenstock, Nikon or Fujinon in either process or plasmat types) would be a potential compromise, but a wider plasmat or process lens would still remain desirable, something in the 240mm- 270mm range. However, I still like the original scheme better since I think the 600mm Fujinon Compact would be a great portrait lenses for 8x10.

 

And if someone has a 450mm, 480mm or 600mm they don't like and would much rather have a nice 300mm plasmat, I'd consider a trade for my lovely 300mm f/5.6 Caltar-N, a Rodenstock marvel.