big toys are better

The Nikon M series is indeed listed as 4 elements in 3 groups while the Apo-Ronars are 4 elements in 4 groups, but I thought I had a grapic comparing the Ronar and Nikon cells which showed them to be very similar (the Nikon being nearly symetrical). But I can't find it at the moment and I also can't even find a graphic of the Nikon M, but it does appear the Nikon M isn't symetrical.

 

Still makes great images with low distortion!

Oh, and Larry-- just about anything in the hands of an expert can make a nice image for low rez digital presentations. What makes for a great image on large silver or even digital presentations is adequate information in the image, whether in pixels or grains of silver. I've seen many original images in original form, including Ansel Adams' work such as his 16x20 enlargements of Moonrise over Hernandez. Detail counts, and that is what fine grained films do best when you start to enlarge beyond a postcard image.

 

In 35mm, and I do have lots of 35mm chromes and B&W negs, I was always happiest with the finest grained films I could use, most often Kodachrome 64 and either Pan-F or FP-4. I have rarely used any film at a rating faster than 100, and with the exception of fine grained films like my FP-4+ and remaining stocks of Afga 100 being pushed a bit to raise contrast, this is still true. I will admit to rarely using some Ektachromes at 400 and even 800-1000, or a few highspeed CN at 1000, and even TX and HP-5 at 1600, but these are rare and mostly learning lessons. The more I work with very large sheets, the more the 200-- 400 speed films begin to make some sense, but not enough to ignore much less abandon my fine grained favorites.

Ryan appears to be using a modified "stand" technique with diluted D-76 that I use more brutely with Rodinal on fine grained films. By this I mean his high dilution reduces the sodium sulfite concentration and both its sovent action as well as its preservative action. In doing so, the longer development time doesn't result in too much softening of the grain, and the reduced concentration as well as softer agitation allows the shadows to catch up to the highlights.

 

One has to be careful of silver replating due to the solvent action, and bromide drag as well, although his suggested careful agitation should prevent both. You might also be successful in stretching out the agitation to 2 minute intervals, but this increases the risks of replating and drag already cited.

 

Although it may have a somewhat adverse affect on the graininess of the images, a slight bit of overexposure might also be helpful. The cure for this, of course, is exposing a finer grained film.....

Thomas may well have hit the nail on the head, although not many films have a blue base. As I noted, if the final rinse water was still tinged blue, then there was some other issue. And as suggested before, a prerinse will remove most of the antihalation dyes and it should all have disappeared even before the fixer goes in. Thus even the fixer ought not show a blue tinge, much less the final rinses.

 

What is curious here is that Ralf stated that ALL of his films suffered this problem: "This can happen to different emulsions (Ilford, foma etc)" IF so, then overall technique needs to be carefully analyzed.

Unfortunately, those weren't the kind of responses I'd hoped for.

 

First of all, I'm not looking for an overall intensification process per se, nor is this designed to repair a failed exposure. I'm pondering the physical chemistry aspects which affect the diffusion of the selenium reagent into a negative and thus allow the creative photographer to target particular aspects of the image, just a careful development can selectively impact highlights, midtones or shadow areas. This can be accomplished with a toner just as a developer such as Rodinal works, although I had hoped to hear a few comments about variations in color caused by various dilutions of the selenium reagent. Obviously the selenium will only bind previously fixed silver so the deepest aspects of the shadows can not be affected by this method although a "tanning" method might have some success.

 

Secondly, I'm not at all convinced that Kodak and Ilford have so well perfected the layering of silver onto an image to the exclusion of those that would put more silver into the gelatin. In fact, the maximum density that a negative can hold is largely determined by the silver content that is fixed in place, and while this is not formed by a totally direct correlation between silver content and light exposure, the more silver to activate and the more light hitting it, the more silver there is to be "fixed". Thus a film like Efke 25 which has lots of very small silver particles will have particular characteristics that may be desirable. I'm also reminded that there is a love-hate relationship between many photographers and the tabular grained films which are somewhat intolerant to mistakes in exposure and development.

 

So Pico, what exactly were your experiences with selenium toning? Have you tried it with the very fine grained films like Pan-F+ and Ekfe 25, and in particular with sheet films like the Efke family? thanks!

I was just thinking about the possibility of using selenium toning to extend the

overall tonal range as well as selectively impact that tonal range in some of

the current crop of Eastern Eurupean films like the Arista, Foma and Fotokemica

offerings at Freestyle, and this doesn't appear to have been discussed before.

I'm particularly interested in hearng about anyone's experiences with the

selenium toning of the Efke 25 film since it and Ilford's Fan-F+ are just about

the last of the really fine grained traditional films with normal tonal ranges,

but the other Efke films are also interesting given their richness in silver and

the potential of selenification of the silver to selectively alter the tonal

characteristics of final negative. Arista and Foma apparently aren't so rich in

silver but knowing more about them from those using them is of great interest as

well.

 

I say selectively above since I like to control my sheet film development in

moderately to highly diluted Rodinal to achieve particular contrast

characteristics, and the dilution of the stock selenium solution for toning

should also allow one to concentrate tonal intensification in either the more

highly silvered areas or with greater dilution to do more so in the midtones.

This hopefully will be nicely apparent with the highly silvered and very fined

grained Efke 25, and I'm sure it will work to a lesser degree with Pan-F+.

Need fine grained and sharply detailed images of superb quality? Try Ilford Pan F or Efke 25 in Rodinal at dilution rations of 1:50 to 1:200 (push slightly to increase contrast without adding too much grain, or use your film at about 80% of rated speed and the developer at the higher dilutions and with longer times between agitation to conquer contrast issues). That will give you something spectacular to scan with your new Plustek 7200.

It does sound like incomplete washing or contaminated chemicals, so it is probably time to mix up some fresh chemicals. The suggested pre-wash step isn't absolutely necessary but I do routinely use one to ensure that my developer then slowly and evenly diffuses into the film (always a good idea for tank developing). I also always use my developers diluted so they aren't reused, and make up my Photoflo fresh in distilled water as my final step (and also at about half-strength), then discard it after use-- SO NO SPOTS. You probably should use a hypo-clearing agent (sodium sulfite) step as well before the final wash and photoflo steps. IF THESE FINAL TWO STEPS STILL SHOW COLOR WHEN POURED OUT THEN THERE IS PROBABLY SOMETHING WRONG IN YOUR PROCESSING TECHNIQUE.

If cost is not an object, and especially when you will be hiking around with your gear, a heavy duty 13 or 15 series Gitzo tripod made from carbon fiber is a great choice for the 8x10 (e.g. the 1348 or 1548), although any good quality heavy duty tripod will work well. If you need lots of leg extensions those tripods also come in a "Giant" version. Gitzo's heads are fine but there are other choices which I'm sure you'll hear about. I use a Bogen 3057 head with the large camera base on my view cameras since I have other Bogen heads which use the same interchangeable hex-style camera bases.

Although I concentrated on the issues of an 8x10 camera, I guess I should also note I suspect a 4x5 camera is probably more practical for shooting artwork because of the film and lens issues an 8x10 camera creates. Tungsten balanced film is disappearing in general and may already be gone for 8x10, and tungsten film is probably the best choice for shooting artwork. And as noted by others, large and medium format digital scans may soon replace film for many purposes, and in time essentially elimiate Large format color film altogether while B&W struggles to survive.

Lot's of great information coming out here! I'd agree that the various "process" type lenses for view cameras vary in design and characteristics, just as the "macros" for 35mm and MF vary in design. The newest "Apo" designs are certainly better corrected than even just slightly older designs, but I'm not convinced that the absolutes are so noticable as to demand their use. They also tend to be huge, heavy and expensive even if money is not an object.

 

And unless the work to be photographed is close to the same size as the film, why would a macro lens be necessary? However, process lenses are certainly an apt choice for artwork, and I still believe that a roughly 2X normal focal length is best for most artwork (thus 300mm for 4x5 and 600mm for 8x10), and this will be particularly true for three dimensional artwork. This makes the use of modern "Apo" Sironars and Symmars and similar lenses something of a challenge since those longer focal lengths are not generally available. However, as Michael Briggs pointed out, Ron Wisner's page on flat field lenses implies that the narrow field process lanses such as the Ronars are cetainly useable for high quality closeup work as are the wide-field process lens and their equivilants (G-Clarons, Nikon Ms, etc.).

 

Such lenses are commonly, but not always, symmetrical in design, just as some modern "macro" lenses are often not really syummetrical. The Nikon M and Apo-Ronar are similar in design (4 symmetrical air spaced) although the Nikon M has wider coverage but not as much as the G-Clarons. I believe the modern Fujinon 600mm "C" series would be quite appropriate for this task on an 8x10 camera (and possibly also the most easily available non-telephoto 600mm design) but the Rodenstock 600mm Apo-Ronar might be an even better choice here optically since its coverage at infinity is not at issue for this work (it also covers 8x10 and perhaps even 11x14 but not as well as the Fujinon). Finding one in shutter is something of a task but the much more common barrel mounts can be done in shutter by Grimes, etc.. I do seem to remember that Nikon has made some 600mm process lenses in the past but I haven't seen one advertised for sale in some time. Lens multicoating is also beneficial although not a necessity, so the older single-coated designs including the G-Clarons would work just fine since as also pointed out above, careful light control is a necessity if you want good results (and yes, dual lights & polarizers are important to minimize evidence of highlights and shadows from surface texture of paintings, etc.). However, I think the G-Clarons (as do many process lenses and the Sironars & Symmars) top out at around 450-480mm.

 

Along with that is matching the film to the light. If using tungsten lighting, it is best to use film designed for that light rather than heavy filtering. That is a lesson that should not be forgotten since correcting an image shot under the wrong color temperature wasn't easy years ago and I suspect it still isn't something that can just be dialed in. I think Kelly Flanigan hit the nail on the head as far as what techniques are most appropriate for the best quality preservation of the original object on film, with scale and color indicators mandatory.

 

I'll hope that more postings on this subject are made since the hardware and techniques are applicable to other issues in photography.

You'll need the 80 series as well, and perhaps some specialty filters for fluorescent, mercury and sodium vapor lighting, plus some CC filters to further correct for mixes of natural and artificial lighting.

 

A color meter will make this all much more obvious than plain old eyesight, but your film will really tell the tale. Good Luck!

Ilford's FP4+ is probably the very best all around film, but each person will have their own likes and dislikes. Efke's films are decent films, with its 25 speed film probably unique in today's film world, and while its quality control is not as good as Ilford or Kodak, you certainly get what you pay for if not quite a bit more.

I'm hearing that the CN world is rapidly collapsing due to lack of use by both amateurs and professionals, and LF films are the worst, with even 4x5 CN now hard to get developed by labs.

 

Chromes seem to remain the best bet for color work although IF you can find a lab to process your CN sheets then it certainly has advantages.

Ilford's FP-4+ is hard to beat as an all around film so long as you don't need speed, while Tri-X and HP-5+ both have their advocates for higher speed film.

 

The Efke line of films are popular due to their lower cost yet higher silver content. You might want to try their 25 speed film to see if this works for you as its characteristics are rather unique and quite nice for digital scans.

I think the most obvious and simple answer is that you need a flat field lens with its best performance not necessarily within the macro range, so a good quality general purpose macro lens would certainly work for 35mm and MF, while a modern multicoated process type lens may be the solution for a sheet film camera.

 

I'd also aim for longer than normal focal length, so if shooting 4x5 sheet film I'd look at the Nikon 300mm M, or the Fuji "A" or even "C" series which I recall are the Nikon's equivilant, and if shooting 8x10 I'd use at least a 450mm and preferably a 600mm (A Fuji "C" would be my choice for the latter). A Schneider HM was also recommended but aim for longer focal length since this will have the advantage of flattening perspective on any physical relief on the artwork.

 

The question I have, however, is just why do you need the highest possible quality as defiend by film format? My prior experience with shooting artwork tells me the hardest thing to accomplish is getting the colors of the art to come out accurately in the finished image, and that has little to do with the camera and lens. I'd strongly suggest working out that problem with small format film, then switch to MF or LF if that is what is needed for the ultimate quality you speak of.

Sanders is generally correct about filtered B&W images on the lenses from the golden age of photography (1940's to the 1960's) when lens coatings were limited to single layers and sometimes even flaked off-- the images are usually not much different than a decent modern lens. IN color, however, minor differences are more easily seen, such as reduced contrast and color fringing at higher magnifications due to non-apochromatic focusing. There were some really superb lenses made in the 50s, 60s & 70s for larger formats such as 8x10 (Red Dot Dagors come to mind) but the Commercial Ektars and some Raptars, etc. are also very well regarded for the larger sheet film cameras.

 

Use of barrel lenses alone or with Packard shutters is possible (many of the longer focal lengths require Packards which are still being made) but unless you are on a really short budget, there are also many decent internal leaf-shuttered lenses to work from. Stay away from the Optars and such that were designed for the Speed Graphics and their siblings, and look instead for the "commercial" lenses that were designed for view cameras. You could also pick up a really good modern 180mm-- 210mm lens such as a Nikon W or Schneider Symmar-S for $300--$500, and NEVER regret the purchase. There are also repo/process lenses such as the Process Nikons and G-Clarons made for the graphic arts industry which can either be converted to an internal leaf shutter or have a Packard installed. And if you shoot slow film, you could just use the lens cap for exposure control!

IF more contrast is desired, then ponder both the film and the techniques used to expose and process. Some film inherently have more contrast; this is certainly true of many slow films in the 25 --> 50 speed range. Some film developers are also more contrasty in nature, and increased agitation as well as pushing the film will certainly add contrast. Or you can pick papers and paper developers that provide higher contrast, plus use toning techniques that add selectively to highlight density.

 

I also suspect that the color head on the enlarger may not be the best choice for VC papers. Perhaps you need to explore that issue with another enlarger that has a true B&W Variable-Contrast head.

Sorry to hear about the illness. As far as photo gear, you might consider a medium format rangerfinder, possibly one of the autofocus units with a zoom lens rather than having to change lenses. Or you could try out a TLR like the Mamiya C series (220/330). I see no reason why a monopod mounted to your wheelchair wouldn't work to hold the camera, although a medium sized tripod could also function. A good tripod could also be used as a brace for you while standing up.

 

Good luck-- I'm pleased to hear you won't admit defeat.

SOOOOOO... where are you buying your 5x7 films? Any Velvia, Astia or Provia, or a good selection of Kodak Ektrachome? Much less the old standbys of Agfa.

 

My point remains-- with the sole exception of a still declining selection of B&W films, there really is a very small selection of film still being made for the 5x7, and many photographers are already having to resort to cutting 8x10 films if they want to shoot color.

 

I already have a full complement of 5x7 and 5x8 holders, and shooting 5x8 images with an adapter back on an 8x10 camera is not too painful, plus I will eventually have a combo back built for my 5x7 field camera. The added width is not harmful and I would argue actually beneficial.

 

So I think it is unfortuate that Fotoman doesn't see the potential market for 5x8, and those now shooting 5x7 are foolish to think that they will always have a decent seleciton of 5x7 film to work with. And if they ignore what is now available in 8x10, that too may disappear! As always, denial of the problem is the first step in self-destruction.

I recall that 1+5 is a recommended dilution for XTOL with Tech Pan (that is I believe the same as a 1:6 ratio of developer to volume), and 1+3 (1:4 ratio) is a common choice on the Massive Developing Chart ( http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html ), especially if sharp grain is desired and I recall also useful for pushing to moderate levels.

 

I actually prefer higher dilution levels of developers and reduced agitation when dealing with any contrast issues since this will help to reduce development in the highlights, thus dampening buildup in contrast.

The formulary would be best choice to answer the question, and it may also be in a reference manual like the cookbook, but from my chemistry background I suspect that NaOH will probably work just fine although its saturation point may be weaker than KOH. Either way, the final developer will probably work fine as well but may need a bit of calibration.

 

BTW-- Both KOH and NaOH are VERY STRONG BASES! This means they are dangerous, and also that a weak base will not work in their place since you are looking to establish an equilibrium which would be weakened by a weak base (increase the final volume way too much). I would also thing that KOH can be obtained at a local chemical supply house.

Make that a 115mm f/6.8....

Gee, I've always liked the 180mm which I cover with a Symmar-S, and the 150mm, 210mm & 240mm with G-Clarons. I also fill out the other sides but the reality is that with LF you don't have the precise options that a 35mm system camera has, whether the very long and short lenses, or the zooms that give really precise framing on the quick.

 

Anything in the 135mm-- 210 range is a good starter lens, and the Caltar-E series are just smaller, slower and more economical versions of the tranditional lens choices for the pros. I've never owned one but there's no reason why one ought not be a choice if the price is low enough.

Lots of good advice above. Wood will be most desirable for cold weather, and good quality machining with minimal lubrication is also advantageous. Choice of wood is important, and I suspect the denser woods work best (like ebony, walnut & cherry), but the choice and quality of finish is also quite important. Large knobs, especially if not circular and smooth, will aid when wearing gloves. Adding tape or some other high-friction layer to a slippery knob to aid in gripping will help.

 

Bringing any device in from the cold will almost certainly result in condensation, and this is particularly bad for film, lenses and electronics, but also for anything that might corrode or absorb the moisture. I like to leave my gear (until warmed up) in sealed coolers or bags which minimize transfer of warm moist air onto cold surfaces. Best to not ignore this step except in dire emergencies.