big toys are better

I recall the Gowland from Peter's ads many years ago, but not much more. Making things "tighter" may be as simple as adding a friction washer or shim here and there, or adding some roughness to a surface so it isn't so slippery. Knobs instead of allen screws is also doable, and often can be found at a well stocked local hardware store. You can add your own modifications to create "locks" where some are missing (perhaps by some custom machining), and if worse comes to worse, don't forget Duct Tape. That's how I repaired a mounting block on one monorail camera until I could order and install a replacement.

One thing to ponder is the reputation for sheet film to lay flatter in its holder than roll film in the roll film back. 6x9 is not such a stretch (pardon the pun) that its flatness will be greatly compromized, but you could just get a 6x9 roll film back such as the Cambo/calumet version and use on your 4x5, and still be able to shoot sheets of 4x5.

 

The more I think about it, the more I think that the big advantage of a 6x9 view camera (and Carbon <Japan> also makes a very nice 6x9 field unit) is using a high resolution digital back on it rather than shoot film. THAT would get my attention! but either way, shooting 6x9 vs. 4x5 is all about getting the right lenses, much like the fancy "35mm" digital SLRs with either full size or smaller sensors, and getting the lenses needed to get all that the cameras claim they can do.

You could also try some of the field cameras with a lot of movements. Even my old B&Js have a surprising amount of movement (though nowhere near what my monorails can do), and I recall many of the modern units have even more. Unless your studio or archtectural work will require all of the flexibility of a system 4x5 camera, a good quality field camera will be a smarter investment. Plus, decent monorails such as the old Kodak & Caluments/B&J-Orbits, and the even finer Toyo system, are very cost effective as a second camera when maximum flexibility is needed. I actually have some of each and standardized on the small Calument lensboard (4x4") for all but the largest of my lenses for big sheet films (8x10+).

You might want to ponder a longer and faster lens, perhaps a 75mm or even a 90mm. Ultra-wide lenses on view cameras don't seenm so useful in actual practice since they lack coverage and are difficult to focus accurately. An f4.5 unit would be ideal (e.g. Nikon or Rodennstock 90mm) but Rodenstock made f/6.8 units in 75mm and 90mm (perhaps even in the 65mm), and that half-stop sure seems useful in a wideangle.

 

And yes, they do usually work their best with center filters but often can be used without so long as your film is not very contrasty. Velvia will accentuate any lighting deficiencies unless you are very careful in composition and lens placement. Center filters are usually hundreds of dollars but are also designed to NOT vignette the lens in use, thus the glass and front threads of that filter are usually significantly larger than the lens' threads. Yet again you will get what you pay for....

You can with a little practical experience make you own adapter boards from wood IF the difference in size is significant enough. However, I usually use a standard board from the bigger camera. Since the Deardorf and Toyo 6x6 boards are those larger boards, it was easy to adapt my Calument 4x4 boards to the them and to my other cameras (I still have a Calument/Oribt or two, but I'm saving them for my kids to use if they wish along with some of my older lenses).

 

Toyos can sometimes be had on the cheap and are fine units, especially the 45C. As for Wista and Technica lens boards, they are usually the same but Wista did I think use one or two odd board sizes over the years in the cameras they manufactured, but probably not on those cameras actually bearing their name.

My response is strictly about getting a huge rear element into a small space, and that is that unless you really need to, why bother? Opening up a lens only creates the serious risks of accidently scratching the glass, and certainly also of getting dust within the lens where it might damage the shutter and aperature mechanisms.

 

On the other hand while pondering today how to keep a big lens at a minimum size in storage in the camera bag, it occurred to me that I could use my standard procedure for the 4x5/5x7 and smaller 8x10 stuff-- place on small boards and then use an adapter board to fit the lens.

 

However, with a big WA for 8x10, this is not practical because of the large rear element, so another idea came to me-- make smaller circular discs for mounting the lens, then a two piece lens board for the camera that slides open for the disc to be inserted, then closed for placement on the camera. The front standard's opening for the lens board would hold the two piece lensboard together, thus securing the lens in place as well. A snap mechanism to lock the two pieces together would make the system even more secure.

 

As might be obvious, I thought about the method of unscrewing the rear element and found that just too dangerous to play with for an expensive lens. If it's essential to use such a lens on your 4x5, ponder having the front standard modified to a larger opening along with an adapter board.

I'd aim for light colored insulated fabic or hard coolers/lunch cases since they will keep the film cooler and protected from light just in case you have a light leak. Some of the coolers are perfect for 4x5, 5x7 or in rare cases, some work for 8x10. I use both the hard and soft style depending on the film formats carried-- some work for both my 4x5 and 5x7. 8x10 is rather dedicated for that purpose.

 

IMHO, a clear sealed container is just about the worst possible thing to have black film holders sitting within on a sunny day. I'd recommend one of the refrigerated coolers if you live in a warm climate and leave your film stuff in a closed up vehicle for any length of time.

Rodinal is not great for increasing film speed or reducing grain but is otherwise a very flexible developer that creates great grain pattern. You should espect some loss in speed (try an ei of 64- 80 for normal contrast range) and intensification in the grain pattern. Control your final contrast with dilution and agitation, with higher dilutions to 1:200 and reduced "semi-stand" agitation (up to 2, 3 and even 4 and 5 minute intervals between good inversions and taps to jar bubbles) working to reduce the overall contrast without danger to the film. Rodinal's lack of bromide drag and silver replating makes it about the best choice for reducing extreme ranges of contrast, but I also don't recommend it for more than a very modest push in film speed (thus it is not a great choice for shooting low contrast film under very flat lighting-- either pick a contrasty film like Pan-F, Tech Pan, etc., or use a different developer). Otherwise, in the hands of an experienced user the dilution and agitation Rodinal can be used to control specific parts of the development of highlights and shadows to best respresent the photographer's intentions.

Scratches caused by the sleeves will be limited to the individual cut strips of film, and should not extend the full length of the strip since the cause of the scratch is not likely to be at the very beginning and thus be forced upon the film for its full length. Furthermore, the number of scratches will likely increase with time if your negative files are the immediate cause of the problem.

 

I actually tend to think that an in-camera event is the cause, either with the film cannister or dirty film guides, but this could also implicate a film scanner that automatically feeds the film through it.

 

As far as eliminating them from your scanned images, are there no products to put on the film, or a wet bath system that might work for you like with the Epson V750? Vasoline petroleum jelly was once a fix-all for printing scratched negatives but I couldn't recommend it today.

I've never known Grandagons, or for that matter any other Rodenstock lens, to be inferior to an equivilant Schneider. I've even heard some well known experts say they've tested both and the Rodenstocks almost always came out at least as good if not better, especially the Grandagons.

 

Recent Caltars are great lenses, and most are Rodentocks, with a few Nikons, Fujinons and Schneiders mixed in. You won't go wrong picking a Caltar over another brand if the price is right. I do tend to think that the 65mm is rather limited given the differences in coverage between it and a 58mm XL, but if it works for you the 65mm will undoubtably have a better price point and be smaller and lighter as well.

 

One thing to carefully ponder when buying lenses, especially wideangles, it the cost and availability of filters, especially center filters which always are expensive, and their front filter size is also bigger than the lens filter threads. My Grandagons go from 82mm on the lens to 105mm for accessory filters at the front of the center filter, but they do use the same CF. Still, 105mm is a very big filter.

When using panoramic film backs it is good to remember that you don't really come close to using the full "circle", and are instead much closer to the using just the overall diameter, thus a 6x17 back will only need around a 180-- 185mm circle of coverage.

 

Another trick is to focus in a bit which broadens the coverage in proportion to the angle of coverage, and then use the depth of field to get you to sharp infinity focus.

 

IF you need really wide coverage, then a 58mm XL (nominal 160mm circle) is doable with a 6x17 back if racked out a bit while the 72mm XL covers the 5x7 quite well with 232mm circle. Keep in mind that Schneider is conservative in its numbers, but you will probably still want to use a center filter.

I'll look forward to hearing more about your V750. Looks to be a good midrange choice for scanning sheet films, especially 5x7 and 8x10

I read a year or two ago (probably in a Schneiders brochure) that the new "L" glass was environmentally friendly. Given how "green" Germany is now, there may be regulations on the manufacturing of older glass and lenses full of toxic chemicals. The L series does give a bit better coverage on paper but I can't say it's any better optically....

The 200mm-- 300mm range seems to be popular for much of the close-in 4x5 portraiture. If you've got the big bucks, Cooke has a wonderful portrait lens in the 203mm range with lovely aberrations to soften things.....

 

I'd actually advocate looking for some older lenses, even if single coated, since their sightly lower optical performance when compared to modern optics would be benefical to the "look". Using process lenses like the 210mm and 240mm G-Clarons at large aperatures is also doable.

If this is a new lens there should ahve been some useful information included including a manual which would tell you what accessories were available. In my experience most WA lens benefit from a center filter, with the lens manuafacturer's version ususally expensive but tuned specifically for the lens (Schneider is especically good for this).

 

However, B&H lists an 82mm Heliopan center filter (105mm accessory threads) for the Nikon 90mm f/4.5:

 

Many wide angle lenses exhibit fall-off (darkening) at the edges. This can be improved with a center filter which has a progression from dark grey in the center to clear at the edges. The Heliopan wide angle center filters are available in two densities: ND-0.45 (filter factor 3x, or +1.5 stops) and ND-0.9 (filter factor 8x, +3 stops).

 

Most large format lens manufacturers make center filters for their wide angle lenses. Heliopan offers an economical alternative for lenses requiring a 3x filter. The 8x version is unique and the most powerful on the market.

Constant agitation for B&W is not the best methodolgy since it tends to keep fresh developer on the densest areas, leading to a faster buildup in the highlights. I often use a semi-stand method with Rodinal that I prefer over most other developers-- 2, 3 and even 4 minute intervals between good old agitations when dealing with contrast issues. However, Rodinal is NOT a solvent developer and that lack of sodium sulfite reduces the effective film speed (sulfite regenerates developing agents and thus tends to increase effective film speed). You could add a bit and still enjoy the benefits of a developer that is not sensitive to bromide drag, but that would mean little in a rotary processor. Although I don't use a rotary processor myself, if I did I'd probably be sure to use well diluted developers since that would minimize any issues with the constant agitation, thus I'd probably stick to Rodinal at 1:50-- 1:200 dilutions and fairly slow rotation rates, using the dilution to help help regulate contrast.

Most B&W film won't mind being overexposed and underdeveloped, although it might well be a bit flatter than you had planned. Same mostly holds true for underexposing and overdeveloping one stop, with your contrast increased. You could just leave it alone and find that it didn't matter, and given that it was raining, I suspect the lighting was very flat so increasing the contrast would be better.

 

Why not just develop it normally? This is likely within the lattitude range of the film....

Thin, fine grained emulsions won't do well with a solvent developer unless highly diluted. The Rodinal proponents have it right, although you'll find that a higher dilution and less agitaiton will do a better job at controlling the inherently high contrast of Tech Pan and similar films. The massive developement chart has dilutions as high as 1:300 listed, some with a bit of sodium sulfite added which will improve apparent film speed, but I think that 1:200 without additives and with good agitation every 3-4 minutes will work a bit better. Rodinal doesn't suffer from bromide drag, and with no sulfite to dissolve the silver grains, replating also isn't an issue.

Overexposing and underdeveloping are time tested methods for dealing with overall scene contrast issues. Diluting your developer and using longer times between agitation will also help deal with more localized issues such as a hotspot due to extra light (the developer quickly gets exhausted there and thus it doesn't develop as much). One risk with D-76 is bromide drag, so I'd not space out agitation too long-- most use 1 minute intervals and perhaps 2 minutes would work but be careful-- the reputation for ill effects from insufficient agitation with solvent developers like D-76 is very real.

 

IF you won't mind the very sharp grains of silver and nicely enhanced "local" contrast at the grain level, plus some loss in effective film speed, Rodinal will do even better for overall contrast control-- just dilute at the higher options shown on the Massive Development Chart, and add some time if you don't agitate but for every 3-4 minutes. Be sure to well agitate in the beginning minute or two, and smack the tank a couple of times afterwards to knock off any bubbles. I also use a plain water rinse which takes about 5 minutes for the 4 exchanges and so I don't actually need to add any extra development time.

 

Doing this well will take some practice to match your expectations for the Zone System, plus a bit more development time, but I think you will find the technique very flexible and the results quite pleasing once you work out the variables.... Just remember that its the combination of dilution ratio and agitation technique that are the really powerful tools for controling contrast in the B&W negative.

I agree with possible mirror problems, but a vertically moving shutter blade might also be an issue. Could there have been something blocking the light coming in from the lens, like a loose baffle of some sort, or a piece of tape? Otherwise it really looked like a film development issue except for those darn numbers showing up....

BEFORE you start buying filters for this lens, have you looked into the center filter for it? More than likely the front of the center filter will be bigger than the back end (e.g.-- Rodenstock Grandagon 90mm f 4.5 and 115mm have 82mm lens threads but 105mm at the front end of the center filter (they thankfully use the same unit), necessitating 105mm filters-- preferably thin ones designed for WA lenses.

 

This is why I always advise many considerations when buying WA lenses, and that in particular includes researching the compatability issues of the center filters. Now that you have the lens, ponder the filters with great care.

I'm thinking that the adjustable plastic roll film reels might be modified to accept the cut film. It might require someone with a Bridgeport style milling machine or custom engineering your own drill press to do the same, but I think it can be done. I've pondered making custom extensions for the Patterson reels that would allow bigger sheets to be fed in, but haven't yet seen a good reason to spend the money to have it done....

 

I've had mixed luck with the "taco" style development technique since the film binder has to be just the right size or it might distort the film after it gets thoroughly wet, and the bundle may bounce around in the tank and get scratched. It's do-able but I find it less than satisfying....

I don't have any experience with the film, but will suggest that if contrast is an issue, use normal investions but sparse agitation-- every 2-3 or even 4 minutes. Rodinal dosn't suffer from bromide drag so this will work fine to tame contrast, and 1:100 ought to be fine.

 

Hope that helps-- I'll look forward to a report on the next batch of results.....

The shorter normals (like the 127mm-- 135mm mentioned above) all tend to be shy in the coverage area, and best used for something closer than infinity when any movement is required. They are, however, a bargain in dollar terms-- I paid $40 for my first 127mm Raptar, and the 135mm lenses are often not much more and are almost always better optically. My 90mm Optar is probably worth only a $100 or so, but works fine so long as movements aren't a necessity.

 

 

Modern optics are all around better, and a longer WA designed for bigger film does even better on coverage but these are big, heavy and expensive (I could stuff most of my other lenses in my 8x10's 165mm SA). When working in multiple formats having those options available become necessities, but with a 4x5 it's probably better to stick with more routine units bought in this general order--

 

1. a 150mm-- 180mm Symmar or equivilant as your "normal". Unless you routinely do WA scenics or architecture, you'll probably use this lens the most.

 

2. one or two WA (58mm, 72mm and 90mm Schneider SA-XL come to mind, or the more pedestrian 65mm/75mm/90mm families). Keep in mind that the WA lenses ususally need to have center filters, and those specialized filters are with rare exceptions not interchangeable between lenses.

 

 

3. a long lens like a 270mm- 305mm process lens IF your bellows and rails can handle it (most can). This or a lens in the 200mm range can also serve as a portrait lens should you want to do that, but unless painful sharpness is desired, a soft filter is needed. Cooke and others make dedicated "portrait" lenses with built in optial defects to soften light in unusual and rather appealing ways.

 

4. a longer "normal" like the 210mm G-Claron or Nikon M for closeups and general use.

Lynn is correct about Pan F and solvent developers. D76 diluted 1:3 would help with both the solvent issues and contrast problems, but true film speed is probably no more than 32 in normal lighting.

 

However, you will find that the methods I describe above work well for contrasty lighting, and "normal" lighting is actually a bit contrasty for a film like Pan F. Rodinal is one of the few developers where limiting agitation will not have adverse effects due to bromide drag (TF-2 is another), and the more you dilute it the better this works. I often dilute out to 1:200 with films like FP-4 and Agfa 100, and this way you can kind of push your effective film speed up a touch without adversely affecting contrast.

 

I learned a long time ago that agitation is both a friend and an enemy. With high speed films there are no real alternatives to regular agitation since your developers and their sodium sulfite create the necessity, but with finer grained stuff (125 speed and slower) and Rodinal or TFX-2 from Photographer's Formulary you can indeed control contrast in several ways. BTW-- sodium sulfite is used for several purposes, one as a solvent of the silver, another for regeneration of the developing agents-- thus enhancing the effective film speed. Rodinal has none, so it doesn't tend to product full film speed, but a small time push and careful control of contrast will accomplish a similar result without dire consequences on fine grained films.

 

Spend some time with a few rolls of film and a bottle of Rodinal, just be sure to dilute with distilled water so you can keep everything consistent.