big toys are better

I have yet to use any of the Efke films, but I do routinely use the "semi-stand" method, typically with short 10-15 second agitations every 3 minutes. IF your problem is TOO MUCH CONTRAST, then downrating the EI (with EFke 25 down to 12) and shortening the development would be the rest of the solution to your problem.

 

Contrast can be controlled by developer dilution and agitation methods, but many developers will have problems with bromide drag and streaking when agitation is reduced. Fortunately, Rodinal doesn't seem to suffer from this, and works very well at high dilutions although the development times get very long as a consequence.

 

Without seeing the negative and thus getting a handle on the lighting contrast of the original scene as well as the development, it is hard to know just what your problem was. However, learning to use at least a pseudo-Zone method of measuring the lighting contrast will help and is easily done by measuring the difference between direct and indirect light on a flat disk meter or shielded incident dome, or doing the same with your in camera meter on a grey card in direct and indirect light. If you have an accurate spot meter, then use the real Zone system to get a handle on your exposure and development parameters.

 

I'd suggest making a few test rolls with a series of bracketed exposures of the same scene spaced 1 stop apart, then developing at different times and with different agitation methods. If possible, work on a high contrast scene and then place identical three-dimensional objects in the scene but in different lighting-- very direct for the highest possible contrast, and one or two others in diffused/indirect lighting for a reduced contrast range in the subject. A graduated gray-scale panel in each would be extremely useful. Then contact print the resulting negatives on different grades of paper and with different exposures to get an idea of the best printing options.

 

This method is IMHO the quickest and the easiest way to get a handle on the best roll film exposure/development schemes for different conditions. It's a bit tougher to do with sheet films, but for roll films I like it the best. If you can set up a studio scene it will give you more control, but a bright day outdoors works well so long as the light is very consistent and you create multiple contrast ranges within each negative as I suggested above.

To Kurt-- I'm envious of the 1548GT-- it's my dream tripod-- what tripod head and riser do you have on it and how do you like it?

 

To Stephan-- I found the 3021 family to be great for up to medium format but a bit too light for view cameras, especially the bigger and heavier versions. And Giotto's large CF units aren't a whole lot more than an aluminum version- about $300 for the legs (roughly half the cost of the Gitzo 1548 unit but also lighter and less rigid). However, as I noted above, almost any decent tripod can be "stiffened" and "dampened" by careful set-up, adding weight and if needed hooking up a second unit to the extended camera. In this regard two lighter tripods that are carefully set up and weighted can then be superior to a single heavy unit when the camera bellows are greatly extended.

Make that the Nikon 200mm "M"....

Calumet should have recessed boards in stock, and they do pop up on eBay with regularity. Keep in mind that while it must have been the 127mm that worked so well on my Orbit, you'll still want to take the rest of my advice seriously-- use the recessed boards only with Copal 0 shutters unless you plan on having the cable release specially mounted (angled at minimum). I recently tried mounting my 90mm f/4.5 on a recessed Calumet board drilled to Copal 1 and it was painfully obvious that it wasn't such a good idea, although it can be done with additional work. I have used them with slower wideangles having the angled releases and this is a much better solution but limits you to the f/6.8 and slower 90mm wideangles.

The Graflex boards are a bit small to be using with large lenses (most Copal 3), but that doesn't necessarily conform to focal lengths alone-- more with lens speed and focal length together. As you have seen above, pick lenses that will work within the limitations of your camera, bellows draw in particular.

 

But I wouldn't worry much about having to put a smaller lens back on the camera just so you can fold the camera-- I do this routinely with all my cameras so that the compresed unit is as small as possible and it's not a big deal. You can find a variety of lenses on eBay and elsewhere that were originally mounted on the Graphics and probably some are still on a Graphic board, so there's a good starting point.

Answer ONE: The contact prints themselves are superb compared to even excellent "enlarged" images, and contain a special character that is obviously hard to describe much less duplicate by other means. And like many things, the bigger it gets the more magnificent it becomes.

 

Answer TWO: even with the increasing quality of flat-bed scanners, can you image what you'd be able to get after doing a 4800dpi or better scan of a ULF image and then printing it out on the next generation or two of archival ink-jet printers? WOW! All we need is photo scanners capable of doing 20x24 images.

 

Answer THREE: Because it's there!

BTW, after carefully reviewing your panoramic image above, I tend to believe that even a modestly wider lens (such as a 135mm) would have further lost the impact of the geologic formations currently in the foreground-- leaving them looking like anthills in the midground. But that is only my personal artistic license at play-- it's a nice picture regardless.

 

As I've already noted, get a 90mm and see what that does for your images, and if it seems a bit too wide get a 110mm to 120mm wide-angle. If a bit too short then rent a 75mm that uses the same center filters as your 90mm to see if that is wide enough, otherwise you'll need to drop down ever further into the 58mm-65mm range.

I'd suggest keeping the 180mm for now and then quickly investing in a 90mm wide-angle. I think that once you have the 90mm (which tend to be more used that other wide-angles), you'll then be better able to ponder other choices such as a more moderate 110mm-120mm wide-angle (very useful for really wide panoramic backs and 5x7-->8x10 sheet film), an even wider 58mm-75mm wide-angle, and perhaps a moderately long normal or telephoto style lens in the 240-360mm range that would also work on bigger sheet film.

 

I for one really think the 150-->180mm lens range is extremely useful, and for now many if not most of my shots on 4x5 and 5x7 still use one of those focal lengths. When I get a wide 120mm panoramic back into common useage that may change, but then again, maybe not. I routinely do split back (1/2 frame "panoramic" style) 4x5 and 5x7 images with these same lenses!

I got my stock of boxes from the same local labs that processed my film-- and the boxes need not be for film-- some labs will be using 5x7 and 8x10 paper as well. When you do mail your film in, ask for any aditional boxes to be returned along with the film-- you'll end up paying for the shipping either way.

 

In the meantime, you could just send the film out while still in the sheet film holders- one lab suggested doing it but unless you have enough spares it might be a painful separation.

Thank you to Mr. Briggs for clarifying the facts.

 

I'd also suggest that it isn't such a great feat to rig up an "international back" that would fit one's particular camera, even old field cameras, so long as the backs are removeable. This could even be done using a plywood frame and some accessory parts. Thus putting any of these on a 4x5 or 5x7 field camera is not a stretch.

 

However, I'd sure like to find a company that would also provide a "bare" multiformat panoramic back (6x9 ---> 6x17 or so)with simple mounting brackets that could then be easily adapted to a wood frame as I noted above, and not necessarily need the "international back" hardware fittings. It would be my intention to adapt it to my 5x7 field camera and possibly to an 8x10.

My thoughts-- better articulate your interests, but in general plan for the future in all purchases.

 

Buy good used lenses, either recent German or Japanese units, and if you find a good deal on an older American lens with a good reputation, then by all means try it as well (Kodak, Wollensak and others all offered good if now dated designs). Remember that some of the "apo" designs are both good bargains as well as small and light-- great for field work where hiking is a necessity.

 

If you intend to get really involved in LF photography, pick the range of lenses with thoughts to other film sizes! Some of the moderate wide angles for 4x5 will work with larger film (90mm and 110-120mm with 5x7 and even for 8x10 with close-ups), while some of the longer "normal" lenses (150-240mm) can also work as moderate wide-angles for 5x7 and 8x10. Personally, I first look at 90mm, 150mm, 210mm/240mm and 300mm/360mm as a broad and relative complete starting package that will work for a multiple format LF system. Add a 58mm, 65mm, 72mm or 75mm wide-angle for really wide views on 4x5 film and 6x12/6x17 panoramic backs and 5x7 closeups.

 

Wooden field cameras can provide most of the function of a studio rail camera and still be the far better choice if a substantial amount of outdoor work is your intention. IN choosing a field camera, weight ought not be the primary consideration-- instead look to overall function, including long bellows draw and extensive movements. Then let cost and weight be deciding factors.

Al is correct-- I did finally find out that FG7 is a relatively high definition PQ developer, so your "mix" includes Phenidone, Hydroquinone, Ascorbate and p-aminophenol as developers, and just about as much of a mixed up buffer and preservative mix.

 

I've pondered concocting a developer or two using Rodinal and/or TFX-2 and/or ascorbate and/or glycin. See Crawley's FX developers, particularly FX-2, 13 and 15. I'd particularly like to find a A-P-G developer without any MQ.

For what it's worth, Photographer's Formulary has a modified version (TFX-2) of Crawley's FX-2, a fine if somewhat expensive high accutance developer that gives finer grain and better midtones on slower films such as D100 and FP-4+ than Crawley's other really high accutance developer FX-1, AND TFX-2 is recommended by them for D100 and other tabular grained films like Delta 400 and the slower members of the TMAX family. I've also used it on Agfapan 100 and FP-4+ with good results (although I'm still working out the best parameters for exposure and development). However, these 100/125 speed films should be rated at an NORMAL EI of 200-250 when developed in TFX-2, and that can be downrated and/or the developer component of TFX-2 diluted to reduce contrast if needed.

 

TFX-2 and Rodinal both work well with high dilutions and semi-stand methods (longer periods between agitations), methods that work well to reduce overall contrast and improve edge definition.

First, YES, there should be a standard adapter board for the 8x10 Cambo that will adapt to the Calument 4x4 boards-- after all, Calumet is the U.S. distributor of Cambo (Heck, they may even own it!).

 

And my advice is to put most of your lenses on the 4x4 boards (as I have done) and then make whatever adapter boards necessary for your new cameras. The 4x4 boards will take up much less room in the camera bag and accept up to a Copal 3 shutter, but the stickler is the rear element-- and a 165mm SA WON'T fit into the 4x4 opening.

 

As far as lens choices, the CC400 has as I recall an 18" draw, so that is about 450mm, probably a bit more when you consider the back design. That is good for most lenses for 4x5 and many for 8x10-- up to about a 300-360mm assuming you want to be able to focus relatively closely, or a 450mm at infinity only, maybe even a 480mm at infinity.

 

G-Clarons in the 210mm, 240mm, 305mm and 355mm will all work on both formats (and cameras) and are relatively inexpensive used, plus the 210mm is a fine wideangle for 8x10 that is roughly comparable to about a 28mm on a 35mm camera- just stop it down to about f/22 or so. Nikon and Fujinon lenses, particularly the compact and apo series will also work (check the specs though, as I recall that the Nikon 240mm "M" doesn't cover 8x10 well, while the Fujinon 240mm "A" does). Forget the faster German and even Japanese lenses for now if budgetting is a concern, and same story with wideangles-- even the old 165mm Super Angulon is an expensive option and definitely not useable with the 4x5 (the rear element won't even fit inside the front standard).

 

IF you want a real wideangle- then go for a slow 90mm Grandagon (f/6.8), Super Angulon (f/8) or Nikon (f/8), none of which would be useful for the 8x10 UNLESS you are doing closeups. Adding a 75mm or 65mm later will give you even more breadth in your views, but still limited to 4x5 film. IN doing all of this, plan ahead! Pick a wideangle family and choose your WA lenses wisely so you need only one or at most two center filters-- they cost as much or more than some lenses!

 

BTW-- have you seen the price of 8x10 film holders? You may yet decide to sell that 8x10! but don't do it before you've shot some film and gotten a few good exposures-- you may well be converted for life!

But don't be penny wise and pound foolish on a trip of a lifetime!

For what it's worth, I don't know of any good reasons why you couldn't use a G-Claron, preferably in shutter, for taking the picture, and then pop it into your enlarger and use it to enlarge the image. If you use the Calumet or Deardorf 4x4 lensboards as your standard as I do, or the Linhof-Technica/Wista style, that can be done with a little modification of a Beseler enlarger.

 

In fact, given the difficulty in finding very large format enlarging lenses, investing in the 240mm, 305mm and 355mm G-Clarons sounds like a good idea.

 

BTW, anyone used a 150mm GC on 8x10?

For some reason I think the 90mm will work just fine on the Calumet 400 even with a flat lens board, but if it doesn't-- plan on getting a slow 90mm since you'll be hard pressed to use a Copal 1 shutter mounted on a Calumet recessed board. Copal 0 seem to work OK-- that's the f/6.8 version of the 90mm in Rodenstock and f/8 in other brands.

 

The shortest lens I remember using on my old Orbit (same as the Calumet) was either a 127mm or maybe the 90mm f/8 WA Optar. I know the 127mm had lots of room left, and the 90mm was useable if I did indeed use it on the Orbit. I can't guarentee that the back-focus distance of the modern 90mm wideangles is more or less than the WA Optar.

 

Try out someone else's 90mm first before deciding which you need to use. That is very important since the Calumets, Orbits and the like DIDN'T HAVE INTERCHANGABLE BELLOWS-- YOU BOUGHT DIFFERENT CAMERAS-- THE CALUMENT 400, 401 AND 402 WERE THE "NORMAL", "WIDE ANGLE" AND "EXTENDED" VERSIONS OF THE SAME CAMERA FRAME.

Hmmmmm... let me see if I get this right--

 

It's XTOL at 1:4, plus Rodinal at 1:251 and FG7 at 1:502.

 

Does anyone know what that gives for developers, buffers and other components? I only know that Edwal's FG7 uses Phenidone.

 

While I am an advocate of the semi-stand and stand methodologies, especially with Rodinal alone and with some of the glycin developers (e.g. TFX-2), IMHO, your agitation method seems a bit irrational. Why not just use regular agitation for the first few minutes, then somewhere before the half-way point switch to using the semi-stand method of agitation (only every other 2, 3 or 4 minutes)? This provides the needed evenness of developer saturation in the film emulsion, and an even boost to development of the midtones and highlights, followed by the preferential boosting of the shadows that results from little or no agitation.

 

BTW, did you measure the pH of the final solution? This might tell a bit more about the developer activities.

Hmmm... my current BIG tripod is an old Bogen 3035 with the 3057 head-- heavy and a bit awkward to use but pretty sturdy (the 3039 head is another option). But a Gitzo 13 or better yet 15 series carbon tripod base would be far better base to cart around in the field, like maybe a 1548GT-- oooohhh! However, a $300 Giotto would do almost as well most of the time. I'm hooked on the Bogen quick-change camera plates, especially the 4x4 units I have on my field cameras. Again, heavy, but oh so sturdy.

 

And as heavy as the current Bogen is, I STILL add weight when it's wind-- no matter how splayed the legs are-- usually either a camera bag or something else that is handy, like a bottle/bag or two of water, sand or rocks. IF your bellows is extended out more than about 12" (such as is common with with 240mm and longer lenses), it might be useful to also have either a monopod (with a compact ball head) or a small tripod attached to the front end of the rail to provide extra support and dampen vibrations (I also have a Bogen articulated flexarm that works well for this purpose). My 8x10 field camera actually has a moveable tripod base plus another tripod mount inserted on the extension rail, making all of this very easy to do, and any handy person can add their own 1/4" or 3/8" insert to a wooden field camera. A second tripod makes for more weight to carry but that will stiffen up the camera frame even more when wind is an issue, and would also allow the use of a smaller/lighter primary tripod.

 

Finally, placing your body upwind of the camera is almost always a good investment in any wind, unless of course, the wind is coming straight over the front of the camera.

 

So relax, no reason for your heart to bleed....

Yes, a toothbrush is ideal for cleaning, but even dilute bleach will eventually damage the plastic and also corrode the little SS ball bearings. Use some vinegar instead (soak for ~30' or so and then brush), or in a pinch use a full strength cleaner such as toilet cleaner, soap scum/lime remover or even the gel style dishwasher detergent if the deposits are really tough to remove (wear gloves and safety glasses when using these strong cleaners).

 

I suppose a light silicone spray could then be used after cleaning but I'd worry about contamination of the film in solution.

IMHO--

 

Almost any 8x10 will do in a pinch so long as your needs are simple and your demands small. However, I learned the hard way that photography draws you in, much like a narcotic. My old B&Js were good and fugile investments, but I'd much rather have Z6 or Ebony units if I could afford it. But that 8x10 B&J does everything I need it to do for an 8x10, just as my smaller 5x7 unit is perfect for general use with 4x5 and my much loved 5x7 film formats.

 

Same thing with the lenses. As I said before, if I were to start over, my first lens would probably be a 355mm G-Claron if I could find one, or else one of the fast but heavy 360mm units from Fujinon or Nikon, followed by a compact 270/240mm (G-Claron or Fujinon-A) and then a 210mm G-Claron. When I can afford it, I definitely want a 600mm Fujinon-C! For using 4x5 and roll film I'd still want the 150mm G-Claron plus probably a 90mm WA.

 

As it turns out I have most of my bases already covered except for the really long and really short options. There are a lot more options for 8x10 film in the 300mm and 450-480mm ranges, but that might then mean carrying 300mm, 450mm and 600mm lenses along with the wider options (even though the wonderful G-Clarons and Fujinon-A are relatively small and light.) For field use I'll still aim for the 600mm, keep the 300mm and shorter compact/apo lenses in the kit, and perhaps someday get a fast 360mm and/or 450-480mm for the stable just to provide really big wide-angle ULF coverages (in the 500mm circle range-- just enough for the 7x17 and 8x20 films).

 

That's the problem with using a variety of film sizes in your work (it complicates your lens and other hardware investments), but IF you can stick to just one film size (Dare ya!), then the first and second lens choices are a bit easier (planning is 99% of successful execution)....

check this out:

<p> <p>

 

<a href="http://largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html">http://largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html</a>

Already got a 90mm? Since you are only doing 4x5, why not try a 75mm? A slower 75mm is relatively cheap. Your next step down could then be a 65mm, also relatively inexpensive, and then decide if you really want to splurge for a 55-58mm Apo or XL unit. Or just try out a 65mm to start with and go from there.

 

Keep in mind that these steps for wide angles are actually fairly substantial since even a 15-20% increase in angle of view is a lot in the world of wide-angles (as you would be doing with the 55mm<-->65mm, 65mm<-->75mm and 75mm<-->90mm jumps), especially when doing interiors or commerical work with closeups where short coverage is not an issue. If you've ever worked with a good selection of wide-angles in 35mm format you'll already know this (like using a 14mm, 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm). This same philosophy works when using the shorter wide-angles view camera lenses with larger sheet film, such as a 90mm-120mm WA with an 8x10 camera for interiors or closeups.

One other thought-- pick your time of day for shooting with some care and forethought and you might be able to minimize the contrast issues. With most of your light coming only from one side, especially on clear bright days, the windows may not be quite so hard to hold detail in.

 

Of course, finding a way to provide some diffuse fill light for the shadows inside, using reflectors, diffusers and/or fill lighting, will make everything a lot easier and look better as well. You can get a lot done in that 45 minute time others have mentioned!

I'd add that the 450-455mm and longer lenses, though increasingly on the more expensive side, will provide a very pleasing perspective to an 8x10 image. IMHO, the downward steps from there are 270mm and 200-210mm, but the upward stretch is expensive indeed, maybe a 600mm but more likely those new and very expensive Schneiders.

 

OF COURSE, YOU NEED SUFFICIENT BELLOWS DRAW TO USE THOSE LENSES TO BEST ADVANTAGE. MY BEAT UP OLD B&J (WHICH COST ME ABOUT $500 A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, INCLUDING A 4X5 BACK AND SECOND EXTENSION RAIL) DOES OVER 30 INCHES WITH THE SECOND EXTENSION, ALTHOUGH IT'S A BIT HEAVIER THAN A KORONA OR THE MORE MODERN COMPACT DOUBLE EXTENSION UNITS. I'D CHECK OUT THE BACK-FOCUS DISTANCES OF THE LENSES YOU MIGHT DECIDE TO PURCHASE SINCE THAT WILL DETERMINE JUST HOW CLOSE YOU CAN FOCUS WITH THE LONGEST BELLOWS DRAW OF YOUR CAMERA. A 300-360mm LENS WILL NEED A LOT OF DRAW FOR CLOSEUPS, AND A 450mm JUST AS MUCH FOR INFINITY FOCUS, SO 500-550mm (20-22 INCHES) OF DRAW ISN'T MUCH OVER THE BARE MINIMUM FOR THOSE CHOICES. A TRIPLE-EXTENSION (30-33") CAMERA LIKE A TOP LINE Z6/WISNER OR THE B&J/KORONAS WITH THER EXTRA EXTENSION RAILS WILL GIVE YOU A LOT MORE OPTIONS OVE3R THE YEARS AND PROBABLY NEVER BE A BAD INVESTMENT GIVEN THE GROWING DEMAND FOR VERY BIG SHEET FILM CAMERAS.

 

If I were to do it all over again, I'd get a 600mm, 355/360mm, 270/240mm and 210mm, with all of them in the "compact" or "apo" style from Schneider, Nikon or Fujinon. Add the really small 150mm G-Claron on a recessed lens board (I conveniently have most of my lenses mounted on 4x4 Calumet style boards plus adapter boards for my B&J cameras), a 4x5 back plus the necessary roll film backs and you could competently do everything from 6x7/6x9/6x12/6x17 and 4x5 to 8x10 with the camera, and most likely still be able to cart it around for a day trip into the field.

 

BTW, there are some good and relatively inexpensive carbon fiber tripods around (like the ~$300 Giottos) which will do well enough for 8x10 field cameras, especially if you use a good heavy duty head and also religiously add extra weight to the unit when in use (like a camera bag hanging of the lower part of the head). Bring along a small monopod or lightweight tripod with a ball head and you can use it to provide valuable extra support when you fully extend your camera rails.