big toys are better

For lens choices, you can find lots of 300-305mm lens and some 450-480mm on eBay and elsewhere. The G-Clarons and equivilants are good choices for 8x10 in the 210mm and especially the 240/270mm range. Being relatively small and light, they work well for roughly duplicating the lens choices many of us made for 35mm film-- 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm. You can get ultrawide results by using either true (but very large and heavy) 8x10 wide-angles in the 150-165mm range, or getting ones more reasonably designed for 5x7 (90-120mm) and not using them at infinity or with extensive movements.

 

However, in reality most 8x10 users do not use really ultrawide lens (except for specialized commercial work)-- I seldom see anything shorter than about 200mm used in the field, and those are usually not of the large modern variety like the big Super Angulons and Grandagons. Old Ektars, Raptars, Angulons and the like as well as G-Clarons are far more common and compact The longer lenses in the 300-360mm range are also far more common, whether the old designs or modern multicoated units.

 

In fact, I'll bet most 8x10 owners don't use more than 2 lenses with their cameras, much less own more than that given the cost factors! I started out with an old Raptar and then a slow 300mm Apo and grew it from there-- with the collection designed largely for broad multi-format use. IF you skip the smaller sheet film formats, start with a 355-360mm lens if at all possible since that is more of a true "normal lens" for 8x10 and allows you to then go for a modest wide-angle like a 240-270mm Apo from Fujinon or Schneider. IF you want to go still wider, a 210mm G-Claron will just make it in coverage and is far cheaper and lighter than most of your shorter lens choices. If you end up with a 300mm as your normal then the 210mm is a better second lens.

Check out eBay. There is a nice Korona capable of over 30" of bellows draw here:

<P>

<P>

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7511115015

Oh, what a terrible dilemma-- a great and wonderfully flexible film developer that lasts forever! Eat your hearts out, D-76 and XTOL users!

 

 

HOWEVER, DO KEEP TRACK OF THE RESULTS AS YOU USE IT OVER TIME-- PROPER DEVELOPMENT TIMES (OR CHARACTERISTICS) "MAY" CHANGE A BIT OVER TIME. I ALSO GIVE THE BOTTLE A MODEST SWIRL OR TWO WELL BEFORE DISPENSING IF IT HAS BEEN SITTING UNDISTURBED FOR A WHILE- JUST NOT ENOUGH TO MIX IN MUCH OXYGEN. THAT WAY ANY EXCESS CRYSALIZATION/PRECIPITATION WILL MIX BACK IN A BIT.

It's very unfortuante that they are discontinuing some useful sizes and film types, especially for the ULF folks-- I was hoping at least something from Ilford would be retained in stock for the 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 sizes! Both FP-4+ and HP-5+ are excellent films for large format and ULF, plus it's sad to see Delta 400 discontinued in sheets (I have but one box of 5x7 left!). And while the Delta 100 is wonderfully available in 5x7 sheets, the overall selection is still rather limited.

 

I will hope that popular demand will eventually bring back these other options.

Time to look for a small tabletop mill-- I find the drill presses don't work so well for "milling" since the side pressure may cause the chuck to release or at minimum the whole shaft tends to push off to the side.

 

www.emachineshop.com is another option-- but it's in NJ.

 

You could also make your rig from black plexiglass and use a router instead.

My container of Rodinal is at least several years old, and while the edges of the plastic bottle are now coated with a rather darkish brown colored stain, the liquid itself is still mostly clear-- and still works GREAT! I squeeze the bottle in to keep out oxygen (I do the same thing with my TFX-2 bottles), and so far haven't noticed any problems, but intend to get a new one soon anyways.

Yeah, I heard that too but have seen some late models versions that looked suspiciously multicoated, tho' none of mine are.... I don't think it is as critical as some might assume, but the Japanese equivilants with MC do work so very nice as well.

Dan, as I implied, the strict degassing regimen was an anal solution, as are some of the other extremes, but removing as much of the dissolved gases as possible prior to mixing and afterwards if possible is the best way to provide long-term stability of an oxygen sensitive chemcial. That and keeping any new infiltrations to a minimum. This seems to benefit XTOL.

 

BTW, the careful degassing of solutions is an absolute necessity in certain high resolution HPLC chromatography techiniques as even small amounts of dissolved gasses can dramatically alter results. Not that we in photography need to be quite so exacting....

I've been processing my 5x7 sheets in a 4x5 HP Combi tank with decent success. However, I find that the rubber bands and even my heavy O-rings come off the film because of my inversion agitation method. I'm pondering some sort of synthetic sock (maybe very petite Nylons?) instead, or else having some textured dividers made up for the tank so that 3 sheets are safely separated and won't stick to the sides of the tank or the dividers.

 

I wonder why no company ever made daylight tanks for the Kodak film hangers?

The overexposure of the HP5+ is less of an issue that the Delta 400, but neither is catastrophic, and I would actually think the Delta 400 would end up giving the better result in this situation. Your choice of developer is XTOL, and using it straight or 1:1 ought to reduce the effective film speed a bit (I recall that effective film speed increases a bit when XTOL is diluted) as well as increase contrast. Reducing the development time while also increasing the number of agitations will have the effect of reducing the film density back towards normal while also increasing its contrast. Your accutance (definition) will be reduced by these techniques although yhe grain ought to then be a bit finer as a consequence....

There are a number of choices in the 360mm focal length, some with far more coverage than others and thus more desirable for ULF cameras like 11x14, 7x17 and bigger.

 

The G-Claron's only real failure is lack of multi-coating, thus reducing contrast in some situations (but who cares with many films anyways).

Holly molly!

 

X-rays are produced by bombarding a source material with electrons, and I think that target is relatively small and does indeed produce the rays from the equivilant of a "point" source although the rays then emerge in conical fashion and are shielded from further/wider dispersion by a dense material such as lead shields.

 

But I don't think this lens had anything to do with radiology...

 

Might this lens be designed for some sort of image projection? I don't have one any more to check but didn't some of the the slide projectors have lenses with an "R" designation (does "Rectilinear" mean anything to anyone here?). Could this have been either remounted in shutter, or perhaps designed for use in a graphics arts field?

The 240mm apos such as a G-Claron, Fujinon, etc. would all cover 8x10 and be a good stepping stone to wider angles such as 200/210mm Super-Angulons, XLs or Grandagons, and then down to the 150mm-165mm wide-angles of the same namesakes. They are also very conveniently small and light for use in field work.

 

The 240mm G-Claron is not usually multicoated but the Fujinon equivilant typically is-- both can be found secondhand on eBay or in stores. Of course, a 210mm and 150mm G-Claron wouldn't add much more space or weight to a camera pack and be useful for smaller film as well, although the 150mm can even be used for closeup wide-angle shots on 8x10 if you wish, just as with the traditional 90mm and 110/115mm wide-angles nominally designed for 4x5 and 5x7 cameras....

I've seen this question somewhere else on the forum--

 

YES- there are 105mm and even bigger adapters for the Lee and similar filter holders. The Cokin XP filters are well over 100mm in width and Cokin has XP adapters rings up to 112mm or more, so a 105--->112mm adapter ring would provide added clearance from vignetting. I'm sure you could get custom made glass filters to fit the Cokin XP holder, and I recall that B&W and/or Tiffen make large glass filters for cinematic film cameras that might be cut down to fit the XP system.

 

SKGrimes.com or emachineshop.com could make custom adapters as well....

Sounds like film with wide latitude is a necessity-- FP-4+ or even HP-5+ would probably be better choices, as might some of the 200 speed offerings from Bergger and J&C. Well diluted Rodinal and what I call "semi-stand" development (3 minutes between agitations) would help with the wide latitude needed and to tame the overexposed highlights (windows). So would PMK or the FX/TFX-2 formulations when diluted 1:2:100 and using stand or semi-stand processing. I've processed FP-4+ in TFX-2 and like the results for my N and N+ exposures (I tend to use Rodinal at 1:50 or 1:100 for N and N-), but I'm still fine tuning all of this for my sheet films. TFX-2 gives an effective 1/2 increase in film speed for FP-4 and most other films, perhaps even a full stop on the optimistic side, and does very nicely, especially in the midtones and highlights....

 

Best to decide what is most important in an image-- highlights, shadows or midtones before exposing and developing, as film, exposure and developer choices all intimately interact to control the final result. Since this is a long term project, it would be interesting to test several films and developer combinations on otherwise identically exposed negatives to see what the results are!

The Cokin XP filter system works fine with this and other large opening lenses as do the 4" filter adapters like the Lee. A small risk of vignetting exists at the limits of movement, but you already have a loss of light at the edges using the 165mm without a center filter. Rear filter holders, while inconvenient, do often allow for use of smaller filters, but again be wary of potential vignetting.

 

I suspect it is possible to get larger filters than 4" (I think B&W and/or Tiffen already make larger ones for the lenses on commercial "cinema" movie cameras), and Grimes or emachineshop.com could certainly make the proper slide through plastic adapters ALA the Cokin/Lee style if you requested that of them. IF you decide to do that, post it on the Forum and see if others will get some made up as well-- that would drop the cost, possibly substantially....

Depending on what developer is used it may be of relatively little consequence to overexpose FP-4+ by 2 or 3 stops. Diluted developers and reduced agitation will substantially (and somewhat proportionaly) reduce the block-up of the highlights in any image (overexposed or not) and do so with minimal effect on the rest of your images. That means D-76, XTOL, Mirodol-X, etc. at 1:3 or more, or the concentrated developers like FX/TFX-2, HC-110 and Rodinal at their higher dilutions. I generally use TFX-2 and Rodinal for my FP-4, and Rodinal at 1:50 or 1:100 would be my personal suggestion for dealing with your problem, along with reducing agitation to intervals of 2-3 minutes when contrasty scenes or overexposures exist on the roll.

First of all, AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE any vigorous agitation while mixing so as to prevent the introduction of air into the liquid, and if at all possible, degas the distilled water (yes, use distilled) either by heating to the boiling point well prior to use (then carefully cooling) or by depressurization (w/vaccuum pump). Putting nitrogen in the mixing container during mixing will surely help as well (sounds anal but there are obvious physical chemistry reasons behind this-- AKA diffusion). Degassing again by vaccuum pump would rid the last of any dissolved gases from the solution AFTER it is poured into its storage container (GLASS!), then add nitrogen to top off the container.

 

YUP, lots of work but also the surest way to keep the O2 out! Too bad someone doesn't make an oxygen scavenger for bottled solutions, maybe like an isolated steel shaving "brillo pad" capsule carefully placed well above the solution and there to preferentially rust away the free O2.

Quick note on APX400-- true film speed is, or at least used to be 320 or a bit less. Trying to get it up to 400 or better might be a cause of graininess.... Rated at 200 and processed accordingly (even in Rodinal) should give good results but it's not a good choice for pushing over 400 unless enhanced grain is your interest.

"I'm watching the filter size too so I can minimize filter purchases, and especially getting center filters...."

 

SMART MOVE! Ponder that major cost as part of your overall plan for wide-angle photography! Why carry several center filters or more when you can cut it down to just one or perhaps two by making careful choices. For instance, I think the Rodenstock 90mm f/6.8 and 75 f/5.6 both use the same center filter (or is it the 65/75 combo?), and the 90 f/4.5 and 115 f/6.8 also use the same (albeit much larger than the 75/90) center filter. Carrying several large and extremely expensive center filters around in the field is both a waste of money and a pain in the behind!

 

Oh, and do ponder the size of the outbound ring on the center filter, since the 82mm front filter ring of the 90/115 then gets pushed to 105mm by the center filter, and many of the larger Schneiders go beyond that-- making the cost of additional filters also quite steep!

 

Good luck!

The big issue here is the 35mm format, and while really fine grained films like PanF+ are the best choices for the roll film formats, the points about contrast control are painfully accurate.

 

Whatever developer you use, and for my money ID-11/D-76 and XTOL are certainly good choices, plan on learning how to control the contrast issues-- largely by your exposure choices and then the dilution of your developer and modification of your agitation protocols. I'm not sure just how well the ID-11 or XTOL will work in a stand or my semi-stand method (well diluted developer along with short agitations spaced several minutes apart), but Rodinal at 1:100 or greater will certainly work well with the PanF+. Pyro developers should work as well if that is your decision, as might a whole host of other options if your exposure and processing techniques are properly modified for the specific scenes you photograph (always the issue with 35mm and 120 ROLL films).

 

One useful tool for roll films is to carry enough camera bodies or roll film backs to allow yourself the ability to expose each roll for either a NORMAL or a +/- processing, and bracket each image to help ensure that one will fit the bill when it is scanned or enlarged. This is cheap insurance!

 

Keep in mind that the gradation of the shadows, midtones AND highlights is dependent on a variety of factors-- some by the film itself, with others including developer choice, its dilution, the agitation methodolgy plus time in the developer (under, over or straight development). Shadows will proportionally develop more when there is little development action (dilute developer and little agitation) while the opposite will happen-- the highlights overdeveloping and blocking up-- with strong developer and agitation methods).

 

Finding the happy medium for each image is what B&W silver-based photography is all about!

 

So to specifically answer your question-- try the ID-11 as a one-shot diluted at either 1:1 (finer grain + more contrast) or 1:3 (greater sharpness + nicer gradation/less contrast) and rating your film at either 20-25 (normal scenics to higher contrast scenes) or at 50-64 as flat lighting gets flatter. And I see no reason why a 1:5 dilution might not work for really contrasty lighting situations, but I've only seen that recommended for XTOL. Use gentle agitations in well diluted developer every minute or two to reduce contrast, or every 30 seconds with either dilution to enhance overall contrast and perhaps improve highlight separation a bit (just be sure to also tap the tank every time to dislodge bubbles from the film surface!). Once you get your exposure calculations and processing techniques fine-tuned, bracketing the film exposures by 1 full stop (maybe adding another one at +/- 2 stops when in doubt) should then give you a shot at having a near perfect negative every time.

APX400 USED to be a great film for portraiture, etc., in particular with 120 film. It wasn't quite as grainy as HP5 or Tri-X, and had superb gradation, especially when processed in Rodinal, but I hear now that an Agfa reformulation has changed that for the worst. Alas, some things just don't get better with age.....! TriX seems to be the 400 speed choice-- excellent grain and gradation characteristics, with HP-5+ a fairly close second along with the tabular films whose only real failings are in gradation, especially in the highlights.

 

I'd try the Tri-X with Rodinal, and if the grain is a bit too severe, maybe add some sodium sulfite, 10-25 grams/liter, or try XTOL at 1:3 or even 1:5 since that will give very good gradation characteristics plus excellent accutance-- that sharp grain you are looking for.