big toys are better

It's too late to do anything abut the development stage. but re-fixing is doable, as is rewashing. I also doubt

that the water stop bath was much of an issue so long as you did several water exchanges before putting in the

fixer, but an acid stop bath is advisable unless use are using an alkaline fixer like the Formulary's TF-4, or a

highly alkaline developer like Rodinal which uses a carbonate buffer, and can potentially produce carbon dioxide

bubbles when acid is added to it.

A late entry to this thread would be one of the Graphics, lens choice being relatively unimportant although I might ponder a wider lens such as the 90mm Optar to start with. I saw a nearly mint Crown Graphic the other day, and its owner showed me its various options, including a "sports finder" that would obviously serve well for aerial photography as well. It had a Rodenstock 135mm which would also serve quite well for what you are doing.

 

IF you choose to try this with a hand holdable 4x5 like a Speed or Crown Graphic, get Graphmatic backs for the film. Six shots in a row before changing the holder.

Hmmmm... "stick with forever"....

 

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

"environmental portraiture" is certainly more applicable to the "normal" lenses such as these. 300mm offers a

broader range of options (process vs the Plasmats, etc.), but if you intend to stick with 8x10 and not go to a

smaller format such as 5x7, I think I might ponder getting a good (and also big and heavy) 360mm plasmat to start

with as well as investing in a shorter process (e.g. G-Claron) or plasmat lens in the 240-270mm range plus

perhaps a longer

600mm Fuji Compact or 550mm Schneider Elite. This would produce a very useful collection of lenses for your 8x10

adventures. The only things missing are super long lenses like the 1100mm Elite or a Tele-Artar, and wide angles

in the 150mm-210mm range. But all of this runs in to big money, especially the Schneider Elites, although the

process lenses like the G-Clarons and Fujinon's "compact" lenses tend to be quite reasonable.

While using a tabular grained film is certainly acceptable and offers finer grain and higher inherent sharpness,

there is nothing wrong with HP-5 either, and it will be more tolerant of exposure and development errors. If you

are going to routinely use faster films, developers in the D-76 class (solvent) are a good choice, but I'd

recommend trying some HC-110 since it is a liquid, quite stable in stock solution and very flexible in use, more

so than D-76/ID-11, etc.. It is usable with just about any normal film, with the higher dilutions especially

appropriate for slower fine grained films which tend to be fairly contrasty. If you end up liking the slower

films, also try Rodinal.

 

If you use HC-110, learn abut its interesting characteristics including its wide range of dilutions. I always

recommend starting here and reading the Kodak literature as well:

 

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

 

Rodinal has many fans and addicts on this forum, myself included, and checking out the old threads on it will

prove useful is you gravitate to the slower films.

A few things to remember about all developing solutions:

 

1. The more dilute the developer, the more likely you will have some compensation in contrast range, where the highlights develop proportionally less and the shadows and mid-tones more. This is the reason Rodinal is much loved by those that seek to carefully control such things. Rodinal has other nice features, but read on.

 

2. Solvent developers like D-76 soften the grain by actually dissolving the silver, and dilution will reduce this effect. Choose you dilution of D-76 is this effect in mind, as Tro-X, HP-5 and other fast films in the 35mm format in particular will benefit from that softening.

 

3. Different developers have different characteristics, although some are essentially copies or slight variations/improvements of others.. If you are working in 35mm, then keeping your grain size down is usually a significant concern (this is bet accomplished by choice of film and the developer), but in larger formats, especially sheet films, controlling the image characteristics is usually more important to the user than the actual grain size and even its sharpness. Scanning of negatives for digital printing is an area I can't address with any expertise, but I would expect that there is a relationship in final image quality to be found between scanner resolution and film sharpness.

 

To answer your question precisely, the straight strength D-76 will definitely give "finer" but also softer grain. If your film is not a 400 ISO class film, then grain size is less important and 1:1 might be a better choice.

 

IF you begin to shoot slow fine grained films such as those in the 25 to 50 ISO class films, use a different developer, such as well diluted Rodinal or HC-110. The latter is a good choice for a 35mm darkroom since it is an excellent liquid solvent type developer that is quite stable in its full strength stock concentration, plus offers very nice qualities for general developing efforts as well as more technically oriented contrast control. Rodinal is also a very stable liquid but it is also not a solvent developer, and should mostly be used only for fine grained films where its contrast control capabilities are legendary.

The "higher" silver content of some films will in general make them more forgiving and easier to manipulate with

changes in exposure and development, but as I noted above, the "accutance" and "definition" will be greater with

tabular grained films and thin layer films since there will be less "diffusion", "diffraction" and "reflection"

of the light as it passes through the film, all of which are enemies of the real and perceived "sharpness". In

general terms, TMax and Delta films should (and do) give sharper images because of their thinner emulsions but

are also more sensitive to changes in exposure and development.

 

I see no reason why the true DMax of a film would be greater for such films, and if all other things are equal,

then additional silver within an emulsion should always be capable of creating a higher DMax. However, there are

important variables in all films, including differences in the exact mix of silver halides (size and

configuration in particular) and sensitizers which are crucial to the overall reactivity of the film to light. As

has been alluded to, many of these things are carefully held secrets....

As noted by many, HC-110 is a good versatile developer in a long lasting liquid form that has a useful exposure

v. density curve that minimizes blocked up

highlights, plus it can be manipulated in several ways including by using it at high dilution (F, G & H) and with

semi-stand agitation during development to cut down contrast. Look up the recommendations for HP-5+ and

HC-110 at http://www.digitaltruth.com but also see http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ for some

background info.

 

 

 

 

 

HP5+ HC-110 H 3200 38 --- --- 20C Note- Semi-stand development: agitate constantly for first

minute, then once every 5-10 minutes.

 

 

 

 

The Massive Dev Chart

http://www.digitaltruth.com

It will be hard to find, but the Nikon 150/8 SW will work as will the 120 SW already mentioned (and the 120mm can

be found new in box for under $800 at B&H). If you are willing to rack out the focus a bit, some other lenses not

recommended by Fotoman will also work since coverage increases as you focus closer. However, I think the Nikon

SW's are probably your best best on the short side, with the 120mm a better choice given its immediate

availability and that 210mm is your next step up, although I'm sure someone has already noted that the ideal

progression would have been 120mm, 180mm and 300mm, but a wide coverage 180mm will be hard to find cheaply.

I will agree that if your only concern is more silver (which does give a bit more reliability in and control over

image contrast),

then the lower tech films such as Efke's will provide that extra bit of silver comfort. There is nothing wrong

with that unless you are looking for maximum accutance, then the thin layer films like the tabular grained films

(Kodak's TMax and Ilford's Delta), or perhaps Pan F for regular grained films, will have the edge.

It's obvious you are a roll film user, and Pan F is one of my favorite films in rolls-- I wish it was available

in sheets as well. Other good choices would be any of the Efke films since they tend to be a bit contrasty and

thus good choices for cloudy days, and FP-4 is also a fine choice in my opinion but not as good as Pan F unless

you need some extra speed. Keep in mind that since your lighting is flat that you will want to either give the

film a bit of push or use a contrasty film/developer combination. Pan F film is a great start.

 

Rodinal is a great choice for developer so long as you aren't in need of softer grain (it will give very sharp

grain), and since since excess contrast is not an issue, using it at 1:25 or 1:50 is the best way to go. If you

use any other developer, such as HC-110, D-76, XTOL, etc., avoid the higher dilutions for the same reasons-- as

you dilute, there is inevitably some compensating effect and that is not an issue for cloudy days, especially if

you use "fill flash". As I have noted in other threads, I like the liquid developers, and would recommend having

at least Rodinal and either HC-110 or another long lasting liquid developer in your darkroom.

 

HC-110 is a good

choice for FP-4 if you decide to use that since at it's moderate dilutions it will only slightly soften the grain

and still provide good sharpness as you punch up the contrast of the film (try shooting at E.I. 200 and develop

in Dilution B to begin with, but if the resulting grain is too soft for your tastes then you'll have to

experiment with higher dilutions such as Dilution D, E or even H-- see

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/ for some useful HC-110 guidelines). Because of HC-110's resulting

contrast curve, you shouldn't have to worry about either the highlights blocking up or the shadows losing detail,

and erring on the side of bit of overexposure will ensure more shadow detail if that is important.

I used my 3047 head for many years (about 15) before the forward tilt became so unreliable as to be unusable with

any heavy camera, whether it be a 35mm SLR with a telephoto, or my old Orbit 4x5, or my newer cameras such as a

Toyo or various field views. Here is the B&H info on the head I recommended which turns out to be the 3039 (but

it sells for $205):

 

"The Bogen/Manfrotto 229 Super Pro Head is a finely machined head, designed for greater positioning precision

with smooth, certain action. It features three built-in bubble levels for horizontal and vertical control, and

the oversized handles have calibrated degree indicators viewed from the operator's position for all axes. This

rock-steady head locks easily and securely.

 

All pan heads fit any Bogen tripod, or any tripod with 3/8" thread. Pan heads screw right on and can also be

locked in with the three locking screws in the center post platform of the tripod base.

 

Replaces part number 3039."

 

 

 

As an alternative, try looking for a good used head as others recommended. but don't get a lighter duty head than

this (i.e. don't get a 3047 or its equivalent if you are going to routinely use it for a view camera)

I recall that either the Bogen/ManfrottoXX29 or XX39 is their heavy duty head and quite usable for any view camera. It ought to be less expensive than the 3263. I found the 3047 to be a bit undersized for LF and replaced mine with (I think) a very heavy duty 3054 which had the quick change 4"x4" plate. I don't think it sold well and was discontinued some time ago, but I sure like mine. The XX29/39 would work well, and if you use a flatbed field camera, see if if you can get one of those plates for it (I think it uses the hex adapter as well).

Oops-- I guess my file data is incorrect, Leesa had it developed the next day and from the date stamp on the print I see that that it was in November (which makes sense since that is when the big winter storms have begun forming up north).....

It's been a few years since I lived full time in the area, but I recall that May-June can often be very foggy on

the west coast, especially in the a.m. (something to do with the general weather pattern), and hot days inland

pull the coastal breezes into the inner valleys during the afternoons, especially during the summer and fall,

thereby also making the coast very foggy and wet. I've had good luck at various times of the year along the

coastal run from Santa Barbara to Santa Cruz, but my favorites times to photograph the Central Coast region tend

to be April-May when the

wildflowers tend to be in bloom with colorful zest, and then later in the summer and into the autumn when the

grasses have dried and make for great B&W images.

 

The "rainy" season tends to start as the official winter hits-- December to March, and the weather can make the

roads hard to judge. However, the big waves those storms generate can create stunning images, but be wary of

rogue waves if you are ANYWHERE near the water's edge. I was on the Morro Bay breakwater in October of 1983,

taking pictures of the big waves crashing against the Morro Rock, when my peripheral vision luckily detected a

horizon change-- a very large rogue wave was rolling towards shore and about to inundate the breakwater. Someone

was photographing me as I was up there and I have a series of 3x5 prints showing me smiling and then running for

my life down the backside of the breakwater, and finally just disappearing under the wave as it crashed over the

breakwater. Not long after I was walking along the dunes on the north beach when another rogue hit, washing all

the way up the beach and into the dunes, and again inundating me up to my hips. but not into my camera bag. Most

of my gear survived without a problem due to the case I had it all in, but the one camera that was out (a 35mm

SLR) died shortly thereafter although the lens has always worked fine. I know that some others on the breakwater

got the full Monte from that first rough wave, but I don't know just how bad.

 

BTW, don't forget to visit Montana de Oro State Park in Los Osos/Morro Bay area, and be sure to travel up & down

the side roads between U.S. 1 to U.S. 101 so see the changes in weather and terrain that their altitude changes

wrought. Should it be foggy, do remember

that this was the weather that Ansel Adams and the Weston family loved to work in when on the coast.<div></div>

See my response at a recent thread (and go to the Covington website for HC-110

if that developer intrigues you):

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PpJ2

 

In general, any developer diluted to its useful maximum will provide a bit of

compensation for contrasty scenes, and Rodinal at 1:100 is generally where I

start when that is an issue (and go to higher dilutions as necessary) along with

semi-stand agitation, but the highest dilutions of HC-110 were loved by Ansel

Adams for the same reasons. Personally, I'd probably recommend trying HC-110 at

dilution G or H if the contrast was severe, but the time for that is a guess at

best, probably around 12-15 minutes in "H" (since you overexposed) or maybe even

20 minutes for the "G" if you use Ansel's semi-stand method (1 minute agitations

every 3-5 minutes).

 

See Covington's site for more info on Ansel Adams' processing.

 

IMHO-- Agfa's Rodinal AND Kodak's HC-110 belong in very darkroom where more than

just one film is shot, especially if you shoot both slow films like Efke's

selections, and medium to fast films like those from Fuji, Ilford, Kodak and

others. Other developers are fine, but these two are liquids that are quite

stable in their stock strengths and thus can be mixed up on a moment's notice.

Plus their resulting image qualities are wonderful if properly used.

See my response at a recent thread (and go to the Covington website for HC-110

if that developer intrigues you):

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00PpJ2

 

In general, any developer diluted to its useful maximum will provide a bit of

compensation for contrasty scenes, and Rodinal at 1:100 is generally where I

start when that is an issue (and go to higher dilutions as necessary) along with

semi-stand agitation, but the highest dilutions of HC-110 were loved by Ansel

Adams for the same reasons. Personally, I'd probably recommend trying HC-110 at

dilution G or H if the contrast was severe, but the time for that is a guess at

best, probably around 12-15 minutes in "H" (since you overexposed) or maybe even

20 minutes for the "G" if you use Ansel's semi-stand method (1 minute agitations

every 3-5 minutes).

 

See Covington's site for more info on Ansel Adams' processing.

 

IMHO-- Agfa's Rodinal AND Kodak's HC-110 belong in very darkroom where more than

just one film is shot, especially if you shoot both slow films like Efke's

selections, and medium to fast films like those from Fuji, Ilford, Kodak and

others. Other developers are fine, but these two are liquids that are quite

stable in their stock strengths and thus can be mixed up on a moment's notice.

Massive has a Dilution H for HP-5 at 3200 using semi-stand development

(agitation only every 5-10 minutes). Since H is fairly dilute (1:63), bromide

drag, streaking and mottling will not be a major issue if you vigorously agitate

for the first minute but then increased periods between those agitations-- the

"semi-stand" method that I generally use (there are also higher dilutions to be

found at websites listed below which will further enhance these effects). The

higher dilutions will provide some accutance enhancement plus reduce overall

contrast, and the semi-stand agitation will increase this effect, but if you are

looking for finer, smoother grain and less effect on contrast (keeping in mind

that HC-110 does not tend to produce a classic "S" curve in the tones of the

developed negatives), then lower dilutions plus more traditional methods will

work better. However, see the Covington websites discussion of the "G" dilution

(1:119) and semi-stand method (3 minutes between subsequent agitations) that

Ansel Adams used to improve his film's shadows without blocking up the

highlights, something that HC-110 ought to be very good at doing.

 

Also try these pages for info:

 

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

 

http://www.mironchuk.com/hc-110.html

 

http://mkaz.com/photo/tools/developing.html

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j24/j24.jhtml

If you are just building a 4x5 and aren't too concerned about technical

capability or field worthiness, the Bender View is a good camera giving a great

learning process. Building a good sliding bed field camera is more complex and

technically demanding.

 

I haven't yet built a view camera for myself, but I have long pondered building

a modular ULF camera, probably starting with a used 8x10 or 11x14 field camera

and creating new standards & bellows that would allow quick format changes for

shooting 8x20, 12x20 and 16x20 film, and perhaps some other options as well.

 

One issue to consider is whether the rail/bed is long enough to focus the longer

lenses (such as 600mm, 800mm, 1100mm, etc. in ULF), plus able to compress for

the shortest. The shortest lens I have for those big sheets is under 300mm, and

the Fujinon 600mm Compact looks like a great second lens, with 200mm to 1200mm

(8"-->48") the maximum range I'd be looking for, so in my case I might consider

creating a two part bellows system for the longer lenses (using an extension

rail and bellows attachment) .

 

On the other hand, a 4x5 view camera would be quite competent if it can compress

down to 75mm or even just a bit less than 90mm (and then use a recessed lens

board to get even shorter, so be sure to use a common lens board size like the

Wista/Linhof or Calumet), and then be able to expand out to 400mm or so so you

can use a 300mm without too many issues. This would also let you do life size

with short

macro/process lens like a 150mm or 210mm G-Claron. Plus of course, you need to

have adequate camera movements in all of these situations, but that need also

tends to define what kind of camera you will need-- rail or sliding bed.

One thing to note is that the aperture's extra half-a-stop in the 90mm Grandagon f/6.8 does make a difference in focusing over the f/8 Nikon and Schneider options (as does the f/4.5 Grandagon over other 90mm WAs).

One very real issue with household water is dissolved cations like iron, lead, arsenic, etc.. Iron in particular can cause problems with toning solutions. In most cases this wouldn't be an issue, but you never know. In my opinion, better safe than sorry with the developer, and I see that the same probably should hold true for toners.

I'll second Dennis O'Connor on wearing gloves (Nitrile or vinyl) and avoiding selenium (and probably any other toning solutions) since selenium is a well known teratogen (google Kesterson Reservoir) and many metals can have side effects still not understood.

 

Also avoid mixing any dry chemicals, especially any containing organic components, which is mostly the developers. Wear a dust mask around any others.

 

But the larger world is also much more of a risk than the medical world understands, and yet we survive. But your household drinking water and various food and drink items may be the worst of your worries unless you have fresh paint on the walls (lots of VOCs there!) or exotic organic chemicals wafting about.

As someone has pointed out elsewhere, a center filter is more important for a wide angle used to its limits where the light falloff will be noticeable on one side of the image. A 5x7 will be more prone to this than a 4x5 for the same reasons stated below. Solid blue and overcast skies are also a common victim of such light falloff.

 

The 5x7 format is obviously very similar to the 35mm format in its 2:3 aspect ration (this also alters the corrective abilities of a 5x7 view camera within the image circle of the lens, and often makes a center filter more appropriate as well), but the other issue is really just how the image perspective is "expanded" or "compressed" by the choice of lens, and this is more than just a bit independent of the film's aspect ratio (it actually occurs regardless of that aspect ratio but is very much dependent upon the ratio of the lens' focal length to the diagonal of the film).

Mr. Budding--

 

Good for you, always good to see a trained chemist exhibit their skills....

 

One thing I was thinking of late is just how much the buffering of liquid developers is different that the buffering of dry versions. I know this is in part done to compensate for variations in local water quality (alkaline out west and acid in the northeast, and some containing God knows what else in addition to H2O-- I've seen some talking about murky water being just fine for their work), and for this reason there may also be chelators included that are designed to eliminate excesses of some things like "hardness" (calcium, magnesium, iron, etc.). This would particularly important for making up the stock solution from a dry component mix but also a consideration for the final working solution where additional water is added.

 

Perhaps Lowell will enlighten us on that.

I will reaffirm Mike Gammill's recommendations since the two liquids are stable for longer term storage will be easy to mix into working solutions. I'd use the Rodinal for APX 100 at any speed unless you want a bit smoother grain at E.I. 200, then use HC-110 for that and for APX 400. With both of them you can control contrast issues by increasing dilution and decreasing agitation, and this is particularly appropriate with Rodinal at 1:100 and higher dilutions.

As far as choosing focal lengths, I think it is wise to use that 1.5--1.75 rule mostly for the "normal" lengths and not the wide angles where I find that a 1.25 to 1.35 change is more appropriate (e.g. for both 4x5 & 5x7 using 72mm SA-XL, 90mm SA or Grandagon, and then 110mm SS-XL or 115mm Grandagon, followed by normal progression into the 'normals" (150mm or 180mm, then to 300mm and either a 450mm or 600mm thereafter).

 

The reason for this is that the perspective change with wide angles is more pronounced than with the normals and telephotos, and this is quite evident to those having had and used a full range of WA lenses in 35mm. At one time I routinely carried a 17mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm and 300mm with me just about everywhere my camera gear went, plus several macros & WA and tele zooms, and often wished I had the missing pieces for the wide angles (20mm in particular, but even wider rectilinear wide angles than the 17mm were also available, while the 58mm SA-XL is good for 4x5 but also quite usable on 5x7 with a little planning). Sometimes one WA is too long for the shot, and another is too short, but the in-between is just right for the correct effect, and this is in particular true with tight interiors and also for "close-ups" where exaggerated perspective is wanted.

 

For this reason I plan my lens purchases to cover the crucial needs and then fill the voids, and the changes in the focal lengths of my wide-angle selections usually ended up being in the 1.2 to 1.3 range. Another problem is having the correct lens for the film size being used (we've been talking about one film size but three large format sheet film sizes are still in common use), and since I love the 5x7 format but also use 4x5, 8x10 and perhaps someday even ULF films like 8 & 12x20, effective coverage for all of these creates overlaps. As I've noted in other threads, the 210mm G-Claron is both a "normal" for the smaller sheets (4x5 & 5x7) plus a wide angle for 8x10 (when stopped way down), while the 240mm G-C is still a modest WA for 8x10 plus a "normal" for 5x7, but a modest telephoto for 4x5.

 

Size and length matters!

 

Finally, assuming you do find the need for a center filter, buying WA lenses that use the same filter can save you space, money and weight. This is not so commonly possible with Schneider lenses, but the Grandagon 90mm f/4.5 and 115mm do use the same center filter, have a change in focal length of about 28%, and make good choices for 4x5 and 5x7 systems (I mostly use a 5x7 field camera which also has a 4x5 adapter back).

 

Planning for other filters with your lenses means having the proper step-up rings and a good selection of the matching filter diameters, and perhaps also using something like the Cokin, Lee or other mostly plastic filter systems. I find that the 52mm filters which also fit many of my 35mm Canon and Nikon lenses are a good staring point to work on my other lenses, and then things jump to a smaller selection of 72mm and 77 mm filters which were originally for my 35mm lenses, finally getting up to the 105mm and larger filters that are required for the LF WA lenses, with these much more limited in number and selection, but also usable on some of the more exotic 35mm lenses (e.g. long telephotos).