big toys are better

My guess is that the red washer is a fiber washer. Nylon washers are fairly slippery, so a fiber or perhaps even brass or hard rubber washer may work better-- all of which should be available in the specialty fasteners bins at a good hardware store.

As for internal versus external framed packs, here are some generalized thoughts:

 

Internal is fine for cool climates, but as someone in SoCal noted to me just this last weekend, they can become uncomfortable as temperatures rise, such as in southern climates or the hot deserts of the world. Externals would possible excel for those situations, and I believe they also tend to hold more in both volume and weight, so if using 8x10 or larger formats on extended trips, the external frame may be advantageous although an internal frame pack may also be able to do that job. My older Jansport internal framed packs work fine for cameras up to 8x10 so long as the trips are relatively short (such as when staged from a vehicle or canoe), but I'll probably opt for an external frame unit whenever going on long excursions (like week long backpacking trips), especially if in the southwest deserts regions.

 

My analysis of the specialized photo packs is that they won't work well for cameras larger than a field 5x7 or very compact 8x10. The biggest issue with larger film sizes is the film itself-- the boxes and film holders become a real burden as far as bulk and to a lesser degree also weight, something most of the photo packs don't take so kindly to.

I'll second 11x14 as a nice format for B&W contacts, and note that only 4x5 has a decent selection of color films for now, and even that may end some day soon. 5x7 color films are nearly non-existent with 8x10 fading fast, but all of these LF formats still have fairly good selections of B&W films. Anything film over 8x10 that is destined for any kind of digital enlargement is probably a waste except for the very rare high end wall sized posters, so that brings us back to the contact process that Bruce mentioned.

Did anyone mention the other burden of long non-telephoto designs for LF-- namely that you need lots of bellows draw? There are ways around this when using a 300mm + lens on a short draw 4x5 camera, such as adding some form of extension, but understanding the consequences of using long lenses on a particular camera is important to ultimate success.

I'm not sure this is necessary, but let me say that that it is the effective "film speed" (AKA "exposure index" or "E.I.") that determines the shutter speed plus aperture combination needed to properly expose the film-- OR VICE VERSA-- you pick the E.I. and then choose a shutter speed/aperture combo to fulfill that need.

 

So if you decide you need a particular shutter speed and aperture combination, and that gives you a particular film speed, then you must find a film to fulfill that need. Contrast may be an issue, as is common when pushing fast films for low light situations, but that is the price for flexibility.

 

The other situation so common with fine art photography is adjusting the contrast of the film to match the scene being photographed, also known as the Zone System. With the ZS, both exposure and development are adjusted to accomplish a finished product that is easy to print and holds all of the essential analog information from the original scene to fulfill the intentions of the photographer. Knowing how to do this is both an art and a lot of science.

 

Good luck in learning all that there is to know in accomplishing your goals as a photographer!

First of all, I'm not fond of using Rodinal with fast films-- I generally limit its use to 125 speed films or slower. Nor am I fond of true "stand" development since there is indeed a risk of some unevenness due to convectional currents and the construction of the film holder creating turbulence near the edges of the film which affects development even if that risk is small.

 

I prefer a semi-stand method where agitations are relatively short but well spaced-- upwards to 5 minutes apart but no more than that. You can control the developer's action on the film by varying dilution and agitation schedules, keeping in mind that developer exhaustion is enhanced by higher dilutions and less agitation. This exhaustion affects the most exposed areas first, so mid to high dilution (1:100 or 1:200) and a bit more agitation will better favor the midtones over the highlights while still greatly benefiting the shadows.

 

Pre-soaking does tend to improve evenness of development during the first few minutes, and this may be more important for stand developing.

Mr. Scudder has said it best-- you generally use pushing or pulling to either compress the contrast (push) or expand the contrast (pull) of the film being used-- with this largely perfected as part of the Zone System protocols. The other reason is bring film speed within a usable shutter speed/aperture range, and then try to deal with any contrast issues separately. This approach is in particular used to provide usable shutter speeds when light is hard to find, such as night scenes and interior or other low light shots of sports events and other moving objects.

Bischof & Ging get my vote. Don't use wooden cloths pins since they will accumulate any chemicals and may release their own when wet. There are plastic ones which can be hung on a metal wire to hold the film, and I've used these in the past, but I have more recently used the very small sized clips described by Mr. Bischof to do the same by clipping just one corner of the sheets of film. If they ever start to rust I'll switch back to my larger plastic clothespins, but with those it is not as easy to snag the corners of the film.

 

I also wick off the drips of water along the edges of the film as it dries to ensure no deposits form even though I use distilled water with just a smidgen of PhotoFlo as my final rinse.

I assume that last comment meant to say "can't". Yes. the manufacturers could sell directly, but that would harm the ability of photographers to get film locally, and put them at the whims of the delivery services and any x-raying they do to mail ordered films despite their denials.

 

As I noted, there might be a good use for a "Guild" that would do bulk purchases for its members, whether it be directly through the manufacturer or via a "middleman" like J&C. The problem remains the logistics, something that J&C and others are suffering now

As I noted elsewhere, perhaps it is time for serious LF & ULF photographers to form a Guild in part to act a a buyer's agent for significant volumes of sheet film. This appears to be a direction that J&C is willing and able to continue on.

Perhaps the long term solution here is for a large group of LF & ULF photographers to form a Guild and use it as a unified buying agent for going through retailers such as J&C, Freestyle, etc. so as to ensure a stable supply of film and chemicals for users of large sheets of B&W film.

 

Perhaps something like the Big Sheet Guild....

Diffused backlight will produce a nice halo around the edges of the black fur and potentially excellent detail in the shadow areas (an overcast day is ideal while bright light will be a disaster). To ensure good shadow qualities, overexpose for the black fur by a stop or so if using B&W or CN film, and by about a half-stop for chrome-- this assumes you actually meter the light hitting on the part of the dog facing you using an incident meter. Otherwise there will be little if any detail in the black fur. Bracket exposures to be sure, and use diluted developer (such as D-76 @ 1:3) with the B&W to help pull out shadow details.

 

Be sure to be in sharp focus on the EYEs of the dog. As noted above, this is the most crucial point to have in focus.

The advantages of stand/semi-stand methodologies are that accutance/edge effect are enhanced, and contrast is reduced. The latter is controlled by judicious variations in the dilution of usable developers and the amount of agitation, with true stand being the absence of any agitation other that within the first 30 seconds.

 

The cause of all of this is the "local" exhaustion of the developing agent in highlight areas where much silver was exposed to light, and the continued development in shadow and mid-tone areas where less light was seen by the silver. Agitation as well as higher concentrations of the developer obviously reduce this exhaustion, while lack of agitation and high developer dilution enhance this localized exhaustion. Sodium sulfite and other "preservatives" will also reduce this affect by preserving/reactivating the developing agent.

 

Only a few developers that are immune from "streaking" and other bad effects resulting from the lack of agitation are usable, including Rodinal and the FX-2/TFX-2 developers that were recently discussed. Others may also work but I am not familiar with them. The pattern of dilution and agitation can affect the degree of development. This is especially useful for controlling density growth within the shadows and mid-tones since the highlights will quickly exhaust a well diluted developer while the shadows will not and the mid-tones exhaustion rate will be most closely tied to the overall combination of dilution and agitation.

 

I'd recommend using Rodinal at dilutions of 1:50, 1:100 and 1:200 with various degrees of agitation on any film with a nominal film speed of 125 or less, and especially the higher dilutions on the 25-50 speed films which are usually have the most inherent contrast.

"Perhaps Efke 100 is a lower contrast film because it's a regular pan film and not orthopan?"

 

Yes, this will definitely have an effect on skin tones and the contrast of shadows in general....

 

Both the 25 and 50 speed Efkes are orthopan balanced while 100 is panchromatic.

Geez!

 

There are a whole lot of different options out there, and your choices are only limited by money and dedication. As one person noted, even an old B&J/Calumet/Kodak or even higher end monorail will work so long as your hikes aren't far. And an old Kodak, B&J or similar field camera will also work, and all of the above are reasonably cheap to acquire. Spend more for a modern field camera or a real Deardorff, and you'll get a bit more in flexibility. And the old press cameras are also useful tools just as are the modern P&S cameras.

 

You can find reasonably cheap lenses to start with (such as old press and commercial lenses), and invest in really good stuff if you progress to that degree of interest and dedication. Most of the other stuff remains constant, including a large tripod, good filters, decent film holders, developing equipment and the like.

As far as FX-2 goes, I've used the Formulary's TFX-2 proprietary variant with fine results but the cost was more than I could justify when Rodinal has close to the same qualities and is much more stable in storage. If I had the time and money, it would be really nice to carefully compare the two developers with different films. TFX-2 is sure nice for fine grained films, but so is Rodinal if you don't mind the modest loss in film speed. TFX-2 should allow you to shoot FP-4+ at 200 for some situations since it gives 1/2 to a full stop of speed boost, and Acros should be enjoy speed enhancement (~ 160, maybe even 200). Both developers work well for semi-stand and full stand developing since neither is very prone to "streaking".

I like a few others noted use but a sparingly small amount of Photoflo in distilled water (a few drops per liter), and use it on all of my film from 35mm to large sheets without problems. Hard water or too much of the Photoflo can cause a problem, and so I almost never use tap water for any of my photochemical solutions. I do make an effort to wick up the drips at the corners of the film as it is drying just to be sure nothing precipitates there, but don't ever squeegee my film.

The benefits of developer exhaustion to reduce overall negative contrast works with most developers when diluted to their minimum useful concentrations; Rodinal just happens to work particularly well in doing so but is not a good choice for fast films or small formats like 35mm Tri-X. It will work very well with slow fine grained films in 35mm, or mid-speed films like APX or FP-4+ in 120mm or larger.

 

It is not hard to see how large variations in concentration and exposure time affects the negative. but the finer effects are not so obvious. Printing often brings out those small variances. Changes in dilution and agitation do have significant affects with Rodinal developed negatives, and this is also evident with other developers although they may suffer problems due to streaking, etc. True stand development is not terribly useful for fine tuning those effects, and few developers allow for this anyways.

 

Try testing Rodinal with a slow contrasty film like Pan-F+ in 35mm (with exposures bracketed by at least one full stop) then developed in Rodinal at dilutions of 25, 50, 100 and 200 using either normal or 4 minute intervals between normal agitations, then print each of the images into a 5x7 or 8x10 print. Lots of time to spend but not so much film if you cut the 36x roll into 3 or 4 pieces after exposure.

 

Good luck, Mr. Kelly....

Jorge, the 1548 is a very substantial CF tripod, and probably more than most here would be using since it is a $1000 unit and despite being CF still weighs about what my big Bogen weights without its head attached. It is probably the finest option for the formats you are using, but even so I'd be careful on very windy days unless you add the extra ballast I suggested. Splaying the legs wider is an option but as I well know Gitzo's don't have the inherent flexibility in leg angles like my old Bogen 3035, although the 1548 certainly has enough leg extension to allow a great deal of flexibility. Regardless, added weight will always benefit the final product.

Wolf-- You really SHOULD just mention that you work for Rollei-- it doesn't mean you are acting as their salesman, just that you have a separate interest which is thus relevant to those you are advising whenever you mention the Rollei name. I believe Bruce understands that this is important, and I respect him for doing so. This would also prevent these little asides which really benefit no one except to highlight possible conflicts of interest. Your original posting above was very useful and should otherwise be well regarded.

 

As far as film choices, FP-4+ and Tri-X are generally accepted to be excellent choices for their speed ranges, 125 and 400 respectively, and I am particularly fond of FP-4+ for all formats including 35mm. However, I have seen very fine portraiture done with more demanding film choices like Pan-F which has issues with contrast if lighting isn't well controlled. It's fine grain is beneficial as are the fine grains of the tabular grained films like T-Max and Delta, but this also means the films are more finicky about exposure and development.

I will also note that the Rollei RHS sounds very interesting given the "3-layer" design which proponents of Verichrome Pan will remember has its benefits.

 

With that said, these "finicky" films are also excellent training grounds for novice photographers since you will more easily pick out your mistakes and also learn to carefully control the final image via exposure and development to ensure the best possible results.

Agitation is designed to produce even development. Failure to properly agitate leads to defects in the image. My worst experience occurred in my first few developments when I failed to dislodge air bubbles from the film surface, leading to undeveloped spots which ruined several treasured images.

 

"Intensity" refers for several different aspects:

1. The actual time and physical force used to "agitate" the film, and this is unique to the individual and even to the moment. I use different methods depending upon the developing "tank" used. One thing I learned the hard way is to in some way "smack" the tank hard enough to dislodge any attached air bubbles from the film, with this mostly a problem for the first agitation cycle with dry film, and not much of an issue with wetted film (thus pre-wetting is good all around)

2. The time intervals between individual agitations is also part of the "intensity regimen". I almost always use the "semi-stand" method for Rodinal (3-5 minute intervals between agitation events) except when trying to compress the tones in the film, but I generally use normal development with 1 minute intervals for most other developers.

 

As I note, "intensity" is at least modestly related to individual practices since actual agitation technique will vary with tank design and personal preferences. The time intervals for agitation and other aspects of controlling development such as dilution and whether or not you pre-soak the film, and whether you use an acid stop bath and fixer or just use an alkaline fixer all inevitably affect the final product, and can do so in sometimes very substantial ways. Thus I seldom if ever give exact numbers for development times but instead suggest concepts that each person can then resolve for themselves by analyzing the results of their own work.

I have used a fairly heavy aluminum tripod for three decades and also used lighter units as well. Regardless of which was being used, I ALWAYS seek to add additional weight to it for two different reasons-- first is stability, although I always splay the legs sufficiently to prevent a topple (and check this to be sure). Second and in my opinion, the most important reason, is to help dampen vibrations in the tripods. Wood and CF tripods have fewer issues with vibrations, but all benefit from the added mass-- often a camera bag or similar device hanging from the head or lower when possible. Portable water jugs can also be useful for these purposes.

There is nothing wrong with pre-soaking film, and it arguably improves development consistency when your tank is slow to fill. Taming highlights is easily done using the semi-stand method, but that ought to be done by reducing the number of agitations, not by reducing the the intensity of agitation. The point is to let a well diluted Rodinal (1:50, 1:100 or 1:200) concentrate its work on the midtones and shadows but be quickly exhausted in the highlights, thus it needs to sit undisturbed for an extended time. The dilution will largely determine the effect on the highlights and midtones (i.e. the degree of separation of tones), and this can be further refined by increasing or reducing the period between agitations. I generally use 1:100 with 3-4 minute intervals between agitation, but use lower dilutions to increase contrast, and higher dilution to decrease it, and also adjust agitation accordingly.

Nikon made some wide angle process lenses such as the 260mm which ought to cover that format, and I believe the longer Fuji (600mm) and Schneider offerings (550mm & 1100mm) will also do so. Only the latter two brands are available still made as well as available in shutter, but the Dagors ought to be available as well in shutter.

Unless an unusual occurrence, the G-Clarons are single coated and thus just a bit prone to some reflections despite their relative optical simplicity. While I agree they are excellent lenses for both B&W filtered and all films unfiltered, I have also heard the argument that the lack of multi-coating may reduce overall contrast. For this reason I do agree that there is perhaps some advantage of more modern multi-coated lenses for color film which disappears when filtering with B&W films.

 

I'll be interested in seeing the discussion this creates!