big toys are better

I'm not sure that overexposure is the problem as suggested by some. Rather, the key information here is that you have dense images and high contrast-- thus you have over-development even if you didn't intend to do so. The tabular grained films are pretty intolerant of errors in exposure and processing while the HP-5 or Tri-X would be more tolerant, so if the problems are mostly with the tabular films, this would a be a good clue as to the real problem.

 

Dense negatives tend to have larger grain and well exposed shadows with good mid-tone separation while the highlights may be over-saturated and consequently flat and poorly separated. The real trick in developing silver based images is finding the sweet spot between exposure and development-- i.e. The Zone System philosophy. This is more difficult to achieve with tabular grained films like the T-max and Delta brands, and developer choice and technique are also critical. Practice may not make perfect but it could well get you close.

The most important reason for the constant agitation along with some sort of mechanical whacking of the tank at the end is to dislodge any bubbles from the film and ensure that the entire film surface is rapidly and equally wetted. I learned this the hard way early on, and have not suffered the bubble effect since (but ruined some treasured images because of that lesson). As long as the development time is fairly long, this should not cause streaking along the sprocket holes because the film is still just getting wetted in the first minute-- the developer has not yet fully diffused into the emulsion.

And let me also add my normal caveat for using lenses that nominally don't give good coverage for the format to be used-- RACK OUT THE FOCUS and your image circle grows! It's a good way to learn how to use depth of field to your advantage.

Mr. Hutton,

 

I beg to differ on the 210mm Apo Schneider and Rodenstocks, as they at least cover past the corners of 8x10 at f/22, and given the usual degree of conservatism of the Germans in stating their numbers, actually give a bit of movement as well (more than my Nikon 300mm M). Stopped down to f/32 they will give good clean coverage. I don't think Bruce was at all off base, and they really are very fine lenses even if barely adequate for 8x10.

 

The G-Claron ought be stopped down to f/45 or so to get good coverage for 8x10, but I don't think it will do any better then the Apo Symmar as far as coverage. A 240mm G-Claron (or Symmars) will obviously give better coverage than the 210mm, but the 210mm is a nicely moderate wide-angle for the 8x10 while the 240mm is really more of a short normal.

The G-Claron 210mm will indeed cover 8x10, but you will need to stop it down quite a ways and perhaps even rack out the focus if you need movements. But the lens is also quite small and light compared to other suggestions, making it very useful for field work where hiking is essential. However, it also is not multi-coated which may have a small effect on color work but isn't so important for B&W, especially if filtered.

Dedicated Calumet & B&J Orbit boards actually have a little groove around the inside edge as a light shield, but with a few exceptions, all of mine lack that and work just fine, although I don't use my Orbit much any more, but have standardized on the 4x4 boards for most of my cameras and their adapter boards.

Kerry,

 

That is a good trick that can be done with any monorail that is expandable by adding another section, including Toyos, etc., or by switching the standards onto a longer rail. Of course, the quality of your Arca Swiss is in a somewhat different class.

 

It would be nice if field cameras offered such possibilities rather than just trying to pack in as much extension as possible. Of course, some of the older field cameras like Korona and B&J did just that.

Best advice came from Mr. Briggs. Steam it out if you can, but even that is also best left to the experienced furniture repairer. Otherwise, best off leaving it alone. Your new finish coats will hide some of the problem, and with enough coats perhaps all of it, and do so without creating more harm that good. Unless there is a structural problem, do no more harm!

I will at least advocate for the Rodinal semi-stand at either 1:100 or 200, and if the scene is inherently flat, then even at 1:25 and 1:50 with a bit more agitation (agitation technique and dilution go hand in hand for controlling contrast distribution with Rodinal). With any of the mid and slow speed films this combination is hard to beat UNLESS you are looking for deliberately soft and creamy images that lack hard edge definition (high accutance), such as female portraits, dreamscapes and the like, in which case a solvent developer is better. I'm not a fan of Plus-X, but it will work just fine this way.

I'll be looking for an honest comparison between the top line Epson, Microtek and Canon scanners for LF films, but I believe it is the company behind the Vue-Scan software that likes the Epsons more than others, and their software is well liked and runs on most of the offering out there.

The center filter for the 4.5 90mm Grandagon and its 115mm breathern takes the filter size to 105mm, and thus a 105mm polarizer is ideal solution. If you intend to never use a center filter on your lens, it might still be wise to get a "thin" adapter ring to a size compatible with other lenses-- this will minimize the risk of vignetting and also give you a filter usable on other lenses (assuming you have other lenses with larger filter needs).

 

As always, I advocate doing lots of research and settling in on accessories that are versatile and whenever possible not dedicated to a single lens or camera. This is true of filters in particular.

FYI--

 

I suspect most 180mm lenses will be more than adequate for the 6x17 back (no vignetting at infinity) but still may not allow a whole whole lot of movement. Only the newest of the 150mm normals have more than enough film coverage for 5" x 7" and thus also for 6cm x 17cm, and that may account for the vignetting noted by Mr. Dunn. However, the opening for a 4x5 camera is also pushing the limits for exposing a 17cm wide film opening, and I know that some of mine will fail this test, thus a 5x7 is the safe bet.

I have in the past carted around 4x5 rail cameras, and it wasn't too painful unless I had to hike a long ways by foot on a rough trail where a cart was unusable. But even that wasn't too tough, but we are talking 4x5 cameras like the Orbit and Toyo monorails, not an 8x10 Monolith. Besides weight, size is a big issue, so unless you feel comfortable breaking down the camera into its components so it packs smaller, then you will always have a lot of work ahead of you when in the field.

 

So when you find another good deal but on a nice field camera, then ponder the pros and cons versus the cost. I suspect many of us have multiple cameras for this reason-- monorails are ideal for the studio, and field cameras for outdoors, but each will be likely be at least adequate for the job while in other environs.

Bruce may be able to come up with adapter boards for each of your cameras, or you can make your own, or have some made as I once with with Steve Grimes before he died.

 

I settled on the basic 4x4" boards that commonly fit the older Calumet, Orbit and other view cameras of the pre-electronic photo age. Those work for all but the biggest of LF wide angles-- wide-angles of 150mm and greater focal length often have rear elements larger than the 3.75" square opening of my adapter boards, and so I have to settle on bigger boards for those, such as those for 5x7 and 8x10 cameras mounted in #3 shutters, or the huge process lenses.

 

Another alternative might be to develop a system using small adapter plates that permanently mount to the bigger lenses (perhaps a 3 or 4" diameter ring with appropriate center hole for the big shutters), and then use a two piece lens board that slips over that ring to securely hold the lens in place while mounted in the camera standard. I've obviously pondered this for a while but have yet to actually build one, but the idea comes from an old lens mounting system I saw back in the 1970s for LF lenses. I think it may have been in one of my old Calumet catalogs. building the adapter boards will require some careful thought and execution so that they are lightproof and very strong, but having already thought it out I'm sure it will work in either wood or metal.

I think these formulas are truly just an estimate since the actual diameter will be reflective of the angle of the emitted light out of the rear element and the actual distance of the film plane from that rear element at infinity focus versus at your chosen extension. Different lenses have differences in back focus (at infinity) from the mounting point of the lens, and these differences will affect the estimate, but I think you can get a pretty accurate estimate of the image circle at any particular distance by using basic trigonometry and the information I noted above. I'm betting some smart reader actually has a precise formula for doing so.

I found the 3047 didn't like heavy loads and the parts eventually distorted, so I replaced it with the 3054 which is extremely heavy duty but appears to be no longer made. Try the heavy duty version of the 3047 instead which is either the 3029 or 3049. These all come with Bogen's hexagonal quick release plates.

 

For those using field cameras, Bogen makes a 4"x4" quick-release base plate for the 3047, 3029/49 and the 3054. This gives even more stability for those cameras when on a strong pan/tilt head.

There are very fine 3M style pads that will be at least as gentle as 400 grit or finer sandpaper, and this is all hand work, don't use a sander or even a sanding block. I think this will be the best way to proceed until you see what happens with the old varnish. Try a Sherwin-Williams store-- that's where I get mine but I've seen them in most pro level paint stores. Get at least one of each coarseness.

One thing I forgot to mention is that I generally use the 3M style of abrasive pads instead of steel wool since any water based or alcohol based product will have water in it and lead to "rusting" of any residual steel fibers. Paint stores in particular will have different grades of those pads for a reasonable price-- around a buck or two for a fairly large piece of material. These are really nice to work with and with rare exception probably better to use that the steel wool.

IF denatured alcohol will take your finish off then it is likely shellac based, something I love to use and fondly refer to as "bug sh*t" because it was traditionally derived from the excretions of a certain bug that sucks the sap of a particular plant.

 

Anyways, shellac is very nice to work with and easy to remove and restore, but not the strongest finish for outdoors. I love the look and so recommend it when appropriate.

 

Also, another alternative to fix a bad screw hole is to take some sawdust and mix it with 2-part epoxy glue. IF you put the screw into this while still hardening it will likely NEVER come out-- for better or worse, but you can let it harden and then drill out the necessary hole for the screw. Doing so with a good yellow glue will be easier to work with but not nearly as strong, and you can also use a polyurethane glue such as Gorilla Glue but that is messier since it will expand as it cures. The dowel method is fine as well and works great when the screw or lag is large but I've come to like the sawdust method in most cases where the screw is small and the damage to the base material is minor. Also, as Mr. Briggs is suggesting, your finishing material may fill your empty screw holes, and this may be just enough filler within a "stripped" hole for a screw to grab onto, but don't refinish and then try the glue methods-- your bond won't be as strong as with raw wood.

The symmetrical process lenses like the apo-Ronar and G-Claron don't give the best coverage for their focal lengths but will give more coverage as you stop them down. 500mm at f/22 is not a bad start for the 600mm and I suspect you can get more than enough coverage for the skinny 8x20 format (545mm) by the time you hit f/32 or 45. Keep in mind that the numbers given by manufacturers are always a little imprecise-- what you see on film is what you get.

 

An excellent alternative is the Fujinon 600mm C lens which Badger lists at around 620mm of coverage, probably at f/22 given it is an f/11.5 lens. (http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=176)

 

Disclosure-- I don't work for any photographic companies, so what I tell you is from my own experiences and research

I know that some cameras lack rigidity when extended near their limits (make that most if not all cameras, especially field cameras), but there are ways to minimize those issues, including bracing the outbound end with a monopod or a second tripod, or using an articulated arm such as those Bogen sells to brace off of the one tripod's legs. The latter is what I generally use, and it has the gripper fingers on both ends so I don't necessarily need to have a second tripod mount to use it (but adding a second tripod mount to a field camera isn't difficult and makes using a monopod with ballhead combination very plausible and sometimes the best option). Regardless of the camera you own, bracing is a good idea in the outdoors when the bellows are extended near their limits as it minimizes wind issues by dampening the camera's inherent harmonics which greatly worsen with extension.

On the darkslide question, I find it best to take it out completely although I still worry that might create a light leak, especially in older film holders. However, the flapping issue is exactly what I worry about-- vibration due to wind, so out it comes. But I also have half-slides for shooting two exposures on a single sheet, and those of course have to be in when shooting (but the full darkslide was already removed).

 

One other thing on the camera issue-- you can always buy another camera to supplement your first purchase. I still have my first LF camera, an Orbit (B&J) knockoff of the Calumet (or is it vice-versa?). Hope my children will someday get interested, so I keep all of the old stuff just in case. That includes lenses, film holders, filters and the like since they are far more interchangeable than on other formats.

I think you are in the wrong place-- try digital darkroom and/or digital cameras

 

This column is for large format cameras-- generally meaning cameras using 4x5 INCH and larger silver based film.

I think as a general rule the "normal" lenses have the greatest POTENTIAL for sharpness, but optical design and manufacturing ultimately determines the actual quality of the image no matter what the focal length and angle of view. In fact, looking at tests of identical lenses often shows significant differences in resolution values (even Schneider has had QC/QA problems over the years), and some of the modern designs are inherently sharper than many but not all of the older lenses due to computer aided design technologies developed in the 1970's and now universally used by major manufacturers like Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, Nikon and others.

With any luck the demise of film and paper manufacturers will soon stabilize as demand and supply settle into a steady state. Hopefully Foma, Efke, Ilford and Fuji and a few others will all come out winners now that it looks like Forte and Kodak are going the way of the dinosaurs.