big toys are better

There is definitely a smear from the feathers in the helmet, so it could be the single long exposure but I doubt it. Probably two separate exposures suggesting the film didn't advance for some reason.

Pulling your Tri-X to EI 200 and using a solvent developer like D-76 or a phenidone equivalent will give you finer grain, and diluting the developer 1:1 or more will increase the sharpness with some increase in grain. Minimizing agitation will also help to reduce grain without much affect on sharpness. Thus using D-76 at 1:1 with 30" agitation in the beginning and 5-10" every minute after that is a good compromise.

I'd vote for the Toyo 45C as a good starter camera which has many of the necessary frills to be a great system camera in the studio and even very nice to use in the field. The 45G is nicer but not a great choice for the field.

 

One bit of advice: although I have the Toyos, I started with an Orbit many years ago and have settled on using the basic deardorf/Calument 4x4 lens boards to mount any lens destined to be used on a 4x5 or 5x7. Steve Grimes helped to make my first Toyo adapter board way back when, and I've built my own for my other cameras including my 5x7 and 8x10 field cameras. With a few exceptions like the longer Grandagons and Super Angulons where the rear elements are just too big to fit within a 3.5 x 3.5" opening, most lenses live quite nicely on a 4x4 board.

Both Michael and Bruce may be correct here. The issues with reflections will be more noticeable with wide angle lenses since the angle of light hitting the film will be more off axis. If this is your primary problem then there should be a discernible difference between using a 120-- 165mm lens and a 360mm or greater length lens, and the difference in density should also follow changes in local film density since there would be more light being reflected where more light hit the film. If development is a problem, try using good agitation in the very beginning and then less. A very good way to test this is to use Rodinal at 1:100 or 1:200 with stand agitation (no agitation after the first minute). If the line disappears, then your development agitation was the problem.

My 2 cents:

 

1. For the best combination of of qualities including pushability, TX400 is hard to beat. Unfortunately, I do agree that Kodak is on the way out and that TX and other good Kodak films may well disappear or end up being done by other manufacturers with less QC. It might be wise to get what TX you can. Penny wise or pound foolish, you decide.

 

2. Agfa 400 used to be a great film for nice gradation and finer grain than TX or HP5. I don't know if that is still true, but I'm sure that TX is still the one 400 class film to have for 35mm if you are going to have just one all around choice for sports and photojournalism. However, Agfa 100 & 400, Ilford's FP-4+ & PanF+, and Efke 25 are my top choices for 120 film since that format isn't so much about sports or photojournalism. I'd be using them for my LF work as well if they were available in sheets (only FP4+ and Efke 25 are).

 

3. IF I were buying and using 35mm bulk load film, I'd get a loader for each of the following: TX, FP-4+ and whatever fine-grained film was reasonable to buy, including both PanF+, and Efke 25.

 

Be sure to keep the loader and your film cannisters scrupulously clean so as to prevent scratches on the film. This is by far the biggest drawback with bulk film loaders.

TF-4 is an alkaline fixer. It does fix rather quickly but more importantly washes out easily. I know of no issues on its longevity. I have no idea why you are using a sodium carbonate wash. Assuming you are using one of the highly alkaline developers with that in it, one or more plain water washes between the developer and any fixer ought to be adequate to prevent damage to the film emulsion. The biggest issues with carbonates as buffers is that (1) they will release CO2 in acid solutions, and (2) that chemical reactions between strong acids and bases creates heat which is also potentially damaging. A water wash (instead of acid stop bath) will dilute out the chemicals enough to prevent this. I use several as part of my regular developing process regardless of the fixer at the end.

C'est magnifique!

 

Unfortunately, "mon francais est" deficient after all these very many decades of neglect. An English translation for the world to see would be a wonderful addition!

 

I am very interested in how you constructed the back and bellows since I hope to convert one of my old 8x10 field cameras to at least a 12"x20" system camera capable (with the appropriate rear camera standard or adapter back) of shooting 8x10, 8x20, 11x14, 12x20 films and probably some of the intermediate film sizes as well. That way I can always load up on whatever ULF films are then available and keep shooting.

 

And is there any good advice on constructing one's own film holders?

Tthere is also Essex Camera Repair in NJ I believe. I've had good luck with them on 35mm stuff, have heard good things about them from other sources, but have not used them for LF lens repairs.

 

As far as the copper corrosion issue, there is a good possibility that a bad copper piece could either be fabricated from scratch, or else new copper or even gold be plated on the piece(s). This is obviously the territory for specialists.

Lucky you for having a 6x9 back since it is a great format but also a bit hard to find used and even new! Yes your range of movements is better than with 4x5, and that should become very obvious as you look at the groundglass while the lens is wide open. The range will increase as you focus closer and of course as you stop down, but you will also lose image resolution which is already not as great in the Ektar as with a modern German or Japanese lens (especially computer designs from the 1990s and later).

 

One issue with roll film backs is that the films have thinner film bases and in some case have pronounced film curvature in the center, especially as the width of the image increases to 6x12 and wider. However, stopping down to f/16 or more will minimize the problems, just be sure to test for any shifts in focus for the lens in use. I like to photograph a long brick wall or walkway at a series of F-stops (starting with wide open) to see if center of the DOF shifts in an unusual manner, and also to better understand the image quality at different aperatures. Try this first with your roll film back, then use some 4x5 to see what happens at the center and edges of that. Grafmatic backs are great for doing this since you can get 6 shots in rapid succession (and all sequentially numbered as well!).

 

I actually do two half-frame images on my LF films, giving me the rough equivilants of 6x12CM (on 4x5"), 6x17CM (on 5x7") and of course, 4x10" (on 8x10") with the thick based sheet films that offer more demensional stability than roll films. My experience with my older batches of Agfa 100 was particularly bad since they seemed to have amongst the thinnest of film bases, making even its loading into reels something of an adventure. My newer batches appear to be a bit tougher to tweak.

Yes, Ektars were generally superior to the most common Raptars but I have often used a 127mm Raptar and found it to be more than adequate on my 4x5 cameras (as also are the 90mm and 135mm Graphex Optar units), though obviosly not perfect. The 127mm lens's inherent aberrations sometimes created an interesting aura in the image (and the changes in sharpness with aperature is also useful as times), but I still find some of those images to be amongst my most appealing creations.

I forgot to mention that some of the longer G-Clarons ought to cover the 14x17 format as wide-angles, probably including the 270mm, 305mm and up. Jim Galli can better speak to those optics, but I do know that my 240mm G-Claron gets pretty good coverage on 8x10 at f/45 and smaller, and the 210mm scrapes by for 8x10. This actually would be a great and very cost effective way to get that coverage albeit without the huge angle of view and better film coverage the 210mm Schneider SA and XL units will give. There are also several options in barrel lenses IF you can find them, including the exceedingly rare 240mm and 260mm Apochromatic Process-Nikkors that have absolutely HUGE coverage for their focal lengths (good enough for 16x20 or even 20x24 in the latter case).

My only concern with the ArtixScan M1 Flatbed & Film Scanner is that despite technical specs listing maximum film scan at around 8x10, nothing in their press release suggests they actually support over 4x5, thus leaving 5x7 and 8x10 film users in the cold. I for one would actually like to see a ULF capable film scanner (at least U.S. "B" sized [11" x 17"] capable) at a reasonable price, and with wet mount capability also available from the manufacture or a designated subcontractor like ScanScience. A 13" x 24" capable unit with the M1's optical specs and priced within the $1500-$2000 range would be a true godsend for nearly every ULF photographer and a host of artists in other media.

But IF one was willing to spend the big bucks for the finest optics, the latest ULF Schneiders at Badger Graphics, etc. would be the nice choice, especially the 1100mm. I would also think that the 550mm Scheider or 600mm Compact Fuji would serve one well, with the Fuji quite affordable. Schenider also makes the very fine "800mm f/12 Apo-Tele-XNR Convertible Lens in Copal #3 Shutter (Mfr # 05028173)", with the 800mm rear element probably providing more than adequate coverage for the 14 x 17 film, especially for a portrait. However, it costs over $4000 (U.S. $).

 

One other thing to remember on lens coverage-- as you focus in (as you do with portraits) the image circle enlarges proportionally with its angle of coverage.

Mr. Bishop wins the prize! While a true Calumet or Orbit board is more than just a flat piece of material, I have all sorts of 4x4 boards that still nicely fit my Orbit and all of my other 4x4 adapter boards for other units. Just pay close attention to the details when routing (or machining if using metal) out the flange.

Mr. Briggs hits the nail on the head-- focus in a bit and use the DOF to your benefit.

Badger is a possibility.

Another alternative to 6x12 & 6x17 roll film backs is doing a split image on sheet film holders. Half of a 4x5 is roughly equivilant to a 5cm x 12.5cm image, while half of a 5x7 is about a 6cm x 17cm. Sheet film base is thicker and thus lays flatter than roll film, adding a small advantage in overall sharpness.

 

I have machined special darkslides for my 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 holders for this purpose since the film is easy enough flip around on the camera and this gives me the option of either two different images per sheet or exposure bracketing of the one. It is easy enough to set up a framing outline on the groundglass to correspond to that narrower frame, or to just ignore the other half of the image on the groundglass when you compose your shot.

 

If you want a REALLY wide panoramic on a view camera, look for the 6x24 backs which have to be used on an 8x10 since that is about a 2.25" x 9.5" image. I recall that your 121mm SA would work with any of these panoramic formats assuming you have the proper back to mount the film holders. With that said, I really like the 6x9 format which is hard to find in roll film holders for many view cameras including most field cameras.

45C is a true system camera with interchangeable bellows & standards, and thus can also be modified to other formats such as 5x7 and 8x10. 45D lacks the interchangeability/expansion capabilities and has somewhat cheaper parts. Otherwise quite similar in operating potential in the 4x5 format except for using extreme WA lenses or doubling the bellows and rail for long tele shots. I believe the Toyo 45D is very similar if not identical to one of the Omega 45D/E cameras.

You will also need to invest in a decent spanner wrench. these are usually found in better camera stores, at some hardware stores, and I have seen really nice (but expensive) ones at photo shows.

Your Omega camera likely uses the Toyo 6"x6" boards, and for my Toyo I made with Steve Grimes' help the adapter boards for my 4"x4" Calumet style boards where all but my biggest lenses reside, and then made additional adapter boards for all of my other cameras. The 4x4 are easily made from any solid wood material such as good quality plywood, the thicker hardwood veneers or even from metal as well, and are not too hard to find used or even new off-brands such as MC. Keep in mind that there are some minor variations in original board designs that need to be compensated for in your adpater board's design and construction.

 

Wista/Technica lensboards are another common design but not square.

Another vote for the Grandagon although mine is the 4.5. I've used the Schneider and it is nothing special while the Grandagons are IMHO a bit better and the f/6.8 also faster. Also, IF I were to buy a 90mm f/8 for the compact size and low weight, it'd definitely be the Nikon.

I agree that buying a camera is not not important place to be really picky since the lenses are interchangeable and with a little bit of planning even a lens that is nominally too limited in coverage can still be used with a particular film size so long as you are focusing closer which increases the image circle. I find this particularly true for closeups with shorter process lenses,and also for the wide-angles when shooting closeups or architectural interiors.

 

With that said, it is easiest to start with 4x5 and plan your equipment purchases around that. I always wanted to use 5x7 and so also looked at the coverage of my lens choices with that in mind, and eventually also got interested in larger formats for contact and projection prints so I planned for that as well. Still, a good 4x5 field camera will probably stick with you for life even if you decide you need to add a specialty camera or larger film size to your repetoire.

Alas, I still love 5x7 and so that is my primary field camera with the 4x5 back also often used.

which vintage and/or lineage of Rodenstocks?

Although I use the faster f/4.5 version, my understanding is that the f/6.8 Grandagon is a bit easier to focus and frame with due to that 1/2 stop increase in aperature. Optically it is probably the equal of the Nikon but still significantly heavier. It does, however, like the f/4.5 (and also as seen with Schneider lenses) share the same center filter with other Grandagons so that adds to the usefulness for serious LF shooters that like to work with multiple WA lenses.