dmin-99

C'mon guys the thread isn't THAT long - the original poster wants to

enlarge the negatives.

<p>

Mike - I'm very interested in contact printing digital negatives, can

you point me to reference sources?

Michael posted to this forum a few days ago in response to a similar

posting - their server is being swiched by their provider, and

they're not thrilled about it.

Only the 820 is available in sheet sizes - but it's available in 4x5,

8x10, and... OMIGOD 5x7! Hope they read English.

I've ordered dozens of back issues from both them and Photo

Techniques - never a problem (except for the ones they are out of).

Give them a call.

My only comment is that the 1/25 implies 25 TOTAL prints and that

more will never be made. Some people fudge this and will print

another series in a different size (i.e. 14x17 vs. 11x14), but that's

misleading (IMHO).

Can't speak as to why they're not more popular (snobbery,

distribution?), but it's a great camera made by a great guy

(unfortunately it's not a 5x7). Various makes all have their own

peculiarities, strengths and weaknesses. As far a being "plastic"

goes... well so are nightsticks and bowling balls, haven't heard of

those items being particularly fragile either.

The back plays a big part - don't expect to get tack sharp results

with a Calumet, or any other back without a pressure plate.

Most of the recent discussions about Gitzo tripods of late has

concerned the carbon fiber models. In carbon fiber the 1300 series is

preferred over the 1200 series mainly because of the lack of weight

of the carbon fiber legset (kind of ironic)- my head (a Ries) is

actually heavier than my 1227 tripod. The 1200 series in aluminum and

carbon fiber is undoubtedly strong enough to support up to 5x7 - it's

just way too top heavy in carbon fiber, aluminum will also be

marginal. I second (third?) the recommendation to go with a 1300

series carbon fiber (in my case a 1325), get it from R. White and

don't play around with upgrading later, you'll only be wasting money

and time.

For a "balanced" look you need the ambient light and the flash to

each provide 1/2 the light. If you have a flash that will give F22

(ignore the shutter speed) you need to adjust your shutter speed to

whatever will also give f22 for the ambient (1/2, 1/8,...whatever).

If you're using negative film you can stop there - you'll get slight

overexposure which is a good thing under the circunstances. If you're

using transparency film you would close down an additional aperture

stop to avoid burning out the highlights. For a better rendering with

all films a reduced popwer "fill flash" is a better option. With this

you determine the exposures as before but slow the shutter speed by

one stop to allow the ambient to overpower the flash by one stop,

then close the aperture by one stop to balance the exposure to the

ambient and effectively cut the flash power by 1/2. You can carry

this even further for a compensation of 1 1/2-2 stops depending on

the subject, the situation and your taste. And you can of course

compensate in the other direction also to knock the background down

or eliminate it.

Bill - How critical is the application (are you doing pseudo-ortho?)?

Have you checked the B+W#470 - either alone or with a #420 or #021?

O.K. where's the "M" (CM/W)? Here's another page with the lens series

separated.

<p>

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byseries.htm

The "W" is a 4 group/6 element design, the "CW" is a 6 group/6

element design. "W"'s are not multicoated (at least not the ones in

Seiko shutters). Dig around this page and others at the site.

<p>

http://members.aol.com/subgallery/byfl.htm

<p>

Wayne

Went back over my notes - apparently the ORIGINAL (to us) "W" had

46mm filter threads, v.s. the later 52 mm and still later 67mm. And

possibly the later "W"'s were available in Copal shutters as well as

the earlier Seiko shutters. This is one confusing lens line!

Sal - I had them grab the three that they had at the time. After

describing what they had I determined that They didn't have a "W" and

that the two following lenses are probably "NW" lenses. Once I

determined that they didn't have a "W" lens I paid less attention to

the details. In case my memory has failed you can check the

following. The "W" should be in a Seiko shutter, 52mm filter thread,

lettering on the inside of the rim, and single coated. The "NW" will

be in an older style Copal (silver trim) and possibly multicoated

(not sure if they were ALL multicoated), 52mm thread, lettering on

the outside of the rim. Somewhere in there I believe that I came

across a listed 49mm filter thread (possibly for the "W"? - it's a

little confusing to say the least). The newest 135mm's have 67mm

filter threads (the CM/W). Terry's page should be of help if you're

in doubt.

<p>

http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/fujinon.htm

<p>

135 f5.6 Fujinon-W 9 $379 3045NL-235

135 f5.6 Fujinon-W MC L.N. $389 3045NL-237

<p>

Wayne

I went through this a few weeks back when I was looking for an 80

degree "W". These people have the "NWS" - they just don't know it.

They have it listed as a "multicoated W", no such animal. By asking

the right questions you can confirm that it has 52mm threads, and is

in a silver Copal shutter, and is multicoated.

<p>

http://www.mpex.com/4X5_LENSES.HTML

<p>

Wayne

Matthew is certainly on the right track - you need rimlighting to

separate the subject from the background. You may try erecting a tent

or arch over the subject with translucent plastic sheeting. This will

give a broad expanse of "white" that can illuminate and reflect off

of the edge of your subject.

Can't answer the question about the Rodenstock lens but I can comment

on standardizing filter sizes. After 30+ years of shooting 35mm, 6x6,

6x7 and now large format, I have a dizzing array of lens thread sizes

from 35.5mm to 95mm. Since starting with large format I took a good

look at the lenses that I had, and those that I might buy in the

future, and standardized on 58mm and 86mm filters. And I also bought

the necessary step-up rings to make them work on all of the lenses. I

standardized on the 58mm because it's the smallest size to fit the

available compact (slow and light) lenses from 90mm to 450mm, and

it's the size at which prices remain low before taking off at 62mm

and above (and who wants to adapt an 86mm filter to a 35.5mm thread

if they don't have to?). The 86mm was chosen because the center

filters that I use have that as their outside thread size, and the

not-so-wide wideangle lenses that have 72mm and 77mm threads can be

stepped-up to allow use of stacked filters if needed, without

vignetting. Personally, I would avoid like the plague the overly-

specialized "wideangle" filters that are available, because: they do

not allow the use of the center filter, they are a big hunk of glass

that cannot be adapted to lenses with filter threads any larger than

their reduced-diameter male threads, they cost 50% more than same-

sized filters with normal threads. Just be aware that some filter

makers (HOYA) do not have 86mm multi-coated filters in their catalog.

And wait until you see an 86mm B+W or Heliopan Kaesmann Polarizer -

they're heavier than half of the lenses that I own. BTW a polarizer

on a 90mm may not be as useful as you might think, the effect is

usually too uneven (at least IMHO).

Correction - the lens is 4 5/16" Series IIIA in a #2 Betax. Really

nice little lens - maybe I'll just epoxy a step-up ring to the front

of the lens itself. Barrel O.D. is about 32.5mm so a 34 or 35mm ring

should be about right.

Thanks Dave - I had considered epoxying a step-up ring to the back

but was leery due to the possible loss of resolution. Step-up rings

are cheap enough, I'll give it a shot. The only alternative would be

to jury-rig something to attach to the shutter itself.

I picked one up a short time ago - it's a 4 3/8" F.L. Don't know if

it's the same as a W.A. Raptar. Haven't had a chance to use it yet.

It's uncoated and unthreaded - trying to figure out how to attach

filters at this point (it's very tiny and has only a couple of mm of

barrel to hang things on).

Tyson the area is underexposed, not overexposed. Are you using the

proper carrier for your enlarger? The reason that I ask is that if

you don't there may be some play that allows having the neg off-

center, and you'll run out of coverage. Also, are you sure that you

have the right size bulb and condensers?

The 90's are all designed to cover 4x5 as a "standard" wideangle

lens - their formulas will give inferior results in closeup work,

it's one of the compromises of the design. If you want a short lens

strictly for macro you can get 4"-6" Apo Artars or a 150mm G-Claron

at decent prices, if you have really deep pockets you can get one of

the new "digital" lenses. Get that and a 90 and you'll be set. The

110 Symmar XL will not give you the angle of view of the 90 or the

sharpness of a "macro" lens - it will come closer to both than any

other single lens out there, but at a cost. For the same amount of

money you can have both a 90mm f/8 and an Apo Artar or G-Claron.