david_brown1

You might try one designed for a small medium format camera like a Bronica ETR or Mamiya 645. These attach to

the filter threads on the lens, so with the appropriate step-down rings they'll fit pretty much any lens. The

aspect ratio of 645 (.75) is close enough to that of 4x5 (.8), so the shape of the bellows should be fine. And

at least the ETR compendium should clear the graflex bed with no problems.

Any "top rangefinder" speed or crown graphic will have a graflock back. Many of the older cameras do as well, and most sellers will list this feature if the camera has it.

 

Keep in mind if you have a Calumet Gowland, it takes a Cambo back and a graflock back from an old speed graphic won't fit.

 

You might try giving Peter Gowland a call, he has most parts available, and he's always ready to help. You can find contact info at www.petergowland.com

I have two of them. If you are looking for a compact, lightweight monorail, the gowland is definately worth a look.

 

Just be aware, Peter made these cameras very light by making them very basic. Some models require an allen wrench for some adjustments; some models don't have all movements. Movements aren't very precise, and the monorail design doesn't fit a backpack as easily as a field camera.

 

That said, it's sturdy, it doesn't require a 15 pound tripod, and handles lenses from 75mm to 300mm.

 

- Dave

The film should be just fine. I've developed C 41 film 15 years after exposure, and gotten good, printable negatives with no significant color shift.

The lens most likely has a focal length around 210 mm. For info on compound shutters, try this link: http://www.skgrimes.com/compound/

I have two Pentax analog spot meters, both bought on ebay for about $45 ea, both were listed as "for parts or repair". Neither required any repairs, and they're both perfectly accurate.

 

If you choose to buy from KEH, don't be afraid to buy something graded "bargain"; KEH's bargain grade is equal to ebay "excellent".

Check with www.jensen-optical.com. These guys specialize in durst, but I've seen used HK units on their site, so they should know something about them. The HKs I've seen have been big industrial units (10 x 10 and larger); they appear to be well built and made for production.

If you are talking about Polaroid type 55, the speed of the negative is about 1/2 the speed of the print (I expose the print at ISO 50, and the negative at ISO 25) So, for the negative, go with f11 @ 4s.

Dave,

 

That's the opening size of both my Omega 4 x 5 holder and my Besseler negaflat. It really isn't that much smaller than the image size on 4 x 5 film.

I've been using Kodak (and Carr) sheet film hangers for years for drying film (thousands of exposures) and have yet to have any problem at all. Most of this experience is with 4x5, but I dry my 8x10 and 2 1/4x3 1/4 this way as well.

Now that I think about it, the range should be the same (the range is from black to white), but the gradation between black and white is smoother. This is because there is much more "information" (individual grains) on the 4x5 film than on the 35mm film. The effect is more apparent at larger magnifications.

Is an exploding "moslem" the same as a New England bigot?

 

Have the guts to shoot what you want, and deal with the consequences. It's still an almost free country, even for those who bash others based on their race, heritage or religion.

First, household bleach is sodium hypochlorite, not chlorine. Second, I wouldn't be relying on an opinion piece for factual information. And third, I�m glad someone is protecting us from

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/05/national/05TRAI.html">a chemical industry that has no regard for human life.</a>

 

Nonetheless, I must agree that using the threat of terrorism to justify a bill regulating chemicals makes no more sense than using the threat of terrorism to justify invading a sovereign nation.

John,

 

One of the great things about view cameras is the ability to control the plane of focus; with the right amount of downward front tilt you can keep both the foregroung and background in focus with even your 210. When doing landscapes, 75 is a bit wide for my tastes. I am more likely to use a 90, and the bulk of my landscape work is with a 135 or a 300.

 

You have noted that the aspect ratio is working against you here; as others have said, don't be afraid to crop.

 

By the way, are you the John Latta I used to climb with in Spokane?

 

- Dave

Freestyle Photo. Both in LA and on the web. Their Arista brand film may or may not be HP5 & FP4, but nonetheless is a quality product.

1. Be certain its a D2 and not a DII, the DIIs are really too flimsy for practical use.

 

2. You'll need the appropriate lift levers for the head you're using, fortunately most heads use the same standard levers.

 

3. I assume you don't want to use standard variable contrast filters either. Aristo does make a variable constrast head, but it is quite expensive (check B&H). You might get lucky; I found an Ilford Multigrade system on ebay for about $200. A less convenient alternative would be a color head; you should be able to find one within your budget if you shop around.

 

4. You might want to shop around. There are plenty of used Beselers and Omegas in your price range (and even the occaisional Durst). Beseler has a VC head (wich could no doubt be adapted to an Omega) but as with the Aristo, its pricey.

There are so many variables - lenses, film, processing, etc. Perhaps you're losing something with your scans or your printing.

My understanding is the markings you describe indicate the lens is coated. This was a popular normal lens for 6 x 9 (2 1/4 x 3 1/4), and most likely has limited coverage beyond that.

Peter Gowland makes one that fits 4x5 graflok backs, and I beleive he can adapt one to a 2x3 back. Peter's web site is www.petergowland.com

I think type 55 is one of the best films out there, and I can't imagine living without the various Polaroid products. Sometimes I need that instant feedback, and with portraits, sometimes giving a Polaroid to the subject is the perfect icebreaker. Buy a used 545 back, if you never use it, you can sell it at little loss.

You should do your own tests before giving up on Tri-X and HC110B.

I spent considerable time browsing Mark's site last night. Very impressive! I realize I've still got a lot to learn.

ULF

Why aren't there any retrofocus design wide angles for LF? It seems

to me it would make sense; on some cameras the standards hit each

other at about 80mm of bellows draw, this problem would be eliminated

with a retro design. Furthermore, field cameras might be able to get

by without a drop bed. I realize that a bellows factor would be

needed even at infinity, but couldn't the aperture scale be modified

to take this into account?

I know to many it may sound like heresy, but you might try using a chromogenic film like T400CN. I have no personal experience with these films, but if they live up to their claims, they might solve your problem.