david_brown1

The first lens is probably a convertible, if you can tell us who the lens manufacturer is, perhaps one of the more knowlegable forum members could tell you more about it (Copal is the shutter maker). The other lens is a Schneider angulon which was a popular wide angle for press and technical cameras. It will allow very limited movements on 4x5. Press the "beehive" lever towards the back of the camera while firing the shutter at any speed (except B or T) and the shutter will stay open. Push the lever forward to close the shutter.

The sump pump solution seems like a brilliant one. I just don't know if a plumbing inspector would approve (I'm a project manager for a construction company). I'll assume that you aren't concerned about code approval, and since you're on a septic system, this doesn't seem like a public health issue. If you chose to use a sump pump or condensate pump (the both do the same thing, the sump pump just has greater volume) I would suggest you do the following:

 

1. Use a trap below the sink just as in a normal installation

 

2. Place the pump in a sealed container (your pump will leave residue in the container, and developer is a great culture media)

 

3. Vent the container either to daylight or using an autovent (this will keep you from siphoning the water out of the trap)

 

4. Have an air gap where the pump drains into the septic system. This can an open air gap with a trap, a wye that vents to daylight, or a wye with an autovent. A good place to make this connection might be at the washing machine standpipe.

 

And to think I was planning on tearing up my basement floor to drain my new darkroom!

To do this right, you need a sewage ejector. In my area (Boulder, CO) these run about $800 installed, but not including electrical hook up (they require a dedicated 20A circuit) or excavation/concrete work. It's also possible, depending upon your septic tank/drain field elevation, that you could relocate the septic line.

 

If you do have a floor drain by your water heater, be careful about using it. It isn't uncommon that these either drain to daylight, or go to a "bucket drain" - typically a perforated 55 gallon drum buried in the yard.

 

Finally, keep in mind that if you can wash prints and film elsewhere, you can get by without running water in your darkroom.

Rest assured, with a spring back, you will be able to use Polaroid backs and graphmatics, but you won't be able to use the graflex style roll film holders. If you want to use roll film you will need a Calumet style roll film holder. If you are planning on using the ground glass (as opposed to a rangefinder) to focus, the Calumet holder is easier to use in any case.

Either of these cameras will make a good introduction to large format photography. To decide which one is best for your purposes, you must ask yourself what kind of photos you want to take.

 

For portraits and landscapes with little or no movements, the Graphic will do just fine; it's simple, rugged, and transportable. Don't worry about the spring back; unless you really plan on using roll film, it's not worth spending extra for a graflok back, and there are roll holders that work with spring backs.

 

For architectural photography, still lifes, and situations requiring extensive movements, consider the monorail. Monorails are more versitile, are better for extreme close ups, allow for longer lenses, and are more portable than most people realize.

 

In addition to the camera and lens, you'll want some film holders (perhaps six or so to start), a sturdy tripod, a focusing cloth, and perhaps a focusing loupe. A hand held exposure meter of some sort is useful, but not by any means the only way of determining exposure. And beware of those who insist you need a spot meter - they're nice to have, but a combination incident/reflected meter is much more versitile, and I haven't yet found a spot meter to be useful for color work. Also, don't forget to read the larg format section of Photo.net, and maybe someone on the forum could suggest a good book on large format photography.

 

And don't forget the film!

Like Eugene, I use a rubbermaid container, although I didn't have to go to the store; I found mine in the kitchen (my wife hasn't noticed yet).

Roy,

 

Just a warning, what someone said above is plain wrong. Take a photo at 1:1 with the 35mm, 6x6 & 4x5, and assuming you can get the whole subject within the 35mm frame, all of the photos will be exactly the same. The 1:1 ratio refers to the size of the image on the negative, not the proportion of the negative covered. Unless you go beyond 1:1 (this is very difficult to do) you won't get any more detail by using 4x5. The only variable in this case is lens focal length, which will determine depth of field and apparent perspective.

 

As to choice of 4x5 (or any view camera) for macro work, monorails are generally better, the prime reason being the ability to keep the focus track out of the way.

 

If you try 4x5 for you flower pictures, keep in mind the need to compensate exposure for bellows extension. As others have pointed out, using flash (even outdoors) for this type of work is a very good idea. One advantage of 35mm and some medium format cameras is "off the film" flash metering, and macro work seems to be where OTF flash excells.

I have two Bronica bodies (SQ & SQ-A) and I was wondering if they are

compatible with older (high trigger voltage) flash units.

Sorry, I thought you said paranormal.

As the other posters said, loosen the knurled knobs at the base of the front standards. I always found the easiest way to get forward tilt (i.e. point the lens down) is to suspend the camera upside down and use back tilt.

First, I don't think that 8x10 is too small for exhibition (nor are 4x5 contact prints).

 

Second, I have to agree with those who shoot 8x10 with the intention of contact printing. In B&W at least, you just can't beat the sharpness, detail, and full range of tones that a contact print provides.

 

Having said that, I must admit that I shoot 1 sheet of 8x10 for every 30 or 40 sheets of 4x5. The bottom line (for me) is that photography isn't about ultimate fidelity. Since I can usually get my message across with a 4x5 or smaller negative, the 8x10 languishes, waiting for that albumen printing project.

Although this "defect" probably has less to do with the film itself than with the packaging process, my dust problems subsided when I switched from Kodak to Ilford.

About 25 years ago, my junior high photography teacher gave me an old grain focuser, as the school had upgraded to a new Spiratone model. It was primative but servicable, and I used it until about a year ago, when I bought a Peak critical focuser ($45 on ebay). The bottom line is they both do the same thing. The Peak is a fine instrument, and it gets you into the corners (convincing you that even the best enlarging lenes don't have a perfectly flat field). But my prints aren't any sharper now than when I had a hand-me-down, cheapo focuser.

Most (80%) are stored in the trash. Another 15% end up in unorganized stacks around the house. Every now and then a visitor will find one they like, and I'll send it home with them. Maybe it ends up on their refridgerator or in their trash. At this stage, only 1% are worthy of display. I can't account for the remaining 4% (no doubt shredded by Arthur Andersen).

Try vinegar.

Try www.smallparts.com

Sounds like a brilliant idea to me.

No, there is nothing at all wrong with this practice. Many people use

this method, although I assume that most eventually buy a "real"

spotmeter or use a different (i.e. incident) method.

I've got two Super Graphics; one collects dust, and the other is a

perfectly servicable door stop. While these are fine cameras, there

are certainly better choices out there for the serious photographer.

If on the other hand you're looking for a functioning collectable, the

Super Graphic is probably a good choice (keep in mind that the better

examples are priced as collectables).

 

<p>

 

If you are seriously planning on using your 4x5 handheld, then a press

or technical camera is practically your only choice. Give careful

consideration to what you'll use the camera for (I can't image

shooting handheld and using movements). If you don't need the extra

movements that a Super Graphic (or Linhof or Horseman) provides,

consider the Crown Graphic, it is light, cheap, and like all of the

others, a box with a lens on one end and film at the other. The Crown

also is better suited to wide lenses (90mm) than the Super.

I wrap the whole thing up inside the focusing cloth. If I have extra

clothing along, I use that for padding as well. I've been doing it

this way for several years with no problems so far.

A simple solution would be to focus a 35mm camera on the subject, and

then read the distance off the lens. A more "techno" solution might

be to buy a laser range finder (golf shops, radio shack, and purveyors

of survey instruments have these).

About a year ago I was going through some old boxes and found a roll

of Plus X that I shot 20 years ago. Normal development yielded usable

(though with noticable fog) negatives. I've also found 5 year old C41

film that also gave me printable negatives.

I have the speacial clearing tank, but I don't use it in the field.

Unless I need to see results right away, I wait until I'm back home to

process type 55 (polaroid film travels quite well in a tupperware type

container).

 

<p>

 

The container made by Polaroid is probably the best solution for

clearing negs in the field. For clearing at home, anything that works

for processing normal 4x5 film should work as a clearing tank.

Clyde Butcher (http://www.clydebutcher.com/) and Tony Ryan

(http://www.beauty-reality.com/) are among my favorites.

Which dilution?