henrystanley

More on why transparency film was the "default" film over color negative...

 

In case you were wondering why we didn't just scan the color negative during this period, well that just didn't come up...I don't think printers could do that. You see, separations weren't made from scans, the transparency was shot by the printer/separations specialist using giant horizontal cameras, and for each color separation, a different color filter was used to create the "red-yellow-blue-black" plate films we knew as "separations." These film separations had also broken the image up into dots (screens) of red - yellow-blue on each respective separation, so all of that was done in the separation camera. No scanning involved. (Newspapers had coarse screens, coated-stock pubs had fine screens).

 

You could see and to some extent, proof, what you were going to get by viewing a "chromolin" made up of color films sandwiched and registered.)

 

The same big separation cameras could shoot separations from "reflected art" (color prints, etc.), but as mentioned, these were not very acceptable.

 

Much was different, and much was in the hands of the printer, and designers and project managers spent a LOT of time at the printers before the job was ready to run. And you never really knew what you were going to get on the page until the presses started up, and then you and the senior pressman could tweak things here and there to get it right.

 

We've come a long way.

 

-- Henry

A belated comment: Leonard wrote: "Transparencies became the dominant medium because of the needs of commercial users of photography. It was much easier to submit a tranparency, and that became the accepted method"

 

Actually from my experience as a client during the 60's through the 90's, clients and publishers demanded transparencies. Transparencies gave you beautiful, crisp separations and popped off the coated-sheet publication page. Prints (from color negative) were dull and lifeless and totally unacceptable, and you had to use them only if there was retouching to be done (ugh!) In fact, when dealing with some of America's leading photographers, negative never came up. And we shot the thing all over again, rather that do any retouching and then make separations from "reflected art," (i.e. prints).

 

We were very much wrapped up in the ability of certain houses to produce the top separations -- and many times, you had your separations done by a specialist separation house, and not your printer!

 

And of course, in the 60's and earlier, National Geographic was the guiding example of publication color -- and of course that was mainly 35mm Kodachrome, shot by great photographers like Thomas J. Abercrombie.

 

Just some insight about how some things came to be...

 

Henry T Stanley

Ladies and gentlemen:

 

Truly, we are participating in an artistic/techno endeavor that is hanging by its fingernails for survival. We haunt used-equipment stores, camera shows and web sites. We jury rig and improvise our equipment. In reality, to the balance of the world, we rank among the dinosaurs. NO MATTER -- we will somehow prevail, make do, and survive. Lots of Kodak Master camera users stress greatly over locating their lens boards to no end. For this we thank you Michael. And if ANYBODY is dedicated to the survival of large format in this digital world and to pursuing the exquisite quality of beautifully toned prints from big negatives -- it is Michael and Paula. Bless them! ...and thanks for taking the time to share this invaluable tip and source (a source, which out of desperation and need, you had to create yourself).

 

Sincerely,

 

Henry T Stanley

Sounds like a winner. Thanks to all.

 

<p>

 

-- Henry

Is there a less expensive way to measure out the ingredients of darkroom developers and other chemicals in grams, etc., other than buying a $100+ electronic scale? (I'm always impressed with the ingenuity demonstrated on this site!)

 

<p>

 

Henry Stanley

For sharper photos using the hyperfocal distance and dof tables, go to:

http://www.btinternet.com/~g.a.patterson/m_faq16.htm

 

This site provides dof tables and a printable dof calculator for seven M-TLR lenses. The print-out of this calulator pastes perfectly on both sides of an old CD (12cm). The circle of confusion used is 0.04578mm. Anoher example is available for 0.06mm COF, however the smaller one can be recommended for sharper shooting.

 

Henry T Stanley

Hi Jacque:

 

<p>

 

To add to my friend's Sean's comments in reference to the C.P Goerz

Berlin lens, a good friend of this page provided me with some

guidance in selecting lenses for 8x10. And while some may seriously

disagree, here is what he wrote on this topic:

 

<p>

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

"The Dagors are still popular due to their combination of small size

and large coverage. Although the collectible market has driven up the

prices in general, and especially for the Gold Ring, Gold Dot, etc.

varieties, they can still often be found at relative bargain prices

compared to equivalent modern glass. In some cases, there just aren't

any modern alternatives that don't weigh 5x as much. In general, I

have had good luck with Am Optical Dagors with serial number higher

than 770xxx and Zeiss made Dagors from the 1930s - 1940s. Many older

Dagors can also be quite good (but the quality seems to vary more),

and I would avoid anything labeled as a "Berlin Dagor". These were

assembled by Burke & James after WWII, and the glass used in them was

horribly full of impurities. They obtained all these inferior old

elements after the war as part of the liquidation of the German Goerz

company, shipped them across the ocean, mounted them in barrels and

shutters and sold them as "Berlin Dagors" to distinguish them from

the Dagors being made in this country by Goerz Am Optical (A separate

company that had split off from the German Goerz sometime in the WWI

timeframe).

 

<p>

 

All Goerz Am Opt. Dagors after 770xxx are of the same

design and glass types. You can occasionally find very high serial

number Dagors that don't have the gold rim or gold dot. They are

every bit as good, and usually priced hundreds of dollars less. I

have a suspicion that some of these were manufactured under contract

for the US Military in the 1950s and 1960s. I have a 4 3/8" WA Dagor

from 1961 that was originally part of a military field photographers

kit that has a serial number above 800xxx, and it has a simple black

barrel, even though I have an older 6 1/2" WA Dagor (786xxx) with the

shiny gold rim and used to have a beautiful 12" Gold Rim Dagor with

serial number 790xxx). Guess the military preferred the non-descript

black barrels to the shiny brass ones of the Golden Dagors.

 

<p>

 

Good luck in your search for lenses for your 8x10. Other lenses to

consider would be the Kodak Commercial and WF Ektars. They tend to be

larger than the Dagors, and the Commercial Dagors have less coverage,

but they are usually less expensive due to a lack of collector

appeal. Also, in the longer focal lengths, the Red Dot Artars are

great. They can be found occasionally in original Ilex shutters, but

are more common in barrels (which can be re-mounted into Copal #3

shutters). I had a 16 1/2" Red Dot Artar that was my favorite lens

when I used to shoot with an 8x10 Deardorff. Reasonably small, very

sharp, and I just liked the focal length."

------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you and our other friends find this of interest.

 

<p>

 

-Henry T. Stanley

Hi Rick:

I've gotten this question several times recently. The Omega is the

same as the Toyo 45D (both distributed in the past by Berkey) and is

a sturdy and smoothly working monorail with lots of accessories still

available including several different rails. The bellows is not

interchangeable, but the recessed board helps out here (short FL

lenses etc.). With the Tech IV/Wista adapter boards, lenses mounted

on Tech/Wista boards easily move from your field camera to the view

camera, not to mention they take up much less space in your kit. The

45D is an excellent basic view camera and a great bargain on the

market today. The front and back geared fine focus is very smooth,

but other movements are not geared (which keeps the weight down.)

 

<p>

 

The Toyo 45D/Omega boards measure 158mm square. Adapter boards are

available new and used to accept Technika/Wista boards and there is a

recessed adapter board also. The recessed Toyo adapter board that

accepts the Technika/Wista boards is referenced in the Toyo catalog

as: Toyo no. 1056 AWLVM.

 

<p>

 

The current standard rail (39mm)in the B&H catalog fit also-- the

short rail might be handy for not showing up in wide-angle shots and

for transport. Toyo binocular reflex viewers and compendium shades

also fit or can be slightly modified to fit.

 

<p>

 

The camera, being a standard rail camera, doesn't pack very well in

anything but a big case where the camera hangs on its rail. But by

mounting the camera instead on a short rail (the new short rail will

fit or you can buy an old rail and chop it off to 6.5") and locking

it down, you can carry the camera securely in a padded rolling

airline case or in a backpack. It's a good,basic camera without many

bells and whistles. It is a good teacher and will handle 95% of most

needs.

 

<p>

 

I have not had any problems with tightening things down; the fore and

aft rail blocks and the tripod block tighten up well (but check these

since some have been cracked by over-tightening.)

 

<p>

 

Hope this is helpful. This camera does all I need it to do and is

such a good value, that I have decided not to upgrade to another view

right now and get a better field camera instead for outdoor work.

Only if I started to do a LOT of product work, table top, close-ups

of jewelry, etc. or interior architecture would I trade up to a yaw-

free view such as the Arca-Swiss F model with the new yaw-free front

standard option. ---HenryStanley

Sean -- absolutely correct. As mentioned, the incident meter

measures the light falling on the subject, not reflected from it. If

shooting a person, the globe is pointed directly back at the camera

from a point just in front of the model's face. If shooting a

landscape scene, which is in the same light as your camera position,

just hold the meter up at the camera position and point the BACK of

the meter globe toward the subject. (Think about it.) The hemisphere

collects the light and registers it in the proper proportion as the

angle of the light striking it -- thus a side-light reading in front

of a face is proportionally less than a front-lighted face.

 

<p>

 

Studio photographers DO point incident meters directly at light

sources when they are checking light ratios in multi-light setups.

 

<p>

 

My meter features a retractable globe for metering flat work

(copying, etc.) For a multi-dimensional face or piece of sculpture,

etc., the globe is not retracted.

 

<p>

 

To repeat a comment above, the incident meter provides you with

a "grey card" reading. It does not help you, as such, with

information about brightness extremes. However, if you suspect the

possibility of blown highlights, knowing the median brightness level,

you can fudge it a bit, stopping down and bracketing a bit.

 

<p>

 

While all this is really very simple, discussions can go on ...and

on...and on. To see for yourself, just go to photo.net and search

under the words "incident metering."

Hi David. As Sean said, they did make a spacer which will keep 4x5's

apart, but they are very rare these days. I have only one, but I

think I can fabricate replacements from a red rubber eraser (Pearl)

and carving the two slits which "might" hold the spacer in position.

Haven't tried it yet. The internal centrifugal force might help keep

it in place. Actually I do my multiple 4x5 sheets now in a jobo 3006

drum and use the Unicolor drum for no more than two sheets. For 8x10

I use the 11x14 Unicolor drums.

For BW, I suggest Unicolor drums and motor bases. Pick them up at

shows for very resonable prices. I have several for 4x5 and 8x10.

The Jobo 3006 drum on a Unicolor base is even better! Fill it with a

curved funnel while the drum is rotating. However, this system will

not give you the temperature control provided by a Jobo cpe2.

Hi jacque:

 

<p>

 

Definitely you can do better on the glass. For my 300mm I bought a

mint Kodak Commercial Ektar for $424. For wide-angle, I have a

Angulon 210mm in Compound shutter(Ex++)($650) and a 16-1/2" Red Dot

Artar om Copal (Ex+++)for $1,000. Very pleased. But those more

knowledgeable than I find sleepers and little jewels for much less

(guys like that Sean fellow!)

 

<p>

 

I also have two Kodak Master Views, the best of which I found at a

Dallas/Fort Worth camera show, with case and Fresnel, for under

$1,000. The KMV did not have a 4x5 back, but you can find converted

Deardorff 4x5 backs from a few sources. Lensboards are scarce, but

we're working on getting some made and we're looking into an adapter

to take smaller boards. Jim at MidWest Camera in chicago (see ad in

Shutterbug) should be able to help you locate a KMV. A good working

Deardorff (not fancy) is also a good choice. Both are sturdy and

relatively lightweight.

Yes. A 16-1/2" Red Dot Artar. Extremely sharp, etc. Covers 8x10. A

good one in a Copal shutter will cost you around a grand.

I bought one about a month ago. I was rated for up to 8x10, but I

would classify it as a lightweight "hiking" 8x10 pod that should have

a weight bag attached below. As stated above, finish and ball device

are excellent -- especially considering the VERY low price. The ball

is not a B-1, but it works well in the field as a

leveler/positioner. I have added a Bogen quick-release attachment,

which solves the 3/8" -tripod-screw-to-1/4"-camera conversion and

also adds QR feature.

KEH in Dallas has dozens of used straight and coiled flash cords with

the various connectors. They sell these for VERY low prices. If

they don't have exactly what you need, it is a simple task to buy a

couple and splice the proper connector using tape and a piece of

black heat-shrink. Some flashes require a 3-prong version of the

household plug, but the center plug is a dummy (to prevent kids from

plugging into household current), so you can use the regular

household plug if you want. If your Kodak 203mm Ektar has the two

prongs, you won't have any trouble finding a cord, however the

earlier 203 Ektars are not x-synched and do not have the prongs.

ric -- Totally agree with Gary. Along those lines, please look in

the archives below under "Technique." There is a world of practical

information on this topic, a lot of good explanation, tips and a few

healthy debates. Good shooting.

For additonal reference, refer to DOF in the Technique archives

(about 1/2 way down) where Ron Shaw wrote:

 

<p>

 

An article in Photo Techniques (Mar/Apr 96) on view camera focus used

this method. Basically, you tape or glue a mm scale on your bed, and

then focus on the nearest object of interest, read the position on

the mm scale, then focus on the farthest object of interest, and note

its position on the mm scale, and then, using this focus spread (in

mm), refer to a chart for optimum f stop to use, based on line pairs

per mm resolution. I photocopied the chart and taped it to the back

of my camera for reference. I hope this helps.

 

<p>

 

-- Ron Shaw (shaw9@llnl.gov), August 28, 1998.

 

<p>

 

...and Alan Gibson did some fancy typewriter diagramming as a follow

up.

 

<p>

 

I have copies of the articles referenced by Ron and they are useful,

practical, flexible and well-founded. I don't have to take my

calculator out nearly as often now. --Henry

Bruce -- I'll let Sean Yates, our resident expert on the Kodak Master

Camera, AKA Masterview, give you the details. In the meantime, check

out the following page:

http://www.greenspun.com/com/qtluong/photography/lf/8x10.html

 

<p>

 

For my two cents worth--it's an incredible camera. I now have two.

Yes, boards are a little hard to find, but not so tough to fabricate.

I am working on a design, to be executed in ABS plastic, for an

adapter board, which will take the smaller and more common Tech

IV/Wista boards. This way I can use my 300mm and longer lenses on my

4x5's also. I'll put you on my KMV owner's list and will let you

know. Also, Kodak did not make a 4x5 adapter back, but modified

Deardorff boards are out there.

 

<p>

 

Take it away Sean...

I have sent the discussion comment from graflex.org to John. Since

it was hard to find and not much information existing on this topic,

I will post it here to get it in the archives.

 

<p>

 

Regards,--HenryStanley

 

<p>

 

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Re: Speed Graphic Modification

 

<p>

 

Posted by George Semple on July 08, 1997 at 12:40:26:

 

<p>

 

In Reply to: Speed Graphic Modification posted by Daniel E. Rose on

June 08, 1997 at 12:48:51:

 

<p>

 

I have made a few modifications to my Crown Graphic.

I read an article in Photo Technique? which gave

directions for reversing the front standards, my

lens now tilts forward but not backwards. This

is good for landscapes and changing the plane of

focus. I don't own a wide angle lens (yet), so I

have never needed to drop the bed and tilt the

lense back.

 

<p>

 

The only problem with this configuration is

you are limited to horizontal shots. Since I had

already pulled the front standards off of the camera

(upon the advice of someone in rec.photo) I grabbed

a dremmel tool and gounded away the square edges

of the two plates which help guide and lock the standards

onto the rails. It's hard to explain but if you

email me I will try to go into more detail.

 

<p>

 

The end result is a 4x5 camera with front rise,

front tilt and front swings. I can also play with

the plane of focus when shooting verticles.

 

<p>

 

I know have a poor man's field camera. It's no

Linhof but the camera didn't cost me a dime and my

lens is tack sharp and has excellent contrast.

 

<p>

 

I can now go into the feild with a versatile camera

and leave my monorail in the studio. Some day I will

get a real feild camera but until then I will have fun

getting the most out of my Crowm Graphic.

 

<p>

 

I have yet to have a chance to put thse modifications

through a thorough test. I assume that It will be

more difficult that using a camera which is actually

designed with full movements, but what fun would that be?

 

<p>

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For a lightweight and fun camera for street shooting, travel and a carry-around camera, I'm setting up one of my Crowns as a multi-purpose point 'n shoot. This, combined with a little auto-flash (Velcroed to the top), a couple of Ektars and several Grafmatic holders and I'm in business. QUESTION: I remember recently someone describing how they reversed the front standard for forward tilts and did some filing on the bottom of the standard to achieve front swings (tilts in vertical). If anyone can add details on this, please reply here or email me. Thanks! -- Henry

(Well they don't paste in ?) I type them in...

 

<p>

 

Camera lens

Smooth Side of Fresnel

Rough Side of Fresnel

Rough side of Ground Glass

Smooth side of Ground Glass

Sorry-- the order of elements didn't print because I had them in

brackets...

 

<p>

 

Here they are:

 

<p>

 

 

The correct order from front to back is:

Camera Lens

Smooth side of fresnel

Rough side of fresnel

Rough side of ground glass

Smooth side of ground glass

 

<p>

 

Henry

I can't speak for the Linhof, but regarding the Graphic, I have been

looking into this because I have several models of different

vintages. It is my understanding that the Crowns and later Speeds

had Graphloc backs with factory-installed Fresnels in front of the

GG...and these backs were constructed accordingly to allow for the

Fresnel.

 

<p>

 

FOR PRE FRESNEL MODELS (early Graphloc and old Graphic backs), there

was only the GG with the frosted side of the GG toward the lens.

 

<p>

 

For the Fresnel models, the order of placement was sent to me as

follows:

 

<p>

 

<The correct order from front to back is:

<Camera Lens

<Smooth side of fresnel

<Rough side of fresnel

<Rough side of ground glass

<Smooth side of ground glass

 

<p>

 

If you buy a used Graphic, it is worthwhile to inspect your back and

determine if it was designed for a Fresnel, and if it has been

removed (or visa versa a Fresnel added), some adjustment must be made.

 

<p>

 

If I am off base on this, please let me know.

All of my 4x5 lenses (except for my Graphic lenses)are mounted on

Linhof Technika boards and are mounted on cameras either directly or

with adapter boards. The original Technika boards I have are drilled

low in accordance with Linhof specifications as mentioned in previous

posts; most of my clone boards are usually center drilled. To

standardize things, I have swapped away my low-drilled boards and now

obtain undrilled or pilot-drilled boards and have them center drilled

for both 4x5 and smaller 8x10 lenses.

 

<p>

 

Some non-Linhof cameras that take these boards have guide marks on

the front standard mounts that compensate for low-drilled Technika

boards.

I totally agree with Dan, as usual, but I detected another point to

bring out. Doremus states:

 

<p>

 

<<< if the overmat is damaged, removing the hinge from the bottom mat

may damage it and subsequently reduce the value of the original

photograph. >>>

 

<p>

 

The museum, archival method of mounting prints to backing today is

not by hot press/drymount, but rather by hinging the print to the

acid-free mount board (for a number of archival and dimensional

stability reasons). So, even if mat and/or mounting board are

damaged, the condition (and value)of the print is not impaired since

all items are attached with the archival, moisture-loosened hinges

Dan mentioned. -Regards.