nathan_congdon

Recumbent bicycles, in a BIG way.

Check out the Titanium Rush from Easy Racers:

http://www.easyracers.com/ti_rush.htm

Nathan

I shot a number of 8x10 transparencies of my daughter aged 1-6 months. I used two large softboxes, and a Nikon 360 lens. From memory, an 1800 Watt-sec softbox (even a single one), if placed close enough, will get you f32-45 (even allowing for bellows factor) on 100 ASA film such as Astia or Provia (both of which I used for this project). It's easier when they're littler, but of course the nice thing about strobes is that you will freeze any unwanted wiggling. Provided you have adequate depth of field and can afford 6-8 takes, you can be pretty assured of getting something good, if you're good with babies! We just crashed a hard drive and lost of number of digital shots of her, and so these 8X10 transparencies are actually doubly precious to us now.

Good luck,

Nathan

I'm willing to bet that Jorge is right on this one! In the ultra large formats, you

do get into bellows correction much further away than you would think. It is a

function of the object size to image size ratio: the image on the film is so

much larger at 12X20 that you are a lot closer to 1:1 than you think! Are you

shooting subjects that are at all close up?

As for the lens being to blame, whatever Nikon materials, web sites and

helpful theoreticians will tell you, I can assure you that the Nikkor 450 M

covers 12X20 with gobs to spare. I'm typing this right now with my hands still

wet from processing a series of 10 shots done yesterday with this lens on

12X20. It's my standard, along with the Fuji 600 C, and it covers sharply to the

corners at infinity, and has done for dozens of shots for me. Good luck, and

enjoy 12X20. It's a blast!

Regards,

Nathan

Beyond the URLs that Steve has kindly contributed, is there a web presence

of any kind for this artist and his images, or the gallery mentioned, for those of

us constrained by the poor fortune of living on the East Coast?

Thanks for the tip, Tracy.

Nathan

Michael Mutmansky recently put together an order for several of us to buy 12X20 archival clear plastic sleeves. Prior to that, I had been using 16X20 plastic sleeves from Light Impressions or the like, and they were a pain to use on the lightbox, and to store. I like the 12X20 ones much better. They open on the side rather than sliding in and out, so scratches are not a risk. Michael is a regular on this forum and shold be able to tell you where he got them from. There was a hefty min order, though.

Good luck,

Nathan

I do believe that he makes his own bellows still; that was the impression I got

at a recent tour of his factory.

Nathan

Where might we see such pix on line? You've piqued my interest!

Nathan

In principle, you'll want to place the "Alignotron" on the easel/baseboard, mount a mirror on your enlarger's lensboard, fire the "Alignotron" laser at the mirror, and adjust the baseboard and/or lensboard until the reflection of the laser dot comes back dead center on the machine. Then repeat the procedure mounting a mirror on the negative carrier (but this time adjust the negative carrier only). When you have the beam perfectly centered when reflected back from both the lensboard and the negative carrier, all three critical planes of your enlarger are perfectly parallel, which is of course ideal. There are a number of commercial devices out there to do the same thing. Things to watch for:

1. Not all mirrors are perfectly flat. The device I bought came with its own glass. You might want to see about buying or borrowing an appropriate mirror or piece of glass (Check out this URL for pointers to other commercially available devices, where you could likely get the glass you need:

http://www.zig-align.com/lasers.html

Obviously, small flaws in the optical surface will mess up your measurements.)

2. The device I had came with a rubber band (!) to mount the glass in place. Depending on how your enlarger is constructed, you might just be able to place the glass on the lensbooard, neg carrier, or you might have to use a rubber band. Just be sure the glass is perfectly flush.

Good luck with your new baby!

Nathan

Just to confirm what was said above: the 19 inch Artar will not cover 12X20. I believe the shortest FL in this design that covers is 24 inches (though I would get a Fuji f11.5 C if I were looking for this length in a ULF lens). I have a 30 inch RD Artar for 12X20, and have been very satisfied with it, mounted by the late S Grimes in a Copal 3 (at the expense of half a stop of speed wide open).

Good luck,

Nathan

Panoramic cameras like my 12X20 do not have the convenience of rotating

backs. Then you really do have to turn the whole (35 lb + lens!) beast on its

side to do a vertical. This can be quite a production and requires a VERY

sturdy tripod and head. You can see some vertically-oriented 12X20 portraits

at :

www.platinumportrait.com

Regards,

Nathan Congdon

I will agree with the other respondant that I prefer a vacuum frame for 12X20,

and have experienced poor contact with contact printing frames in this size.

Another point worth mentioning: one of the big advantages of 12X20 and

other ULF negs is the ability to do alt process. If you do Pt or other alt

process, a plate burning unit like a NuArc (which is what I use as well) allows

you to see you neg (as opposed to the cheaper "pizza oven" design with

fluorescent tubes where the neg goes in with a contact printing frame and is

not visible). A plate burner (light source above, vacuum frame below

integrated into a single unit) thus allows dodging and burning. Though all

agree that Pt/Pd is much more forgiving of contrasty negs than silver, I don't

know many serious Pt/Pd printers who don't eventually want to do some

dodging and burning. You can do that with a plate burner but not a "pizza

oven" design. That's a critical advantage to me, though it may apply to fewer

than 25% of he negs I print.

Good luck,

Nathan

Ian:

If you are serious about hiring a Wisner 16X20 in the UK, I think you may be

out of luck. I think about 6-12 of these were ever made, mostly for sale to end-

users. A few have come on the market, none in the UK that I am aware of.

Your best bet would be to contact Wisner himself at the email on his website.

He is a very helpful guy when it comes to info on his cameras. Closest bet

that I am aware of is a 20X24 Wisner in a Denmark commercial studio,

described in his website. Good luck!

nathan

600 Fuji f11.5C is my favorite long lens for 8X10 and my tried and trusted normal lens for 12X20. I have the Nikon 800 and 1200 Tele ED lenses, but do find that shake and shimmy becomes a problem with these lenses, which limits their usefulness. I have no problem at all with the 600. I'm using an Ebony 810 SVU when I shoot 8X10.

So, for practical purposes: 600 is the longest.

Regards,

N Congdon

I do mostly 12X20 Platinum portraits.

Though no Richard Avedon, I too am alive and breathing, at least the last time I checked.

Regards,

Nathan

Sandy:

Apparently I'm not teling you anything you don't know about the 210 SSXL. It is my Super WA of choice for 12X20. As for the center filter, I've certainly not needed it for negatives destined for Platinum. Check out:

http://platinumportrait.com/newyear.htm

I suppose if you're shooting mostly at infinity as the typical landscaper does, the results might be different. Hate to think what a center filter would cost for that monster!

Best hopes for Peace,

Nathan

I have both lenses and have shot them both with 12X20. Sandy is spot on: the Nikon covers at infinity with room to spare, the Fuji barely covers and is quite soft at the corners, not great even for contact printing. The Fuji is a great lens for smaller formats, but does not compare with the Nikon at 12X20.

Regards,

Nathan

Mostly all portraits in platinum and palladium, made from 12X20 in-camera negatives. No crotches though. Check out

www.platinumportrait.com

if you would like to take a look.

Regards,

Nathan Congdon

GG experts such as Bill Maxwell have advised the same to me: don't try it yourself, take it to a glass shop by all means, though making precise modifications in size is a tricky business apparently.

Regards,

Nathan

I would agree that counting on hotel bathrooms doesn't work in the long run. It was after climbing out of a wardrobe in South Africa having lost about 2 kg in 45 minutes trying to load film in the only light tight place I could find in a B and B that I vowed to buy a Harrison tent. The smallest ("Pup") tent will in fact work for 8X10. I have used it satisfactorily for that purpose for years. I also own their monster tent modified for 12X20, but don't always take it on trips due to space considerations. The "pup" is easy to drop in to just about any pack.

Best regards,

N

An 8X10 can certainly be a portable camera, but you must be committed to making it so. I regularly travel with 12X20, but it is a commitment that definitely has an impact on my trips. Having made the transition from a Linhof Tech to an 8X10 wooden camera, I can tell you that the lack of rigidity, even in a well-made wooden camera, due both to the change in material and increased size, was a shock to me. I think that 8X10 is the most versatile format in LF (for me), in that you can contact print, either for silver or alternative process, and yet also shoot transparencies to scan or color/B+W negs to enlarge, and even do Polaroid. All of these COST, but the incredible versatility is there. I don't think an 8X10 'Dorff is a bad choice for "one camera for the rest of my life." As with a marriage, though, you've got to feel it's right in your heart, then once you take the plunge, stay committed!

Good luck,

Nathan

I use a 12X20 weighing 30+ lb and frequently shoot verticals. I use the 1548 Gitzo legs when traveling to save weight, a Reis A-100 at home, and always the largest Reis double tilt head, travel or at home. I've not found anything else that gives me 100% confidence for verticals. The Reis head can be placed on the Gitzo legs, but panning is much more difficult. I use this combo whenever traveling, which is a lot, and find that it will support a vertical without an additional tripod, though a very small CF monopod or tripod will obviously increase the confidence factor. Try the white stuff they put under carpets to prevent skidding in order to prevent the camera rotating on the tripod head in the vertical position. An extra tripod obviously helps with this as well.

Good luck!

N Congdon

website: www.platinumportrait.com

Conventional (or more conventional) scanning, followed by a stitching algorithm is another approach if you are truly scanning a neg of that size. Roll paper exists for the Epson printers, and the 7600 and 9600 can print a pic of any length, width determined by the printer. Either could acommodate your project, simplest way being to print two-three of your panoramic strips next to each other to take advantage of the 24" width of the 7600 or 44" width of the 9600. I regularly use roll paper on my 7600, these rolls vary in length, but are mostly around 100 feet in length. There may well be other inkjets that can handle this as well, but I am quite suree the 7600 and 9600 cam print up to 100 feet in length.

Regards,

N Congdon

I travel A LOT with a large Reis tripod with spikes. I would highly recommend investing in a good bag to check it in. I have done this dozens of times now with zero problems. You may occasionally, or even quite often, get away with carrying something like this on, but if you travel regularly, a "plan" that works 60% of the time is no plan at all.

Good luck!

Nathan

A GREAT option in this range is a used, higher-end scanner. I bought a used Screen Cezanne (original price ca $50,000) for $9000, and have been delighted with the quality. You get a lot of bang for your buck by buying used, IF you go with a reputable company. I bought from Bob Weber, Inc., and was very satisfied. They have a ton of stuff on their website now, from $200 to $35,000, with plenty of drum and flatbed scanners falling into your price range.

http://www.bob-weber.com/z/prices/scanners.html

Questions you will need to ask:

What is the software that comes with it?

What is that software compatible with? (Windows 95? Mac OS X?)

Is the device still supported?

What would new software cost me (budget $1000 for this, I'll bet)

What is the NEW software compatible with?

Take your time with these guys andI think you will find something that satisfies your needs.

Regards,

Nathan

I use platinotype as well, and dry in a drymount press at 200 for a few minutes. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Pt prints will look quite flat unless a very contrasty neg is used, may not relate specifically to the paper. I've never used PVA, and don't find flatness in my prints (you can see them at www.platinumportrait.com if you have any interest. They are developed out and not zias) I like the consistency of Platinotype, only prob has been the occ black speck. As is usually the recc for silver printing, I would choose one paper/developer combo and stick with it until you're pretty confident, and then try experimenting.

Finally, if you don't have it, you might consider getting Dick Arentz's wonderful book. It gives a very learned and specific discussion of many of the papers out there, all based on personal testing.

Best regards,

Nathan