swhiser

<p>Yes, David. Household ammonia varies widely in the level of solution; they also are difficult to obtain without surfactants and olfactory additives; moreover, the bottles occasionally state the solution level, and we for our own efforts when mixing up R3 always found that the stated level was significantly off for the purpose of consistent performance across batches. So mixing at home -- which we encourage -- has the difficulty of having to manage a consistent ammonia solution. This can be overcome in a well-documented, mature process by managing ratios or managing the ammonia solution directly; however, it is not like making pancakes. </p>

<p>Yes, John (T) and Michael (A) -<br>

We're contemplating a crowdfunding campaign at Kickstarter to get New55 FILM going.<br>

Unfortunately for Hasselblad users, it's a 4x5 thing and any relevant discussion will probably move over to one of the larger-format areas here.<br>

Please let me know if anyone has any questions.<br>

-Sam Hiser<br /> project CEO<br /> new55project.com</p>

<p>Yes. It's an excellent, if wonderfully obsolete, start; although there are better cameras out there.<br>

(I use & trust my R4s -- the simplified version which has all the features I need. The design choices I appreciate the most in the R4(s) are the heavier weight of the body, the feel of the shutter release, the size and positioning of the shutter speed dial, as well as the layout of the viewfinder.)<br>

This is a Leitz camera based on Minolta (XE) innerds. Leica-philes scoff at its "not-Leica" provenance, but users are free to ignore this irrelevant critique. Minolta was an innovator in its time and having a Minolta body with Leica R lenses is a fine way to start a non-superficial reflex experience. (Though I typically recommend that young starters use an inexpensive match-needle platform like the Pentax K1000 or Nikon FE -- which are in plentiful supply and easy to use hard without guilt or bad feeling.)<br /> The R4(s) is a cheap body (now pushing $149 at KEH). But the lenses are less so. Mitigating this for me is the extraordinary quality of the lenses and their compatibility with the Canon EOS digital platform.<br /> I use two R4s bodies to carry either different sensitivity films or different focal lengths. The bodies from my point of view are almost disposable, given their cost today; but they are strong enough and tough enough to justify periodic CLA service for basic cleaning, light-seal replacement. The costs of more serious electronic or mechanical issues are less easy to justify, but this is overall a solid camera that wears well in my experience (I am firm, active but not careless with equipment).<br /> Mirror-damping is a problem of perception, i.e., an aesthetic distaste masquerading as a bug -- much as I hate to disagree with Monsignor Herr. Like with the comically loud mirror of the Pentax 6x7, the R4's mirror 'clack' is substantial but occurs after the shutter has closed.<br /> Anyone going into the Leica R series does so cognizant of the limitations of depending on a discontinued platform: fewer spare parts, fewer service professionals eager to fix. All of these issues are manageable (with the help of the 'net) and shouldn't deter you from experience with a VERY INTERESTING and, in my opinion, delightfully effective & useful design. It's perceived low popularity is more aligned with the high cost of R lenses and the more-than-decent adequacy of the Nikon in the 1980's.</p>

<p>Interesting question, Mark.<br>

Whichever choice one would adopt, color-temp STABILITY (upon warmup) is the critical feature. No specific comment on a particular color temp versus another, but your custom white balance process under two of the same bulbs will be sufficient in most cases. You'll want to avoid mixing 3000K and 3200K bulbs in the same setup. And in general the better bulb is the one that's most stable over its lifetime.<br>

No experience with FCZs but please keep us posted on your investigation.<br>

Joe -<br>

Experienced curators will insist on cool HID lighting nowadays. Hot tungstens can work well in a studio with lower-value objects. With Tota Lights, I always keep things clear away from the lights, and my fire extinguisher within reach -- especially when using gels. Very hot. </p>

 

<p>Joe -<br /> Seems you already have a good grasp of the pros & cons. All are very good systems. The Fuji is good too, so hard to imagine defenestrating it UNLESS you were to select the Mamiya -- another, slightly better but also limited, rangefinder.<br /> The Pentax is sufficiently inexpensive that it lends to gradual collection (of as much of the system as your needs warrant).<br /> Adding, however, a Pentax 67II system will pinch anyone's shelf-space; so this is a mixed answer. But my view is that almost everyone who is serious should spend a good spell with the P67 system -- especially for the way you describe your approach.</p>

<p>David -<br>

We can get used to anything. Your instincts are pretty good; respect them. Your suggestion is the most natural tool there is, once you acclimatize to it. Must train though and you will be able to work further by instinct.<br>

A possible alternative (or addition) to the 75 would be the APO 90 Elmarit. This would be your last camera; it will permit you to concentrate, then, on the more critical aspects of making pictures: where to place your body, ways to play subjects & objects into the frame, etc.</p>

<p>Graflex Crown Graphic (do not assume even a very clean one will work out of the box as they are 40 - 60 years old and have likely sat)<br>

90 6.8 Angulon<br>

135 4.7 Xenar<br>

(These are press lenses with minimal movements; any modern Nikkor, Fujinon, Schneider or Rodenstock 90 5.6 and 150 5.6 will make an excellent high-contrast substitute; the Fujinon 240 A and the Nikkor 300 from there if you like a narrow field)<br>

Omega D-2 enlarger, 4x5 carrier (glass is nice, if mint)<br>

Grafmatic holder and/or 6 good Fidelity holders<br>

Changing bag (which can double as a darkcloth)<br>

A box of 50 sheets Fomapan 100 or 400 <br>

Any old lightmeter, Gossen's are good (the Digisix is nice & small); shutter release, loupe & dark cloth optional<br>

Humor & improvisation. Make lots of mistakes.<br>

Plan to CLA the camera & lenses and have the rangefinder zeroed and the infinity stops checked with the lenses.<br>

If I were to do this all over again, myself, I would take the budget for all of the above (under $1,000) and spend that amount again on a very good camera support system. Say, a Gitzo 1228 or 1548 and a Linhof 3-way levelling head. Or a Ries with Manfrotto 405. Or, doubling that, a new-gen Gitzo and the Arca-Swiss D4 gearhead.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Peter - <br>

It's a treasure trove! More than I imagined. Thank you ... very much (I hope you're well now.)<br>

If one were to put this into a web site format, what would be the Nav headings.<br>

-Valoy II<br>

o Manuals<br>

o Holders<br>

o Lens Compatibility<br>

o Bulbs <br>

o Parts Index<br>

o Mods<br>

o Users | Gallery<br>

o About<br>

- Contact</p>

<p> </p>

<p>No complaints about the Nikkor-SW 90 f8. That'll cover you until you sell enough prints to get the Super-Angulons XL 72 & 90 f5.6.<br>

That's my idea, anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>This is a helpful thread as, Peter, you've already aggregated some good information on part numbers of the Valoy II accessories. Any photographs are helpful, too, as it's difficult to know at this point in history and without sales literature what all the possibilities are for this enlarger. Kienzle seem to be the only source of parts (and knowledge) other than Glen Evans (whose summary on the "glennview" site is quite edifying) and a few Leica collectors in the Balkans.<br>

For example, what are all the lens and extension tube options? The Valoys have this curious history of adapting camera lenses (the Summicron and Elmar come to mind). And I am also curious what the answer to this question suggests for film format options and print sizing.<br>

"DMUOO" or 17672 - adapter / extension ring for the Summicron 50 f2 m39 lens<br>

"DOORX" or 17675 - adapter / extension ring for the Focotar 50 f4.5, EL-Nikkor 50 f2.8 or other enlarging lenses.<br>

In some cases and for reasons that are obscure, the extension rings are not necessary. I was able to fit my early EL-Nikkor 50 f2.8 to the Valloy II up under the helical assembly without an extension ring and the 35mm negative focuses nicely.<br>

I wouldn't be asking if this wasn't the most extraordinary enlarger I have ever laid hands on. Wouldn't it be nice to have a good reference in one place?</p>

 

<p>There isn't a better enlarger for 35mm.</p>

<p>The Crown Graphic.</p>

 

<p>The Toyo's fine. <br>

I would also look carefully at the (heavy) weight and incredible charisma of the Linhof Technika to see if it fits what you'd like to do.<br>

An older Technika iV or V would meet your budget; the recent Master Technika (though expensive) works better with wide lenses and has a much better lens cam system for portraits and non-GG work.</p>

<p>Hi there -<br>

I'm not aware of serious fine art repro photographers who use intermittent lighting (strobes or flash), though it is possible and can be done well by those who are comfortable using strobes in other settings. Continuous lighting tends to be preferred for several reasons you will understand through experience.<br>

Tungsten is fine (though hot) and getting another Tota light is a great next step (you were well advised to get the first one); a pair of Tota lights is an old stand-by solution for flat copy. You'll also want to be using Cross-Polarization with this to reduce glair and get the colors to speak (even for neutral-colored target objects). <br>

(The proper high-end repro setup now uses cooler HID lighting which, once warmed up, has stable color temp and long life. These are <a href="http://www.northlightproducts.com/html/copy_lights.html">good examples</a> of what you'd see in a museum's in-house photographer's "bag," and will get less expensive in future.) <br>

The next step beyond another inexpensive tungsten light is getting a lens or two for your D7000 with strengths in sharpness, color rendition and (non-)distortion. A good example is the old Nikkor f2,8/105 Macro (AIS) or the Carl Zeiss ZF.2 f2/100.<br>

Brushing up your color management and profiling skills will help more than a new lens. And achieving an even exposure balance across your easel with your light meter will go a long way in the result, too.<br>

For reference, the ultimate systems for repro will use those HID lights, a scanning back on a 6x9 or 4x5 tech camera (which produces 1GB files and perfect color [no Beyer interpolation], or a Mamiya or Hasselblad MF system with digital back.) <br>

It all depends on your objectives for final output, but the D7000 with Tota lights is a great all-purpose setup until you begin printing big enlargements.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I cherish Kader's enthusiasm, but this thread and Kirk Enterprises' product information confused me for a good long while.<br>

The Kirk L-bracket, <a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/L-Bracket_for_6x7_II.html">part #BL-67II</a>, works fine on my <em>Pentax 6x7</em>. Kader is correct that the bracket covers the battery door, however I find it does not cover the back door lever and I am able to unlatch and open the door to change film with the bracket still on the camera. (If changing film were to require removal of the bracket -- with the additional juggle of an allen key, etc -- then I would have passed.)<br>

The Pentax cognoscenti will nod that, yes, there are three versions of this venerable camera, the 6x7, the 67 and the 67ii. <a href="http://www.photoethnography.com/ClassicCameras/AsahiPentax67.html">Karen</a> says so.<br>

Kirk's L-bracket is excellent. I'm as glad for it as I am for this fantastic camera! But their web page confuses matters thusly ...<br>

Product appellation: "L-Bracket for 6x7 II"<br /> Part #: "BL-67II"<br /> Label on the product: "BL-6x7II"<br /> Note in product spec: "Fits only the Pentax 6x7 II"<br>

There is no "Pentax 6x7II" but we gather they mean that the user experience is ideal only with the 67ii. This is because the battery compartment and its cover was smartly moved to the bottom of the wonderful and necessary hand grip, out from under the middle where the bracket must go.<br>

The L-bracket, indeed, fits the earlier models in the literal sense, but it covers up the battery door. This is a compromise I can live with because the camera is so important to me and because I only change the battery every 6 months or so. Given the low prices and availability of the earlier models -- yes, even the non-Mirror Lock Up version -- it seems hardly a sacrifice.<br>

Facetiousness aside, Kirk will definitely enjoy a few more sales from lining up its prod-lit with the actual Pentax product designations. I can see a spec note soon reading something like: 'This L-bracket fits all models, but covers the battery door of the 6x7 and 67.'</p>

 

<p>These Zeiss lenses made by Cosina for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Sony & others are generally awesome. It's a non-issue.</p>

<p>Dave -<br /> <br /> This is a personal workflow topic, the response to which is governed by type of photography & time. Short answer: selective.<br /> <br /> For one, I will wet mount only my best images of a given period (year) for the purpose of achieving a large digital archival print. At all other times I use a cheap older Epson flatbed to proof negatives (at less than 300 dpi) for evaluation, web and journalistic publishing.<br /> <br /> As a documentary artist, I scan less than 10% of my captures and print well less than 1% (on some projects the yield can be very different). The negative is the stored medium which can always later provide a specific resolution required by the chosen outlet, whether web, newspaper, book or archival print. Digital formats are not archival for me, nor do I see a point in the future when they would be (since scanners will indefinitely have better d-to-a converters at price than cameras).<br /> <br /> There may be reason to wet mount everything, but so few frames meet my ultimate objectives that I would gain little from it and lose a lot of time. I expect to change my views as my work evolves and as the work asserts different demands.</p>

<p>No question HDR will appear in galleries, and undoubtedly has already.<br>

Keep in mind that HDR is not a style but an application of technology.<br>

Most HDR images so far are <a href="http://www.moma.org/collection/details.php?theme_id=10161&artistFilterInitial=X"><em>Pictorialist</em> </a> landscapes -- regardless of what the maker thought she was doing. One reason: because landscape scenes almost universally have 8- to 10-stop luminance ranges between the sky and the grounded detail. Photography has always had trouble with this because film typically maxes out at a 5-stop range, give or take (same for the digital sensor). The film solution was the graduated neutral-density filter, pioneered by Galen Rowell (National Geographic). It wasn't bad, and now we use Photoshop and other software tools to give even more flexibility.<br>

Art-proper, such as it is, dealt with Pictorialism about 100 years ago.<br>

It is obvious that HDR would not bar an image from consideration; but it is not a license for. That always depends upon the quality of expression.</p>

<p>Interesting thread ... and the drama continues, but only now with the indelible imprint of globalization.<br>

Did anyone ever doubt that the weighted-epicenter of the digital medium format camera manufacture would migrate to East Asia, but with much of the intellectual weight staying West?<br>

All the traditional players, in the end, are, holding on by the hair of their chins but to only the components which they do in a clearly better way.<br>

So in rough measure it's Mamiya (Tokyo/Copenhagen/Tel Aviv), Fuji (Hong Kong/Gothenborg) & Pentax (Vietnam, Philippines).<br>

Kodak (Rochester, NY) has the intellectual property of the sensor -- not a minor component of value-added.<br>

Lenses are done well in Japan, but the best, Schneider & Zeiss, remain in Germany with some portions contributed in Asia.<br>

There's room for a dark-horse in here somewhere. I'd like to see Cosina come in with a 6x6 plastic Holga-type thing for 799 $US with adapters for Rollei, Hassy, Pentacon Six, Pentax 67 & 645 lenses. This will happen at some point but not until the cost of the sensor falls to where the difference between a square and rectangular frame is negligible. What, another 3 years?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Brian -<br>

Expanding on the above, this is where Arax comes in. The Arsat 30mm comes in Pentacon Six-mount for Kiev, among others mentioned in Mr Ing's kind & helpful post above. Arax does an <a href="http://araxfoto.com/cameras/how-cm/">upgrade</a> , alleviating some of the notorious reliability issues of the Kiev.<br /> <br /> (Keep in mind that the Arax/Kiev 88 has a focal plane shutter; it's one reason why a collection of glass -- Schneider or Carl Zeiss Jena in the Pentacon Six mount -- or even one or two special pieces (tilt-shift, fisheye, ultra-wide) would be relatively affordable. I do not use Kiev or Arax cameras, so cannot speak from experience; but have considered adding it to complement my H 500C/M system for reasons similar to your application.)<br /> <br /> So the recommendation of a new platform in such a case is not such a wild leap as it may at first seem. The consideration for renting would still be alive for yourself in comparison against the total cost of ownership & potential time costs of managing, maintaining & occasionally carrying a separate platform. Arax does appear to have decent support, although it is far east of the Zero Longitude line.</p>