richard_lingg

I've used them for both eBay and straight purchases and have been pretty happy. They have resolved any problems to my satisfaction.

 

I bought a used Balcar light system from them about 3 years ago and it arrived DOA. They were very good about replacing it.

 

I also won an eBay auction for a case of expired 8x10 polaroid at a very good price. I asked if they could double it to two cases, and they agreed.

 

But consistent with with what Dave said, they are a little disorganized and, unless you get the right person, not particularly knowledgeable.

 

That being said, they are pretty cool and have some great deals. I would purchase from them again.<div></div>

I use a system that's a lot like Michael's. I shoot only 8x10 b&w, and don't shoot a really high number of negs each year. So my system might not work for you. But it's pretty easy and works in my situation.

 

I number each neg both chronologically and sequentially. The number starts with the two-digit year (e.g. "02" for 2002), then a space and followed by the number of the negatives shot so far that year (I'm up to around 150 right now for 2002; it's been a slow year). Thus, in the corner of my last neg next to the cut-outs for identifying film type, I've written with a Sharpie pen "02 150". (The first neg that I shoot this coming January will be "03 001".)

 

The negative goes in a Beseller plastic sleeve (my fave) and into a large three-ring binder. The negs are in sequential order. The binders are labelled by year and negative numbers, so I can always locate the neg I'm looking for once I know it's number.

 

To determine the number of the neg I want, I refer to scans I've made. After developing and numbering the negs, I scan them, reverse them to postivies and store the scan in files giving the general subject matter (e.g., "Sara Nudes 9/02"). I open the file and a thumbnail picture indicates that the neg I want is "02 115".

 

The scans are the key. Proof prints are just as hard to file and locate as the negs, and I always misplaced them. With the scans, I can review a large number of "proofs" in a short amount of time.

 

Attached is a scan of "02 125" which was taken earlier this year.

 

Negative scanners are pricey (esp. for LF), but there is another option. Before I had the scanner, I took a digital picture of the neg on a light box and would use that as the scan. So if you can't spring the $800 for a cheap (!) negative scanner, you might be able to afford a cheap digital camera.

 

Good luck.<div></div>

I have a Light Impressions "TransPort" 16x20x3 shipping case. Although it's not the prettiest case, it is built like a tank and provides excellent protection.

 

You might not want something so bulky/ugly for presentations. But on the other hand, IMHO it conveys a message that you are professional, well traveled and need such a beast to ship pictures to your various destinations. ;)

ditto

Also, hit the gallery over Aperture's offices 20 E. 23rd. (I forgot the name, but it's affiliated with Aperture and is the same building on the 2d floor.)

 

I saw the Weston/Weston show there about eight months ago. I was the only one in the place besides the help, and I had my nose pressed to about forty images for almost an hour. Then I got to peak at some Minor White prints that one of the sales associates had pulled from a drawer.

 

The place is an absolute jewel.

 

The gallery guides are good for information, but it's hard to find a showing that falls within what you might consider fine art photography (ala Weston/Adams/Bullock/etc.). There's a lot of post-modern/grunge/street photography driving the New York scene. Not my cup of tea. So use the gallery guides judicially, seeking out names you recognized and like.

 

The above-mentioned recommendations for museums and gallereis are very good, however.

I was, for about ten years, a professional guitar player (jazz/blues/rock/pop/c&w/anything that paid). Gave it up to become a lawyer. Now looking for a way to give that up and become a professional large format photographer.

 

It looks like I won't be quitting my day job any time soon. ;)

 

There is a connection - imho, once you've tapped into whatever it takes to express yourself artistically, it is easier to find that spot where creation is possible again.

 

Also, being able to learn large amounts of arcane (and otherwise useless) information applies in both.

 

But other than that, I don't see a whole lot of similarities. One is visual, the other aural. One takes an abnormal amount of coordination, rote practice and performing pieces much the same way each time. The other requires a strong back and the creative application of a skill set to translate whatever appears before you into a unique and remarkable (hopefully) image.<div></div>

Based on the advice I received from an earlier post, I purchased a replacement bellows for my 8x10 Deardorff from Camera Bellows in England. The bellows look great.

 

<p>

 

My next question is how do I install the bellows?

 

<p>

 

I'm pretty handy and can probably figure out a way to meld bellows and Deardorff, but would appreciate hearing from others on what has worked for them and pitfalls to avoid. Any advice or war stories would be much appreciated.

Like Daniel, my experience getting back orders from View Camera was

frustrating. I ordered six about two years ago. I had to call three

times, deal with a rather curt employee (or maybe he wasn't an

employee;) and ended up receiving issues that I didn't order that

were "substituted" for the issues I was ordered.

 

<p>

 

Of course, they were of issues that I already had copies of.

Thanks for the response so far. Terry, I'm in the states. Do you

have a domestic recommendation?

I'd like to replace the bellows on a Deardorff 8x10. Besides making it myself, which I am loathe to do, what options are available? Can anyone recommend a really good source for camera bellows?

 

<p>

 

I've been talking with Camera Bellows in Birmingham, United Kingdom, which is a Lee Filter Systems subsidiary. Has anyone dealt with them before? What's the quality of their product?

 

<p>

 

Thanks all.

I'm upgrading my motley collection of film holders. They're about 40% Fidelity Elites and 60% Lisco Regals.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone have a preference between Fidelity and Lisco? If so, why?

 

<p>

 

Do you prefer the old style Lisco over the newer style?

 

<p>

 

Are there other options for 8x10 film holders?

To elimiate a black spot, especially one that's in the highlights,

I've used liquid iodine - found in the first aid section of the local

drug store - straight out of the bottle. Of course, you don't want

to drink it, but I don't think there's any issue of toxic fumes.

I've been fedexing my film to and from locations. I usually send it

to a friend's residence or to the hotel where I'll be staying. It's

a hassle and everytime I ship a box off I wonder if I'll see it

again. But so far, things have worked out fine.

 

<p>

 

For what it's worth, Kodak put out a circular in November 2001 on

airport scanning (Tib5201). You can probably find it on Kodak's

website or at "www.zonezero.com/editorial/editorial.html"

ABC+ pyro (a/k/a rollo pyro) from the Formulary requires a presoak

with a dilute base solution. When I use my home made BTZS tubes, the

presoak solution usually does not get to all of the film base and

this can cause streaking (I don't know why, but it's annoying; I use

8x10 Tri-X and T-Max 400). For the presoak, I load film, put in the

solution, cap the tubes, turn on the light and start the tubes a

spinnin'. After a few minutes, it's lights out, open the tubes, pull

the film half out and slide it back in - so the solution can reach

the film base - recap, lights on and spin for a few more minutes of

presoak. Then dump the presoak and put in the ABC+ developer.

 

<p>

 

Needless to say, it's a big pain in the rump. I've switched to

liquid PMK (which is a tray process) for pyro negs.

 

<p>

 

For normal development, I use Xtol in the tubes and there's never a

problem with the solution getting to the film base. I suspect Xtol

has a greater viscosity (or maybe lower viscosity - what I mean is

that it's "more slippery" than plain water) that permits it to get to

the film base.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

I suggest adding the following indemnification to protect the Wishor

in the event the Wishee�s merriment exceeds legal limits or causes

injury:

 

<p>

 

WISHEE agrees to indemnify WISHOR from, against, and in respect of,

any and all losses, damages, liabilities, libels, suits, actions,

expenses (including attorney�s fees) and proceedings arising from, or

in connection with, any claim, complaint, suit, proceeding or cause

of action against WISHOR alleging physical injury, including death,

brought by, or on behalf of an injured party, and arising out of the

negligence or willful malfeasance of WISHEE in execution of

aforementioned holiday.

 

<p>

 

You can't be too careful. ;) Happy Holidays!

To pull T-Max 400 sheet film, I use a pyro-based developer. Either

Photographer Formulary's PMK for tray prcessing or Photographer

Formulary's ABC+ for tubes. I rate the film at 200 and follow the

instructions given with the kits, except I increase development time

50%. It usually comes out with a nice range, good shadows and no

blocked up highlights.

I've tried different things and, when canned air or camel-hair brush

doesn't cut it, what works best for me is Q-tips and Kodak lens

cleaner. Put a drop of lens cleaner on the Q-tip. Clean a dime-

sized area of the lens for about five seconds. Turn the Q-tip around

and use the dry tip to remove left-over cleaner and dry the area.

Then move to another area. Of course, don't rub hard or long -

usually no more than 10 seconds or so. And I use this only when less

invasive techniques don't lift the smudge.

Has anyone tried the Phil Davis' ExpoDev Palm Pilot program? I've used the Casio version for a while and am considering upgrading. However, I'm curious as to what, if anything, I would gain.

I'm stumped. I'm trying to compute the bellows factor for a 12" Dagor shooting close-ups and I'm using one of the usual formulas: x = bellows extension/focal length. I know I measure from the lens to the film plane to get the bellows extension. But from what point on the lens do I measure to get the bellows extension? The back of the lens? The middle? The front?

I have the same problem with my 12" Gold Dot Dagor. It looks like it

needs something around 57mm (or 2.25 inches). The simplest and

cheapest solution was to take a 62mm filter, flip it so that the

threads face out, and tape it (very carefully) to the barrel. The

filter's rim just fits over the lip of the barrel and it works. This

was at the suggestion of Jose at Ken Hansen Photo in NYC, who

(i.m.h.o.) knows his stuff.