andy andrews

<p>The primary impetus for Kodak's interest in the development of electronic imaging was the negative press and resultant fines from the EPA and the State of New York because of the continued discharge of hazardous chemicals from Kodak Park and other EKC plants. See <www.coldtype.net/Assets/pdfs/17.Nim.May27.pdf></p>

<p>I agree with Don Bright regarding the comparison between a good drum scan of a 6x7 chrome on RVP 50 and 4x5 chromes. After spending 50+ years carrying most of the top medium and large format cameras in the field, I reached the conclusion that there is a point of greatly diminishing returns when going above the 6x7 format. Budgetary concerns preclude even thinking about 4x5. The weight and complexity of film holders makes chasing fleeting moments during the Golden Hours of dawn and dusk an exercise in patience and serendipity. Even the greats of large format photography ended up with medium format rollfilm cameras for their combination of information capture and efficiency. <br>

The cost of the latest large format lenses puts your project out of the running. I know of no combination of lens and body with modern, multi-coated optics (not to mention aspheric) that you could put together under $1,000. I agree with the some of the others that the biggest bang for the buck would be the Mamiya Press or RB/RZ with 50mm lens. If you can find the ground glass back for the Mamiya Press, you can use the Scheimpflug technique by tilting the camera back and increase your depth of field without overly stopping down. The 50mm Mamiya-Sekor will cover 6x9 with modest movements. If you opt for the RZ, look into the 50mm L lens with its modern multi-coating, floating elements and ultra-low dispersion glass. An RZ with 50mm ULD optic and 120 back can be found for around $800 on the 'net.</p>

<p>Go to <www.liveauctions.com/item/988697> for a description of the Ballerio Kobell 6x9 camera offered recently.</p>

<p>The Burleigh-Brooks iteration of Plaubel's concept is really a combination of some very fine elements from diverse sources: the superb 47mm f/8 Super-Angulon in a light-weight focusing mount came from Jos. Schneider; this is mounted onto an alloy body designed by Komamura (Horseman), which mates with the Graflex XL mounting assembly, which is attached to a special rollfilm back also designed and made by Horseman. The aperture window on the back varied over the years of production, starting out as a generous 56mm x 90mm rectangle in the first models. This was later reduced to 56x83, as complaints of darkening of the corners and softness wide-open began to be received from users. Reducing the format slightly also helped in preventing frame overlaps. My last Brooks Veri-Wide had a window of only 80mm in width. The viewfinder came from Mamiya's optical plant and was the same as the finder supplied with the Mamiya Press 65mm Mamiya-Sekor, but with a black spatter texture finish and nameplate inscription.<br>

One design weakness was the location of the dark slide. To remove the dark slide, one has to slip the finder out of its cold shoe. Most of us just taped over the slide slit with black electrician's tape and didn't change backs. Loading was a quick and sraightforward procedure, compared to many medium format backs. The little round knob marked 120/220 merely served as a reminder. It isn't attached to the transport mechanism. You got 8 or 16 exposures, depending upon whether 120 or 220 roll.<br>

As Schneider introduced the f/5.6 47mm S.A. lens, this was made standard. It gives a larger image circle and more resolution at the periphery than the f/8 optic. I've owned three of the earlier cameras and one with the f/5.6. The older f/8 lens seems to have more contrast and is just as sharp centrally. The fact that the f/5.6 adds two more elements to the optical path can account for this. It would be interesting to see what a more modern lens like the 47mm Super-Angulon XL could do on the Veri-Wide. Since its back focus differs from the previous S.A.s, the mount would have to be altered in its spacing.<br>

The detachable viewfinder is great as a director's glass. I carried it in my hand and viewed potential shots without having to wave the whole camera about like a tourist. Its bright, wide vista is a joy to behold and the luminance puts silvered mirrors or electronic screens to shame, albeit with less accuracy of framing. But who cares, for an equivalent image capture of perhaps 90 megapixel!</p>

<p>Spiratone's 400 and 500mm telephotos were and are a remarkable value. In October of 1979, MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY tested the 400mm f/6.3 and recorded excellent resolution figures of 50 lppm at f/11 to 56 lppm at f/16 and 22 on center. Edge sharpness was also excellent at 40 lppm at f/11 and f/22.<br>

MODERN PHOTOGRAPHY tested the Spiratone 500mm f/8 alongside the 400mm and measured excellent resolution figures from wide open(!) to f/22 at 52 to 58 lppm down the center and excellent from wide-open to f/22 in the corners at 45 lppm at f/8, 47 lppm at f/11, 45 lppm at f/16 and 40 lppm at f/22.<br>

For your reference, POP PHOTOGRAPHY tested the late model Zeiss Planar 80mm f/2.8 CF-Series in November of 1995, shooting an Air Force resolution test target on Kodak T Max film at f/8 and measured <strong>47 linepairs per millimeter!</strong> They said this was a typical resolution figure for medium format cameras. So, even though the Spiratone pre-sets are inexpensive and, yes, have some chromatic aberration (all long lenses do, unless they are made with low-dispersion glass) they still are able to hold their own with more modern optics. Since many of us can make corrections in the computer, these issues are moot.</p>

<p>My heart says Brooks Veriwide with the Horseman back and Super-Angulon 47mm f/8. This was the camera I used to record the illustrations for my first published article in a national magazine, back in 1980. It is light, drinks in detail and chromes or negs blow up real BIG. You only get 8 - 6x8cm frames, but what frames! The big viewfinder and triple array of levels allow you to get your shot in a hurry without disappointments. Since 1977, I've owned three of 'em - two f/8s and the last model, the f/5.6 S.A. with (I believe) 10 element lens.<br>

My other favorites are the Nikon F, the Rollei-Wide and my trusty Minolta Autocord L I just sold on the 'net.</p><div></div>

<p>I shot some of the new 120 Ektar 100 at a picnic I attended last Sunday in San Diego and was blown away by Kodak's latest product and how it performed with my venerable Minolta Autocord! Kodak claims Ektar is the finest-grained color negative film available. Couple that with color that is out of this world and you have a contender to be the equivalent of Velvia in print stock. But enough talk, let's look at what my antique camera and state of the art film can do!</p><div></div>

<p>The Beseler Slide King II has a gate of 89mm 108mm and a 1,000-watt halogen lamp producing 10,000 ANSI lumens. I had an adapter sleeve machined so that I could use a Leitz Hektor f/2.5 200mm lens in place of the Beseler E.F. lens and can project 4x5s only slightly cropped laterally by 6mm each side! If you want to see a transparency in all its glory, this is it! The individual slide changer handles a mount having dimensions of 80mm x 100mm or 2 1/4" x 3 1/4", so all medium format slides will project if you first mount them, as I do, between two pieces of 1/16" Plexiglas t.m. taped with aluminum flue (NOT duct) tape. I use the same technique to project full-frame 4x5s but without the changer. I just slide a strip of Plexi containing one, two or up to <strong>five 4x5s</strong> through the open gate like a filmstrip projector, smoothly and silently at whatever pace I like. There is no click, click, light/dark, light/dark as with conventional methods. The slides are protected from wear and tear and can be quickly removed or the sequence altered simply and easily. Cutting your own slide mounts does not require a lot of power tools. I mark the plastic in its protective blue wrap and cut with a saber saw. Flue tape may be obtained for about $5 a large roll at hardware stores or home supply outlets. I lay a piece of production (50-grit) sandpaper on the desk top and smooth my cut line, tape the covers together at the bottom and drop in the slide. Of course, for medium format which does not fill the entire frame, you will have to cut some masks out of aluminum-faced gift wrapping paper or art paper with an aluminized surface. In this way, I can show all sizes of medium format transparencies on ONE strip, side by side, in either horizontal or vertical orientation. It's just like reading a book or strolling along a museum gallery, as the pictures glide into view in the darkened room. My audiences actually do 'oh' and 'ah', when they see Velvia pix of wildflowers of the desert in springtime or fall colors in the Sierras. I present typically in retirement facilities, senior centers and convalescent hospitals. Where there is no screen present, I carry my own 10'x10' white beaded screen, although its a bear to schlep sometimes! If you have any questions regarding this method of slide mounting and projection, get in touch. I'll help all I can.</p>

<p><strong>Thanks to all of you for taking your valuable time to answer my query. This speaks to the very high level of fellowship I've seen on the Forum and the expertise out there.</strong><br>

<strong>I took my first picture in 1941, so this is my 68th year as a photographer. My last gig was shooting Bob and Betty Young's 50th Wedding Anniversary at Rancho Santa Fe, CA in 1983. The pix were in the National Enquirer several times and in tabloids abroad. Some will remember Robert Young as "Marcus Welby, M.D." and the father in "Father Knows Best" on tv. He was one of my favorite stage and screen actors.</strong><br>

<strong>I've misplaced my manual for the Pentax and am sending for another. I've been called upon to shoot a going-away party on the 13th and thought I'd better check on the compatibility of the 285HV and the 645N. I didn't want my camera's circuitry to be going away too! Formerly, I used Rolleis and 4x5s for groups.</strong></p>

<p>All excellent arguments for LF analog. Consider, too, that there are currently over 200 toxic compounds going into the biosphere from the manufacture of computers, digital equipment and other hig-tech hardware. Film production and development constitute less than one-seventh of this number. Also, when you change film you put in a brand new "sensor". You do not have to put up with a digital back which may have become obsolete six months after it shipped or has lost pixels or has in some way been damaged. Dust and heat are big problems with digital capture and more than one of my friends has returned to film for those reasons. This is especially true of photogs who change lenses in the field. With film, it is simple to blow out the camera interior and inspect it prior to fitting the holder. It is not practical to remove a LF or MF digital back, vacuum, swab or brush after each lens change. And then there is the cost of the large digital back. Government and commercial interests can write-off these stupendous expenditures, but it sure takes the fun out of photography for me to think I'd be paying the price of a luxury car just to avoid using film. According to Pop Photography and Eastman Kodak, fine grain reversal 35mm film is equivalent to 14-15 megapixel capture. Using this standard, a 4x5 chrome yields around 166 megapixels equivalent. Are there any digital backs of this size and, if there are, who can justify their cost?</p>

 

<p>Because of the high triggering voltage of the earlier Vivitar 285 flashes, they cannot be used on many modern cameras having printed circuit boards. Can my 285HV with its 600-volt triggering pulse be used on my Pentax 645 without damaging the circuitry of camera?</p>

You made an excellent choice of cameras. Of all the various makes and models I've used since I started (in 1941!), the Rolleicords have yielded the most consistently pleasing results. I can shoot fairly static subjects at 1/15 of a sec, as one can with cameras equipped with leaf shutters. The symmetrical forces of this type of shutter do not induce much movement and of course there is no reflex mirror to introduce vibration either. For extra steadiness, I can brace myself against some solid object. Loren is right. I too find it better to focus through the ground glass and then open the sports finder and compose with the back of the camera pressed against my face.<div></div>

My PII works great and takes the readily-available GE DAK 500-Watt tungsten lamp or equivalent. My Leitz Prado Universal takes a Phillips (Holland) 7748 6L, 24V 250W halogen lamp, not so readily-available but long of life. The old Rollei has the straight trays and can also project 35mm slides. I only use these two for 645 and 6x6 slides. The bigger stuff I pass through my Beseler Slide King II with its 1,000-watt halogen lamp and huge 100mm square gate. For Super Slides (40x40), I use a Kodak Ektagraphic III AMT with Extra Bright Lamp Module and Schneider Vario-Prolux MC 70-120mm f/2.8. With nearly twice the area of a 35mm slide, it's the closest thing to medium format projection you'll find - at a tiny fraction of the cost of digital projectors and without the blown-out highlights and $400 lamps! Enjoy!

My experience with KEH goes back to their inception and I have never had anything but excellent products and service from them. Their grade of "Bargain" is the NYC camera store's rating of "Excellent", more often than not. Anyway, no one can analyze the total condition of a complex modern camera without a costly and impractical strip-down. That's why KEH and other reputable traders offer guarantees and return privileges on all but the oldest collectibles. Even if you do have to have work done on the Rollei, it's a recoverable investment. You'd pay well over $1,000 today to duplicate the craftsmanship, material and capability of a postwar Rolleiflex or Rolleicord.

With the first Polaroid cameras in 1948, came the futurists' cry that conventional film would soon be dead. Who would want to wait, when you could see your pictures instantly...or nearly so? When affordable digital cameras came on the scene, computer-oriented observers and prognosticators said, "Film is dead. Who wants to wait, when you can see your pictures instantly and delete those that don't turn-out?" Well, apparently there are a whole lot of patient people, who are waiting a little longer to get quality, permanence, lack of obsolescence and freedom from whistles and bells! Film doesn't seem to want to go away, nor should it.

Like Leonardo da Vinci and his Mona Lisa, who died in his Paris apartment in 1519 with nothing but his painting "Mona Lisa", some sticks of furniture and a few pieces of clothing, I'll probably go clutching my dad's 1923 Kodak Autographic 2C Special. My father used it to photograph my mom when they were first courting. When I came along in 1934, Mom snapped me with the old folder, lying on my dad's chest. Each of my early birthdays were recorded with it, too. When I was twelve, I did a self-portrait in the hall mirror. Then the vernerable folder lay on various closet shelves, almost forgotten. 51 years later, I reacquainted myself with the old treasure, made up a new 6x9 aperture plate and spool adapters of plastic from the hardware store and tried out the then new Kodak Lumiere film in her. The 4-element Tessar formula lens at f/22 cut a razor-sharp chrome, which knocked me off my feet! Then, I decided to enter Pop Photography's 1998 International Photo Contest. I took the $200 Second Place Prize in Portraiture - against over 60,000 pro and amateur contestants. Jason Schneider, former Pop Editor and author of many articles and books on camera collecting, called from NYC and asked me why I had used such an old camera. I said it was a magic heirloom to me and had been a faithful friend all of my life. Why put it out to pasture, just because it didn't have a shiny chrome finish, tailfins and whistles and bells up the wazoo? He agreed. Although I've owned almost every rollfilm camera, from Aires to Zeiss, my heart belongs to the 2C Special and the careful craftspeople of Eastman Kodak. Their motto could have been, "A Lifetime of Memories - a Minimum of Fuss!"<div></div>

The boards I use on my Busch Pressman D are about 1/16" thick (outer plate) - the same as the original boards. If, for some reason, you have a slightly thicker board the mounting screws need to be backed out just a little and the board will fit snuggly. Midwest Photo Exchange gives a lifetime guarantee on its Busch boards, which are made out of tough aircraft aluminum and have a better blackening on the interior than 50-some-year-old original boards. Yes, the front standard opening is a little tight for some wide angle lenses. Get our your Dremmel!

Photography is probably the most technical of the visual arts and is perhaps more dependent upon equipment mastery for full expression. Even so, its product (the photo) is a subjective, ephemeral thing. If it pleases you, go for it. I do not make a living cranking out pictures and shoot to please myself. If my work pleases others, it is gratifying but not essential. Digital may be faster but it doesn't force me to concentrate and distill all of my focus and effort the way large format does. And I like to pull a 4x5 chrome out of the sleeve and hold it up to window light, say, rather than cranking up the electronic hardware every time. 75 years in dark storage is archival enough for me and when I am gone people will still be able to see my work with the naked eye. Everyone has their own priorities. Everybody gets to be right. Right now, I'd rather be out in the mountains, deserts or seashore than criticizing someone's equipment. Let's all smile, shake hands and take ourselves out into nature to feel Her good tidings! Film or digital, if it resonates with your heart JUST DO IT!<div></div>

I've been using RVP since day one, having gotten one of the very first rolls to land on the West Coast and given to me to try out by my friend David Bales, the then Fuji rep here. I saw Velvia 50 become the number one professional stock and was dismayed when they ceased production a couple years ago. Personally, I think a decision was made at Fujifilm to pull Velvia 50 because they would sell more digital cameras. Velvia, at 160 line-pairs per millimeter (high-contrast) resolution is so far beyond anything digital, not to mention a complete lack of artifacts, blown highlights and dubious archival qualities, that it was impeding the conquest of digital doodads and making Fuji looks positively old-fashioned. This is all unfounded conjecture, of course. I applaud Fuji for listening to the pitiful cries of Velvia 50 users around the world and re-introducing this outstanding product. As an official spokesman for Fujifilm said at the last Photokina, "We want to be the last man standing!" And with a new Velvia 50 in their product line, they probably will be!

I used mine for scenics mostly. It is the lightest and fastest on the draw of all the 6x6 or 6x7 medium format beasts. However, you are limited to a few very fine lenses. I prefer the ground glass for composition, the 7's viewfinder for low-level seeing. I have gone back to the RZ, because of its versatility, despite the extra weight. I project medium-format chromes and need accurate metering for that. The 7 meter is not quite accurate enough for reversal stock, particularly back-lit scenes that I specialize in. Still, for documentary, street and travel photography, I'd take a 7 with the awesome 43mm any time.<div></div>

I have used Rolleis for 50-some years and the Rolleicords with the 75mm Schneider Xenar can produce spectacular results, easily and at minimum cost. The contrast and resolution is of a very high order. Go to <http://not.contaxg.com/>, click on Private Folders and scroll down to Vintage Andy Andrews for samples of Rolleicord output.<div></div>

I've owned both cameras. I had the Mamiya 7 and 43mm, which is a superb lens. I shoot mostly scenics for projection through the Linhof Ideal Format 6x7 with its Leitz lenses. Under projection, on a 20' screen, the Velvia 50 slides from the Mamiya were way beyond anything I had been able to get - with the exception of the Brooks Veriwides I've had. They use Schneider's formidable 47mm Super Angulon. I've owned two f/8 Veriwides and a f/5.6 model and that for me produced the very best images I've ever recorded on screen. However, because the Veriwides were 6x9s and the Mamiya 7 a 6x7 format I had to crop the Brooks' chromes. Later, I devised a method of sandwiching strips of chromes between polycarbonate and sliding them through the gate of the projector so that I didn't have to crop my precious originals. If you want the ultimate in quality, go with a camera that uses the 47mm f5.6 Super Angulon - preferably the latest multi-coated version.

Scott, That was my posting on APUG. My translator was Toshia Allen, one of the world's most beautiful women. I've been trying to get her to pose for me for a long time, but she is so modest. Anyway, back to film (uh-hem!)- I too am hoping we'll get a close match to the original Velvia 50. Nothing else has quite the snap and vibrancy of it. I project BIG slides (80+mm square) from my Linhof or Beselers and use RVP exclusively. I'm having a 4x5 built and will let you know when I have a working proto.

I build the Busch lensboards that Midwest Photo Exchange markets. I will replace any board that fails, in normal use, for the length of your ownership. They are hand-made of aircraft aluminum and each is tested on an actual Busch front standard casting for fit and light tightness before shipment.<div></div>

Phineas, for an example of a scans from chromes go to http://www.notcontaxg.com/document.php?id=12475&full=1

That was scanned on my Epson Perfection 4990. The overwhelming advantage of film is that the highlight details are not blown-out, flesh tones are not a cadaverous hue and there are no pattern distortions, even in the most complex and detailed scenes. And the camera I used was a 36-year-old Rolleicord that cost me $75.