rob_tucher3

<p>Yes, you can use anti-newton glass. But all you'll need is a plain, unscratched sheet (I used the thick stuff) for the bottom where the emulsion will rest. Then place the ANG on top, place carefully in the enlarger and print. I marked on the plain glass where the 4x5 should be to be centered, and even drilled holes in the glass with a special bit and oil to accommodate the pins on my Omega that accept the notches in a normal Omega film carrier.</p>

<p>Years ago I had a shift adapter that allowed me to mount my Pentax 67 lenses on my Nikon F4s. I have been sitting here for a long time trying to remember the name...Zork or something like that. It was a fabulous device and gave me shift capability with lots of movement (6x7 coverage on 35mm), and was well made too. A search of eBay might net you one if you can think of a key word to look for. </p>

<p>Steve, thanks, I've seen your website and your name around too. Interesting about the wet contact vs. digital contact. I've always looked at the negative as the "prime" similar to doing research with prime and secondary sources, so it makes sense.<br>

I did my first HABS in 1982. First HAER in 1983. There are guys out there with longer tenure and many more documentations, but our numbers are dwindling. Fewer and fewer remain in it and have gone digital completely. I can't say I share that urge.<br>

I don't find the digital printing any easier at all. It's not necessarily cheaper either. I find my zeal to dive into the darkroom has waned over the years though, so it's a way to produce while not being isolated up in the lab I have in my barn.<br>

Best of luck! You're CA, aren't you? Now and then I get a request from the left coast and never know who to recommend if their budgets don't include travel.</p>

<p>None-the-less the Library of Congress has tested certain materials and has agreed to accept them and HABS/HAER/HALS is actively producing "digital contact prints." Film is still required and it must be processed archivally, but then their departure begins. You scan the b&w film on an flatbed scanner (they use Epson V700) under Anti-Newton glass emulsion side up at 800 dpi at 4x5. Then you flip the image to right it, make minor adjustments to correct contrast and density. That scan is then printed centered on an 8.5"x11" sheet of Epson Ultra Premium Presentation Paper - Matte so that it mimics the way it would have looked if you wet printed a contact print and mounted it on a HABS/HAER/HALS card. The printer must support the accepted inks listed by the National Register in their Digital Photo Specs but the only paper accepted it the Presentation Matte. You pencil the appropriate number on the back and the Park Service prints the appropriate labeling. The specs are not well publicized nor are they listed specifically anywhere. I spoke at length with Jet Lowe and James Rosenthal at HABS/HAER/HALS.<br>

It is considered to be printed to 75-year permanence standards in this manner (proper wet printing to HABS standards is 500 years), though they accept that there is some degradation after 25 years. But the LOC does accept it anyway. I've done a few this way without any hitches. I realize you must have submitted long ago but I haven't been on in a long time and this might still help.</p>

<p>HP Combi Plan is daylight and can be found cheap and is good, but REALLY should be full (6 sheets of film). You can load dummies (processed junk film) but then it uses lots of film for a run. BTZS tubes are great and process evenly and in daylight but work best when you develop, stop, and fix and then switch the film out of the tube to do a final fix, clear and wash outside of it. Otherwise you get staining on the back of the film. JOBO with or without an automatic machine work very well and use very little chemistry, but also require film removal as with the tubes to get proper fix, clear, wash, and also work best with multiple sheets unless you can find that one mentioned above.</p>

<p>I would add my two cents. I bought an Epson V750 and routinely scan my b&w negatives with it. I am getting fantastic results. I do not bother with the wet scans. I follow stipulations I've found on the internet. I bought a 10x8 sheet of anti-Newton glass. I place my negatives emulsion down on the glass and then carefully place the AG glass on top, insuring flat and non-distorted scanning. I scan at 800 dpi at 4x5 and get a good, crisp image, flip it because emulsion down is backwards, adjust, and print. Size and resolution can be increased but I find for my purposes (smaller prints than you require) this is best.</p>

<p>I travel a lot domestically with large format and these days you will not get a hand inspection anywhere in the US that I've been to, even with factory sealed boxes. It will go through the x-ray machine. And it will damage film. I had the clear imprint of a key exposed into my film after passing through. It was a test and I sent a box through with a key inside and on top. I will not chance it and FedEx the film there and back, or I process there and carry it back. Or buy it there if possible, but that's risky unless you prepay and ask for it to be held.</p>

<p>My first lenses were 90, 135, and convertible 240/420. This gave me a reasonable range for architecture so I could shoot wide to detail. It depends on subject though. If you want to go longer and you are limited by the Toyo's short bellows, you can buy the extension as suggested or buy a true telephoto 300, which will require quite a bit less bellows than 300mm at infinity. And I recommend the 72 rather than either 65 or 75 because of movement potential. All three are different enough from 90 to give you benefit. Be careful. Lens buying is a slippery slope. I keep splitting gaps with new lens purchases and now have 58, 65, 72, 75, 90, 105, 121, 135, 150, 165, 180, 240, 270, 300, 355, 15", 16.5", 450, 18", 19", 20", 21.5", 600, 30", 36", and 42", and find myself lusting for a 115. But I use 58, 72, 90, 150, 180, and 300 for 95% of my shooting.</p>

<p>Michael is dead on and Tim makes an excellent point. I used and still have my prized Sinar C system, but almost always use my Linhof Technikardan 45 and Canham metal 5x7 (always forget the initials) now because I'm older and tired of carrying the C and larger tripod. I determine Scheimflug in simple situations by basically setting up a shot, prefocusing, setting the shift, rise and fall, putting my toe on the ground below the film plane, tilting until the front standard basically points to my toe, and then refocusing with the lupe while watching near and far points in the plane in front. I've never missed the famed accuracy of the Sinar because it's too technical for anything I've ever done. It gets more involved with funky planes, but the description in the website that Michael included would get you through pretty much anything.</p>

<p>Go by the old sage architectural photographer's adage, "use the longest lens (with the most coverage) possible." It is probably your only lens at the moment, but coverage is key. But that said, sometimes shorter is better. You shot this with a 150mm. A 121mm Super Angulon covers 8x10, so a wider view with nearly unfettered movement would allow you enough rise, even standing flat on the ground and closer, to give you anything you want and then you can crop in some in the printing. My personal preference is to do the absolute best I can in the field with the finest lenses I can justify and most meticulous care to lay the image on film that I can, process for optimal results, and then worry about printing and digital tricks if still needed. The exact opposite of the PhotoShop approach. Neither is wrong, of course. But you do what you have to to get what you want.</p>

<p>I sent my bellows for my Linhof Technikardan 45 to a British bellows company and they made a beautiful and supple bellows on the old frames for me for less than half the price of what Linhof would charge. They are softer and more pliable than Linhof's. Sorry Bob! They are the company, I hear, that makes bellows for Canham. It can be found at:<br>

<a href="http://www.camerabellows.com">http://www.camerabellows.com</a><br>

The woman I talked with was extremely pleasant and helpful and gave me lots of advice on how to ship and how to label things for streamlined customs navigation.</p>

<p>The easiest way I know of is to use a head leveller under the tripod head. Start by levelling it out using the spirit level on the leveller. Then level the camera (two-way level in flash socket). Put some rise into the lens until one of your top grid lines is approximately superimposed over a horizontal in the scene but offset just a bit. Loosen the spin on your tripod head. Spin the camera/tripod head while watching in the frame until the horizontal and the grid line are exactly parallel. Lock the spin and then shift, rise/fall until you have the photo framed the way you want and it should be all lined up.</p>

I know this is a bit off topic, but if you're considering such photography in NYC it sounds as if it will be tripod work. Be forwarned that technically speaking, you have to get a permit from the Mayor's Office of Film and Photography or some such thing. All work from a tripod is considered professional and all pro work must be permitted. Cops tend to be too busy to bother but now and then one does give a ticket.

I have never gotten vignetting even with my 72, though I never use more than one filter and removed the extra slots, and of course use the wide angle adapters or a special one for the 72. Too much movement coupled with the filter and adapter out front may be the culprit, as R Hofland stated. Just look for the corners through the lens/filter and make sure you see them before shooting.

Camera Bellows in UK is fabulous. Fast, inexpensive, supple and beautiful product. They make the bellows for Canham and made me one for my Linhof Technikardan 45 for under $200 when Linhof wanted nearly $700. They are:

 

http://www.camerabellows.com/Request.html

I would caution one thing. I've been processing with 3006 and 3010 for YEARS and almost

never have problems. You commented that the film is thin. I would test first. The JOBO

tanks work because of film springiness. The film base holds itself out against the inside

of the tank compartments. Once thin film gets wet it might not have the rigidity to hold

itself where you want it so it gets even development and doesn't end up curling in on

itself. The 3010 has film positioning guides that might help though. The 3006 does not

and might be even riskier.

 

For small amounts of film the JOBO tanks are unbeatable, in a JOBO or anywhere. I've spun

them in motel rooms on the floor, rolled them down hallways, used rollers, and spun them

on devices of my own design and they work like a charm. JOBO machines are not what

you'd call portable (except for their portable one) so when I travel and have to process on

site I roll (or use BTZS tubes).