sg_adams

<p>I never had much luck with the cliche Mono Lake images, probably because I've seen enough of them to want to barf. how much Tufa does it take to get a tufa one. So I like to look at the place from far away. Then I will not be tempted to try and make photos that four million other photographers have already done... But I wonder how many have walked up this little hill off highway 395 and watched the light change over the Pumice Hills? </p><div></div>

<p>Ok well I cheated flare death by using the clouds, but I did in fact point the lens at the sun. And when the sun gets low like this, and finally drops, things start to happen fast. When I went back and looked for this film I decided to add this shot below looking north directly over the Mono Lake basin. I never really payed much attention to it before. But it is part of the shoot so it gets in...</p><div></div>

<p>Oops sorry, lets do this...</p>

<div></div>

<p>I call that support the Bobble Head. But the point of this little discussion is the following three photos. Though you may have seen the first image before, I have never posted the second and third. These are in sequence, West, North East, as the sun set. I pulled into a rest stop and climbed a hill looking for something scenery. There wasn't any, but I was bored and sometimes I take it out on my film stash. First we should look East before the sun sets, and though this isn't recommended, we will point an old lens from the 1950's at the sun...</p>

<p>But the Berlebach weighs in about 7 lbs. So for backpacking and long day hikes I like to take along a lighter Velbon support. This is more sturdy than it looks, so long as you keep the center post down. When I have to raise it it does get a bit shaky, but I can usually pull it off, and all my medium format images from hiking trips have been done off this shaky leg support recommended for little P&S digitals. It weighs all of 2 lbs. </p><div></div>

<p>OK, another post for my first Century Graphic. It is just a cheap bakelite box, nothing special, a place to mount a lens and a film holder, with an accordion thing to keep things dark between the two. The only way to focus it is either by using the scale mounted on the bed, or look at things upside down on the GG. Thus the tripod mount threads are rather well broken in. When just out and about within yelling distance form the vehicle, I like to haul the sturdy Berlebach 2042. This is a nice tripod support. And it's wood ! So while it isn't more than ten years old, it is classic, and more versatile than is evident here. The legs kick out, and the center post has a ball head type swivel. </p><div></div>

<p>I have an old magazine with some info on it, and I'll look for it tomorrow if you like and quote the comments, but I believe the upgrade had much to do with better push processing. <br>

I used that film for a while at the box speed and have always liked it. </p>

<p>Mr Jim, leaf shutter, especially larger ones, are rarely consistent. You can nail them down using a shutter tester. I found some of mine shoot fast at the slow speeds, and then as much as a full stop to even two stops slow at the fast speeds, and everything in between. Some are quite accurate also, but there is always some imperfection. <br>

Basically after doing all my own film testing and such I wound my way back to the simple idea of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. But I got a heck of a lot out of my work, and devoting some time to learning the methodology of the Zone System. I am certainly not a Zone System fanatic, but it taught me to meter more carefully, with intent, and think about where things would fall on the scale. I now think much more in terms of zones, stops, 1/3 stops etc... I think in values, shadows, highlights, middle tones and local contrast, all in one fast sweeping thought. It tied a lot of loose ends together for me. Which is to say I have a lot more understanding of the media I use, the process I apply, and the mistakes I make. <br>

I also switched from D-76, similar to ID-11, to HC110, and started metering Acros and FP4 for ISO 64 and working to get my high values in control. So far so good. I can now get Acros to look like I want it and expect it to most often. But it is a modern grain structure film that isn't exactly forgiving and sensitive to exposure and development process. </p>

<p>Nice work August. I am a big fan of the Catalina PBY, a airplanes in general. the first two St Moritz photos stand out, and then I saw the beautiful clouds at sunrise. </p>

<p>What Michael said. But light falling on a scene can read or record brighter or darker from bright sun to shade etc... <br>

I'd be interested to know how you are stopping down. Shutter speed or aperture? Vintage leaf shutter or modern focal plane etc...? Use the aperture to stop down. Shutter speeds amy be and probably are at least a third stop off. <br>

It sound to me like you are not doing the test right. The book says to make your tests in open shade, not sunlight, Or under cloud cover, in other words, not in direct sunlight ! <br>

Might also be helpful to tell folks what film, what developer etc... </p>

<p>That is a nice camera Louis. And it looks like the lens performs admirably. I like the snow hoe also. <br /> Are the lenses easy to change? Also you said leaf/focal plane? both or which ? Just curious. <br /> My Speed Graphics have both sometimes, and sometimes not with a barrel lens.<br>

Oh, you said Focal Plane Leaf Shutter. Does this I assume means that the leaf shutter is near the focal plane then...</p>

<p>My S type seems to have the Schneideritis front and back. Yeah it does look like little paint flake offs. But it doesn't seem to be floating around in the shutter or anything. And this is a quite contrasty lens. But I always take care to shade my lenses as best as I can. The better 135 Symmar I had had been CLA'd right before I got it, and I checked all the glass surfaces and they were spotless. Looked like new. It was also a Linhof lens and shutter (Schneider/Linhof select in Compur with a Linhof faceplate). <br>

A lot of lenses I've got on Graphic cameras with cleaning marks or wear, early single coated optics, suffer a major reduction in contrast. I wonder what the heck they used to try and clean these lenses with, SOS pads? </p>

<p>I use the Testors flat black model paint</p>

<p><em>Film advancer </em>? Oh crap ? That got me thinking, is this why after my one exposure, the one I've been making on each roll of film all these years, that there seems to be an awful lot of wasted tail???</p>

<p>Robbie, if you like the low contrast effect, you might try an older uncoated Kodak lens like the 6-3/8in Anastigmat, an old Cooke Series II, Wolly Velostigmat, something along those lines. Just a suggestion. I seem to get them every once in a while from 15 to $30 and have been really happy with what I can get out of these old vintage lenses, especially since I don't feel it in the pocket book. I'm glad some folks find the Symmar to be just fine. I've tried a few that have come into the shop here but just didn't care for the look. I had especially hoped the shorter 105mm would have been a good one 'cause I wanted it for my 6x9 kits. <br>

One of the reasons I suggest the old uncoated lenses is that they have a nice soft vintage appeal when used wide open or nearly so, yet retain a lot of high quality detail. Not the easiest thing for me to explain. I am also a big fan of the basic Wollensak 135mm Optar (Raptar) from the 1950's, especially the earlier runs of these. They are coated, and have good contrast, have a subtle soft look wide open and get quite sharp by about f~8. Actually, the uncoated stuff I use gets pretty darn sharp too, but of course has less contrast. The Symmar 135 I took to do some fall color shots with didn't come close to any of my vintage optics for sharpness. The quality just was't there. This was the best one I've had, and it looked pretty good on the GG and not too bad in B&W test shots. The only Schneider I have with Schneiderisis is my 150 Symmar-S and it is a great lens. So I'm glad we end up not bashing the Symmar series, but it just doesn't do it for me. I'm one of those folks who think lenses, like many things, are subjective and are a personal choice. I got away with using a 65mm Raptar WA on my 6x9 for a few years until I could find something even lighter that could actually make a sharp image. Most folks think these are about as crappy as it gets. That little Raptar produced better images on 6x9 than the Symmar 135 in 4x5. But it is entirely possible that the few Symmars I had thru here were all crappy examples. Mine were all from the 1960's, but that's still forty years old, so who knows? <br>

So don't take anything I say personal against whatever is currently working for you. And your example has history, which is makes that much better.<br>

Have fun ! </p>

 

<p>Is it better to be a vodka soaked Machinist, or caffeinated technician? <br>

I think the Feds probably smell like the 1950's Russian SKS I had for a while. <br>

Not a bad smell, just had a lasting burnt cutting oil ambiance... </p>

<p>Planet Gong of course. <br>

But when on Earth, we call it something else, we used to use Graflex Graphic cameras. That was a long time ago. <br>

But, using one of those old press cameras with the big flash might be sexy for a sort of vintage set, look, and appeal. <br>

Gong approves. </p>

<p>Too technical for me. The whole thing where you have to count to ten is hard to contemplate. I'd probably get confused by about 6 and loose concentration and wreck another roll of film. On the other hand, long DOF. That selective focus/bokeh thing hurts my eyeballs. <br>

And that snow stuff looks cold. We are currently getting some stormy stuff here in California, and of course everyone drives faster, which you are going to get more snow I think Gene... </p>

<p>It is the opinion of this person, the original basher, that Schneider didn't get it right with this lens. I am not alone in this opinion as I have discussed these lenses at various times in the past. But a lot of folks who own numerous lenses of the same make can uphold the suggestion that vintage optics were not all created equal. Which is to say that prior to computerized manufacture, there were discrepancies, so no two lenses can be exactly absolutely the same, and actual focal lengths vary etc... And just because one has Linhof printed on a shutter faceplate and front element ring doesn't mean anything but attaching a name. I've had a number of so called Linhof select lenses that were not any better, and in a couple cases, not quite as good as the standard Schneider Angulon, Xenar, and Symmar etc... The person, and it might have been you, was all thanks and thrilled with the 135/235 Symmar when I sold the one I disliked. There wasn't anything wrong with it that I could tell, it just couldn't perform like a basic tessar, Xenar, Optar, Ektar you name it, they all outdo the 135 Symmars I tried; even 120 roll film images produced with entry level, in fact crappy, 101 and 103 lenses cropped and blown up look far better than the Symmar compared to the 4x5's I shot with it. If yours is producing images that are pleasing to you I'm glad because I hold Schneider glass in high esteem, and don't enjoy bashing them. The highlight of the Symmar was extra coverage for 4x5 and the convertibility. It didn't work, but I think they got it right with the S series. </p>

<p>Looks nice. Good job. So are we going to see some sample imagery soon? I'll be wanting to know what you think of that lens. <br>

Also, be sure to get the brass block back in right, and I gather you noted the very small set screw above it that is used for adding or lessening the tension? I like to keep mine pretty easy to turn, especially when setting up the RF and running the rack in and out a bunch. Then maybe I tighten slightly after the lube settles in. <br>

Have fun with your new camera ! <br>

SGA </p>

<p>I thought that was what you meant Michael. I was just trying to clarify. My old Symmar 135/235 had a beautiful single coating, but the lens was just crap even at 135; the 235 tand alone rear element being pretty much unuseable (this was an excellent condition Linhof Sellect). My later non convertible 150-S single coated lens is a real nice lens and plenty contrasty. Not the same animal by any stretch. <br>

Kelly, yeah, the coated uncoated Ektar syndrome and whether they are marked with the little L for Luminized is a crap shoot. One needs to just look at the glass. I have coated and uncoated Ektars, a bunch and some Anastigmats, and it sort of boggles the mind what they were doing. I wonder if you didn't just get what you got in the early 1940's. On the other hand, it was a transitional period and also war time. The uncoated Kodak optics I use, and some other Cooke, and Wollensak stuff, are really nice glass and usually make superb photographs. </p>

<p>Hey, you have strato-culmulus (wave) clouds down there? Are those over a mountain range, they happen here only along the Sierra Crest when there are high winds aloft. really neat at sunset ! <br>

Like the other two close photos better though. </p>

<p>Leonora, someone above suggested there are uncoated Symmars. Not that I know of. But there are single coated Symmars, the older type, which were dual purpose convertible having a useable rear element that made it a much longer focal length and didn't work well either way. These were single coated. The later S type were single, then multi-coated later on. The multi-caoted versions will have have MC on the outside of the lens retaining ring. You can also look up the date of a particular Schneider lens at their website. I have currently the 150mm Symmar-S single coated version and it is a very nice lens. Not quite a normal length for 4x5. 180mm is about what you would consider normal, and 210mm still isn't really a very long lens being only slightly longer than normal in this format but should make some decent portraits for you depending of course on what you intend. It might be good to have multi-coating for color if you are into contrasty images, but older large format portrait lenses still command high prices, and many of these are not coated and in fact are diffused focus. In the end though, whatever lens one chooses, it's all about lighting. </p>

<p>That's where I get half silvered mirror (50%) to repair rangefinders. </p>

<p>So far so good 'eh? Looks like you got it pretty well figured out. First time I've seen a Graphic in a bubble bath though! I was going to say, just try not to add the damage already done, but then again, I've not yet had to remove shrimp from any of mine. </p>