light-zone

7,50 Euro Opallampe 220V/250W item #754623

but I'm not sure european lightbulbs can even be used in the US...

Hi Butch,

you do have a nice looking piece of equipment there.

Unfortunatly, you are not known as a camera maker, and as a result, the market for your "baby" is more than likely very limited. Things like parts, and more importantly, resale value do play a role in determining the market value of a camera. Sure a Korona might not lock down as tight as yours, but most people in the ULF market have heard of a Korona and therefore are probably more willing to pay the going rate.

My guess is, if you put it up for auction, without any filmholders or lenses, it might bring 2k. Please don't take my comments wrong, they are not meant to be insulting, but rather an attempt to somehow provide you with the information you seek.

Well, I have a 210mm Angulon and would match it up against just about any new lens (or old for that matter)in terms of sharpness and coverage, that would like to take the challenge. I had a 165mm Angulon which I unfortunatly sold, in a moment of stupidity. If your 90mm Angulon follows in the grand tradition of my Angulons, you'll be more than pleased with your optic.

BTW, what is the serial number of the lens, or the date of manufacture?

I just had one made for my Thornton Pickard. I removed the metal ring, and saved the for "clips" that hold the ring in place. I then had a round plate cut out of stainless steel to the exact same diameter as the ring. On top of the plate, I had a 10cm diameter disk (8-10mm thick) with a 3/8" threaded hole welded to the middle of the plate. The bottom plate has a hole directly in the middle, making the way clear for the tripod screw to get to the thicker disk with the thread.

The whole thing is held in place by the origional 4 brass clips. Just make sure the second thicker disk with the thread is not too thick as to imped the focusing movement.

Here is a link to some pics of modifications I have made thus far, including film sheaths...

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?s=8c4610ce078789e689d335097f8d843a&act=ST&f=10&t=399&st=15<div></div>

Well then it could very well be...I should add, I usually do my pre-soak in a red or gray tray, and this of course influences the appearence of the used water when merely looking at it sitting there in the sink.

With the NP27, because of it's sheer size, I needed a much larger tray, and grabbed a white, 50X60 for the pre-soak. So that blueish green pre-soak water really showed it's true colors in that white tray.

The grain is rather robust, but with a negative size of 12X15" I'll just be doing contacts (just...;-) ) but not until I get some larger Azo paper. Man this is getting expensive!

Thanks for the help!

I just did a test development of NP27 (ASA400) film from Webphota in

Berlin. They cut it to size for my 15X12" camera, and the film was

packaged in an Orwa box. I've heard from a few sources that this film

might very well be from the same production as Bergger and / or Forte

Pan.

So my question is this...the pre-soak water was almost a lime green

(with a tinge of blue) when I turned on the lights after development.

Now my Efke pre-soak water turns a nasty blue-black, and HP5 too gets

funky. Does this bright green sound familiar to any users of Bergger

or Forte Pan film? or any other brand? I'm just trying to confirm if

this film is actually from the same production as some of the other

"Big Names".

Thanks!

Agreed Scott.

The last Dagor77 thread did a fine job of building this guys reputation and therefor profit margin. Let's not forget what a buying frenzie on Ebay can do as far as "fair market value" is concerned. Someone mentioned buying a 2500mm Wide Field Ektar from him. Well I watched one of these lenses go for over $800.00 thanks to a fine description combined with the heat of an auction. Those kinds of things are great for sellers, but create a false sense of value in certain items.

As far as the lens is concerned, you can bet it weighs a ton! A 6" mounting hole is required! I have a Apo-Ronar 600mm with a mounting hole of aboout 3.5 inches, and the thing weighs 2700g! That's over 5 lbs!

Sure the things looks juicy, and it would be an excellent lens, as long as you have a camera with large enough lens board surface area to mount the thing, and it never leaves the studio.

http://www.glennview.com/

Photomall is not responding, as mentioned above, but this direct link will get you to a source that might be helpful. Expensive perhaps, but helpful. But one of our forum members out there must have a rear rail that you could use as a pattern. Glennview sells focusing tracks by the foot I believe. That, together with a skilled woodworker is all you'll probably need.

Hi Steve,

I took a look at your Site and it is very streamlined. But so much so that in order to see your work in it's entirity, you have to click on each and every button. This is where, IMO, a thumbnail system makes itsself useful. The viewer can see all the work (sure in postage stamp size, but what the heck) and the photographer knows that atleast his work was viewed completely, no matter how small.

But better a streamlined page than one that takes forever to load...

Glad to see you recognize that you are over sharpening. That mistke is quite common, with the old adage, if a little sharpening is good, then more must be better....NOT.

It also depends on the output of the image as to the method of sharpening to use.

As far as pre-press books are concerned, there are two that come to mind. The first is Real World Scanning and Halftones / Peachpit Press / ISBN-0-201-69683-5

And

Scanning the Professional Way / Osbourne / ISBN-0-07-882145-2

Hey Graeme,

see my "winking eye"???? Although I've been living in Germany for 15 years, I've still haven't lost my sense of humor...;-)

Oh Dan, don't be Sooooo American...it's a big woderful world out there, and in some places, vertical is still referred to as "portrait" and horizontal as "landscape". But I suppose it's still the general opinion in the USA that the WHOLE world speaks English too.

Oh how I can't wait to get back home to the USA and re-establish my "superior" way of thinking ;-)

I've got a similar set up from Calumet. I needed to make some modifications to the camera (Wista 8X10" Field) in order to make it work. It's fine for most lenses, but not all. The thing is big (and heavy) but still not big enough for a 250mm WF Ektar. So once again, I have yet to find a system that works with all my lenses.

If you want to buy a used one cheap Scott, email me...

2 lamps, each at a 45° angle to the painting, I prefer a softer light source. The LF camera must be exactly opposite the painting, and the painting must be square up on the GG. Careful of reflections caused by heavily glazed paintings. Some might suggest a polarizing filter to help with reflections. Thickly applied paint, ie. with a pallet knife must be as such recognizable.

<p>

Put a color scale on the side of the painting to aid the scan operater in pre-press work.

<p>

BTW, this has all been covered MANY times in this forum.

<p>

<i>Having all the right equipment does not a photographer make....</i>

You might want to checkout

http://www.f32.net/f32WorkShops/index.htm

A UK based Photo Forum, comprised mostly of LF shooters.

You might want to checkout

http://www.f32.net/

A UK based Photo Forum, comprised mostly of LF shooters.

<quote><i>"He was asked to reproduce a few paintings onto canvas."</quote></i>

<p>

Huh? Do you me take pictures of paintings?

Hi John,

no, you said it correctly and I understood it correctly as well. I just don't agree with the statement that Tmax developer is not meant to be used with sheet film, or another way of putting it, that Tmax developer is not as good as the RS version for sheet film. I've used both the RS and the "regular" Tmax developer for sheet film from 9X12 upto 8X10" and never noticed a differnec in the two, other than the fact that the one shot Tmax is easier to use and you have no trouble with the constant replenishment.

I use to buy into that information that Tmax RS is better for sheet film than the "regular" Tmax. And maybe somewhere in a Kodak labratory, a scientist could show me a print out of a chart that would, atleast on paper prove that to be correct. But in MY darkroom, I never had any problems developing up to 6 sheets of 8X10" Tmax in trays, using the "regular" Tmax developer.

Sure it's been awhile since I shot Tmax 8X10, cause I've gone to other brands for other reasons, but the Tmax sheet film never gave me any cause to complain, and the development is not as difficult as some people are making out to be.

My suggestion Todd is to by a liter of the Tmax concentrate. Shoot some film, dilute the developer according to the chart on the bottle, and develope the film. If you work in a reasonibly orderly fashion, I'm sure you'll be happy with the results. One thing I've come to realize is, there is such a thing as contemplating too much. (I still catch myself falling into that "trap" every now and then).