light-zone

Hey Jim, them be fightin' words were I come from....;-)

 

I think the point is, how the cleaning marks/scratches are described is a lot different than how they could potentially affect the performance of the lens. One persons "cleaning wisps" are another persons scratches.

 

Load some film and find out what, if any damage has been done to the lens.

Good information Bil. BTW, Heidelberg makes a flatbed scanner that accepts wet mounts as well, runs also in the $40,000 range without the optional robotic arm for batch scans.

 

But I have done wet mounts even on my A3 Heidelberg flatbed. You just have to be careful that the fluid doesn't get under the glass plate, otherwise you've got a real mess on your hands. There are several types of mounting fluid on the market, some are thicker in consistency than others. For small, occasional mounts on a "standard" flatbed, go with the thicker stuff to be on the safe side. For larger scans, I like using a filmcleaner as my mounting fluid. It's cheap and allows a quicker clean up of the transparency when the scan is over. It also doesn't trap tiny air bubules like some of the thicker fluids do.

 

LinoColor is, IMO, the best professional scan software on the market today, but again, that's just MHO.

I just made an enlargement today from a 2-1/4 Tmax negative that I developed in Tmax developer. I printed it to 50X50cm and the results were great.

I've been shooting 8X10" with films like HP5+ and Efke developed in ABC for a while now, and making only contact prints. And in doing so, I kind of got a little "snobby" about films like Tmax with a Tmax developer, and then enlarged to such a size. But truth be told, the print looks great, thanks to a good sharp negative from my old Rollei 2.8F and yes, good development.

 

I always subscribe to the old adage over expose and under develope when exposing films for development in a soup other than ABC. And Tmax tray development is easy as well.

 

There is room in the photo arsenal for films like Tmax after all.

Stephan, without seeing the amount of damage involved, it's tough to guess as to the image quality the lens can provide. A test film is really the only way of knowing what damage has been done if any. Take shots in a variety of lighting situations, including backlighting and shots at dusk or dawn, with lots of shadow detail. That should give you a good idea of wether the lens is a keeper or not. Polishing out the scratches will more than likely cost you more than you paid for the lens in the first place, and most repairmen will advise you against it, especially if the lens is coated.

 

I can relay a story about one of my worst ebay experiences though. I bought a Rolleiflex 2.8C for about $350. The taking lens was described as having some cleaning marks. Sounded harmless enough. After buying the camera, I soon discovered that the "cleaning marks" were created by cleaning the lens with what looked to be a steel wool pad. OK, that's a bit exaggerated, but the results of my test film concurred with my initial reaction. The negs were a disaster. I contacted the seller, (a photo store) and arranged for an immediate return. I considered myself lucky to get out of this situation none the worse for wear. But what I did learn from the whole ordeal was this: one mans light cleaning whisps are another mans soft negatives.

As with all things used, buyer beware.

John,

 

you're right about one thing, the documentation for the Packard shutters, even when bought new, leave alot to be desired. You would think that they could include a small installation instruction sheet with a diagram or two.

 

About the pin, I too am somewhat confused by it, but before I go and start drilling extra holes, I found that the pin works fine when insterted from inside the camera. I just removed the GG and stuck the pin in, without any measurement and it worked fine. If I were to install the pin from the outside, the way it was intended, it would be necessary to cut the length of the pin to fit the particular lensboard. If you were to cut it too short, you'd be out of luck.

You're right Jason. But the advantage of dealing with Midwest Photo is that they are actually cheaper than buying factory direct! I just bought a new Packard Ideal from Tom at Midwest. It cost me $96.00. At the factory it would have cost me $115.00!

 

Thank you Tom and the Midwest Team for passing on some of the savings on to the customers! And as usual, the service was excellent. Ordered it on Monday, had the baby in my hot little hands on Friday...in GERMANY!

Great selection, great service, fresh chemicals and best prices.

<p>

 

http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/index.htm

How I hate to disagree with Steve Grimes, but I can only speak from my own experience here. About 25 years ago, I stripped an 8X10" Burke and James down to the bare wood, and finished it with shellac and tonge oil. That baby would put all the modern day wooden cameras to shame. Cheap wood my ash. If ash is hard enough for baseball bats, then it's hard enough for an 8X10" camera. You make it sound like it's made out of press wood and partical board Mr. Grimes. That it is certainly not.

David,

 

I've done it, in fact, I bvelieve you were refering to a post I made a copuple of days ago, using terms like battleship gray and nice wood, (actually I may be wrong, but mine looked like maple). Anyways, I think the vast majority of us here are photographers, and not woodworkers, otherwise we'd all be hanging out at NormAbrams.com instead of photo.net.

 

This stripping of the paint is not rocket science. Go and pay someone to do it, and you could have bought yourself a Deardorff with what you paid for the B&J and the handyman. Get some strip-EZ or an equivelant and dig in. You can do it David! And doing it yourself will increase the "pride of ownbership".

Hey Joerg,

 

either you have some real connections at Rodenstock, or you shpould be more careful not to bring your lenses near moving saw blades! ;-)

 

Thanks to all that participated in this thread. It was a real learning experience!

Sorry guys, in the Mac world, Fetch is passé. Far and away, the best FTP Client for the Mac is Transmit. Faster, more reliable and free.

Whoops wrong again, but it's a nice pic...

here is the more common electronic shutter which I believe was being referred to in the post above, also from the German ebay<div></div>

I used Split D-23 @68° for (A)8.30 and (B) 4 minutes

Sorry Andrew, I missed the color tansparency part. And as such, I recant my comments about the 8X10" camera. If yoour shooting trannies, 4X5 is the largest you're going to need. I used to shoot a ton of 8X10 and 13X18cm color reversal film in the studio. But with the refinement of the scanning process and the digital reproduction methods, those LF sizes have been phased out by us because of film costs, developing costs, and the additional costs of having or scanning those formats.

 

It remains impressive when you can throw an 8X10" chrome on the light table that really wow's an AD, but the way things are these days, the AD is more impressed if you know how to judiciously spent the clients money.

The battery required for the electronic shutters is available in many regular camera stores here in Germany. And if they are not readily available where you live, there is a trick of combining 2 smaller batteries, that when combined, work fine. Which 2 batteries they are, I cannot remember, but if someone needs the info, I can dig it up for them.

<i>No idea it is not something sold in the photo market so we have no factory information on it. Since these are graphic arts lenses you might try asking in a graphic arts forum (if there is one). </i>

<p>

I was under the impression that the CL version is also a "Graphic Arts" lens, correct?

Geoffrey,

 

If you swore off Amidol, then this would not be the product for you, because as the name implies, Amidol is an integral part of this developer.

 

OK, I use an Amidol formula from Peckham where equal parts of Catechol and Amidol are mixed together in a one bath developer. The results are excellent. Catechol is also the main iingredient in PyrocatHD negative developer, similar to PMK.

Although I have never used his product myself, I have seen examples of prints made with it, and the results are quite nice. And one more thing, Wolfgang Moersch products are really high quality and I could almost say you can't go wrong with his stuff.

<b>Hey BOB,</b>

 

if <b>CL</b> means Linear Apeture Scale, then what does <b>L</b> stand for in the Apo-Ronar L?

Hi Andrew, it might very well be that our friend here is not interested in going the "scan---lightjet" way, but rather a more traditional approach, with say, contact printing, Azo papier, Pt/Pd, Van Dyke etc. Then the smaller 4X5" format doesn't really do much good.

my guess is, the CL refers to Coated / Linear. Coated glass and a linear apeture. But that's just a guess from a guy who has learned everything he knows about Apo-Ronars from this thread ;-)

I think the idea of getting an 8X10" camera with the possibility of using a reducing back is a good one. The question remains, how much work do you do in the studio (or at home, or withing say, 100 yards from the car) and how much work do you do in the field ( meaning hiking through the wilderness looking for that magical Ansel Adams-like shot that will catapult you into greatnes)?

If indeed 75% or more of your work falls into the first catagory, then don't worry about the bulk and weight of your camera, because it just won't matterthat much. But if you want to do the hiking thing, then look into used Tachihara 4X5's as a start. They are nice lightweight field cameras that wont cost you an arm and a leg. Their 8X10's, even used are out of your league as far as price is concerned.

Sure the 8X10" Dorff could be a good choice as well, but don't get caught up in the bidding wars. We've all seen a well used Deardorff go for WAY more than it was worth at auction. Then there is the higher cost of things like reducing backs, lensboards etc to deal with. The problem with Deardorff is two fold. 1) Alot of them were made and, because they were so well built, many are still in use today, as a result, 2) the competition for used parts and accessories is great.

 

My first 8X10 was an old battleship grey Burke and James. I spent sometime stripping of the paint and re-finishing it, and when it was done, it looked damn good! The quality of wood used is excellent. These wooden cameras fold down (no to compact and elegant as a Deardorff) and can be found quite reasonably used.

 

Don't forget, it's the lens that counts, so say the bulk of your money for good glass.

The Germinar has an Aluminum housing and the Ronar is an "L" design.

 

The seller can not say for sure if the haze is a fungus or not. If so, it's probably fit to be recycled.

The seller has made the offer to let me check out the lens and attempt a cleaning. If it doesn't do the trick, I can have the Apo Ronar L instead. All I have to cover is the additional postage cowsts.

 

Any last comments? Thanks again!

Thanks Arne. I get the feeling I'm going to be taking my chances with the Germinar after all. It sounds like a cleaning job that either I, or atleast my lens/shutter guy can tackle.

 

BTW, I'm pretty sure the housing is aluminum and not brass, but with a camera the size of this 12X15, a few hundred grams won't make much of a difference one way or another.

Well now it's getting interesting. The lens is definatly marked as Zeiss, and is NOS. I saw a picture of the identical lens, which the seller was selling on the German Ebay a few weeks back. It looked juicy enough to make me want to choose it over the Apo-Ronar CL.

 

But I will be wanting to use this lens for landscape and architectural work with my 12X15" Thornton Pickard camera. I will of course only be contact printing. So the question is, if the Ronar CL top out at f32, what kind of results can I expect from the lens if I stop down to f64 or f90?

 

I suppose at the price I'll be getting the lens at, I'm sure making a big fuss, but now that a few optic experts have shown an interest in this thread, I might as well pick their brains.

 

Thanks to all who have contributed their knowledge!