steve_barth

I constructed an 8X10 negative carrier for a horizontal enlarger. I

used two sheet of plate glass in a hinged wood frame. Aside from the

need to dust carefully all the glass and negative surfaces, I am

thoroughly pleased with the performance of the carrier. I have not

had a problem with newton rings.

My Deardorff V8 weighs just under 12 lbs. I did however sand it when

refinishing it and in may have lost a few micrograms!

I have been using a 305mm G Claron to enlarge 8X10 negatives with

excellent results. The maximum aperture of f9 is not terribly

bothersome. I focus using a grain focuser at working aperture out of

habit. The G Claron is a graphic arts lens and is quite suitable for

enlarging. My lens is shutter mounted. I also use it to expose

negatives. It produces really crisp negatives at close distances.

I am about to use Ilfotec HC for the first time. I noticed whilst mixing the concentrate that there are many similarities to HC 110, The way it is diluted, the chemicals listed on the container, the recommended development times etc. Has anyone out there tested these for similarity?

 

<p>

 

The 100 Delta data sheet recommends this developer as the one for best overall quality. I'm becoming a little nervous about continued use of XTOL.

I have a 120mm Nikkor SW that I use on a Deardorff 8X10. The lens

covers the full neg at normal apertures f16 thru f45 with no

noticeable fall off. I am using B&W films. As I understand it

chromes are more likely to show light fall off than B&W negs. The

image is very "normal" and not distorted. Straight lines do not

appear curved on the negative. My 120 is very sharp out to the edges.

 

<p>

 

As for movements, the most common movement in landscape work is back

tilt. I occasionally tilt the back with the 120 with good results.

Front tilt, rise, fall and lateral shifts are not do-able.

 

<p>

 

If you are planning to do architectural work I would recommend the

Nikkor 150 SW.

I have an old Calumet catalog from the '80s that lists Fujinon lenses

including the A series. It clearly states that: these are 6-

element, "super-apochromatic" lenses in which... They are designed

for close-up and copy work. It does not specifically say, corrected

for 1:1.

Does anyone have info to share on the ability of RD Artars to focus sharply at infinity? They are designed for graphic arts work which is usually close up. I am primarily interested in landscape. Any light shed on this subject would be greatly appreciated.

 

<p>

 

Thanks

SB

Emil,

 

<p>

 

I use the 3039 head on an old large Ries 'pod. I mount a Dorff 8X10

to it using the small hex plate. I am very satisfied with the

performance. I live in Salt Lake City and have carried the tripod

and camera nearly a mile from my truck in the Wasatch Mountains. A

setup any heavier than what I now have would be too heavy.

 

<p>

 

Steve Barth

I replaced the bellows on my Deardorff 8X10 last Spring. I ordered

the bellows from Camera Bellows Ltd in England, thru Lee Filters

Headquarters in L.A. The cost was $247.00. The quality is

excellent. I got synthetic material instead of leather. The person

to talk to is John Addler @(800) 238-1228. I chose to send

measurements instead of the frames. Because the measurements were

faxed to England, the bellows arrived in only 2 weeks. I was able to

pay with a Visa card. The installation was not difficult.

I am using a Bogen 3039 Super Pro pan head mounted on an old pair of

L.A.-made Ries sticks. The head has the octagonal quick mount

plate. The combo works very well. The very first time I held my

8X10 field camera up and attempted to screw the stud on my Graf

Studioball into the base plate, I realized that the quick mount

system is the way to go. The Bogen 3039 at about 4 lbs. is rated up

to 8X10 and is quite stout.

 

<p>

 

A 3039 head on top of a large pair of Bogen legs would be a solid and

not terriblely expensive support system.

I completely restored a 1959 Deardorff 8X10 about 9 months ago. It

was well worth the work. I now have a very functional 8X10 and I am

only in it about $350 (not including the price of the E+ dog I bought

mail order from a prominent New Jersey Camera seller). I

disassembled the camera completely and marked all the parts. I made

notes where I thought There might be confusion in reassembly. I had

the wood parts stripped down to the bare wood. (I stripped a camera

myself once. It was very tedious and messy. If you can get it done

affordably consider it.) I carefully but completely sanded all wood

pieces. This was the hardest part. Deardorffs have a red dye under

the clear lacquer that can be mostly sanded thru (except where

hardware mounts and clearance is an issue). Cleaning all the

hardware takes time but is not too difficult. I replaced some of the

plated brass screws with stainless steel.

 

<p>

 

I decided to use tung oil instead of lacquer to finish the wood. I

plan on using the camera, not displaying it. I replaced the badly

leaking bellows with a synthetic item that looks just like the

original, square corners. The bellows were made in England and cost

around $250. It is pretty easy to install bellows. Now the camera

easily extends to a full 30". In retrospect, it was a generally

gratifying experience. I only wish I had more time to shoot.

 

<p>

 

Good luck!

Arista makes pretty decent B&W film. I use the 400 Speed in 8X10 and am satisfied with the performance. They also make a B&W fiber base variable contrast printing paper. Does anyone out there have experience with this paper? I'd like to order a large quantity but hesitate without at least some feedback on performance.

Badger Graphics, (Jeff) is wonderful to work with I highly recommend

this outfit!

I have an Agfa Ansco 8X10 Wood Bed Field camera and can list the

movements. The front standard has geared rise, center axis tilt and

lateral shift. The rear standard provides generous tilt ability and

a very useful amount of swing. The bed has an integral extension

rail. The extension rail allows the camera to expand to 30 inches.

My copy weighs just under 13 lbs.

 

<p>

 

The only real drawback is that it doesn't fold up quite as compact as

the clam shell design. The camera is quite stable for an 8X10

woodfield.

I have used Rollo Pyro in a rotary tube to process 8X10 Tri-X and FP4

negatives. The times vary between 6 and 8 minutes. The negatives

look somewhat thin but print readily on VC papers. I recommend

trying Rollo Pyro. It is very economical. I would use it for all

processing if it were no so toxic.

I have built several processing tanks for 4X5 and for 8X10. The 8X10

tanks hold 2 holders. I also have a 4 holder model. The 2 sheet

tank uses only 64 ozs of chemistry. The tanks are constructed of

acrylic plastic, the stuff most archival print washers are made of.

This material cuts easily on a table saw and glues permamantly using

a horrible solvent-like cement (contains methylene chloride). If you

have access to a table saw the rest is easy.

If you don't mind measuring & mixing chemicals, F6 and F24 might be

another solution. Both are easy on the nose. I use F24 most of the

time. It is easy and relatively inexpensive to make, has no hardener

and has almost no odor. The formulas are both listed in the Ansel

Adams book, The Print.

Can anyone tell me what the Rodenstock 127mm 1:4.7 Ysaron lens was used for? I would like to know what it was designed to do. It came in a Polaroid Prontor shutter. The lens cells appear to be a 4-3 Tessar type design.

How much difference in performance is there between a Componon 300mm f5.6 and a Componon-S of the same focal length and aperture. I noticed a big difference in cost in the used equipment market. Is the design different. The 150 Componon-S I have is multicoated. Are the plain Componons? Please elucidate.

You might look at the 120 Angulon. The Angulon was Schneider's

flagship wide field lens until it was supplanted by the Super

Angulon. They are much smaller than the SA and have a smaller image

circle. The 120 covers 4X5 with considerable opportunity for

movement. I saw one advertised at Mid West Photo recently.

I have an older 250mm 6.7 Fujinon. It is single coated and well

used. It is in a Seiko shutter. I also have a 240mm f9 which is

nearly new. I have observed that when looking through the corners of

the ground glass (8X10 Camera) at the back of the lens, I am able to

move the lensboard up and down much further without mechanical

vignetting. I have over shot the rise capability of the lens once or

twice and had clear corners on the resultant negatives. The filter

size for this lens is 67 mm. The 6.7 lens according to an old

Calumet catalog covers 80 degrees or 398mm. Thats about the same as

the 250 Wide Field Ektar. The 250mm f6.3 has an angle of coverage of

64 degrees which equals 312 mm, less than the 240 A.

 

<p>

 

The 250 mm f6.7 Fujinon lens was, unfortunately, discontinued several

years ago. I managed to find one used. It is very sharp and

produces excellent negatives. I have recently seen others advertised.

 

<p>

 

The 240 mm f9 is designed for close up work and is excellent at it!

The 250 is designed for normal shooting distances and would be great

for architectural work.

 

<p>

 

The only other lens I know of that would have better coverage than

the 240 A is the Rodenstock 240 mm Apo-Sironar-S. It is a 75 degree

lens that covers 372mm.

I acquired a Deardorff 8X10 camera, some lenses and related gear. I have made several trips out and about and worked close to my vehicle. I am having some difficulty figuring out the best way to pack the gear so I can get a mile or so away from my truck. The problem is not the weight it is the bulk. I have a 4-lens 4X5 system and have managed to get all I need into one backpack. Not so for the Deardorff. Some logistical enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.