david_haynes

Mike,

I've had the 72XL for over 5 years and haven't ever felt or seen a

need for the center filter using it in 4x5 format. However, if you're

shooting 5x7 with this lens and doing something with a

continuous tone background or architecture, etc. that'd be a

different story.

In most landscapes, most of the time a little falloff can work with

what I'm trying to accomplish (maybe it's all those years of

vignetting the corners of portraits on purpose).

Seriously, this is a great lens and can even be used on 8x10 for

a whopping 140º of coverage, albeit with only a 5x10 or so

panorama in the center that truly usable (see photo). The 72XL is

very crisp and contrasty and I'd recommend it to anyone.<div></div>

I've had the 72 for just over 5 years now and use it on 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10.

I love it. It's a large lens, but isn't at all too much for my little Wisner

Traditional's front standard hardware. Very sharp, contrasty lens that you

couldn't hardly get out of the image circle if you tried on 4x5.

On my Deardorff (5x7 or 8x10 backs) the only movement available is with the

sliding lensbord as you have to really squeeze the bellows to focus at infinity.

It has plenty of coverage for 5x7, but what's really cool is pulling a 4x10

panorama with 140º of coverage on 8x10. Yes, there's some vignetting but for

the subject matter I'm usually shooting � landscapes and abstracts mostly � it

hasn't been a problem.

It's simply amazing how wide 140º is!<div></div>

I've been using my Ries J series tripod with my Wisner 4x5 and

Deardorff 8x10 since 1998 when I bought the Ries.

Never had any feeling that it was too flimsy for the Deardorff. In

fact, at a Ron Wisner workshop I attended in '98 in Death Valley,

he was using his 8x10s on the break-apart backpacker Ries

model (sorry I don't remember the model number)

During the year 2000 I did a year-long project with the Deardorff

in which I documented life in my home state of Alabama during

the Millennium year by photographing a new person or place

each week and posting to my website. Not once did I have

tripod-related camera shake.

The only potential problem with this tripod is that with no center

post, getting the camera to standing-eye-level can sometimes

be impossible when working on an incline. If I have to work like

this, I have a Gitzo that'll put the Dorff up about 7 feet.

Also, I have a friend who got the A-series Ries for his Deardorff,

but hardly uses it due to the weight of the beast. He now says he

wishes he'd gone with the J-series.

Hope this is some help.<div></div>

Someone above mentioned whether all bellows are "safe" for

infrared expsoure. They are not.

Some years ago I found out the hard way that my Wisner bellows

(both normal accordian and bag WA) made of red kid leather will

not block IR radiation and ruined a weekend's worth of shooting.

Wisner does offer a synthetic bellows specifically for IR, but it's

neither as long nor as flexible as the otherwise excellent kid

leather ones.

As far as I know the Wisner is the only brand with this problem,

though I'd recommend testing (with an IR sensitive digital

camera) before shooting any camera in question.

Hope this helps.<div></div>

You may want to check out http://www.michaelandpaula.com. I

believe they both use antique extended format "banquet" type

cameras. They may be able to assist you.

This may be off-topic, but may be something to think about.

<p>

My 8x10 enlarger is a Screen 18x22 vertical process (stat)

camera that I was GIVEN by a local newspaper just to get it out of

their way.

<p>

It's really like an upside-down enlarger with florescent (diffusion)

light source on bottom, hinged plate glass holder for negative,

two lenses allowing 25-400% repro options, flip-over

groundglass on one side and vacuum easel on other side for

focusing and placement of enlarging paper. And built in timer, on

board reflection and transmission densitometer. Also, for contact

printing, it had a "bump" light situated directly over where the litho

film would've been on the vacuum easel to "flash" the paper for

contrast control. I now use that as my 8x10 contact printer, having

replaced the original 15 watt bulb with a 100-watter. It, too, is

hooked into the camera's digital timing system.

<p>

This entire unit (less the halogen light for copy work which I

removed) is no larger than a washing machine and fits neatly

into one corner of my darkroom. The only downside is that the

maximum print size on the vacuum easel is 18x22 inches, which

means my practical limit for prints is 16x20.

<p>

Anyway, you might check around local print shops or

newspapers to see if they've got one of these units collecting

dust. Since I've had mine, two friends of mine have gotten similar

stat cameras, one for a couple hundred dollars and the other for

free.

<p>

Hope this helps.

David,

<p>

I'm planning a backpacking trip next week and have just done an

experiment using a Canon G2 digital camera as an exposure

meter for my Super Speed Graphic for shooting Velvia

transparency film.

<p>

I'll be taking the G2 anyway and am trying to minimize weight, so

I'm planning only to take the camera with its 135 Rodenstock,

lightweight tripod and some old Mido film holders (like

readyloads but you load the film).

<p>

The big advantage of using a digital camera, as I see it, is that

you can also have an "instant polaroid" to determine where

highlights and shadows block up and go black. Also, with the

G2's histogram feature, you have a graphic indication of the

exposure for a given setting.

<p>

This weekend I shot several sheets of Velvia (G2 has a low ISO

setting of 50) using the G2 and the setup described above. I'll

post some images if you like, along with the digital equivalents

when I develop the E6 tomorrow.

I'll have to disagree with those who are dissing the Super Speed Graphic. I

used mine today and employed the drop bed front, front fall, front axis tilt and

could have used front swing if needed. And all this was set up within a few

seconds.

<p>

The Super Speed Graphic with 135 Rodenstock f/4.5 lens is a great bargain at

the $400 to $600 typically seen in online auction sales. The camera has most

movements one would ever need in a field camera for landscape work and has

the added bonus of hand-holdability with a leaf shutter that synchs at up to

1/1000 second with electronic flash.

<p>

I have a friend who recently sold a Canham 4x5 (the lightweight, nice,

two-railed job) in favor of using his Super Speed Graphic as his primary 4x5

camera. BTW, the Canham did NOT have front axis tilts, making it a hassle to

use in the most common landscape situations.

<p>

Anyway, I love my SSG and believe it can easily do more than most

photographers who buy the mega-expensive Canhams, Wisners, Ebonys, etc.

will ever do with their nice toys.

Hi Clark,

<p>

As others have noted, it's really a personal preference issue, IMO. However, I'll

throw out another alternative to a loupe that I've found to work great. For my

8x10 (Deardorff) work, I've been using a pair of jewelers flip-up glasses, the

kind with an adjustable headband.

<p>

This thing has various accessory pairs of lenses that snap in with different

magnification powers. I use the ones that focus at 5 inches, although they have

lenses that'll focus down to about 3 inches.

<p>

For me, this method is far superior to using a loupe for three major reasons:

<p>

1. When composing an image, I can flip up the lenses (like a welder's helmet)

and it helps keep the dark cloth from sagging, allowing for easier composition.

2, It allows me to "see" an area about 4x5 inches all at once, so adjusting focus

for a tilt to bring near and far planes into focus is much easier. I can also easily

see all the way into the corners.

3. Because of its design, both hands are free, allowing me to use my left hand

to gather the bottom of the dark cloth while focusing with the right.

<p>

I did a year-long 8x10 project in 2000 and used this set-up for every shot and

found it to be much, much faster working than with a traditional loupe. And

BTW, the entire unit including lenses is about a third the price of a decent

Schneider or Rodenstock 4x loupe.

<p>

Hope this is of some help. Good Shooting!

Yes! In fact, I've even used it on 8x10 with some very interesting

results.

<p>

I have both the 5x7 and 8x10 backs for my Deardorff field

camera. To focus at infinity, there is no movement available from

the bellows being scrunched up tight. However, you still can use

some front rise on the 'Dorff using the sliding lens stage without

getting outside the image circle.

<p>

Best I can figure, on a 5x7 the angle of view is similar to a 17mm

lens on 35mm format...Pretty wide.

<p>

If you slap on that 8x10 back, of course it won't cover the entire

area, but there is enough to get about a 4x10 panorama

somewhat darkened at each end due to light fallof. But for alot of

subjects it works. BTW, the angle of view using it like this is

pretty much its full 140º, making it comparable to about a 12mm

on 35 format....Verrry wide!

<p>

A side benefit is the complete elimination of the possiblity of any

bellows flare, so that highly corrected German glass shows

everything it can do contrast-wise.

<p>

Here's a shot I did of a covered bridge near my home in rural

Blount County, Alabama last year. The bridge is about 260 feet

long and I'm less than 50 feet from it:

<p>

http://www.studioblountsprings.com/swann72.html

<p>

Bottom line: No matter what format, the 72XL's just a great lens!

Hi Ben,

<p>

I've used a variety of Bogens over the years, including both the

3050 and 3021 with both 3047 and 3057 heads. I also have a

342 Gitzo. But for large format photography, I've never found

anything to compare with the Ries wooden tripods.

<p>

I've got the A-600 (I think) legs, which are the medium sized

ones, and the Ries head and use both my 4x5 Wisner and 8x10

Deardorff on it.

<p>

The tripod is about the same weight as the 2021 with 3047, but

is actually easier to carry because the legs are wider and easier

on the shoulder. Also, this tripod is infinitely adjustable and

everything can be done from around the head... a real pleasure

to use.

<p>

But the main reason I invested in the Ries was the dampening

effect on vibrations. I do alot of photography in and around

whitewater rivers and waterfalls and its not unusual at all for me

to have one or more legs in a couple feet of moving water. I can

put my hand on a tripod leg in the current and feel a definite

vibration, but at the camera there's nothing! Haven't found a

metal pod that can do that.

<p>

Just my .02.

Hi David,

<p>

A few years ago, I used about 50 sheets of the Bergger film for a

photo project on Cumberland Island, Ga. and developed in

PMK/Jobo.

<p>

Like you, I was amazed at how this combo held both shadow

and hightlight detail in the negatives, which subsequently printed

and scanned very well.

<p>

Most of what I shot using this combo was long-scale sunlit

beach scenes with brite-white sand on beaches and deep

shadows in vegetation and decaying liveoak skeletons.

Everything seemed to print and scan better than I'd hoped.

<p>

I did have one complaint with the Bergger film I used, however. It

seemed that quality control was somewhat lax as I had a

number of sheets with "phantom" dark spots appearing on the

developed negatives, and the edges seemed to be a little rough

in the trimming. Of course these were usually on a favorite

negative, a la Murphy's Law.

<p>

I'm curious if the QC has improved since then (1998) because I'd

really like to give the Bergger another try.

<p>

Thanks for the post!

Matthew,

<p>

I print Azo with great results using a simple 100-watt soft white

household bulb about 18 inches above the paper; no hot spots.

<p>

Average exposure times with ABC pyro developed negatives are

15-20 seconds, which gives plenty of time for burning, dodging,

etc.

<p>

Hope this helps.

Erik,

<p>

The frame supply store I use sells Techmount 3 (equivalent to

Seal Fusion 4000) in 36 inch by 30 yard rolls for around $45 per

roll.

<p>

I do a lot of mounting and a roll typically lasts me several months

to nearly a year.

<p>

This tissue, like the Seal product, is acid-free and can be

removed by re-applying heat (although I'll have to admit I've never

tried it). A side benefit is that using release paper you can

eliminate the need for a tacking iron.

<p>

Instead of tacking the "sandwich" of print-tissue-mount which

can result in some unplanned misalignments, what I do is put

the print and tissue in the press for 20-30 seconds between two

sheets of release paper, with the tissue hanging out about an

inch all around.

<p>

After a 30 second cooldown, the tissue and print are bonded and

it also takes any residual "curl" out of a print (such as single-wt

Azo). Then it's a simple matter to trim neatly around with sissors

and position on the mounting board. The tissue will be a little

"gummy" so it's almost impossi ble to get it out of position

whenn putting back into the press for the final mounting.

<p>

I've been using this system for about 10 years now and never

had a problem with a print mounted in this manner.

<p>

Hope this helps.

My Deardorff 8x10 sits motionless on a Ries tripod (the J-600 I think it is -

anyway not the big heavy mother or the little one you disassemble to carry).

<p>

This tripod is a pleasure to both carry and to use with a view camera. The

only downside is maximum extension is about 5.5 feet to the top of the head

plate. But that puts my 8x10 right at eye level on level ground.

<p>

The tripod legs are completely adjustable for any odd terrain. I'm often using

it with one or more of the legs in the water (shoals or rapids usually) and I'm

still amazed at its ability to dampen vibrations. 10+ seconds exposures - no

problem.

<p>

I also kept my Gitzo 342 legs with 3057 head for the times when I need the

camera 7-8 feet off the ground, but the Ries is a much better tripod for view

cameras, IMO.

<p>

BTW, the Ries head is the most user-friendly for view cameras I've ever used,

but it would really suck for other cameras, I think.

Josh,

<p>

I have a Traditonal Wisner and regularly use my 120 HM Symmar with the

regular bellows with no problems except for extreme perspective control

subjects, like a close shot of a tall building.

<p>

I've also used my 90 Fujinon SW with the pleated bellows, although if it's not

a pretty much straight-on shot, it offers little movement.

<p>

If you're only using a little front tilt (as in much landscape photography) you

can facilitate using wider-than-normal lenses by tilting the entire lens stage

backwards into the bellows. This frees up more room for focusing with the

rack-and-pinion system used.

<p>

If you use a 90 or shorter very much, you'll be buying a bag bellows, IMO,

and Wisner's design is quick and easy to change out and can easily be

stowed in a backpack, etc.

<p>

Be forewarned, however, that either the pleated or bag red kid leather

(standard) bellows cannot be used with IR film. He does offer an IR-proof

synthetic bellows that's pleated, stiffer and generally unusable for anything

wider than about 120-135.

<p>

Hope this helps.

Matthew,

<p>

A few years ago I was given an upright stat camera with an

onboard reflection/transmission densitometer and thought I'd

use Phil Davis' testing methods to zero in on my PMK negatives.

<p>

After a couple of weeks of testing and frustration, I finally emailed

Davis himself and he got back to me in a couple days to say that

he too had not been able to successfully use a densitometer to

test pyro negatives.

<p>

To me, the most useful testing method is a somewhat varied

version of Steve Simmons' visual technique outlined in his

"Using the View Camera" manual. Basically, I test for print

tonalities that I expect from various measured subjects.

<p>

Most of my 8x10 work is now done in ABC pyro with a weak

green safelight to inspect visually (thanks Michael A. Smith!). To

me this is the ultimate control for large format, and once you get

the hang of watching the highlights appear, a real pleasure to

print using Azo paper.

Well, Film isn't dead yet. The Fat Lady hasn't sung, but I swear I

can hear her clearing her throat!

<p>

I've spent the better part of the last 20 years trying to become

proficient in large format photography, and presently use 4x5,

5x7 and 8x10 formats.

<p>

I'll be keeping my Wisner and Deardorff equipment and using it

for the rest of my life (I hope), but for me and my business to

survive I've made the plunge into digital and can't believe the

results I'm getting (D30 using stair interpolation for up-res-ing).

<p>

That being said, I also think there's an inherient "depth" to a fine

black and white print that digital can't (yet) match, so when I need

to express something photographically in which that "look" or

"depth" is important, it's back to the analog (film) capture

methods.

<p>

But for most everything I do to put bread on the table, the new

digital world offers too big an advantage to ignore.

<p>

I see it as another tool in the box, to be used when called for.

<p>

Just my two cents.

Larry,

<p>

You're exactly right about the large image circle. I tried the same thing you're

doing several years ago and purchased a non-red dot Artar, 14-inch to use

as a portrait lens on my 4x5 Wisner.

<p>

The images I got were very acceptable for portraits, but were noticably softer

than images I got with my Symmars and Fujinons. Naturally, since this was

the non-red dot version and I got it in a working shutter for $200 at a camera

trade show, I assumed the softness was due to inferior coatings.

<p>

A year or so later I purchased a used Deardorff 8x10. My first images with the

same lens on the Deardorff were eye-piercing sharp, amazingly crisp and

generally, well, wonderful.

<p>

I realized that the larger image circle was the culprit and did some testing with

a compendium lens shade (to block off light outside the part of the image

circle acutally falling on the film) and it made a huge difference. Now, properly

shaded, my 4x5 images are as good with this lens an on 8x10.

<p>

Hope this helps.

Stephen,

<p>

I don't know if this will fit your needs, but it's worked out great for

me.

<p>

About four years ago I was given a Screen vertical stat camera,

you know, the kind that was used in the old days to shoot

halftone screens for pre-press applications.

<p>

Anyway, this thing has a florescent tube light box at the bottom in

addition to the halogen/quartz bulbs for its intended use.

<p>

I'm using it to enlarge both 5x7 and 8x10 negatives.

<p>

It works like an upside down enlarger. The negative is placed

between two hinged pieces of heavy plate glass on the bottom

standard (I have an amberlith mask made just larger than the

image area to create a "contact print" look).

<p>

The built-in timer allows for exposure control down to the tenth of

a second and also has a "focus" button.

<p>

At the top is a vacuum easel that's hinged to one side and a

hinged ground glass on the other.

<p>

Any contrast filtration is done by simply laying a filter on top of the

lens inside the huge bellows.

<p>

To make a print, you put the paper on the easel (I have the usual

sizes marked 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, with tape at the corners) and

turn on the vacuum pump. Then flip over into the exposure

position, set the timer and print.

<p>

Burning and/or dodging is done looking down at the negative,

which I've actually come to prefer as it's easier to see details.

<p>

The main limitation is a 22x18 maximum size on the easel. It

has two very sharp process lenses allowing for

enlargement/reduction of 25-400 percent.

<p>

As an added bonus, I use the "bump" light, which is on an arm

centered over the vacuum easel in the open position, as a light

source for contact printing. To do this, I simply make the contact

sandwich (azo and neg), place a sheet of glass over it, and hit

the vacuum pump switch, which sucks everything tightly together.

The bump light, which was intended to provide a pre-exposure to

the lith film before the main exposure, is also wired into the timer

panel with a separate control button, so that 's simple as well.

<p>

This camera also has an on-board reflection/transmission

densitometer that is useful for film testing and checking negative

and print densities.

<p>

Best of all, it was free! It's completely self-contained (on casters)

and it only takes up about the same floor space as a washer or

dryer with the copy lights removed.

<p>

These were in use at small printers and newspapers all over

thru the early 90s. This small town paper gave it to me just to get

it out of their way. In the paperwork that came with it I saw a

receipt for the purchase price of $5,700 in 1985.

<p>

If you check around, you may be able to find a similar one for free

or very cheap sitting in the corner at a print shop or paper.

<p>

Just make sure you get the vertical type. The more common and

larger horizontal type isn't practical unless you have mega

space.

<p>

Hope this is helpful. Good luck!

Marco,

<p>

Check out a Super Speed Graphic or Super Graphic camera.

They can usually be found on eBay for less than $500 with a lens

and they have quite liberal FRONT movements, and a revolving

back.

<p>

Also, it has a built-in rangefinder that works well for handheld

subjects.

I think I read this in one of AA's books: "The view camera doesn't

force you to do anything, but it allows you to do everything."

A couple of years ago, I had a 1 year old M6 (I purchased new)

that I noticed required deeper and deeper pushing to release the

shutter. This occurred over about a two month period. Finally, I

was having to press as far as I could to get the thing to release.

<p>

Sent back to Leica (actually the dealer did). Two weeks and an

adjustment later, worked just fine. The dealer commented that

this was not uncommon for fairly new Leicas to need such

adjustments.

Nick,

<p>

I have the Wisner Traditional and have had very few occasions

where I wished for the rear axis tilt. I see it as a matter of

convenience, really, as you can do anything that the axis tilt can

do using the base tilting rear standard on the Traditional. The

only thing is, after tilting you must re-focus more with base tilt.

<p>

It seems that more often than not, I'm using front tilt anyway.

<p>

I have a good friend who purchased the Technical Field and we

shoot together often. I was really surprised at the added size of

the larger rear standard. I don't think he uses the rear axis tilts

much anymore, although for awhile (before the got a Sinar P

system) he was using it for studio tabletop work and I'm sure

that feature came in handy at times.

<p>

As other posters have suggested, your shooting style and

technique will let you know if you need the geared axis tilt more

than my opinion or that of the others who've responded.

<p>

Personally, I think either Wisner style would be a good choice. I'll

have to say that mine, which I bought used 10 years ago, has

taken plenty of abuse and I've NEVER done so much as tighten a

screw. Always works perfectly. And...it's beautiful.

<p>

Hope this helps.