marv_thompson

My "standard" kit used to be, just what you offer, 90-135-210. A 90

SA, 135 APO Symmar and 210 APO Symmar. As I progressed, I found that

in my area, the 210 was a tad to long. I ended up with a 180 and have

used it about 40% of the time since, the 90 gets about 40% and the

135 ( now a 121 SA) gets about 15%, the other 5% is spread between a

210 and 240 and 300. I think everyone has stated preferences, that,

are probably arrived at the way I arrived at mine; my local has

dictated my needs, as I am sure there's has also. I have few far off

vistas to bring closer and lots of stuff up close to include. Good

luck, these kinds of decisions are very important to ones

"productivity". It's heck always wishing for a little longer or

shorter lens. That's where the 180 worked so well for me, it fit that

niche, now you just have to figure out what your niche is.

Yes, according to information on thier site, the boards are 5 1/4"

square. This is ample for a No. 5 Ilex, I presume all no. 5's are the

same dimensions. Presumably they don't list boards larger than a No.

3 because of the limited demand. There is no big trick, if you are

reasonably handy with tools, to drilling your own holes in a blank

board, I am sure they supply blank boards. Ask around and you may

have an aquaintance that is capable of drilling the holes, or even

constructing the boards. I have done both with great success and am

by no means a "craftsman".

To expand on the other postings, use an orange filter, behind the

lens to correct for the removal of the front element. Focus with the

filter in place and the lens stopped to the aperture that you will

use to make the exposure. This allows you compensate for the focus

shift that occours when using the lens, with filter, in teh converted

state. You will find that the focus shift depends upon the f-stop

selected and may not be very noticeable at all.

<p>

As far as the "best" f-stop, I haven't really determined it, I don't

make enlargements much bigger than 8X10, so the optimum f-stop may

not be as critical for me. One caveat, be sure to use the CORRECT

aperture scale. Very disappointing to find that you used the 150mm

scale for a 265mm shot!

Yes.

<p>

Good coverage, exellent sharpness, excellent contrast. For my money,

the Linhof branded Schneiders, although generally in Compur shutters,

are a very attractive alternative to the higher priced Copal

shuttered lenses. I also picked up a 121mm S.A. that is a Sinar

branded lens. Also much more reasonably priced than the regular

Schneider lens, if the glass is spotless I would never hesitate to

consider one of these lenses.

Davids observations are right on the money. To expand further, when

you "convert" a lens, removing a cell, you need to use a filter to

correct for the missing cell. Typically this will be an orange, -2

stops, or yellow, -1 to 1 1/2 stops filter placed behind the lens.

Taking into account the already slow lens, David is correct when he

says that the best you might expect from an old Betax style shutter

is 1/25 top speed, you are going to need a lot of light. Add to that

the contrast that the filter brings, and your portrait might be less

than you expect. To complicate matters even further when you focus a

converted lens, the filter must be in place and it must be stopped

down to the taking aperture to correct for the focus shift that

occours with the filter behind the lens.

<p>

All of that said, if you can find a 12, 19, 24 lens, you have a

usable 12" studio lens, the shortest focal lenght is the unconverted

focal length, and a very nice convertible for in the field. The only

problem you have is lack of bellows. A 14.5 inch bellows and 12" lens

doesn't give you a lot of room for focus. Convertibles are fun and

useful lenses, but the older ones have a lot of foibles that may get

in the way of your creativity.

<p>

At any rate, the price isn't bad, and if experience is the best

teacher, you might want to give one a try.

The "pre-viewer", as it were, is an excellent suggestion, no matter

which system you use. I use a Zone VI viewing filter/frame that I

find quite useful, for Black and White.

<p>

Another consideration; try to match the focal length in 4X5 that you

find most "comfortable" i.e. the one you use the most in 6X6. For

instance, I tend in 6X7 to use a 45mm to 135mm range, with a tendancy

to lean towards the wider lenses, 90 and 75mm. In 4X5 (roughly) these

are a 90mm to 150mm. I tend to "see" in those focal lengths, and with

a lot of visulation/previsulation experience under my belt, find that

I naturally "frame" the subject in those ranges. I shot for 11 years

in 4X5 with only a 135mm lens, so obviously I tend to see things in

that focal length more easily.

<p>

Finally, use the upside down image on the ground glass to your

advantage. It can be a strong and useful tool for visualisation. The

image is quite abstract, and forces you to be very attentive to where

elements are placed.

I have the "Origional Harrison Film Changing Tent" specified for

8X10, and am very happy with it. I used it on the road, and it has

plenty of room for holders and a box for film, Calumet has it for

$199.95, only $50. more than the one you are looking at. I tried the

4x5 first and there is no way it would work for 8X10, so I sent it

back and got the right one. (Calumet promptly refunded my money and

sent me the new one.) Don't skimp, find one that you can use

COMFORTABLY. I can't think of anything worse that taking a load of

8X10 negatives and having all of them ruined with crimp marks from

using to small a bag. If an extra $50 at this point is too much, it

only gets worse. Wait until someone demos a 150mm f5.6 Schneider

Super-Symmar XL on a Canham 8x10 for you. True story, it happened to

me in Phoenix on vacation. Well, something else to put on the old

wish list.......

Price wise, my experience has been, that the Linhof branded lenses

here in the midwest are usually priced competatively, with non

branded lenses.

I focus on the far, background as it were, and then tilt until the

near, or foreground, is in focus. Then re-focus on the far and then

tilt for the near, etc. etc. until I have the far and near in focus,

and then stop down to get the middle in focus, and re-adjust as

necessary. It is a lot easier to do, with a LOT of practice, than it

will ever be to explain.

You don't get 12+19.7=25.

<p>

On my lens, the two cells, are marked Back 19.7" 500.4 MM and Fr 25"

635 MM.

<p>

When used in combination, with the 19.7" in the back and the 25" in

the front you have a 12" f7.0 lens. Take the front off and use only

the 19.7" in the rear and you have a 19.7" f12.5 lens. Place the 25"

in the rear and you have a 25" f16 lens. Converted, the element that

you choose foes in the rear and the other element foes in your

pocket, camera bag, etc. As to why the element goes in the rear, it

has to do with the optics of the lens as Franco states, I just know

that I have tried it both ways and it works better doing it as

recommended.

<p>

As to a lens hood, I don't think so. In my experience, the type of

flare you ae concerned about comes from light directly hitting the

front lens element, which is gone when converted. I usually hold a

dark slide so as to cast a shadow on the front of the lens, this does

the same thing and costs and weighs nothing.

<p>

I find that the entire image suffers from focus shift and that it is

in relation to the f-stop used. The smaller the stop the more focus

shift. I just refocus off of the center, say a little prayer and fire

the shutter. The focus shift is real, I'm sorry I don't have the

technical info to explain it.

<p>

I find that they work well at all the apertures, but at f45 and f64

they work a little better for closeup work. For scenics if I can

shoot up to f22 or f32 I seem to like the results a little better.

All very subjective and very dependant on subject matter and

materials used.

<p>

The shutters don't cost much to get cleaned, lubed and calibrated, I

have fellow tht does them for around $50.00 U.S. Mine is dead accurat

on a bench test at the stated speeds, and it performs that way in the

field.

<p>

I wouldn't get to hung up on the semantics, just take it out and use

it. They have a lot of little pecadillos that take some getting used

to, but trial and error, and a few good notes will steer you around

the pitfalls.

The improperly seated holder theory souds very plausible, I have been

there done that, and there are techniques that work well to be sure

that the holder is seated correctly. With a bail, insert the holder

and as you release the bail, wiggle the holder ever so slightly in

and out. This will show you whee the proper position is for the

holder, it will catch in the correct spot and be very snug. With a

tradional back inseting all of the way and then pulling gently back

out on the holder shows when it is seated.

<p>

How do you remove the dark slide? Be sure to pull straight out from

the holder, and when replacing the slide push it straight in. If you

pull back on the dark slide, towards yourself, it can unseat the

holder form the back of the camera. You might also remember to place

a thumb, your left, in the center of the ground glass while resting

you fingers on the top of the camera. Apply a slight amount of

pressure with the thumb while removing the dark slide, this helps to

ensure that the holder remains in place.

<p>

It is not a bad idea to try and cover the back, even of a brand new

camera, of the camera with you dark cloth in bright light, especially

when removing and replacing the dark slide. I try to at hold the

slide so that it casts a shadow on the light trap end during the time

tht the dark slide is removed.

<p>

Lastly, have you checked the holders themselves? Are they all new or

are some or all used? Mark the holders and make careful note of which

negative is in which holder. Then when processing, if there are

defects, you can trace it to the possible "bad" holder.

<p>

All in all these types of negative defects can be the most difficult

to detect and correct, and can crop up at any time and for no

apparent reason. Care and patience will make most of them go away!

When converted, ie used with only one of the lens cells, the focus

will shift away from the film plane as the lens is stopped down from

wide open. When the lens is used with both of the lens cells in place

this does not happen. It has to do with the lens formula changing

with only one element being used. Focusing should be done with a

filter in place (this can also affect the focus) and with the lens

stopped down to the taking aperture. As to coating, I doubt it. Mine

were patented in 1917 and 1895.

2) Very usable and Yes.

<p>

I have 2, a 12" and a 15". The 12' is a 12-19-25 and the 15 " is a 15-

24-36. I have used the lenses at normal and the second focal length

with great success. Used at their maximum focal lengths, the results

are less acceptable, ie. noticable softness. As far as focus shift

goes, it is there and is not always that easy to see, but with a

loupe, I use a 3X it isn't to bad. Use a yellow or orange filter,

BEHIND the lens and the images are very sharp. Made into an 8X10

contact it is hard to tell, if not impossible to tell, which focal

length was used. I especially like the 19 inch focal length, just

remember that the lense gets a LONG way away from you and it is

necessary to move to the front of the camera to stop down. Speaking

of stopping down, remember to use the correct fstop scale for the

focal length, or you will have underexposed negatives. Also take into

consideration the contrast enhansing qualitys of the filter and

adjust development accordingly, if you find it necessary. Laslty,

don't be afraid a few bubbles in the glass, as long as it is clean

and unscuffed they should perform well. The old shutters, mine are a

Betax No. 4 and Ilex No. 5, can be cleaned and calibrated to work

with great accuracy, as long as 1/25 is fast enough for you . They

are funky and heavy but for 2/3 of what you would pay for a current

lens I got 3 or focal lengths, and a lot of enjoyment.

I would also recommend Photomark and Ron Klukas. I stopped in while

on vacation, just to look at a Kanham 8X10, and Ron didn't hesitate

to set one up and put 3 different lenses on it for me to try out.

They have the cameras and lenses on hand, and the staff that wants to

help, even if all your doing is "kicking tires". While I was trying

the camera out I found a slick focusing loupe that he gave me to use

and ended up buying it. If I hadn't had the opportunity to try it, I

would have never just bought it, it's nice to find sales people that

know how to sell and help. By the way, call ahead, I believe that Ron

said he work's Tuesday through Saturday.

One problem I see would be the shutter being to big for the lens

board on the 4X5. An Ilex 5 is to large for a 4" board, otherwise if

you have the bellows for them they will work fine on a 4X5.

I would suggest that possibly you are under developing the prints,

grey whites and blacks would lead me so belive this is the case.

<p>

I would only change one facet of your procedure at a time, then you

can tell if that change has had an effect.

<p>

Try making five identical prints and developing them at different

times, 30 seconds, 1 minute, 1 minute and 30 seconds, 2 minutes and 3

minutes. See what the difference is , I think you will find that the

longer the development the darker the blacks and the better the

contrast.

<p>

If this helps but doesn't completely solve the problem, try a

different set of exposure times, in conjunction with the different

development times. Keep notes, write right on the back of the prints

with an indelible marker, before you get them wet, with what you did,

so you can make changes and not repeat the same mistakes. Don't worry

about ruining these prints, they are tests not finished prints.

The equivalent of an 8X10 sheet is a 36 exposure roll of 35mm. Think

of it this way, a 36 exposure roll fits on 1 8X10 sheet of paper, so

what ever amount of film will fit on an 8X10 sheet is the equivalent

of the same.

<p>

As concerns capacities and replenishment, I have never replenished HC-

110, I always use it one shot. At dil. B it is very economical, and

the consistancy of one shot development is what I am interested in. I

am concerned about the inconsistancies of calculations and

replenishment, and personally don't want to risk my film for the

possible savings.

In my experience, this is not an uncommon occourance. Wheter the lens

is valuable or good enough to warrant a clean, lube and adjustment is

up to you. If after shooting some sheets of film with the other

speeds the shutter seems to be accurate enough to be usable to you,

you may find that you can live without 1 second. I have a couple of

lenses that only go to 1/2 second, they have no 1 second,a couple

that the 1 second is like yours, and an old 135 Optar that the 1

second got funky on just like yours. I don't miss the 1 second on

those and never use it on the lenses that 1 second works on. My

exposure style makes a 1/2 or 1 second exposure into a 2 second or

more exposure, it works for me, it may not for you. My experience

also has been that even after years of use, the shutter on the Optar

will work acceptibaly at the other speeeds, up to 100, I have never

used the 200, but is a rather soft lens (low contrast). Once compared

to a current model MC lens it quickly got relegated to the shelf in

the darkroom with the Speed Graphic and assorted items to good to get

rid of. Obviously you will need to make some personal decisions but

in large format there are many compromises that you will need to

make, unless you have unlimited funds, which most don't have.

They make small levels, some are just the actual glass or plastic

tube with the bubble in it, that you could attach to your camera on

the back and side. You might attach them with a magnet, the type that

have adhesive on one side, so that you could remove them when

transporting the camera. I used a 3047 head for years that had the

levels built into the edges of its top, and never really liked that

configuration; the levels are under the camera, and rather difficult

to see. With them on the camera itsself, they are in plain view and

you can see them, at least the rear one that tells you right to left

level on the horizon, while you view the image on the ground glass.

Under the new questions section, go to the top of the page where it

says a large format home page. Click on that and go down to lenses,

then comments and review, then more on specific classic lenses. It is

brief but a place to start.

I would look for a light leak first. If the end of the negative is at

the point where the dark slide goes in and out of the holder, it is

the way I load the holders, I suspect a holder that is allowing light

in. I would try to isolate the holder that is the problem.

<p>

When you process the negatives, do all of them have the defect on the

same edge or just random negatives in the batch. If is is random

negatives that also would point towards a film holder problem. For it

to be an aggitation problem, I think all of the negatives that lay

along the line of rotation should exhibit the defect.

This time of year hunting can be a real concern, I always carry , and

this time of year, religiously wear, a safty orange vest and stocking

cap. If I even have a hint that someone is around with a gun, any

time of the year, I put the vest on.

<p>

I get checked for a hunting liscense now and then, I don't hunt, but

then I don't look like a deer either with the orange on. Don't be

fooled into thinking that just because the area is off limits to

hunting that you are even remotely safe. Hunters get off track and

into the wrong areas, and there are poachers galore that would rather

leave you for dead than risk getting caught. My concern is for the

poachers, honest sportsmen may make mistakes, we all do, but the

criminal element is by far the most dangerous.

Please tell us which edge, assuming that the code notches are in the

lower right hand corner with the emulsion facing the viewer, is

affected by the abnormality.

<p>

When the negatives are loaded into the drum, does the edge that is

affected run at a 90 degree angle to the rotation, or is the edge in

line with the rotation?

I only do black and white and have some experience with "vintage

glass".

<p>

I can't address any of the brands you mentioned, but I do have

experience with a couple of Turner and Reich convertibles. I have a

12" and a 15", the 12 is in a Betax No. 4 shutter and the 15 is in a

Ilex No. 5 shutter. The 12" was patented in 1913 and the 15" was

patented in 1895, when they were actually built I can't say.

<p>

I have had both cleaned and calibrated, the fellow that does this for

me charges $45.00, and sends back the actual shutter speeds with the

lens. The shutters are the style that don't require cocking, they

cock and fire in the same step. The No.4 is 1/2 to 1/50 and the No. 5

is 1 to 1/50, although the Ilex is only able to produce a top speed

of 1/25.

<p>

The lenses are uncoated, and the 12" has one small bubble in it, and

the 15" has a half dozen or so bubbles, otherwise there are no

scratches or hazing of the lens elements. I cannot detect a

degradation of the image because of these defects. I have compared

the 12" to a current Fuji 300, and it holds it's own against the

current lens. I am only doing contact prints at present, so I cannot

testify as to the image quality at 3' by 4', and I seriously doubt

that I will ever print that large anyway!

<p>

My test for sharpness is to focus on infinity, and include some bare

branches of a tree at infinity, and see how sharp they look under a

loop. Both of these lenses produce a "barb wire" sharp twig on the

negative and print, and that is sharp enough for me. They both can

produce a high contrast image, but flare is a concern, but can be

dealt with both at the time of exposure and in the darkroom. I have

yet to have a flare situaion that made the image unprintable,

although I avoid back light like the plague, and always have.

<p>

I hope this address a few of your concerns, I hope to find a wide

field ektar, in the 200mm range to tell you about.

Give me a topo map and Class B minimum maintenance roads (read as

"Your on your own!") any day, and I'll have some fun! You don't have

to get far off of the main road to find the interesting stuff, and it

shouldn't come as a surprise if you find yourself pretty much alone.

<p>

I've been doing this since I got married, and after 23 years, my

wife still can't comprehend being on the road an hour before sunrise,

just to take pictures.

<p>

It's nice to know there are a lot of us lunatics spread across the

country. By the way, I vote for coffee first too.