marv_thompson

Use a very, very, very, very weak acid stop bath. To my knowledge

this is the primary cause of pinholes, and since I went to a very

dilute stop they have not been an issue.

 

<p>

 

My only concern is that they are actually pin holes and not the

garden variety dust spec that all large format users are plagued by.

If they are, sorry, you are on your own:)!!

Joe Boyd's experience especially, and a lot of the others also,

mirror my own, to a great degree, especially when it comes to the

proximity from, and frequency of visits to, a given area. The more

familiar I become with a given area, in the various seasons and times

of day, the greater the chance that my visit will be planned. The

selection of actual subject matter and specific location still seem

to be more luck than planning. I will have an idea of lighting and

general areas that should yield some results, beyond that it is still

search and shoot.

 

<p>

 

Luck favors the prepared photographer, and the better you know your

equiptment, abilities, subject and terrain the more likely you are to

"plan" and image, and the lees likely that you will rely soley on

luck.

 

<p>

 

As to percentage of keepers, I might give the edge to the "planned"

images, where I was there at a time I thought might produce results.

I tend not to produce images in situations where they might not come

out, but instead, use the time to get to know an area and determine a

time that might be more condusive to photography.

You might consider using mount board, at least in the testing stage.

Get a sheet of 4 ply mount board, cut it to the outside dimensions

that will allow it to slide into the back of the enlarger. Next cut a

hole for the negative that is slightly smaller than the outside

dimensions of the negative. Get a piece of adhesive laminating film

and stick it to both sides of the negative carrier and cut out the

holes for the negative. What you can now do is use a high quality

masking tape to tape the negative, by the edges ofr the corners, to

the negative carrier, this allows you to pull the negative taut, so

that the film doesn't buckle. By using the laminating film, the

masking tape will come off of the carrier easier.

 

<p>

 

It is an inexpensive way to test different carrier configurations,

that you can do without any machining. An exacto knife and a straight

edge are about all of the tools needed. I have made numerous carriers

of this type for odd size glass and film negatives, as well as

adapters for 23C negative carriers to my 45MX enlarger.

I use a 2830 Jobo drum on my Bessler roller base. the 2830 holds two sheets of 8X10, and calls for 100 ml of solution, I use 200 ml, just to be on the safe side. On the roller it gives very even agitation. There are no reels to deal with, the sheets go between rails and have stayed in place without moving (I have done 50 or 60 sheets so far with this set up). The only down side to this type of processing is that the backing doesn't always come off in the developer and the fix. It leaves patches on the base side of the sheet that can be removed in fixer, with a little extra agitation. I fix in the drum for 3 minutes and in a tray for two more. I use the balls of my finger tips and gently rub the back of the print until the dye is removed, maybe 30 or 40 seconds. Fresh fixer seems to remove 100% of the stain, and if the fixer is not so fresh, a little blueish stain will remain, but it has yet to have an effect on the final print. I'm not saying it won't, just that I haven't had a problem, yet. FYI, the BZTS system covers this same topic in about the same manner. Cleaning the drum between developments is straight forward and relatively quick. The drum isn't that expensive, and might be worth a try.

I've been in the Badlands, with a P67 and 45, 75, 90, 105, 135 and 200. I used the 45 and the 90 the most, and the 135 next. It just so happens that these are the same 3 that I use most of the time, anywhere. Since, I have picked up a 300, but it sees most of its use with a doubler. It is a nice piece of glass, but I tend to lean towards wide angles for scenics, and am not much involved with wildlife.

 

<p>

 

If you are traveling by auto, pick up topo maps of the states you plan to spend some time in. They are around $16.95 at a Barnes and Noble, or other major book stores, and have "all" of the roads on them as well as the topo info. They will give you names, bios, and directions to the major and minor parks and attractions of the state. I used one this summer for a few days in southern Minnesota, and it was invaluable for finding short cuts to out of the way places. Pick up a regular map to rough out a route and use these to fine tune the route, they have a "LOT" of info in them and are worth the money if you really wabt to know where you are. Good luck, you should have fun.

Y Y EEEEEEE SSSSSSSS

Y Y E S

Y Y E S

YY EEEE SSSSSSSS

YY E S

YY E S

YY EEEEEEE SSSSSSSS

 

<p>

 

I can travel, hike, climb and traverse with others, non-photogaphers and photographers alike, but when it comes time to pull the dark slide in anger, I am invariably ALONE. For myself, and obviously for a lot of others, thats just the way that it works.

 

<p>

 

People are just to big a distraction. The majority of my mess ups are made when someone says, did you get it yet, are you done yet, will you look at this, or some other "well intentioned" comment. For me, solitude is golden!

I agree with the advice to consider contact prints, until an enlarger can be aquired.

 

<p>

 

I have a 4X5 enlarger, but decided as a personal project, to only create contact prints. They are made just as any fine print, dodged, burned, toned, spotted and dry mounted on 8X10 boards. It has created a very cohesive body of work, the image size and presentation is the same while the subject matter is very diverse.

 

<p>

 

While this solves your immediate problem of enlargment, it also allows the photographer to develope a system of photography that can be very useful. By only producing contact prints, the image that you create in the camera is exactly what you will get in the print, there is no room to let the image float in the frame, you can't crop in the darkroom.

 

<p>

 

While this process is not for everyone, I found it to be very informative and helped me to train my eye and mind to really look at my subject, when I was creating the image. I was included in a group show, displaying 75 of the 150 or so images I have created, and received very positive feedback on the print size and presentation style.

 

<p>

 

If you can find the issue No. 21, May 1998 of LensWork quarterly, Brooks Jensen has an article on his 100 print project that is similar to the one that I embarked on.

 

<p>

 

The bottom line, I feel, is not to let your equiptment dictate your way of doing your photography. Using your limitations to create new ways of doing things can be very instructive and help to develope a personal style that you won't see at every turn of the corner.

 

<p>

 

Good luck, large format is a big challenge, but once "mastered" is a lot of fun.

For my use in 4X5 and 8X10 I use the base tilt exclusively. Both of my cameras have axis/base tilt on the front and base only tilt on the rear.

 

<p>

 

If I wish to bring the foreground into focus and not affect the linear nature of the objects, I use the front base tilt. If I wish to bring the foreground into focus and have it "loom large' in the scene, with no concern for convergance of the vertcal lines, I use the rear base tilt. By focusing on the far and tilting the back to bring the foreground into focus, and continuing to refocus on the far, you can quite smoothly bring the image into focus on the ground glass. It sounds more difficult than it really is, practice makes perfect!

 

<p>

 

Now, to specifically answer your questions, for me it is not a big deal, actually, no deal at all. As to why rear axis tilt is less prevelant on field cameras, I believe it is an attemt to keep the of cost and weight down. Also, a desire by some manufacturers to keep field cameras as "simple" as possible, while still giving the most important elements of a full blown monorail view camera. Any additional points of movement add to the overall instability of the camera and add more points for the camera to "flex", if you will.

A 200-210mm lens is, in my mind, a prime lens. If you are going to buy 1 lens that is to be used for 1/2 or more of your images, and I think you will use this focal length a lot on 4x5, I would go with the faster, also more expensive and heavier, alternative.

 

<p>

 

My thinking is simple, you are going to use it the most, make it the most user friendy. Treat yourself to one very good, fast lens when you start out, one that has more than ample coverage available and a bright image to compose and focus with. It will be easier and more fun to use, save the f8's and f9's for the less used lenses, the wide angles and long lenses where you will have a real savings in weight, cost, and size. The 5.6 210mm, at least the Super Symmar, isn't that heavy or large and it is very sharp, I know, I have one. Just one persons opinion, :-).

Please explain "funky".

Please define "funky".

Try to get the most current shutters possible. Some modern lenses have some funky shutters. Copal 0, 1 and 3 are the standard sizes for modern lenses, and lens boards are available for these for virtually every camera. If you get into Compurs, some of them are in 0, 1 and 3 sizes, but some aren't, and Compurs are a lot like the Copals. Non 0, 1, 3 shutters pose a problem in getting boards without having to special order them.

 

<p>

 

There are a variety of other shutters, some easy to use, and some with controls that are down right frustrating, especially in cold weather. I had a 90mm Super Angulon that the shutter was so small on it that you had to use the finger nail on your little finger to even move it, not much fun at 5 degrees! When you get to the Betax 4's and Ilex 5's, they get bigger and can be to large for the board on a field camera with a tappered bellows.

 

<p>

 

I have tools available and the ability to make my own boards for my 4X5 and 8X10, and with the addition of a lens board adapter, can use the 4X5 boards on the 8X10. Buy a lens, preferably something current, in a Copal shutter, they seem to be the most popular. Make sure that it has enough coverage to allow movements, after all large format is mainly movements, if you aren't going to use movements, stay with medium or 35mm format. Now that you have a lens, use it, use it until you need something different. I think you will be surprised, developing sheet film and printing it, will take some time, and money, and you might not need the large range of lenses initially that you think you will. I worked with a Speed graphic and a 135mm lens for 10 years before I bought my first field camera and another lens, believe me, I know the 135mm lens and its abilities very well. Since then I have added a half dozen lenses, and use them all, but it has taken 20 years of experience to decide which ones I really need and would do me the most good.

Comparison of image circle, and weight are two factors to consider. Most f8 and f9 lenses are dimensionally smaller and significantly lighter, and have comperable coverages as the faster lenses.

 

<p>

 

G Claron 305, 381mm image circle, 67mm filter, $954.00.

APO Symmar 300, 425mm image circle, 105mm filter, $2069.00.

 

<p>

 

Obviously you give up some brightness, and image circle, but the cost is half, new or used, and the weight and dimension gain of a slower lens is significant. When you start to try and shoe horn lenses on boards into a back pack or bag I think you will see what I mean.

 

<p>

 

Right now I am using a borrowed Fuji 300mm f9 on my 8X10 and I have only run out of coverage using extreme front rise, for 98% of the images I have shot the coverage was fine. It weighs about 1/4 of my Turner and Rich convertible of the same focal length, and takes up about 1/3 of the space.

 

<p>

 

Getting used to focusing a large format, with any lens takes some experience. With the f8 and f9 lenses it just takes a little more patience and technique. Obviously I consider the brightness issue to be minor, but I have a few years experience using the f8's and have adapted to thier peculiarities.

To elaborate a little further on both Glenn and Steve' comments, I tend to "compartmentalize" the process. I have a seperate mental list for each phase of the process. I am not a pro, so my imagery is for myself, but I tend to work in "themes", things I like to look for and capture. I work in scenics and not wild life so my system may be a little to slow for the fast pace of catching animals, but I think the underling principle is valid for any nature photography.

 

<p>

 

For example, I love to work with ice. If I am out on an ice day, obviously not today, I will start by determining if the lighting will work for the look that I want in the final print. That phase of the process will determine if I even get the camera out of the car. At this point I am unconcerned about anything, save the way that the subject reacts to the light.

 

<p>

 

After determing that I like the light, I move on to the composition process, from there to the determination of exposure, then to the actual exposure, etc. At each step, having completed the previous steps, all nearly subconciously, I have a clear mind for only the task at hand. If during any of the steps things start to go astray, the lighting changes or the composition won't work, I either regroup and start over at the point that things, start to change or quit and try another set up.

 

<p>

 

With out going into in-depth, and probably boring, detail of each phase of the creation of an image, I think you can see a liitle of how the process might evolve over time. Time and practice and experience are the over-riding factors in developing a mental check list, and making it work.

Just a couple other hints, moving your head for optimum viewing is very important, as Ellis stated, just remember that means forward and back and around in a circle. I would also recommend that you go out and practice focusing on a bright sunny day, the more sun light the better. Once you learn how all the areas of the ground glass look, the easier it will be to recognize that "look" in more subdued light. Lastly, some lenses just look dark, thier maximum f-stop not with standing, your may be one of those. Try to borrow a more modern lens and see what it looks like in comparison.

Some good suggestions from the other posters. I have done a little of this type of work, I got some old prints from our town, from the teens to the 50's, and went out and re-took the images, from as exact a location as I could find. It was interesting to put the prints side by side and compare the changes.

 

<p>

 

I also have had the opportunity to print over a hundred and fifty glass plate for the historical society, all from 1895 to 1920. The photographer had made some detailed notes as to location, but in the ensuing years our two towns had merged and all of the street address are different. Some of the locations were documentated by name, and very few of those have changed, and others were of areas that are well known. My point is, if you want to show folks in the next millenium what the town looked like don't forget to be able to tell them what they are looking at, in a way that they will be able to relate thier present to our present.

 

<p>

 

It sounds like a good project, take a lot of pictures and don't think anything is to plain or ordinary to portray. Wouldn't you just love to see what the inside of a black smith shop or a butcher shop actually looked like at the turn of the last century? Well, I do, because these were the subjects that "my" photographer chose to portray, along with the inside of a clothing store, the projectionist booth at a movie house, a soda fountain, and his own studio and darkroom. Remember, the turn of our century will be as mysterious as the turn of the last.

Not knowing what type of enlarger you have I will make a guess as to part of the problem. Is the lens board flat or is it "domed"? The lens may be on the wrong board and that would give the effect of a longer length lens. A friend had an enlarger that had boards of different extension, I'm sorry but I don't recall the brand, to use for the different focal lengths. I beleive the theory was to move the lens away from or towards the condensors, in the same manner that the Beseler head moves the condensor away from the lens. Like I said this is just a guess.

I used the Agfa 400 a few years back, a local cmaera store ordered 3 or 4 bricks for the junior college and they backed out, so I got it real cheap. The first roll had this same grey cast, (and I figured there goes my bargain) quite different from the Tri-X I was used to. I made a proof sheet and the proof from the negatives looked fine. The negatives enlarged to 16X20 and looked very good, odd cast or not. I ended up shooting 60 rolls and they all had the same grey base, but printed well.

Dittos on the 3057 for 4X5, or 5X7 for that matter. I have used one with a Zone VI 4X5 for 7 years, and haven't worn it out yet, even after 3500 sheets of film or so. It has never had a "wiggle" problem with the quick release. For 4X5 I use the flat plates that screw into the tripod socket. That plate also has two set screws that can be snugged down to keep the plate from turning on the camera, works quite well. There is no need to remove the plate to set the camera on the floor of your car, as there is no thumb screw protruding from the bottom to make the camera "tippsy".

 

<p>

 

I vote for wood when it comes to tripods. No skreeching aluminum to contend with in sand and dirt, and the legs are never cold on your hands like metal in 10 degree weather. Besides being very functional, they look damn nice with a mahogany and brass mast head sitting on them. I would look for something with out a center post, or at least a removable center post, that makes low level photography much easier.

 

<p>

 

Remember that all I did was vote for wood, there are a LOT of choices for tripods. I would mount your camera on some and see what feels right, and expext to put out some real cash for one, it is worth it in the long run.

5X7 film, in black and white is readily available. 5X7 color may be more limited.11X14 is probably going to be harder to find, and color may be next to impossible. I saw a place in one of the large format site that listed 11X14 film and up, but I can't recall which one. You might contact Wisner, as they build 11X14 and larger cameras.

 

<p>

 

100 sheets of 5X7, Tri-X, from Calumet is $114.95. A rough guess on 11X14 would be $5.00 a sheet for black and white, 8X10 runs $2.48 a sheet and 11X14 is probably twice that.

 

<p>

 

5X7 holders are $51.50 for 2, 11X14 are $637.95 for 2, from B and H.

 

<p>

 

I would be curios about the 11X14, make sure that it is for cut film and not glass plates. Having a really thick holder might indcate it is old enough to have used glass plates, and might take extensive modification to use the current film holders.

 

<p>

 

A couple advantages of 5X7 are a contact print makes a nice sized image and "most" of the lenses for 4X5 will cover the format, making the aquisition of glass less expensive than for 11X14.

I have an old 15" Turner and Reich convertible, and it has the same problem. I wrapped one layer of tape around the outside of the lens barrel. I can then slip my 67mm Cokin adapter ring over the lens barrel It is a tight fit, and has worked well in this configuration. I have found that creativity in images and in equiptment is important when you get into large format photography.

 

<p>

 

The lens barrel is the same o.d. on the front and back, so I can use the filter in front or in back.

Not really. Your best bet is to test. Find a subject you won't mind looking at for a long time and making a bunch of prints of. Next step make some exposures. Start early enough so that you don't run out of light. Try you first exposure at somewhere around the time you get a 15 second exposure. Now if your meter indicates a 15 second exposure, make one at 15 , 30 , 60 , and 120. You might even want to put a card in the image that tells you what exposure the negative is, or mark the holders to keep them straight. Now wait until you get a 30 second exposure, by your meter, and do 30, 60 , 120 and 240 seconds. Now you have gone from 15 seconds to 4 minutes. If time allows and the light holds, go from 1 minute to 2, 4 and 8 minutes.

 

<p>

 

Now that you have the exposed negatives, process them normally and proof them, I think you will start to see the effects of increased exposure under low light conditions. Your next step might be to see what N+, or N-, processing will give you under the same circumstances. Keep detailed notes of the light readings, exposures and any development compensations you make and you will learn just what exposures will work for YOU and your style of photography.

 

<p>

 

There maybe other systems that will work as well, this one is time consuming, and takes some film to do , but the results are tangible. You can see the effects of lengthy exposures. I know now, by having actually done this test, what exposure compensation I must make when I have a 1 minute exposure, or 2 or 4, indicated by my light meter, and whether I will need N or N+ developmnet to accomplish what I want to.

First off, I have a dedicated darkroom; one that I only use as a darkroom. If you don't have that luxury, then you need a place that can be "sealed off" from as much air borne debris as possible. Then all you need is a taut line and some clothes pins. If you can dedicate a spot to dry film, just run the line throught the center of the spring and attach it at either end to the wall. WARNIG! WARNING! WARNING! Donot hang the negatives to close together. As they dry they curl, and the negatives can touch , drying the emulsion of one negative to the back of the other, creating one negative out of two, and ruining both. I hang my negatives by the notch corner, and I have found no need to use a wetting ajent with any film larger than 35mm. In my case it tends to make the negatives dirtier, and I personally, have never had a water spot on a 4X5 or 8X10 negative, when I hang them in this manner. Once you hang the last negative to dry, get out of the room and don't come back until they are dry. The biggest cause of dust is movement, and the less movement the less dust.

I've had some luck, depending on the size of the object to be removed, with a medium to soft lead pencil. I learned this technique from a lady that was in a portrait studio with her husband. The pencil is a drafting pencil that you insert a large diameter piece of lead in. You then pull the lead out about an inch and a half. Using a very fine (1200 grit) sand paper, you twirl the lead between a folded over piece of sand paper, until you have a point about the size of a small needle. You can then retouch the negative, on the backing side, not the emulsion side. At least I have had the best luck on the back.

 

<p>

 

The nice thing about the lead, and working on the back of the negative, is the ability to easily remove what you have done. Unlike spot tone or an ink, you can erase the lead and start over. This works especially well on spots, and with a little practice, works on lint and hairs also.

 

<p>

 

She uses an Adams Retouching machine, basically a very small light box, in a big cabinet, that holds the negative, and that vibrates, to help blend the edges of the spotting. I had a friend give me the same machine to get it out of his way, and it came with the leads and pencils, The name on the pencils and lead is, Koh-I-Noor. I have seen them in an Office Max, but I don't know if they were the same brand, but they definately were the same style of pencil.

I was listening to NPR and they were discussing, I belive, writers, that were and weren't on T***s list, and the discussion was a lot like this one. I think T**e just found a way to get a lot of free publicity, when was the last t**e you actually bought one?