marv_thompson

First off, don't clean it in your darkroom. Take it outside or to your garage, anywhere but in the darkroom. I have used house hold glass cleaners, the mild ones, Windex, Sparkle etc. on the condensors and glass plates in the negative carrier. For the lens I would use a regular lens cleaner and lens cleaning cloths Dry everything completly and use a cloth that doesn't have any lint in it. For the body and bellows of the enlarger I would use a lighty, very lightly, damp cloth and some compressed air. Use the compressed air at a distance from the bellows, inside and out, and don't blow the bellows apart with to much pressure. Blow the surfaces off first, and then use the lightly damp cloth. A soft bristle brush, one that doesn't lose a lot of bristles, will also help.

 

<p>

 

Once you detail the enlarger, the darkroom comes next. Don't clean your darkroom to often. I know this sounds stupid, but the less dust you raise in the darkroom, the cleaner your negatives and prints will be. A little dust on things, that is not disturbed, isn't going to leap on to your negatives. I give my darkroom a complete detail once a year or so and touch it up in between, just the easily visible and reachable areas.

http://www.bromwell.com

Regardless of what year is concerned, this sounds like another chance for someone to make money off of our work for free. Sounds like the new millennium is going to be a lot like the old millennium.

Evaluating a negative without a print, is like listening to a CD by reading the jacket cover. If the negative is so dark that you cant see any light thru it, it is probably over exposed and over developed. If there is virtually no image at all, then it is probably under exposed and under developed. Beyond that, only a print, contact or otherwise, will give you any useful information at all.

Strictly guessing, I would say to use the same f-stops as when the rear element is removed. I have tried shooting with the front element only on a 12" Turner and Reich Convertible Triplet, and used the 19" f-stops. It was a little soft, but the exposure was about right. Try experimenting a little, that's half the fun anyway!!

What do your negatives print like?

Removing the front element is the correct configuration for the use of a convertible lens. It will take more bellows draw if the front element is removed as opposed to removing the rear. If you are racking the bellows all of the way out and still not getting focus at infinity, your bellows may be to short for a 315mm lens. The lens to film plane distance is measured from the rear of the lens with the front element removed. That is why prople try to remove the rear element, to make the bellows draw less. This can lead to a reduced focal length and some focusing problems.

 

<p>

 

To illustrate, I have a 150 convertible Symmar. At 150 mm the lens board to film plane distance is 5 1/2 inches, or about 150mm. Converted, by removing the front element. the lens board to film plane distance is 13 inches or 325 mm, approx. The distance from the back of the rear element to the film plane, however, is 11 inches, or close to 265 mm. The lens board to film plane distance is 7 inches or 175mm with the rear element removed, as opposed to the front element. These bellows measurements are based on focusing on an object at 25 feet, not, infinity.

 

<p>

 

You can see that the removal of the elemements doesnot result in the same focal length being produced. To address the filter concern, it is normally preferable to place the filter behind the lens, and to focus at the shooting aperature with the filter in place. The use of a filter, generally a yellow or orange is recommened to correct for the fact that by removing a lens element the colors of light will not focus on the same plane.

 

<p>

 

I hope this helps address some of your concerns, I am not an expert by any means, but have used convertibles with some success. These observations have resulted from my reading and practical use of the lenses. Good luck.

It's not that it won't work, just that it won't work as well. The cold light will produce a strong grade 3, with the average VC paper, whereas a tungston light will produce a normal grade two, with out a filter. This has been my experience at any rate. The filters will change the contrast, but a grade 0 filter may only allow you a grade 2 hardness with a cold light. It is also much slower to print with a cold light and filters, and the image on the easel is much darker. Obviously, hard contrast is much easier to get, and the softer contrast can be addressed by the use of Selectol Soft developer, in conjunction with your normal developer.

 

<p>

 

It is more difficult, but not impossible to use a cold light and filters, but if you are realtively new to darkroom work and enlarging it might be less confusing if you started with graded papers and got a feel for the processes first. Just a suggestion, but I have done ot both ways, and graded papers and a cold light was a pretty easy combination to use to master the basic enlarging techniques.

Remember that the initial investment in a camera, lens, film holders, tripod, focusing cloth and hand held meter are only the tip of the iceberg, and your wallet is the Titanic on a collision course with it. Used is undoubtedly the way to go for economic reason, and the net and Shutterbug are two good sources for pricing on used, and new for that matter.

 

<p>

 

But, for the big picture, what is your present film and processing budget? Your $4.00 roll, of 24 exposures, of say, Tri-X, just turned into $3.90 for 6 exposures. Everytime you click the shutter, deposit 65 cents and plan on an hour or so processing film and making proofs.

 

<p>

 

Want chromes? Try $2.00 a sheet and another $2.00 for processing.

If you aren't in a large metro area, processing color print film and getting prints isn't a simple proposition either.

 

<p>

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not out to sabotage your plans, but if you are concerned with economics, large format takes deep pockets. I buy 100 sheet boxes of Tri-X, $65.00 for 4X5 and 50 sheets of 8X10 are $125.00.

 

<p>

 

Beyond money, you are also dealing with equipment that is neither small or light weight, 6 or 8 film holders will probably weigh as much as your whole camera bag does now. Just something to consider.

 

<p>

 

I have shot 4X5 for 19 years and loved every minute of it, but it has taken me all of those 19 years to acquire the camera and lenses that I have, just because it is not an inexpensive format. If you can take the initial sticker shock and live with taking less pictures and making them count more, and lugging around a ton of stuff, I think you will be very happy with the results that you attain, but large format is not for the faint of heart, or the undedicated.

A friend of mine has the analog and I have the digital meter. They were both modified by Zone VI a few years back and still are within 1/3 of a stop of each other in all lighting conditions. The main appeal of the digital over the analog, for me, is the way it works in low light situations. The digital diplay is much easier to read in low light, with out having to push an extra button to turn on a light in the display, as some meters have. It is also less prone to reading errors, you know that a 14 is a 14, and don't have to track a needle along the number scale. Otherwise, they both have performed admirably over the years, and either is a good choice for the long haul.

Up until recently, I believe that only Sinar offered the yaw free movements on a view camera. It certainly isn't a requirement for a camera, but a luxury that adds to the price and value of the camera. It would no doubt be a convienence, but all view cameras have pretty much the same capabilites, just to varying degress. Any top brand of camera will offer the maximum usable movements, they all print spec sheets for comparison. If you try one with the yaw free design, and feel it would enhance the use of the camera, by all means I would consider it, but it is by no means a mandatory feature for a view camera.

If all things are the same, price, condition, shutter and age, I would chose the 90mm. I have a 90mm, Super Angulon, and use it quite a bit. I am comfortable with the perspective it allows and am confident with in the knowledge that I will get the image I am after.

 

<p>

 

I don't have a 105 to compare to, but there is only 15mm of difference between the two, and I have found that I rarely need a longer lens, but a lot of times could use one just a few mm's shorter. Good luck in your choice.

I have a 210 APO Symmar, a 180 Sironar N and a 240 APO Ronar. I can't honestly tell any difference in contrast or sharpness between the three, in enlargments up to 11x14. I don't normally go any larger than that. If you take a picture of tree branches at infinity and they look as sharp as barbed wire thru a loop, you can't get much sharper than that. All three of these lenses pass that un-scientic, but I feel, valid, test. If you are looking to save a little and have matching filter sizes, I think the Rodenstock would be a good choice, it is definately worth considering.

The ftops here has a chart on Fuji lenses at thier site, http://www.thefstop.com. They list the 210W at a 300mm image circle.

Robs right, DOF is going to be a problem. Remember, a 35mm lens in 35mm format is the equivalent (approximately) of a 135 mm in 4X5 format. The 135 mm gives you the same DOF in EITHER format, large format users have camera controls available to increase the DOF that the 35mm format doesnt offer. I think you will find that in the old days they always used either a tripod or strong flash guns to achieve the look you find in photos from these eras. I'm not 100 % sure, but I don't think you will find anything much bigger that a 135 or maybe a 150 that will fit in the camera when it is closed.

Condensation from your breath on the ground glass will make it hard to focus, too. I have a wooden field camera, and have never had controls freeze up. You would have to get moisture on them to have any effect, the wood in cold and hot is extremely stable and heat and cold should have no effect. The metal in the focusing rails could get condensation from breath or snow, but that is the only possibility that I can imagine would cause a problem.

The rip can be fixed, as Dan stated. As to the ground glass, I would guess $100 and up. I priced a good glass for this same camera to replace the dark, wavy one that is in it and it was $180 installed. I only gave $250 for the camera, lens board and 165 Angulon in Compur dial shutter. I had to do the same thing to the bellows, fix some holes with friction tape. It has limited bellows draw, and the back tilt is also limited, two things I need more of. I hope this is of some help.

As to the summer and winter days being different, yes they are. This rule will also change if there is snow on the ground or not. In the midwest I pick up an f-stop in the summer as compared to winter, but if there is snow on the ground, I can pick up almost an f-stop over my summer settting. These readings and exposures are good in my area, but might be quite different in yours.

If you got absolutely nothing, not even edge marks, the most likely answer is that you had no development occour. This could be caused by a number of factors, no developer, as in not adding the developer to the water if it is diluted from stock before using , using stop bath for developer, or fixer for developer. If the developer had any life at all to it there would have been some edge markings, even if they were very faint. I had this happen once to me, and it was indeed because I mixed up the fixer with the developer. My containers are now well marked, and used only for the solution for which they are designated. To verify that no development took place, take a piece of leader that you cut off and with out development, fix it until clear. You will see that within 4 or 5 minutes, at most, the film will be completely clear.

I look along the edges of any body of water for ice formation. Typically out of direct sun or under overcast sky (of which there is no shortage in Iowa this time of year!), the ice as it forms makes some spectacular abstracts. After it forms a thin layer, any air bubbles that become trapped under the surface add to the effects. These bubbles will form layers as the ice freezes deeper each day. Here I go along the Mississippi and its back waters, but any relatively still body of water will produce results. If you can find an area where trappers are working there is a real potential for some interesting ice.

This discussion has brought up a lot of valid points and ideas to ponder. I am somewhat cynical about the general populations belief in photography as a unbiased and "true" reflection of fact. I think that the aforementioned reference to Star Wars is the reason for my cynisism. People have seen what the ability of the craftsman is in altering reality, I sometimes think that those of us that have immersed ourselves in photography should take a step back and look at what we do alter in our works. A leaf moved, a twig bent, blades of grass pushed away, all contribute to our subtle alterations. After a while you find some practioners willing to remove whole groves of saplings to re-create thier heros works. I personally have no problem with non-invasive alterations or print manipulations in the dark room. I don't have access to the big gun computer programs, yet, but will tackle that moral dilemma when it comes.

 

<p>

 

That being said, I do think that people in the general populace will be much more resistant when alterations veer radically from reality, as Don Baccus has related in the Seattle story. I would venture that nearly all of the prospective travelers to Seattle will want to see this scene. Most tourists, my self included, are drawn by what they have seen and heard of an area. The blatant misrepresentation of the Seattle skyline could easily come back to haunt the persons in charge of the literature in question. I think that this type of manipulation of the scenery is gong to be more offensive to the general populace and photographers because it is so blatant. Maybe in the end this is the outcome that we all have been fearing, we have seen the enemy and he is us?

I believe the answer is in changing fixers. I used Ilford Universal fixer with t-max and had much more purple stain than with the Kodak fixer. I believe I read recently in another forum that the negatives could be re-fixed and washed to remove most of the stain. A longer fix time and clearing agent were recommended to alleviate the problem. At one time Kodak's opinion was that the stain was not a problem and did nothing to degredate the print quality. I quit using t-max after my initial tests and have not kept up with the debate on the stain or its effects .

The product that you are looking for is HC-110. It comes in a 16 oz bottle that is mixed with water to make 1/2 gallon of stock. It is then diluted from stock to make the working solution. It is readily availble at any well stocked photo store. I use it at a dilution of 1part stock to 7 parts of water (1:7). The stock solution has an excellent shelf life, if kept tightly sealed. I seperate the stock into 2 quart containers for best results. For sheet film, roll film and 35mm Tri-X, I process at 5:30 minutes at 68 degrees, with constant (roller and drum) agitation. You should establish your own times based on your printing style. I am afraid that my ability to give you much technical information on HC-110 as it compares to other film developers is limited. I have used HC-110 for the last 18 years and have had no reason to try any other developers, it has always produced the contrast and tonal range in negatives that I desire. It does have an economic side to it, if used at 1:7 dilution it produces 4 gallons of working solution. The current price at the store that I buy it at is $10.59 for the 16 oz concentrate. A note of caution, be very, very certain that you buy the HC-110 developer concentrate, and not the HC-110 replenisher for comercial applications. They are not the same!!! I always recommend that a film developer be used as a one shot developer. Use it once and dump it. This will ensure consistancy in your development process.

The bottom line is not what anyone thinks of your process, but is it working for you. If you are developing negatives that fit your printing style with the contrast range that produces the look in your prints that you desire, then I see no reason to change. On the other hand if your negatives are to flat or to contrasty, then you might want to look at changing a dilution rate or adjusting your time, to alter the contast of the negatives. There is an old axiom that goes "if it aint broke, don't fix it", I tend to live by these words, and it makes things less complicated.

I am curious about the problem we have with labeling as "nature images" any thing that has been altered or created digitally. I am sure that we all have enjoyed paintings of "nature images" that could be mistaken for photographs. Why is it unnecessary to label these images in any special way? The very fact that we are making a " representaion" of a scene, via whatever means, takes the actual nature out of the image. It is a piece of paper, not the real scene that we are viewing. I do appreciate any technical information that is availble about an image, but it seems as though photographers are the only ones who feel it almost mandatory to provide this information. If you are creating the image, by whatever means, then it is your creation and should be judged on its merit as an image, either successful or not. If you are taking someone elses image and by your hand transforming it, then I would have a problem with not labeling it as being altered from its origional state. I really don't want to see Clearing Winter Storm as a digitally altered or colorized scene.