andy-

Of course with a three stop range between the subject and the

background, depending on the film you are using the contrast might

just be too much regardless of exposure. Are you using transparency,

color neg., or B&W film? With slide films the three stop range is too

much and although I don't shoot color neg. film I suspect the result

would be pretty much the same.

You will get a lot more consistent results if you angle the card

somewhat to just 'catch' the ambient light rather than just pointing

it directly at the camera. Kodak's grey card comes with instructions

that kind of illustrate this. After some experimentation I find I get

surprisingly consistent results with this. That said, I use the grey

card strictly as a reference point and rarely, if ever base my

exposure on a grey card reading. It can be tricky but useful on some

occasions if you do some experimentation with it beforehand.

With regard to the BTZS type dark cloths, how do you get your

arms in there to focus with a loupe?

My current B/W combo is Tri-X in HC-110 and I love the results - however, recent reports seem to indicate that the new TMX Readyloads work very well in the Fuji Quickload holders and the lure of being able to use TMX in my Quickload holder is tempting. Rodinal is said to give good edge effects to TMX, one of the features I like with Tri-X in HC-110, which was missing in my results with TMX in developers such as D-76. I've got a little bottle of Rodinal around and will probably try the TMX/Rodinal anyway, but I'd appreciate any feedback on this combination, regardless of film format. Thanks!

Just got my �new' 4x5 enlarger, an old Beseler MCRX. I've got a few questions with it, it seems to be very similar to the MXII/MXT hopefully someone can offer some advice. First question is regarding the use of the Kodak Polymax filters (mine are 6" square). They don't quite reach to the far edge of the filter drawer by about ½ inch and being square they can only be fit by resting on the top at the back edge. They also sag a bit. I can trim to shape but will the gap and slight sag be problematic? Since they are only passing raw light at this stage I would think not, but can't hurt to ask.

 

<p>

 

Second, I guess the outlet labeled �switch' is for a timer to turn on/off the lamp? I was not planning on using timer, at least for the time being but as is the lamp won't turn on. Is this to just short the contacts together? I was thinking to use a simple on/off switch for now.

 

<p>

 

Third, and finally, there is a little drawer right above the lens board. It slides in and out in front of the lens board. With the lens board and lens installed it can't be pushed in. Right now there is a little red filter in there. Is my lens board (flat) the wrong type or could I use filters here with a different lens board?

 

<p>

 

Thanks a lot in advance for any answers!

I've found a number of questions on various photo forums lately regarding a pink or cyan stain on negs remaining after developing/processing. Most answers relate the problem due to inadequate fixing or exhausted fixer.

 

<p>

 

Most published advice regarding adequate fixing times in some way or another say to fix 'twice as long as it takes for the film to clear'. My question is, what exactly am I looking for? The most concise explanation I could find is Kodak's recommendation to fix twice as long as it takes until the film loses it's 'milky' appearance. I also remember reading somewhere that the proper way to determine fixing time is to put a sheet of undeveloped, unexposed film in the fixer and note the time it takes for the film to lose it's 'milky' appearance and fix for twice that time. I guess 'milky' is, at least for me, a somewhat vague description. After about 35 seconds in Ilford's rapid fixer (1:4) with the test mentioned above my film (Tri-X ) does become 'clear' though with a definite pinkish cast. Does this mean that 70 seconds is the proper fixing time with this film/fixer combination? My usual practice has been to fix in Ilford's rapid fixer for 5 minutes then rinse in running water 2 minutes before moving to a HCA wash.

 

<p>

 

Regarding the pinkish cast, my understanding is that this is related to the anti-halation dye and not necessarily an indication of proper fixing times. I always find a pink color remaining within my pre-soak water and it usually is not eliminated from the film entirely during fixing. It is almost always completely gone after the two minute water rinse.

 

<p>

 

Could somebody please elaborate on proper fixing times for me?

 

<p>

 

While I've got my two minutes with the microphone, I'd like to give a hearty thanks to all of those who regularly contribute their expertise to the large format forum. Without question, this is the best photo resource on the internet. Not only is the advice always on the mark, it always seems to be offered in a genuine spirit to help fellow photographers - a far cry from the often petty personal attacks found on other forums, even photo.net.

 

<p>

 

Thanks again!

I'm currently looking for a used 4 x 5 enlarger, probably a Beseler or Omega since these seem to be the most plentiful. I haven't heard much information about the Beseler MCRX which isnot listed on Beseler's web site, I'd appreciate if somebody could give me some feedback on this model in regards to features and availability of spare parts. I found one ( head and chassis )listed used but lacking any information on it I couldn't guess whether it is a good value or not. It is quite a bit cheaper than the V-XL or MXT and reported in good condition. I will have to complete the rig myself so availability of parts/accessories is a consideration, as I guess it is with any used equipment.

 

<p>

 

In regards to the Omega, has anybody every used or heard of classic-enlargers.com? They have D-II's listed at affordable pricing, though again, I am unsure about availability of parts/accessories and have never heard of them before. Any comments would be welcome and much appreciated.

I recently decided to seriously pursue B&W, shooting Tri-X and developing in HC-110. I picked up two filters for my B&W work, a #8 yellow and #25 red. The filters are Calumet's brand, which the salesman said are actually coated Hoya filters. I intended to order B+W but they were out of stock and being a few days away from an out of state trip I decided to go with the Hoya/Calumet filters.

 

<p>

 

This weekend we had a beautiful blue sky day so I decided to do some tests to see the effect of each filter. I made three exposures of the same composition, one unfiltered, one with the #8 and one with the #25. I increased exposure for each filter according to The Negative: +1 stop for the #8 and +3 for the #25. After developing the negs and letting them dry I put them on my light box to evaluate. To my eye I can see almost no difference whatsoever between the unfiltered neg and the one shot with the #8. With the #25, I estimate the sky area of the neg dropped in value, at best, about 1/3 stop. Definitely not the dramatic effect I expected from the #25.

 

<p>

 

The next day I decided to repeat the test thinking I may have forgot something simple. Same result - a very slight reduction in the sky area with the #25 and no real detectable difference in the others. I'm totally perplexed as to why I'm getting such negligable results with these filters. My color slides come out fine so I doubt the problem is camera or lens related. Because the negs otherwise look pretty good I am at a loss as to the cause. I find it hard to believe that the filters are the cause but lacking any other explanations I don't know what else to think. There must be some variable I'm missing. Any body got any ideas? Thanks as always!

As a photographer I personally would like to see a follow up article

in View Camera in which Fatali explains his actions and justifies his

�natural light' technique to all photographers. As one other post in

the now deleted thread pointed out, it seems, inadvertently, that

Fatali has been rewarded for his actions. I feel strongly that the

reason for the animosity towards Fatali is that he seems to be

thumbing his nose at those who question his seemingly self righteous

attitude when in my opinion he is no better than the tourist who

throws his MGD bottle on the side of the road from his RV as he leaves

Arches - now that HE is finished �using' the area, who cares about the

others that may follow?

I'm thinking of a spring photo / camping / backpacking trip this

spring to Big Bend N.P. How are the landscape photo opportunities in

Big Bend compared to the other SW U.S. areas? When is the best time in

the spring to catch blooming wildflowers, etc.? If anybody has any

background there, I'd also appreciate any information on campground

availability, hiking opportunities, and general traffic level at this

time. Thanks for any input!

 

Andy

I guess my original post was a little vague. Basically my question is,

would my results be considered typical? To my eyes the light source

is very dim, I would have expected a much longer exposure. Thanks for

your answers, it seems my results are not as strange as I expected.

Ok, here's another contact printing question. I recently got started in shooting and processing b/w as a sideline to my color photography. Since I don't have an enlarger yet I thought I'd start contact printing my 4x5 negs under a glass sheet using a 25 watt frosted incandescent bulb on a home made stand with simple metal reflector. Granted, a pretty �homespun' setup. Anyway, I printed on Ilfospeed RC Grade 2 paper, developing in Dektol in trays at 1:3 dilution for 2 minutes. After some experimentation I found I could only get a reasonable print by removing the reflector, setting the bulb three and a half feet above the neg, and using a TWO second exposure! The negs look good and I am absolutely certain that I mixed the stock and working solutions correctly and I developed at 68 degrees. Maybe my choice of papers, light source, or developer is not ideal for contact printing, but I thought this combination would give reasonably �normal' results, at least for experimentation. Am I missing something here?

 

<p>

 

Many thanks in advance for any responses!

Thanks for your answers. Bruce, to answer your question the moisture

was definitely ambient moisture. The previous evening I was camped at

the Canyonlands Willow Flats campgrounds where we were alternately

rained and snowed on. I don't remember having any trouble at all in

the Castle Valley/Fisher Valley area east of town or lower elevations.

At the higher elevations though, there was some sporadic snow, sleet,

and rain showers. Needless to say I was surprised too!

I just read the posts regarding the cold weather problems, I've got a few similar questions. During a recent outing to the Moab area I camped out to get an early start for a morning photo session with my equipment stored in my car. I was set up before sunrise with no problem, but as the sun rose over the horizon almost all my gear became covered with a surprisingly thick layer of frost. Only my Quick Load film packs and my lenses seemed to escape the frost. I dried off my film holder with a bandanna and exposed a few sheets of film before waiting about forty minutes or so for the sun to rise a little higher for more exposures. In this time my equipment seemed to dry ok with a little wiping down. My questions,

 

<p>

 

1. What is the likelihood of the moisture getting to the film emulsion, and can I expect spotting if it did?

 

<p>

 

2. How can I prevent this in the future? I seem to remember reading somewhere that a good defense is to store the equipment in plastic bags with the air squished out and to place silica gel packets inside to absorb the moisture, though it would seem that regardless of how the equipment is stored beforehand, once it is exposed to the moisture and cold temps it would frost up regardless.

 

<p>

 

3. Now that my lenses have been exposed to the frost (though they seemed unaffected) what is the possibility of future damage due to the moisture? If so, is there any corrective measure I can take after the fact?

 

<p>

 

Thanks as always for any replies.

I'm new to 4 x 5 and before I started to put my system together I decided to check that I would be able to get 4 x 5 E-6 processing in my area at a reasonable price and with reasonable convenience. Otherwise I would use a roll-film back since 120 film E-6 processing would not be a problem. I found two labs that fit the bill. After putting my system together I shot some slides (Quick Loads) and brought them to lab #1, where I was told in advance that processing would be $2 a sheet with two day turn around. When I finally picked up the slides ten days later I was told the original quote was in error and that the cost would be $3.75 a sheet. Although the job was well done (forgetting the eight day discrepancy) at $3.75 a sheet I can't afford to shoot except only once in a blue moon.

 

<p>

 

I shot more film and went to lab #2 who promised $1.75 a sheet and one to two hour turn around. After picking up the first batch of slides I found first that the clear plastic slide covers were scratched and in some places, creased. The slides were also scratched. As a beginner I decided to give the lab the benefit of the doubt. I unloaded some new Quick Load envelopes straight from the box, went to my back yard to make some test exposures, then delivered them to the lab a couple of days later. Same problem.

 

<p>

 

I've been gearing up for my first out of state trip with my 4 x 5 and not having a lab I can trust with my exposed film makes me uneasy. I was hoping somebody could offer some me some input:

 

<p>

 

1. Can anybody account for the scratches on the slides? I have a hard time believing that the scratches were due to poor handling of the Quick Load envelopes on my part since I have always handled them very carefully, never pinching or bending the envelopes and keeping them in a box at the top of my pack.

2. Would there be any problem with shooting 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 with my 4 x 5 lenses? I really prefer 4 x 5, plus I've selected my lens focal lengths based on 4 x 5 use. Having already spent a princely sum on my equipment a roll film back for this trip is out of the question, but perhaps a future consideration since ultimately the camera movements are my top priority.

3. Anybody know of a good lab in the western suburban Chicago area that can handle 4 x 5 slides?

 

<p>

 

Thanks in advance for any responses and my apologies for the lengthy post!

For several months I have been planning a combination

backpacking/photo trip through the Needles section of Canyonlands

National Park in late October. Unfortunately I've just had a major

knee injury and this has become impossible (cue the violinists), so

I'm thinking of modifying my plans and visiting Arches National Park.

Since Arches seems to have primarily short hikes it sounds like a good

idea. I figure I can still hike maybe 7-8 miles per day with my

photography equipment, and probably 5 miles tops with my photo and

backpacking gear.

 

I'd like to hit the scenic locations at ideal hours, sunrise and/or

sunset. Problem is, at a slow pace this means trudging through

uncertain terrian in the dark. Ideally I could hike out in the light

and camp overnight to get my sunset/sunrise photos, but the official

Arches web site is very vague on what it considers 'backcountry' areas

and where backpacking is allowed. As far as I can determine there are

no 'backcountry' campsites in Arches anyway. At the time I will be

visiting the Devil's Garden campground will be closed, so my only

option seems to be to stay in Moab and make a very early morning

drive/hike in the dark to reach the sites - or hike back to my car in

darkness at night. Additionally, I've been told that many of the

hiking trails at Arches follow rock cairns which would seem to be

quite difficult to follow in the dark, even with a headlamp

flashlight.

 

I'd really appreciate if anybody had any suggestions or input on this.

Does anybody know of the backpacking restrictions in Arches? Even if I

could make minor detours off-trail to camp, it seems like this would

be an ideal solution to my problem. Or if somebody could suggest a

good alternative at Canyonlands that would be great too. I have 4x4 so

that is a possibility but from reading previous posts the 4x4 areas

are not that great for photography.

 

Thanks a lot for any suggestions!

Since there have been a few posts lately regarding long exposures, I'm wondering what exactly is the artistic advantage of using long exposures lasting over fifteen minutes or more, especially with color transparencies?

 

<p>

 

On a practical issue, what kind of adjustments should be used with a film like Velvia for exposures in terms of filtration and exposure with an exposure of fifteen minutes or so? I've used exposures of up to three minutes with Velvia using no filtration and only very modest amounts of exposure increase with my 35mm equipment. So far, I have used my camera's suggested meter readings and extrapolated the exposure times by metering with a wide open aperature, and it has worked well despite Fuji's recommendations of more drastically increased exposure times. However, I have only used such long exposures due to available conditions, not for any artistic reasons. Similarly, I would like to hear from photographers actually use such long exposure times, regardless of what Fuji's tech specs say. My speculation is that with such long exposures using color transparencies it is the color shift that is desired, despite what some might say regarding 'corrective' filtration, though this is speculation on my part. Or perhaps it is the shifting light position, which would only be an issue during the edge of sundown/twilight or sunrise.

 

<p>

 

What does such long exposures do for landscapes with foliage lightly moving in a slight breeze? Is a completely windless situation required, or does the movement 'average out' and record a sharp image of the 'natural' position of foliage one would see without a slight breeze?

 

<p>

 

I've never really experimented with long exposures on my 35mm equipment because of battery drain, but I'm interested if there is any advantage to doing so with my 4 x 5 equipment.