erik_asgeirsson

Thanks, Kerry for your detailed reply. Actually, I purchased your old

Symmar in an older Compur (the lens in question). I'll measure it

when I get home to see if it'll fit before placing an order for the

Shen-Hao. Brian, It would be nice to be able to fold the lens inside

the camera to save space when backpacking, as well as to protect the

lens in transport. Quick set-up is a secondary concern. When you're

carrying everything you need to live for extended periods of time on

your back, space comes at a real premium.

This is good to know. I'm going to place an order for one within the

next month, and I'll be sure to follow-up on if it'll fit. I just

wanted to have an idea if it'd have a chance at fitting ahead of time.

Does anyone know if the Shen-Hao will fold with an old-style Symmar 150 f/5.6 attached (Compur shutter), perhaps by reversing it so the larger front element faces in?

I heard a rumor that Fortepan 200 in sheet sizes is the same as the old Kodak Super XX, but on a different base. I emailed Forte about it a while back, but they still haven't emailed back, so I thought I'd ask this here. Can anyone here confirm this, based on prior knowledge or firsthand experience? If it is, I'd be particularly interested in if it's as versatile as far as the zone system as double x was.

Are the results from D-76H identical to packaged D-76, and can

development times be considered equal for 1:1 and 1:3 dilutions? I

plan to use this developer mostly with FP4+.

For me, it does not. Of my last few rolls of 35mm (black and white),

I've finished with about 2-3 pictures per roll worthy of an 8x10. Of

my last 8 sheets of 4x5, I've enlarged 5-6 to 8x10. So for me, and

the static subject matter I have shot lately, LF does seem to

contribute to better images.

Does anyone have the formula for blue toner, the non-gold toner variety, and any hints for its use? I think I'd like to try it on either Galerie or Seagull to give a change from selenium once in a while.

I use and like FrontPage, but I have not really tried anything else.

As to a place to host it, if you have or are planning to purchase

your own domain name, Your-Site.com offers reliable (in my limited

experience) and comprehensive service (ie several email accounts,

50mb space and Java/Perl/CGI support) for $60/yr.

I was just surfing Robert White's web site and it seems he has the

Wista VX listed for about the same price an AX would cost here (and

he is having problems getting Toyo...). Does anyone know how this

would compare to the Toyo (I suspect comparing it to the Tachihara is

similar to comparing the Tach to the Toyo)?

The Bender was fun to build, but I don't think it's really rigid

enough to be used in even light winds. Also, the back sags noticeably

when using my Grafmatic holder. One other idiosyncrasy is that the

long bellows on it (I think it's 22") gets in the way when using rise

and tilt together even with my 150mm lens. I guess I'm looking for a

camera to replace it for the most part, unless I know there will be

no wind at all and I will need great movements. Whatever I end up

with won't be purchased specifically for backpacking, but I would

like to take it along when I do get out (and the self-protecting

package of a flatbed seems to be quite convenient in a backpack full

of other gear). Anyway, thanks everyone for the responses so far.

I will be going on a 5 day or so long backpacking trip in June, and I would like to take some 4x5 equipment. I have been casually looking for something to replace (supplement?) my Bender anyway. I am currently leaning slightly toward the Toyo because of the greater rigidity and durability of a metal camera, but as I cannot handle both before purchasing, I have no way of knowing for sure. Does anyone have any opinions on the matter? Would they both compare about equally for non-backpacking use as well, or is one superior for general purpose work? I don't expect to use lenses shorter than 90 or greater than 300 (all I have now is a 150).

Maco IR is available in 4x5. From what I've read, it's a good

substitute for Kodak HIE.

I am looking at purchasing the Xenophon gel filter holder from Calumet, but I am at a loss as to which size to purchase. It will be used behind the lens, and I would eventually like to use it with a 90mm lens. Are the 3" gels (or possibly polyester filters) big enough, or should I consider purchasing the 4"? Also, are there any holders available so I could use the gels on my 35mm camera as well (in addition to the Xenophon)?

Does anyone have any experience with extreme zonal expansion and contraction with Fortepan 200 sheet film (greater than N+2 and N-2)?

As far as I have read, the modified meters' sensitivity is the same

to film (film responds differently in tungsten light, etc.) over its

entire range. A "normal" meter's sensitivity is constant over its

entire range. The modified meters apparently utilize a set of special

filters to achieve the special sensitivity.

I received one as a gift a while ago. In addition to the convenience,

it's great for film tests since it imprints a number on each sheet.

That way, you don't have to cut corners on the sheets before

development, you can just refer back to your notes when you are ready

to print.

Dillution B.

I have been toying with mixing my developers from scratch (for the fun of it, if nothing else). I currently use HC-110 for film and Dektol for paper. I was thinking possibly mixing D-72 for paper. Are there any home-brew developers that produce similar results to HC-110, other than D-76? I have read a little about FX-1 and D-23, but searches have pulled up little more about these.

Does anyone have starter times for FP4+ exposed at 100? Ilford's recommended nine minutes in HC-110 seems a little on the long side.

How does the Forte Fortepan 200 compare to Bergger? I have seen that

it is much cheaper.

Does anyone know if Oriental Seagull can be safely processed with the Ilford Archival Processing Sequence (I believe it's two 1 minute fix baths with film strength rapid fixer, or something like that)? I've been processing Galerie with the Ilford sequence, but Oriental's web site says nothing of the sort. If I remember correctly, they recommend long fix times and very long was times (without a hypo clearing agent).

Anyone know of an inexpensive gel filter holder (for Kodak and similar gel filters)?

Thanks everyone! Since I had three negs to work with, I just

developed the first with highly dillute HC-110 (1:30 from *stock*)

for 19 mins, 1 min agitation to begin with and 15 seconds every three

minutes thereafter (recalled reading about this in The Neg, and sure

enough, it was there). Athough I have not printed it yet (it's still

drying), the negative looks quite nice: detail in the brick (though

just barely) and the highlights don't look all that horrible. I'll

still probably try the water bath developer with a second neg to see

how that compares and to have an idea of what to expect next time.

Alright, here's my dilemma: I exposed a few sheets of a church interior, placing the brick wall in shadow on zone III (12 second exposure, 30 seconds adjusted for reciprocity effect), but the stained glass window fell on zone XIII 1/2. I used Ilford FP4+ for three identical shots, so I have a few negatives to experiment with. I also exposed a fourth negative at the metered time. Any suggestions for extreme contraction of this negative, like bringing the zone XIII 1/2 down so it is somewhat printable? My standard developer is Kodak HC-110, and that is what I have on hand, so I would prefer to use that if possible. These are for my personal use only, so it's not terribly important if I botch the negatives.

Just wondering if Kodak gelatin fliters can be used in the Lee standard holder, or if resin filters must be used.