charlie_strack

First Option: Have here be there when you pick it out. Cameras are a

bit like clothing. What suits one doesn't suit another.

<p>

Second Option: If you absolutely have to buy it without here direct

involvement: buy it from a store that will let her return it,

preferably for cash back, if she is not satisfied. My local pro-store

will do this, even if it is used.

Sue them in small claims court. They took your work without paying

for it. Even if the person who knew the work was yours was no longer

there, if you can prove you did the work, and they can't prove you

were paid for it, I suspect you have a strong case.

I had a Toyo AR & got the CX later, since sometimes the mono-rail

design is easier to use. I think it's a good value for the money,

though obviously it has some lower cost parts. I believe the plastic

mounting blocks can be replaced with metal ones, though these aren't

cheap. A bag bellows is available, too.

<p>

A nice thing when using with the AR, is the backs & lensboards are

interchangeable. Together, you get the best of both worlds at fairly

reasonable prices (for today's prices).

Dave,

<p>

The plates for the 3057 have enough extra room you can bore some

extra holes & add some bolts, pins, or whatever, for anti-twist. I

was going to do this for my Calumet/Cambo 8x10, but I found the added

surface area and just using the 3/8 tripod screw is enough for me.

<p>

Good luck in you quest.

<p>

Charlie

Paper is a very personal thing, but for me Oriental Seagull wins

hands down. Not that other papers aren't fine.

For a cheap fix, try the 3297 plate with your current head, and

replace the handles with shorter ones. If plate stability is your

biggest problem, this will probably cure it. If the long handles are

the bigger problem, see the Bogen 3057 & Ries heads, below.

<p>

This plate (3297)provides more surface area where the camera sits,

and is better with most view cameras.

<p>

You could try the 3057 Bogen head. Its design is more compact than

the 3039, and might solve your problem. The 3297 fits this, too, as

well as the 3039 and 3047 heads.

<p>

The Ries J250 Head (http://www.riestripod.com/head.htm)is the

extremely compact, and if the handles are seriously in your way on

the Bogen, this is a solution. It's expensive, nearly $300, and light

weight (2.5 pounds). My only complaint is the camera tends to loosen

too easily, but going with a 3/8 mounting screw would probably fix

that. (By the way, if your using a 1/4 screw with the 3039 plates,

simply going to 3/8 adds a lot of stability.)

<p>

http://www.riestripod.com/head.htm

<p>

I haven't used the other heads you mention, but I know the Bogen 3262

is heavy (5.75 pounds) and is big, moreso than the catalog pictures

make it seem. Also, the gear mechanism is exposed & you'll get grease

on yourself, perhaps on your camera & lenses, too, if you're not very

careful.

<p>

For the record, I have a 3047, 3057, and the Ries head. I like the

3057 best. The 3057 handles a 20 pound 8x10 easily.

<p>

Good luck with your decision.

If you say where you are, somebody might know of a lab in your area.

<p>

That said, a lab that specializes in custom processing for commercial

accounts, rather than consumer work, is more likely to handle it.

Since it is B&W, most consumer processors wouldn't do a good job,

anyhow. Call the labs in your area and ask. Yellow pages are a good

start, and look for labs that specialize in B&W.

This is all theory from reading, not actual use nor tests.

<p>

The books say that film is most sensitive to light if it is developed

right after exposure. Higher speed films seem more subject to this

effect.

<p>

If you're looking to do fine art or other critical work, it might

matter. For shapshot work, you probably would not notice the

difference with normal speed films.

<p>

Negatives made on standard films probably have a longer life than C-

41 types, because the resulting images on C-41 are dyes rather than

metal based.

<p>

People who frequently shoot B&W use standard films, I suspect. C-41

reportedly show grain to a lesser effect, as the dyes mask it. Prints

from a commercial lab using C-41 B&W materials are likely to come

back with a color cast, unless custom prints are made.

<p>

That said, TMax films require critical processing and fine tuning of

your approach. They aren't the best for casual use. Traditional films

like Tri-X, Plus-X, HP5+, FP4+, Agfapan, etc., are more tolerant of

minor processing variations.

I do LF (4x5) portraiture on occasion. I've been exceedingly happy

with the results, both technicaly and artistically. LF and people

just seem to be a match made in heaven, at least to me.

<p>

Because of nature of the view camera, I set up to include more scene

than I need, and plan on cropping while printing. I prefocus & lock

down based on a fixed location for the person. Stop down reasonably

so depth of field handles any minor subject movement. When shooting,

I just concentrate on seeing with my eyes and don't try to do any

touch up on the ground glass, since that takes too much time.

<p>

For indoor shots, a little extended development helps (N+1), while

outdoors in soft light, Normal development seems the best.

<p>

You say your pictures aren't very good--in what ways are you unhappy

with the results?

I can't comment on the Ebony, as I haven't used one, but I've had a

Toyo 45AR for 15+ years, and it's a fine field camera. Quite rugged.

I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the Toyo field cameras.

<p>

You might consider compact lens designs for field work. I've got a

90mm Angulon (not "Super") that's been a workhorse for me, and very

compact. I bought a 210 Osaka (4-element) as it's really compact,

too. I've got a 210 Fujinon W, a fine performer, but I don't see the

difference between it and the Osaka.

<p>

Finally, if you can get lenses that take the same filter size, you

can save a bunch on expensive filters, have no "mix up" by grabbing

the wrong size filter, and cut down the number of filters you carry

around. The Angulon & Osaka do that for me--both 40.5 mm

(incidentally, the same size as my Pentax Digital meter).

Tech Pan would, in my opinion, only be useful in 4x5 for:

<p>

1. Special spectral sensitivity (extended red);

<p>

2. High contrast, as it was designed, which isn't you're intended

use, as you say

<p>

3. Extremely slow speed (for extended exposure)for some special

purpose.

<p>

With 4x5, you rarely have a concern over excessive grain. I use older

technology emulsions (Tri-X, Agfapan, etc.) frequently in high energy

developers (read: emphasized grain) and have never felt a need for

finer grain. With TMax 100, I just can't imagine needing to get finer.

<p>

That plus the extra processing hassles & special developers: why give

youreself the headaches & pay the extra money?

Pete:

<p>

I suspect silver-based photography will be around for quite a while.

<p>

For example, I was at my local photo store recently and remarked on

the large variety and quantity of films they stocked. The counter man

thought there were just too many millions of cameras already out

there, in use, for film to go away anytime soon. Many believe if you

buy quality equipment it should last a lifetime, so the need to buy a

new technology isn't as pressing as the digital camera manufacturer's

would have us believe.

<p>

The art director at the company where I work, of course, uses digital

imaging software and manipulation techniques. Still, most our product

shots originate on silver-based film and are then scanned. The

photographer uses electronic flash, with multiple "pops". This

technique doesn't seem usable for digital imaging, and I don't know

if the digital cameras/backs have the sensitivity needed for one-pop

flash work.

<p>

She (the art director) believes silver-based photography will be

around quite a while, too. Her point is that you can capture a high

resolution image faster on film than digitally.

<p>

Finally, I suspect that all printed digital images have a much more

finite life than silver based images, at least for black and white.

Simply because the digital prints are based on dyes, where as black &

white is based on metal.

<p>

I suspect film and digital photography can and will co-exist, and

each helping to build the market for the other.

<p>

Time, of course, will tell.

If Aristo and you are willing, why not buy the chassis & ship to

Aristo. Aristo could then fab a head for you, and make it available

to others? It does seem like a natural combination.

I travelled on September 29th and took a 120 folder camera. I just

kept the film in my pockets, since the packaging is cardboard &

plastic now, and it didn't set off the metal detectors. No problems.

It might be now, though, since I've heard of people being asked to

take off their belts, and shoes, and ...

<p>

35mm cannisters, of course, wouldn't work.

I don't know, but suspect it may be difficult. I think the Zone VI

negative carrier stage is built into the head, rather than separate

as on smaller enlargers. Calumet ought to at least be able to tell

you how the negative carrier mates to the light source.

I saw a used Beseler 57 at a store. It looked like an upsized version

of the venerable 45M. I'd never seen one before, so I suspect they

are rare. But, for moderate enlargements, without getting something

built like and the size of a tank, it looked like it might be a

serviceable choice.

<p>

Or, get an old 5x7 view camera & roll your own. Aristo likely makes a

stock light source that would cover this format for reasonable money.

If you want to stick with TMax films, I liked TMax RS developer when

I shot TMax 400.

<p>

But for other options, a quick & easy way without testing is to shoot

Tri-X or HP5+ at 1/2 rated speed, and develop in divided D-76 or

something similar. The divided developer compensates, making sure you

don't top out at the high end of the curve, and 1/2 speed gets you

shadow detail.

<p>

While not as clinical as shooting for Dmin & running developing

tests, you can actually test film by using real subjects.

Photographer's Formulary sells 2 kits: one you mix from dry powders,

and the other comes as stock solutions, but costs a bit more.

<p>

http://www.photoformulary.com/

I've got a Bogen 3047 (similar to 3039, but uses castings rather than

machined parts) and a 3057. I don't think the mounting plate on the

3047 & 3039 (same plate) is up to the task of an 8x10.

<p>

The 3057's larger plate area helps stabilize bigger cameras,

including my 4x5's, and is fully capable of handling my Calumet/Cambo

8x10. In addition, I like the knob control (rather than handle with

shaft) for side tilt. Since I don't use it much with my view cameras,

it's more "out of the way".

<p>

With the Bogen load ratings I feel they are honest. That is, I

wouldn't hesitate to put a camera weighing 22 lbs on a head rated for

22 lbs. I guess this means they are being conservative, and there is

some excess capacity. My Calumet weighs 18 lbs without accessories,

and the 3057 holds it with no problems.

<p>

Though I've never owned any, Gitzo products seem overpriced, but also

appear to have fine workmanship. The Bogen workmanship may be a hair

less, but this is quibbling. Bogen/Manfrotto products are very fine.

<p>

Best of luck in your decision.

It is 4 element design, I believe a Tessar. I've got one and it's a

fine lines. Not the most modern design in LF lenses, but that isn't

really a requirement for this type lens.

<p>

I had a Fujinon 210/5.6 already when I bought the Komura, but got it

since it's much smaller for field work, and takes the same filter

size as 2 other LF lenses I have. There's where you can get a big

savings in weight & cost, if you carefully plan your lenses. Not easy

to do, though.

<p>

The Komura is also the Osaka, Bogen, and Prinz lens (also D. O.

Industries, if I'm not mistaken), under different private labels.

<p>

What's the asking price? I think I paid around $200 for mine. New

they are around $500 from Bromwell Marketing, but I think that's too

much for a lens of this design.

Kodak stopped usling the name "Kodalk" quite a few years ago, and now

refers to it as "Balanced Alkalai". It is indeed sodium metaborate.

<p>

It sounds like you might like divided D23 or divided D76. I suggest

you buy the Film Developing Cookbook for more information on divided

(2-bath) developers.

<p>

In the US, Photographer's Formulary (http://www.photoformulary.com/)

sells kits for divided D-76, as well as bulk chemicals in small

quantities. Sodium metaborate is $2.50 for 10g, 3.25 for 100g, and

5.95 for 1 pound. With shipping, no real sense in ordering less than

1 pound, unless you are really strapped for cash.

I don't understand "warranty work" on a large format lens. Either the

lens is built right, or not. If it isn't, return for replacement. If

it is, there aren't many "latent defects" that can show up at a later

date. For shutters, however, I can see potential latent defects, but

I don't think any of the mfrs cover the shutter, since they don't

build them.

I've got a Pentax Digital spotmeter & like it. But after I bought the

Pentax, I bought a Sekonic Selenium Cell incident meter (L398, I

think). It doesn't use batteries so it's my fail-safe backup, but I

use it regularly, too, for uncomplicated work.

All the processes I know to intensify a negative (which is what you

are trying to do) are permanent, and irreversible. If this is

important work, make a dupliacate negative for safety.

<p>

Intensification is generally regarded as a "salvage" technique--that

is, you have an important negative that cannot be re-done, and you

must make the best possible print. There is always some risk of

damage to the negative when doing these sorts of processes.

<p>

More importantly, if this work isn't critical, is to know why your

negatives are thin.

<p>

Did you not give enough exposure?

Did you not develop long enough?

Was your developer exhausted?

<p>

etc.