charlie_strack

Simply put, fiber based prints have been around 2 to 3 times as long

as RC, and fiber based prints have proven that, properly processed,

they can last a very long time.

<p>

RC hasn't been around long enough to prove, empirically, that they'll

last as long as fiber.

<p>

200 years from now we'll know the answer, if anybody then cares.

<p>

Yet our very negatives are on plastic!

<p>

For serious gift photos, FB is my personal preference, properly dry

mounted. Yet I don't object to RC for work or personal prints.

As mentioned above, many variables in individual processing

techniques, water quality, pH, meter sensitivity, shutter speed

accuracy, shutter speed efficiency, etc. cause the individual

variations.

<p>

Then, too, is the developer used for ISO tests can't be bought, and

you probably wouldn't want to use it. And, I believe, their

developing technique isn't anything commonly used. The developer &

technique are chosen for laboratory repeatability, something very

important in developing a standard, but less so for users (not that

we can be sloppy).

<p>

Note that with the TMax films, Kodak chose to give EI (exposure

index) numbers instead of ISO, probably trying to give users a better

sense of true usable speed than meeting a standard.

<p>

Charlie

An alternative to reduced development time or highly dilute

developers for compensation is use of a divided (2-bath) developer,

like Divided D76. Photographer's Formulary sells a kit if you don't

want to mix from scratch.

An alternative to reduced development time or highly dilute

developers is use of a divided (2-bath) developer, like Divided D76.

Photographer's Formulary sells a kit if you don't want to mix from

scratch.

I don't have a circuit diagram, but a step-up transformer is not very

expensive, so that's an alternative.

<p>

Saunders or LPL might provide the diagram to you if you ask.

<p>

Charlie

For a modern enlarger, the Saunders/LPL have universal glass carriers

available. The smaller formats include masking blades. For the

4500's, the masking blades are a separate assembly that replaces the

lower plate where negative carriers sit. Other manufacturers offer

the universal carriers, but not too many offer the masking blades.

<p>

You should be able to find a used carrier for this format. Try:

http://www.classic-enlargers.com/

<p>

You could also try EBay.

<p>

For the B22 carriers, though, the negative carriers were quite simple

affairs. A good machinist could cut & form these out of aluminum or

steel plate. I'd recommend anodizing or applying a good finish to

avoid the aluminum from rubbing off onto the negatives.

TMax films are not "high contrast" films, but normal contrast. They

can achieve higher contrast with over development, but nothing like a

true high-contrast film (litho film).

<p>

Possible remedies:

<p>

First, try high contrast papers/filtration. This may be good enough.

Ansel Adams used Oriental Seagull Grade 4 for some of his "problem"

negatives and said it gave him better prints than any other paper

he'd used, so that's definitely worth a try. Besides, Seagull is a

nice paper.

<p>

Another approach is to make a copy negative and develop that to a

high contrast. Or make a normal copy negative and intensify it (see

below).

<p>

Finally, if neither of those gets you what you want, you can

intensify the negative. This is permanent, so definitely make a copy

negative before you try it if the image is important, and you can

only use one of the various intensifiers, as far as I know--that is,

after you've done one you can't go back and do another. (You could

make a normal copy contrast copy negative, and intensify it to see if

that works.) For a slight contrast increase, selenium toner can be

used. For greater contrast increase there are other intensifiers. Get

Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook for the formulas. Photographer's

Formulary sells insensifier kits, if I remember right, if you don't

want to do it from scratch.

I suggest we all learn to like Ilford films.

<p>

I was at my local camera store to buy some film for a trip. I got Tri-

X 120, and judging by the wide selection of films stocked in the

store, silver based photography will be around for quite a while. But

is disheartening to see the giants come to their knees.

<p>

Regarding APX, if Agfa doesn't make it, it probably won't survive.

Rodinal, however, probably would. It would be quite easy for Agfa to

sell off the chemistry rights to another supplier, and they would

have a cash value. Film production, isn't quite as easy a process to

transfer without transferring the physical facilities.

I bought some refrigerator magnets with big plastic spring clips. The

magnet pops off, so I can hang them with a hook, and they have only

light force, so they just hold, but don't damage. So far they've

worked fine.

<p>

You can get 1/8 inch diameter paper punches, if you want to pursue

that. For smaller holes, Harbor Freight sells a metal punch with a

2mm hole as the smallest in the set, and you can also look at a

leather punch, which has a similar size hole, but might be harder to

use.

If you would ever consider using a roll-film back with your 4x5, you

might find the 100mm lens useful.

<p>

You might also find it useful for close-up work. A fixed coverage

angle makes a bigger circle when it's farther from the film, which

happens in closer work.

I'm guessing here, but it could be that the lack of a shoulder

(seemingly endless straight-line section of curve) on these films

lets the highlight contrast "go to far" (a common problem with these

films). Older technology films, like Plus-X, have a limit (shoulder)

that may preclude this problem.

<p>

I'm not a fan of the new films, and prefer to work with the older

ones. Maybe somebody with more TMax experience can offer a suggestion.

<p>

TMax 100 & 400 have slightly reduced blue sensitivity (compared with

traditional films) which might play a role here, depending upon the

color content of your light.

I use a Jobo for 4x5 sheets. (It's been so long since I bought it, I

don't remember if it's a "Multi-Tank2" or not, but it has sheet

reels.)

<p>

I use inversion agitation. Be gentle, and careful. With a liter-and-a-

half of solution in the tank, it's heavy.

<p>

Mine is a 2-reel affair, but I never load the top reel--just use it

for a spacer to keep the bottom reel down. With 2 reels, you'd need 3

liters of solution--too heavy for safe handling, and no space for the

developer to re-mix (locally depleted developer mixing with locally

fresh developer) during inversion.

<p>

I tried PMK once, with fine results using this approach.

I'd try a full-service LF dealer, such as Calumet, or a good LF lens

service shop, such as S. K. Grimes http://www.skgrimes.com/.

<p>

Charlie

I have some of the same thing. I read in a book on restoration about

a way to remove it, but I don't own that book, and can't remember the

title. Maybe somebody else will help.

I suspect the lack of popularity of the Nikon is price. Nikon LF

products seem, at least to me, to be particularly expensive in the

US. I'm not sure why you see the Nikon as $150 less expensive unless

you are not in the USA.

<p>

Here are today's prices in the USA from B&H & Calumet:

<p>

Nikon

$600 USA B&H

$520 Grey B&H

$700 USA Calumet

<p>

Rodenstock

$540 USA B&H

$510 USA Calumet

$400 USA as Caltar II private label (currently on sale; regularly

$470)

<p>

The Nikon (even grey) is more expensive than the Rodenstock if you

shop around; and the Rodenstock only weighs 10g more than the Nikon,

hardly a consideration.

Calumet: Nikon is $700;$510 for Rodenstock; $400 (currently on sale)

for Caltar II (private labelled Rodenstock).

<p>

I just bought the Caltar 135mm, and it looks sweet. Haven't tested it

yet, though.

<p>

But there is certainly nothing to complain about in Nikon lenses!

If it's the old C-1 camera, I think Calumet's price is hard to beat.

For the newer version, though, it was a little pricey when I had to

replace mine.

<p>

Charlie

Thanks for all your postings. I've always liked the results from my

Fuji LF lenses.

<p>

Charlie

I've got a 90mm lens I used on my old Calumet 4x5 (no longer with me)

with a recessed lensboard in the past. I found a short (6 inches,

maybe), very flexible cloth covered cable release (really cheap!)

that I left on the lens permanently and could wrap around the lens.

<p>

I couldn't find a better option at the time.

1. Bigger shutters have slower speeds; the mechanics of moving larger

leafs with greater mass is part of the reason; another factor,

perhaps more imporant, is bigger shutters are often used on longer

focal length lenses, where smaller stops are usually used to give

reasonable depth of field, so faster shutter speeds aren't of much

use.

<p>

2. The speed doesn't change as the aperture is changed, but the

efficiency does. That is, the shutter is opened to full f-stop

aperature size for a bigger percentage of the time.

<p>

3. Ambient temperature does have an effect on the shuter speed. If

lubricated, colder temperatures can slow the shutter, and higher

speeds can speed it, as the lubricant moves less or more freely;

tolerances change with temperature, which can vary friction even in

an unlubricated shutter, which can change speed; I suspect, but do

not know for a fact, that the spring constant of the springs in the

shutter can change with temperature, thus changing the spring force,

and effecting the shutter speed.

<p>

So with all these potential problems, why use them?

<p>

They are generally very reliable, and offer "good enough" accuracy

for most photography.

<p>

Flash sync is available at all speeds.

<p>

They are practical for LF work, where focal plane shutters are less

practical.

<p>

They are much quieter than focal plane shutters.

Does anyone use a Fuji 6x9 RF camera & care to share their opinions?

<p>

I'm considering getting one as a "small" (by LF comparison) portable camera with a decent negative size, without spending the small fortune required for one of the other models that have interchangeable lenses, and not so much portability.

I don't own the Nikon lens, but you really can't go wrong with any of

the 4 major manufacturers of view camera lenses: Rodenstock, Nikon,

Schneider & Fuji. The state of the art in lens design & production is

just that good today.

<p>

Congo/Osaka lenses are a less expensive alternative in new lenses,

but use simpler designs. They tend to be good performers, too.

<p>

Usually in LF work, it isn't critical to have the exceptional

performance needed for 35mm, since we deal with much smaller

enlargement ratios.

<p>

Image circle for the Nikon, Rodenstock, & Caltar 135mm is 200 mm

(f/22), enough for landscape work, but not enough for strong

architectural movements.

<p>

That said, here are Calumet's prices on a few options:

<p>

Nikon 135mm W = $699.00

<p>

Caltar II 135mm = $399 (on sale; regularly 467.00); This is a

Rodenstock Sironar N private labelled--it even comes in a Rodenstock

box (I just bought one!) (Is the Nikon really worth almost twice the

price of this Rodenstock? I don't see how it could be.)

<p>

Rodenstock Sironar N 135mm = $510.00.

<p>

For comparison,the Schneider 110 Super Symmar is reportedly a superb

lens, but $1,799.00. Image circle is a whopping 288mm!

It's simply that the dense part of the negative reflects light

towards your eye while the clear part passes the light through (since

there is no silver to reflect it). Thus, the image appears reversed.

<p>

I don't know of anyone who uses it for evaluation.

Michael Feldman asked that I include developer & processing info--

<p>

I did not do so primarily because I think much of this is moot for

the following reasons.

<p>

1. As it turns out, Idan isn't doing anything remotely similar to

what I do--he's scanning, and I'm printing, and he isn't using MF.

<p>

2. I don't do much in 120 these days (so I don't have a standard

process for VP), but in that format Verichrome Pan is my favorite.

(Why do you think in the days long ago, it was Kodak's standard

amateur film?--'cause it gives such good images!)

<p>

3. There is so much variability in processing, equipment, and water

that you can't just take anyone's formula for success and copy it.

<p>

Charlie

Just call or e-mail Calumet. They will be happy to tell you if it

will work.

<p>

Charlie