jorge_gasteazoro

Daniel, you should have been reading this forum before. This is a

well known combination for many years, next you are going to try PMK

and REALLY see a beautiful negative! Good luck.

now see, Bob's solution makes more sense to me. THanks Bob for the

explanation.

I don't get it though, you are going from 67 mm to 86 mm in the space

of the glass thickness? this does not sound right to me, the

difference is more than half an inch, it sounds excessive to me. I

would check with schnider I am sure the US distribuitor has an 800

number you can call....good luck.

In regards as to how to put the film holder with the BTZS dark cloth

is easy, the cloth has a velcro strip running along the entire lenght

of the cloth, once you have focused you rip the cloth open and drape

it over the camera, it protects the exposure against pinhole leaks

and you dont have to fight with it in windy situations, unlike the

horse blanket.

My only complaint is the same as everybody elses, I dont understand

why they chose a waterproof material, in winter you get condenstation

in the gg, in summer is about 200 degrees inside the cloth.....but is

definetly better than the horse blanket, I used to have a zone VI,

now I use it as a reflector.....

Dan, I think we need to give Jim a rest and continue the thread

somewhere else, maybe in the news group.

In respect to your post, I agree with you (big surprise being a LF

fotog myself) but lets face it, DeWolf and all these other people are

just trying to drumm up business for themselves, When I first read

the article I dismissed it right away and now I am wondering why I

got sucked into this discussion. The article is a self serving piece,

lacking depth and I saw it more as a piece of advertisemnt than

a "real" article. If anything I think we must be more concerned with

Simmons's choice of article and ask ourselves why he keeps running it

in his two magazines? If his magazine is titled the Journal of Large

Format Photography, why is he running this c**p?

As a chemist I have never seen the ACS Journal run a piece without

explanation, background and examples, so lets face it we LF fotogs

are in a tizzy because of what one self serving snake oil salesman

said in a run of the mill magazine. Maybe WE are the fools for paying

attention to this guy, if anything he accomplished his goal he got

some of us curious.

In the end I think those of us who enjoy LF and darkroom work will

keep on working like this, and those who are itching to try

piezography can't wait for the prices to go down, or to win the

lottery. In any case we will not decide this here and I doubt we will

change the opinions either way.....

If you are shooting Tri X (ASA 400) and then change to fuji Velvia

(ASA 50)that is about 3 stop difference, I vote for Dan's comment,

are you sure you are not forgetting to change the setting on your

light meter?

Bob I hate to agree with the other posters. Although your help and

knowledge with respect to Linhof is very valuable, this is the second

time I have seen you give this response to someone who is apparently

wanting to know information on how to change the "shape" of an object

in the ground glass by using movements. Ok, so some people are not as

precise as you would like them to be, but maybe inquiring about if he

wants to change "shape" rather than "perspective" would be a little

more polite, and since you are taking the time to respond, why not

include a brief explanation and or a usefull tip. e.i. Pancho look up

the book view camera by leslie stroebel, his and many other view

camera books will explain to you how to change the shape of an object

with camera movements.

That's all for me folks!

Heck, for what you pay for an Ebony you can buy a Linhof TK45S and a

lens to boot!

Steve, I checked out your web site and saw the proposed schedule for

the conference. I think you managed to put togehter a good

representative sample of LF work. My only suggestion would be to

include some kind of round table with the manufacturers so that we

can hear their view as to where do they think LF is going and what if

any plans they have for the far future. If you extend an invitation

and they decline to show, then we all will know where we stand with

them!

I beleive that as LF practicioners we are sometimes too timid,

everytime a manufacturer does away with a good product all we do is

shrug our shoulders and start testing other materials to replace the

one we liked. If you give them an opportunity to speak and (God

forbid!) answer some questions, maybe we will not be so worried.

Heck even if they say " folks we will be doing away with LF film in

10 years" it would still be good, at least it would let me know I

better start learning photoshop and what all those little buttons in

my computer are for!

I just shot and tested some 8x10 and it is very nice! Developed in

pyrocatechin it has a very long tonal range, I was amazed at the

depth of the blacks! Unfortunatelly I needed more developing time and

my prints has very low contrast, but overall it seems to be a very

nice film that is tempting me to move away from Tmax 100......I need

to do more testing but what I saw I liked. BTW I shot it at 40 EI.

Tim, then we are in agreement. Actually I think with digital you do

have better control of the local contrast and middle tonal ranges

since it is so easy to build masks etc. Something that in the

darkroom might take a few days, in the pc takes a few hours. With

piezography the technology has not found a way to translate what

people saw in the monitor to a hard copy. I think this is great but

lets not get carried away and ask people to throw away the LF cameras!

Tim, although I also find Michael's post a little self centered I

have to disagree with you and I CAN argue with DeWolfe! You

apparently did not read the article in ViewCamera, in it DeWolfe

states that piezography is the equal of platimum printing and better

than ANY silver print! If he had said " I feel piezography is the

best medium to express MY art" then I would have no problem with him,

and/or you, but he actually states how much better piezography is

than any other medium, so c'mon, how can you defend this position?

Since DeWolfe teaches workshops with this system I get the feeling he

is just trying to drum up exitement for the process so that people

will take his course by making these outrageous statements. Reminds

me of the snake oil salesmen of yore!

You are looking at a decent deal, I figure about $250 for the lens,

250 for the camera body and you are getting the rest for free. So as

to the money is not bad. You did not mention what model cambo it is,

so you might have a hard time finding accessories specific for the

camera, as I said depending on the model, but I have seen on E bay

always some kind of Cambo deal or accessorie, so I would not worry

too much about this.

As to the quickload film back, if you buy it new it should fit your

camera.

Good luck!!

I have a Gandolfi 8x10 and I find it very easy to put in the 1570M,

my procedure is to tilt the pan head all the way forward and screw

the camera in. Takes me 1 minute to do, but if you are set on using a

quick release, I would use a Linhof, it has a bigger surface area

than the Gitzo and you can screw it to the camera with a hex key, it

will never move....:-)

I hope this helped.

Ed, as a LF photographer I have had problems my brain comunicating

with my hands, but the lens comunicating with the camera? Nahh!

N thank you very much, I should have thought of that! It was a great

help your response.

Andy, I also made a search and could not find a web site for him, so

I guess he does not have a site. I did see his article on the

piezography web site and some of the pics he shows, they are nice, of

course in screen resolution is hard to tell, but to tell you the

truth I have seen better scans and the pics, although very nice, were

not somehting I would open my wallet for.

Also in my search I found other sites that were showing people who

are printing with piezography and it confirmed my initial suspicions,

although the process might be wonderful, is all in the hand of the

artist. Some of those prints looked like crap...worse than freshman

photography...lol.

Hi all, I need some help since I have never done this, if I remove the front element or rear element of a lens to obtain a different focal lenght, how do I know what F stop it is? I suppose the f stop changes since thr ratio of the aperture to focal lenght has changed, but how do I calculate it? does anybody have a formula or method out there? I would greatly appreciate it if you guide me on this!

Cheers and good shooting to all!

Neil, your e mail does not seem to be working I tried to respond to

you but it kept comming back as undeliverable....

Andy, who cares? at screen resolution even if his prints are the best

thing since sliced bread, they will still look like any other print!

<p>

Brian, thank YOU! I was wondering all this time wether it was

wishfull thinking on his part or if it really was that good of a

process! Since you have seen his prints and although as you said they

are very very good, they are not anything better than say a Sexton or

a Baer. You just clarified everything for me and confirmed my

suspicions, I think that with piezography he probably has more

control over the local contrast, middle tones, etc....you can't get

any more white than paper white, or any more black than solid black,

so comparing the output of a printer without the Cone software and

the inks, then probably the piezo print is that much more

outstanding, but to go as far as saying " as good as a platimum print

and better than silver" I really don't think so!

Bill, I agree with you Calumet did a disservice to their customers by

totally discontinuing accessories. I had the same problem, luckyly I

was able to find them in the used market at E bay and from Calumet.

I think it has to be the back, I have a TK45 and a hasselblad, when I

compare the negatives the ones from the TK45 are much sharper than

those from the hassie, even though the ones from the hassie have more

contrast, the reason I think they "appear" sharper. So beleive me,

the 4x5 should be sharper, even with cheap lenses, I sometiems use a

Nikkor 210 w, and although the contrast is horrible the negs from

this lens come out sharp as ever....good luck.

Sal, I have had a Type one for many years, about 10, and the foam

seal still looks like new! I imagine the one you saw is probably a

demo at the store being mishandled. Beised zone VI carry a lifetime

warranty, so dont worry, if it crumbles then call them and ask them

to either send you one, or that you are sending the head for repair.