alex_hawley

Dan, the advantage I see with the Xtol/Rodinal mix is better sharpness, probably due to better accutance. There's slightly more grain visible in the highlights, but only when viewed close up. Is it any great advantage? No, not IMO, just a slight improvement.

I just bought an older Calumet C2 6x7, all metal construction. Its better-built than any graflex back I've seen or used. Cost -$150 on the auction site. Its a little too thick to slide under the ground glass springback on my Graflex View. Tried it and darn near busted the GG, although it did go in. Use the Grafloc back and it will work fine.

 

I wanted 6x7 to keep the same proportions as 4x5. I've used 6x9 backs and just wind up cropping that extra off.

 

Another possible advantage of the C2 is it will take 220 rolls. The counter goes up to 20 frames and the frame spacing is consistant. Not so on some of the graflex backs I've used.

I don't know why you need an equation Warren. The maximum film size is determined by the image circle of the desired lens at the desired extension. The maximum extension will determine bellows length. But the size is more dictated by the sizes of the front and rear standards. The standards are sized to hold the lens, film backs, and accomodate all the attachments for the movements. By the time you get all that stuff accounted for, the bellows size to hook it all together will be quite sufficient for whatever film/lens size you've designed for.

Hey Lex, you're NOT crazy. Try this: Tri-X @ 200, Xtol 100 ml, Rodinal 4 or 5 ml, water 400 ml, 9 minutes at 75F. It works! Done it with 35 and 120. Not my original idea. I got it from Ed Buffaloe's website. Its in a sidebar in Patrick Gainer's article on Vitamin C developers. Haven't tried it with "dead" Xtol though.

Great idea Ken. Thanks for sharing it. I was contemplating whether to mark the gridlines in pencil as David mentioned, or use a permanent marker on the smooth side. Using a piece of film would allow making one for the straight 4x5 back and one with crop lines for the roll film back.

Thanks for all the suggestions and sympathy. I made the switch to PVC out of frustration from not finding any ABS, not realizing it was translucent. Just wanted to pass this on to prevent someone else from making the same mistake. If anyone's interested in doing this, see Philip Sweeny's website. Until I find some ABS, I'll stick with tray development, which is turning out not to be as hard as I thought it might be. Thanks!

Yeah, that or the electrical conduit recommended by Sandy may be a solution. Thanks!

David, I thought about wrapping with duct tape. The other minor problem with these is their mass makes for more resistance to rolling in the water bath. Schedule 40 pipe is the only the only wall thickness commonly available. By the time you glue caps and couplers on the basic tubes, they start to get a bit ungainly. I'm afraid the addition of tape would add to the rolling resitance. And, leaving the light off defeats the benefit of the tube as was mentioned.

 

Gene's right, translucent is the word I was searching for. As far as painting goes, I'm a little worried that the paint might leech through the PVC and interfere chemically. I don't think the PVC is causing any chemical interence by itself but have no way of proving that scientifically. The negative fogging is much less in the area where the coupling is glued onto the tube. Much less light transmission since the wall thickness is doubled, but still enough to be bothersome.

 

As another proof, I just took an ABS black plastic chemical sample container and put it next to a 60W bulb. No light transmission and its only maybe 1/16" thick. Too bad its not quite long enough to hold a 4x5 sheet, plus it has a rib around the inside which would interfere with loading/unloading.

 

I'm not giving up on this yet. There's got to be a source of ABS pipe in the greater scheme of things.

I'm not so sure Rick. I'm inclined to believe its partly due to the physical structure of the material. White color reflects, black absorbs.

Here's on I've learned the hard way. I was intent on building a

tube-type developer system for my LF work. The recommended material

is Black ABS pipe. Well, the local hardware stores no longer carry

black ABS so I decided to use white PVC instead. I thought the

thicker schedule 40 pipe would work. WRONG. After several sheets

coming out fogged, I used tray development and things came out

fine. Holding a piece of PVC up to the light, it became obvious.

The stuff is still transparent, even with a wall thickness of about

1/8 inch. Hope this saves someone else from making the same

mistake. Use black ABS pipe as recommended.

Thanks Ken and Mike. The filter ring threads are such a fine pitch that I'm not sure it makes much difference whether they are English or Metric. Sounds like a good reverse-engineering project for tonight.

Another Newbie question. I can't determine what size of filter

rings my LF lenses take. They were all made in the 50s or 60s and

are not stamped with any of the current size numbers. I've measured

the diameters but cannot find any cross-reference to the current

filter ring sizes. In other words, the diameter of my 210mm Ektar

has no obvious relationship to the thread diameter of a current 55mm

ring. I plan to use the Cokin P system and thought about their

universal holder but I think the lens ring on the 90mm Angulon is

not wide enough.

 

Searched the archive and found a thread saying Cokin makes a 40.5mm

ring for the A holder and that setup will work on the Angulon.

That's good because I already have the A system for my 35mm stuff.

 

So, what do I do? Anyone know the solution? I'm also assuming the

P size filters are best for LF (at least that's what I've been led

to believe). Here's the lenses I have:

90mm Schneider Angulon

135mm Wollensak Raptar

210mm Kodak Commercial Ektar

I'm not sure why there's all the fuss about diluting straight from the concentrate bottle. I've always used either a syringe or a 25 ml graduate and have never had any problem, no matter what dilution/time combo I've used.

 

One of the things nice about the high dilutions is the long time. If you blow it by 30 or 60 seconds, so what. Being somewhat lazy, I also enjoy being able to leave it unattended for 5-10 minutes between agitations.

Josh, I just got into LF for about $700. But that's for '50s vintage camera and lenses. I still need to pick up a 4x5 enlarger and a better tripod but that will have to wait until next year. I did about 3 months of research before I felt comfortable enough to start seriously looking at kits. If you look back in this forum over the last month, you will see several questions I asked while I was in the buying process. The LF community here is as helpful as it gets, but even a newbie like me can say you need to read up as suggested. You might start with Ansel Adams' "The Camera" which gives an excellent and objective view of all three formats. It explains the basic construction of each common type of camera. After you read it, you will better understand what a monorail or field camera can do and not do. It also goes into detail on accessories such as exposure meters and tripods, stuff you will need and need to make informed choices on.

To add: Lately, I'm using more Rodinal and HC110 than I am Xtol. No problem keeping those old stalwarts around. Conspiracy theory of the morning: The problem with the 1-liter packets is purely technical with packaging material. It could be fixed if the GREAT Yellow's MBA's would allow the money. Better spent on digital P&S R&D I suppose.

Hi Lex. I believe problems with the 1-liter packets have been well known, air intrusion through the packaging. Supposedly, that's why big K quit producing them. I've still got one left and am kinda 'fraid to use it. I have a full liter from a 5-liter package that's been mixed for 8 months now and is still good. However, I would prefer to be able to buy smaller packages so as to not have several bottles of mix sitting around for several months.

Another Newbie! Congratulations Warren. I just got a 4x5 Graphic View for my first LF. My advice; ask your questions in this forum. I've never seen an internet community that is so helpfull. There's a very consistant bunch of veterans that always contribute their time to help us neophytes along.

Scott, I can sincerely empathize with you, being both a hunter and photographer, and nearly the same age. In hunting, I found that the chances with "fever" diminish greatly with the amount of practice I put in (call it training). That is, until a new situation arises which I haven't trained for. This year, for example, I used a different rifle than I was used to and didn't train nearly enough with it. Missed a superb shot and did't get another shot the rest of the season.

 

Now I've got this 4x5 view camera setting in front of me. I've taken Ken Schroeder's advice and have been training with it daily. Haven't taken a real shot yet because I don't have everything ready even though the "fever" arises every day. Getting closer though. However, I know from that "vast depth" of experience (I feel safe saying that since AARP is getting close) that the first real shot will teach me far more than the training. But without the training, the first shot is most likely to be FUBAR.

 

Yeah, that fever goes away, but it call always strike when you least need. When everything starts going to hell, relax, take some deep breaths, and just work through it. Cheers!

That settles it Brian. I sure don't want to cut myself out of posting questions on the forum. I'll start looking for some Domke wrap. Thanks to everyone!

Thanks for the good news John. Life and Esquire were staples in our house when I was growing up and I well remember the type of photos you referred to. Now, if the weather would let up a little-----.

Yes Gene, I'm keeping the lenses and shutters together. Both you and Larry have mentioned the Dompke wrap. That's a new one for me. What is it? The other thing I'm missing is lens caps so I need to pick some up.

Another Newbie question. Now that I have these three beautiful

lens/shutter assemblies that I've cleaned and restored to working

order, I kind of want to keep them protected rather than rattle

around in the general clutter of the camera case. Neither do I want

to spend a small fortune on Circassian super select walnut cases

with chamois lining. Anyone have any simple and cheap suggestions

using common materials?

Gene, I'm glad you brought this up. One of the lenses I just picked up is a 210mm Kodak Commercial Ektar. Its mounted in an Ilex #3 Acme Synchro shutter. Based upon the responses so far from our experienced and esteemed collegues, this thing maybe is a good deal?

Enrico, I've been using HC110 diluted 1:120 and its become one of my favorite soups for Tri-X (TX) rated at 200. I haven't used it on 4x5 yet, but the results with 120 and 35mm are great. Extremely fine grain on 35mm, almost none on 120. I develop for a total of 20 minutes at 20C, agitate for the first 30 seconds, then once at 5 minutes, and once at 15 minutes. It sounds insane but it works! Ansel Adams described this technique in "The Negative". I'm confident that it would work developing a LF sheet in a tray.

Hon, as a fellow LF newbie, I would suggest most of the older, well built camera bodies are very viable and will save you lots of money. If you are making money with this, put the most money into the lens/lenses.