walter_glover

<p><em>Walter, which Sinar camera do you recommend, or are all similar. Sinar F, Sinar P, Sinar P2 etc. ? — John Crowe</em></p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I own and use two extremes in the Snar range at present - An A-1, which is like an F-1 but on an extruded profile rail, and a P2.<br>

For regular commercial architectural work I used to use the F-2 a lot for its portability.<br>

The two-point focus system of the Sinars and the precision alignment of their bits that matter mean that from my library of colour and black & white images I can always pick the Sinar shots apart from all others.<br>

<em>Walter--what didn't you like about the Technikardan? Just curious. It seemed a little fiddly to me at first, and I resisted getting one for quite a while. But the more I use it, the more I like it. It's kind of ideal for what I do, which is mostly urban documentary work. Of course I also travel a lot, so portability is important.</em><br>

I find that Linhofs are the biggest disappointment to me on many levels although I have spent thousands of dollars over the years in the hope that they might be better than I have ever found.<br>

I don't like the 'L' bracket system of the TK series even though the 'S' models was beefed up (and zero-clicks added - strewth??). A lot of my commercial work was shot on 120 using 6x12 roll film holders - both Sinar Zoom and the Linhof version. The back of the TK cameras did not like such heavy RFH use.<br>

I also have an issue with the ground glass positioning system of Linhofs with 4 grub screws and shims keeping the crucial alignment of ground glass to film plane intact.<br>

Others love 'em. Good for them. Find what you are happy with leave kit discussion alone then press on with the core business of our craft which is making pictures.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>PS: Sorry for the delay in responding - been away making a buck.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>I have owned the TK and a TKS and would never want another one. Also had a Technika 2000 and would never want another of those either.<br>

I also had a Toyo 45AII L which was okay but for me Sinar is in a class of its own. It is a chore to get it to the picture site, being bulky and heavy, but once you set it up everything else is a dream run.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Walter</p>

<p>My preference with very short focal lengths and the need for precision image plane placement is always the Sinar.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p> </p>

<p>'Old School' does not really signify 'inferior' just as the latest and greatest does not infer 'superior'. If it is 'Old School' to identify what works best to your own ends AND (more importantly) PASSION then I am gladly Old School.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Walter</p>

<p>I have no experience of the Chamonix but I have owned and used a Toyo 45A II L and am considering getting another as my 'grab shot' camera.<br>

I found it convenient in the field, strong and simple in opening & closing, and accurate in alignment when set to the zero detents.<br>

My 'normal' 4x5 is a Sinar P2 and so you see where I am coming from in praising the weight/strength ratio of the Toyo. That said, the range of movements on the Toyo can prove restrictive - particularly lateral shift and swing.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Walter</p>

Tim,

Perhaps I am the exception that proves the rule. I have both the

Nikkor 90mm 1:4.5 and the Super-Symmar XL 110mm 1:5.6. In

the past I have also had the Rodenstock 90mm 1:4.5 and the

90mm Super Angulon XL.

ALL of these lenses were bought brand new.

Let me say that I am totally underwhelmed by the 110mm. The

Rodenstock was also way less than impressive. The Nikkor

leaves them all for dead based on what I see in my negs and

trannies although, in fairness I should say that the Super

Angulon XL 90mm was a cracker but when I changed from a

Sinar to a Technikardan I could no longer fit the rear section in

the hole (so to speak).

As an aside, I have been changing over many of my Schneiders

for Nikkors of late. They are consistently stunning.

Dan,

One day there WILL be a cure for A.I.D.S. ...... there will NEVER

be a cure for water stains.

Last weekend I saw a Nikkor-W 240mm in mint condition

second-hand at a store. I already have a Rodenstock Sironar N

240mm but have been changing over to Nikkors because I prefer

their image characteristics. So I consulted my brochures and

found that with the Nikkor-W I would be sacrificing some 5mm of

image circle. True? I would have a look. I mounted each of the

lenses in turn on my Toyo 810M, focussed at infinity and then

looked through the cut-off corners of the screen to see where the

lens began to vignette at a typical working aperture of f32 (results

would indicate similar comparison at other aperures). What do

you know? The Nikkor-W went just over a full centimetre further

off axis before vignetting began than the Rodenstock. An easy

decision there, the Rodenstock is now on consignment sale and

I have a lovely Nikkor-W 240mm.

But my testing went further. I have a Nikkor-M 300mm primarily

for 4x5 work but I have used it on 8x10 and find that the Toyo

810M will close for transport with the lens in place which is

handy. But my main 300mm for 8 x 10 has been an

Apo-Symmar with its 105mm filter size, weight and bulk. I was

doubly surprised to find that the Nikkor-M 300mm allows about

2mm MORE lens rise than the giant Schneider. Guess what?

The Schneider is lodged for sale also.

Cheers,

Henrik,

I own and use both cameras and, as you might determine from

my comments in a thread above comparing Technikardan and

Arca, I would be more than happy to get shot of my

Technikardan.

At full frame 4x5 I am able to use the 58mm to the extent of its

image circle on a flat board, a recessed board would be better. I

do use a 47mm in recessed board on the 45AIIL and, again, I

can use the limited movement the lens affords on full frame 4x5.

Of course, with a bag bellows on my Technikardan I can achieve

substantial movement and this is handy when shooting roll film

at 6x12 or 6x9.

With short lenses where depth of focus makes precise film/lens

plane alignment essential I find that the flex due to gravity when

using a heavy RFH is a worry.

The long lens application of the Toyo is pretty much limited to

300mm (maybe longer with tele designs). With the

Technikardan I can use my Nikkor-M 450mm but the rigidity of

the fully extended series of dovetailed rails becomes an issue.

I would not see the 100mm extension back for the Toyo as an

answer. I feel it would be very prone to adding to internal flare.

Similarly, when I had a Technika 2000 I used a Wista top-hat

lensboard adapter and it was a flare nightmare.

Cheers,

WG

I use the Technikardan 45S and must admit that I made the

wrong choice: I would definitely favour the Arca. In fact I

inspected a 6x9 Arca just last weekend and it confirmed my

thoughts.

1: I also use the 35mm Apo-Grandagon and the size of the sunk

panel and the nature of the Technikardan standards make

focussing at infinity a real bitch.

2: The Technikardan standards are only supported at the sides

and display considerable instability. Using a heavy RFH such as

the Tekno-Rollex or the Sinar Zoom even allows gravity to

influence the precise alignment of lens plane and image plane.

3: Unless your 600mm is a tele design I doubt that the

Technikardan would alow sufficient extension. I have a

Fujinon-C 600mm and it certainly won't focus at infinity. The

Nikkor-M does comfortably focus however.

4: I have been supplied three tele-Macro brackets so far and

have given up: none of them fit the dove-tail attachment at the

lens end. Doubtless there are those who are content using the

rails fully extended without the additional rail but it does make for

quite a bend in the rail and the subsequent change in the lens

plane.

5: The Arca is an open ended system. You can add rail, bellows

and intermediate standards as you choose making it far more

adaptable.

6: The Arca has a tripod mounting block which can be moved to

maintain equilibrium in the camera whereas the Technikardan

has just a choice of two 3/8th threads towards the rear of an

extended rail system.

If the Technikardan has a positive feature at all it is the ability to

collapse into a small area. But this is achieved at the expense of

rigidity.

If you are buying used kit ensure that the Technikardan you

consider is an 'S' model with 'zero' locks for swings and tilts.

The way the zero clicks work, however, is a pin locating in a

beautiful engineered brass hole and is less finely adjustable in

small increments than just the normal sort of detent.

In short, if I could get out of the Technikardan easily I would, and

the Arca is the way I would go. Albeit a hybrid Arca of a 6x9 front

standard and 4x5 rear standard, tapered bellows and so on.

My Technikardan is my 'commercial' camera. For persoanl work

I use the Toyo 45AII and the Toyo 810M Mk II. If I want to use the

600mm on 4x5 I use the 810M and a reduction plate. Works a

treat.

Walter

For many the world changed the day that J. F. K. or Elvis Presley

or John Lennon died. For me THIS is the lamentable day on

which the man who, along with Irving Penn, David Bailey and

Sam Haskins, inspired my path has entered the next - and

mysterious - state of being.

The king is dead. Long live the king!

And may light perpetual shine upon him.

I have been nothing short of enthralled by the image quality I am

getting with the new 320 TXP film in 4x5 developed in either

Rodinal 1+50 with intermittant agitation or in a Jobo with Ilford

DDX.

It seems to have greater midtone separation and crisper high

values to me. These I found to be missing in the previous

version and so it was, for many years, one of my least favoured

films.

test the film in your own conditions and make your own

evaluation. That's what I did and I feel I was greatly rewarded.

Next shipment of film I get I shall also try some in 8x10 and see

how I like it compared to my stalwarts of FP4+ and HP5+. In this

season of film manufacturing upheaval I think it advisable to find

a choice of favourites.

An answer to Andre Noble,

I shoot mainly on location around Sydney and the bush.

I rate the film at EI 250 and process in Rodinal 1+50 @ 70? with

intermittent agitation for:

N = 9:08

N-1 = 7:10

N+1 = 13:05

Works for me. May not work for you.

And yes, it was poor choice of words on my part to give the

impression that it was chiefly Kodak Gold that produced in

melbourne. What I meant to say was that Kodak Gold was

originated there. Sorry.

Ross,

I believe that the plant primarily made Kodak GOLD. Let's hope

that in rationalising their stock levels Kodak see fit to continue to

at least bring in the new 320 TXP which is nothing short of a

remarkable film.

Of course, 8x10 is indent only (has been for yonks) and is best

purchased from Badger, The View Camera Store or B&H.

BTW, Vanbar got in 4 boxes of 320 TXP if you wish to give some

a run.

Cheers, Walter

Scott,

In my post above I published the wrong data for Rodinal - ignore

it.

Rodinal 1+50 @ 70? with constant agitation foirst 30 sec then 5

seconds every minute

Normal Contrast - 100 ISO - 7:00 minutes

Ilford DDX (150ml plus 850ml water to make one litre about

1+5.5) Jobo Expert Drum speed 50rpm @ 70?

Normal Contrast - 80 ISO - 6:30 minutes.

In Sydney any list would include:

Vision Graphics - Redfern and St. Leonards

http://www.visiongraphics.com.au/html/process.htm

The Lab - Waterloo

Photo Technica - Chippendale

Doubtless there are others.

Cheers,

I have never been tempted to use Rodinal with HP5+. However

my standard brew for the new 320 TXP is Rodinal 1+50. The

issue of grain does not concern me since I am only using 4x5

and bigger but I do seem to recall tests that indicated that patrick

is correct ... highly dilute Rodinal seemingly never got HP5+ to

sparkle. Those wonderfully glowing midtones that one gets in

DDX were absent.

Though I must confess I would never want to get a neg anywhere

near a CI in the 6s.

Les's point was valkid also, I think. But what an outcry there

would be in some quarters if the old NR (not recommended)

were ever to be replaced with WW (won't work)!

Darcy,

When I shot with a Sinar F2 I was able to use all lenses down to

47mm on flat panels with the bag bellows II. I gues it would be a

similar story with either an F1 or a bag bellows I.

The sunk panel is not any easy beast to deal with, especially

with a centre-grad in place on the 47mm and 58mm. Stick to flat

panels wherever and whenever you can. And if you do opt for a

sunk panel then make sure that you get the special cable

release that comes with it.

Cheers,

Some years ago Agfa stopped giving times for Rodinal 1+100

also. I use DDX at gretae rdilutions than the recommended 1+4.

Most emulsions I process at 1+6 but HP5+ - a highly treasured

favourite - I process at 1+5 to keep the processing time down.

That means 8.5 minutes as opposed to 10.5 minutes. By way of

comparison FP4+ takes just 7.25 minutes in the 1+6 brew.

So perhaps the Leverkusen lads feel the time just blows out too

far to make it look attractive. Or maybe they don't want you to find

out just how good this champion of films really is.

WG

Thank you for the opinions.

I ascertained my times from Kodak's suggested longer fixing

time for T-Max plus extra for the hardener.

Perhaps it is just to do with the Sydney water supply but I do find

that I can get marks in the emulsion if I don't use hardener,

despite careful handling.

I'll run some film clearing tests. Again, I re-read part of Coote

(Ilford manual) who said that contrary to the folklore that fixing

times should be THREE times longer than clearing time rather

than two times due to need to deal with chemical by-products of

fixation.

Hi folks,

I am processing T-Max sheet film in Expert drums on a Jobo

ATL. After being bugged by magenta base I have opted for fixing

in two fixing solutions in addition to assuring that my Ridfix is

fresh also.

I have searched the site for an indication of what times are

recommended. I'm using Ilford Hypam @ 1+4. In a single bath

method I gave 8 minutes as suggested but for two-bath so far I

have given 6 miunutes in bath one and four minutes in bath two.

The processed films now look great but sonce my times are

purely arbitrary I wondered if somebody else had a better clue on

the timing.

I am also using Hypam hardener and am wondering if I should

only use the hardener in the second bath.

Thanks in advance,

Michael,

Linhof changed from having the ground glass rest on a milled

surface (as all other manufacturers of note seem to) in

preference to having the adjustable shims in order to change the

camming needs for the Technika. Now a 150mm cam will

operate accurately with any 150mm lens. Previously the cams

had to be matched to each specific lens and the serial number

of the matched lens was engraved on the cam.

Why do I see it as an Achilles heel? Well, for a start, in the event

of being away on a trip and breaking a ground-glass it can make

replacement problematic. A hell of a compensation to make for

those working with cameras not requiring cams.

Deniz,

Yes, you are correct, lenses of shorter focal length do in fact have

greater depth of field but that fact is of total irrelevance with

reference to image plane positioning.

What determines the correct placement of the image plane is

Depth Of Focus which is quite another beast. In terms of depth

of focus the shorter the focal length the tighter the tolerances and

so the greater the need for accuracy.

Let us consider the arbitrary error of just 1mm. With a flange

focal distance of 450mm an error of 1mm is 0.22% out of

alignment whereas the same 1mm error with a 35mm lens

creates an error of 2.86%.

The most expensive camera available is worthless if it fails to

produce optimally sharp images. My suggestion is that a DIY

remedy may be a penny-wise and pound-foolish option when the

cost of having the job done with precision by an experienced

technician in a lab equipped with the best tools and jigs is not all

that expensive.

Based on personal experience I would advise against changing

the screen yourself and that the ground glass should only be

set-up by a LINHOF service factility.

Why? Because, as far as I am concerned, the Achilles heel of

the Linhof system is the fact that the ground glass on modern

Linhof backs does not sit into a recess on milled surfaces as is

the case with other cameras but actually sits on four shims

balanced atop adjustable grub screws.

Years ago I had the first model of the Technikardan and removed

the screen to replace it with a Boss screen. A bloody nightmare

ensued. I used the 47mm lens as my widest in those days and

could never get a sharp shot out of it again. Now I have a 35mm

lens and would hate to think of the possible outcome.

Althoough any error is less apparent as the lens focal length

increases if the position is out then you are not getting the

optimal image quality that you expect from kit like this.

The ONLY dimension that matters in large format photography is

the relationship of the plane of the ground glass with the plane of

the film - everything else is in flux. But according to Sinar that

dimension is critical to 0.03 mm and that is way beyond the

capabilities of most DIY abilities.

My advice would be to leave well enough alone. And if your life

can't continue another moment without some sort of brighter

viewing screen then contact Bob Salomon and get him involved.