marshall_arbitman1
-
Posts
16 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by marshall_arbitman1
-
-
I know, I know! Get in touch with S.K. Grimes. I plan to, but have
the patience of a five-year-old at Christmastime. This weekend I
scored a 10" Wide Field Ektar in Ilex #5. Despite owning the 12"
Commercial in Ilex #4, this one has me baffled.
1) Unlike the 12", for which Steve (r.i.p) made a step-up ring, this
one seems to have no front filter thread at all. I understand it came
equipped for Series IX drop-ins, which I presume involved a 90-degree
threadless surface and a retaining ring. Looking down on this one,
there seems to be a 45-degree lip, which would seem to rule out
dropping anything in. Almost as if the retaining ring is already
attached, but if it is I can't seem to find a way of detaching it.
So, in the words of Seinfeld: Whaaaat's with THAT?
2) When the pointer is set at maximum aperture--6.3--the iris seems
ever so slightly narrower than wide open. Normal or is the scale off?
3) These monster Ilexes seem to have fairly floppy, fluttery blades.
Normal or not?
And yes, I know: Send it to Grimes & Company. I am. I will. But would
also be most grateful for your experiences in this area.
BTW, the glass is superb. Nearly perfect condition. 1948 double-gauss
goodness. Goodness! I'm starting to sound like Dagor77.
Thanks
-
>>How does Polaroid 55 p/n film work with zone system?<<
Doug:
Depend on what you're looking to achieve. If getting shadow detail matters more than holding highlights, place your shadows where you want and let highlights blow out a bit--and they will. Polaroid 55's characteristic curve has a distinct shoulder, meaning that above a certain point, contrast decreases and, eventually the highlights block up. IOW, no amount of burning-in will yield much more than a duller shade of empty gray.
For important highlights, meter them first and place them where you want. IOW, treat is as you would slide film. The shadows will block.
So what if you want to "expand" or "contract?" Well, there's a little room for contraction by developing less, but not much. Or you could very, very lightly pre-expose the film to a little diffused light.
This is done by either pointing the camera at a gray card, filling the frame and racking focus all the way to infinity, metering and placing on zone 1 (Meter the card and close down 4 stops)--or you can drop a piece of diffusing glass or plastic in front of the lens and do the same. Then a regular exposure is made. This gives the TINIEST bit of density to the negative and biases the shadows up enough to see some texture.
Since it's a large proportion of the shadows and a minor proportion of the highlights, it doesn't look light fogged film. You just print through the additional base fog. However, if the scene contains a large proportion of shadowed areas, it can sometimes make the picture look a bit odd.
So contraction is tough. Expansion is easier. You can get an honest N+1 by developing longer, and a further +1 by treating the negative in a fairly strong selenium toner.
-
Karl, thanks. Just got a look at your portfolio. I really like Tree Bones and Door Knob. Stairway shows wonderful flair for something too few photographers can do, which is show the presence of something by the absence of something else. Bravo. Good eye.
-
Scott:
There's no mystery about it, and nothing saintly about Ansel. He (or is that HE?) would be the first to say as much.
Think of it this way: Meters have to be calibrated to something. Most, if not all, see the world as lighter or darker shades of middle gray. Point a meter at a white wall and it says "15 EV of light falling on a GRAY wall." The same is true for a Black wall or anything in between.
All the Zone system is, is a way of metering (and developing) to make the white wall white, or any other shade you want. Middle gray is Zone 5. Pure black, Zone 0. White, Zone 10. 10 zones, 10 F stops. 10 log steps between clear paper and d-max.
So all you do is point the meter at the shadows. The meter gives you a reading that makes the shadows gray, or Zone 5. But you don't want them there, so you close down two stops. You PLACE the shadows on Zone 3. Okay. Then, LEAVING THE METER DIAL AS IS, you point it at the brightest point you'd like to maintain detail and note the reading. Look down on the dial and see it corresponds to 5 stops (or EV levels) above the shadows. I.E. it FALLS on Zone 3+5=Zone 8.
"Aha!" I hear you say. "My scene encompasses more than 8 or 10 stops, what now?" Okay, the highlights are 2 stops higher than you'd like, just develop less. That drags the highs down the amount you need. Range between light and dark too small? Develop more.
That's it. And it's no theory, just a rough and ready application of sensitometry. Just a way to harness the way film works. No magic, no B.S.
Sure you can get carried away with calibration and fussing; and yes, the latitude of most film makes careful metering and development less neccessary. And no, a good negative doesn't mean it can be printed without dodging and burning. And no, it's not nerdly at all. Once you figure it out, you can meter and nail a scene to look the way you want it to look in about 45 seconds.
Finally, don't trot out Ed Weston's not using a meter as an example of the dichotomy between the Zone System (Mere science) and true art (t.m.). Weston's years of experience meant he could meter, more or less, with his eyes; and he did plenty of "Expansion" and "Contraction" when he developed his film based on what those eyes and what his experience told him. Ina way he applied sensitometry as carefully, precisely and creatively as did Ansel Adams: He just did it all in his head.
-
Tor:
Yes, I'm familiar with the Copal "crunch," and the Acme "thwock." As I mentioned, I'm well-pleased with the Copal I've got in a 135 Rodenstock. Cheeep or not, it does seem to be very accurate. So no complaints, there. Just that 2 particular bargains caught my eye: One had a Compur, the other a Prontor, so I'm just trying to rule out any potential "gotchas," before making a move. Thanks, BTW.
-
Anybody want to weigh in on reliability, ergonomics and availability of parts/cost of maintenance?
-
Any operational reasons to prefer one to the other?
In the course of shopping for a used, modern lens in the 150-210
range, I've come across all three. I already own one lens with a
Copal 0 and find it accurate and hassle-free. Aside from the Prontor
being self-cocking, does it or the recent-vintage Compur differ from
the Copal in any significant ways? I'm thinking precision,
reliabilty, noise, anything here.
-
Thanks, Brian.
I managed to score 50 sheets of Astia (Expired but refrigerated) from Freestyle for about 69 dollars. So much for 8x10 being a rich man's hobby! The sight of a 4x5 chrome already makes me giggle. I can hardle wait to see these. I've been doing some of the best work in my life, ever since I went large format, even if I'm sure to herniate myself one of these days.
-
First off, forgive the repost, my browser's acting up.
New to 8x10 and having always used 4x5 packet film, I've got no
experience with conventional boxes of sheet film. Are the labyrinth
boxes light-tight without the foil or plastic bags inside? I'm
guessing they are but need to be sure before unloading my holders and
using the boxes to transport my expensive chromes to the lab. Dumb
question, I know. Any help for this ignoramus?
-
Neal:
I have a split bottom myself. I find it works well for me.
-
Hi all!
I'm a longtime 4x5 user who's getting into 8x10 to make contacts and
Ziatypes. I've narrowed my search for a field camera to two that seem
to fit my budget and needs-- a Zone VI Vermont Model (Not the
Tachihara/Wista-type) and a Deardorff with front swings, both used--
both about $1400.
The Zone VI looks just like the Wisner Traditional. The Deardorff
seems about 9 condition, bellows have been replaced, are slightly
stiff. Each one has the requisite movements, both weigh within a
pound or so of the other. I'm sure I'd not regret having either, but
am looking for advice on any kind of longterm "gotchas" or little
peeves that might crop up.
Any thoughts?
-
Bill:
I've only used the 52, but judging by Polaroid's data sheets 72 has quite a bit more contrast. If 52 is N then 72 looks to be about N+2.
Also 72 exhibits higher resolution, which may simply be due to measuring at the higher contrast. Dunno, I'm not a whiz at reading MTF charts. Also, 72 needs a bit more reciprocity compensation.
So no, one isn't simply the coaterless equivalent of the other. If it were, I'd imagine 52 would have been discontinued.
-
John:
<p>
Before weighing in, full disclosure: I'm the one selling the
Discovery kit. That said, any of the cameras you and others mentioned
might fit easily the bill, as well as some of the others recommended
here.
<p>
It comes down to which one gets in your way the least and that's
entirely personal. If you like your tilt control on the right, it's
the Sinar F; on the left, the Arcas. Do you loop your fingers
underneath the standards to lift them? Then the Sinar F might feel
best. Prefer a geared focus track? Get an Arca, or a Linhof Kardan.
There's no right answer and no substitute for laying your hands on
each.
<p>
Regarding the advice to stick with a "field" camera for the field, I
think the whole question's somewhat silly. A Discovery's 6.2 pounds;
the Sinar F, about 7; the Linhof Technika 6.6; the Toho monorail
about 4 (?). So there's not always a weight advantage to the field
camera. Jack Dykinga carries an Arca into the field. So did Saint
Ansel in the early '70's. Richard Avedon uses a Wisner Technical
Field in the studio. A lunatic friend of mine lugs around a Sinar X.
<p>
Yes you can fold a field camera, but not always with the lens still
attached. You can set up an Arca OR Sinar in less time than, say a
Wisner or Linhof. Sure you don't need extreme movements in the field,
but I'd argue monorail movements enjoy the advantage in that they are
more, for want of a better word, transparent-- i.e. less fiddly, more
secure, fewer knobs and struts to twiddle. But again, this is so
personal.
<p>
As for the bulk: Arca lensboards are HUGE, so Advantage Sinar. But
the Sinar's tripod mount stands very tall, so Advantage Arca. The
Arca takes a folding and/or telescoping rail. It mounts directly to
Arca, Kirk and Acratech ballheads. Sinar does enjoy better dealer and
service support, although there's practically nothing to go wrong
with ANY large format camera-- they're incredibly simple devices.
<p>
In short you can't go wrong with either. Some help, huh?
-
Hey Charlie:
<p>
The 2509+2 reels+loading gizomo goes for $154 at B&H. Of course,
chemistry's liable to jack the tab up over time.
<p>
>>I might consider Combiplan & dunking if I were buying new today<<
<p>
What's a Combiplan?
Wide Field Ektar Shutter/Filter
in Large Format
Posted