marshall_arbitman1

Well, Question #1 answered. It IS a retaining ring, tightened almost to the point of cold-fusion. Red-faced, but still baffled about the rest. And when in doubt. . .Force it!

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?