michael_kadillak3

Reflection densitometers are designed to read densities from the

surfaces of paper. I would be highly suspecious of any negative

readings you may get with your light-box set up. Very simple, what

you need is a transmission densitometer. No other way to get around

it as it is the right tool for accurate results. I have seen others

use an inexpensive density wheel from companies like Kodak for

approximate negative density analysis. Another thing I have found

useful. Shoot your test shots for density through diffusion materials

like those offered through Zonesystem.com for consistent readings.

Very inexpensive and you can use it as a pre-exposure device. Good

Luck

1) I have numbered all of my holders with a pencil on the small white

square on the face of the the holder (if you have newer holders) to

code the film type. A second alternative is to use a flourescent

marker to permanently number them on the side or the end. Dry erase

markers can easily be rubbed off. Also, I do not use the stickums as

they can unintentionally get caught in the holders light seal or the

bellows (flare) and screw up a whole shoot. Had a friend that lost 20

exposures to this unfortunate event.

 

<p>

 

2) Use zip lock bags with multiple index cards inside and only shoot

and replace similar holders for one film at a time.

 

<p>

 

3) With a small file, make a small but visable notch on a part of the

film holder that will not compromise its seating characterists. You

can then segregate film based upon this system.

 

<p>

 

I use the zip lock bags because they serve a dual purpose of keeping

the holders clean and dust free. Have a good trip.

The 250mm Wide Field Ektar has a well deserved reputation for a lens

of post WW2 vintage - great coverage and optical performance that

gives current lenses a run for their money. Many have cleaning marks

that were likely a result of soft early coatings as much as

photographers grabbing shirt tail or a handkerchief in a pinch to

clean her up a bit. You will find two opinions of cleaning marks on

this forum. Those that are more driven by a great deal and claim that

there is no effect on the final images and those that are picky about

what they screw on to their lensboards. For a lens that has no

visible cleaning marks, prices go to $900 +. For ones with obvious

cleaning marks, $450 is right where I have seen them sell. Are those

that pay $900 for the best Ektars getting taken advantage of? I do

not think so. I have one that was literally new in the box unused

from 1949 and it is sweet.

 

<p>

 

To be honest with you, if the cleaning marks are not to excessive,

you will probably incur little risk by purchasing the lens and giving

it a try and selling it if it does not work for you. I think the weak

link in the equation is the #5 Ilex shutter, Big, bulky and cranky at

times. Usually, they are off at either end of the offered shutter

speeds and I have been told to fire off the shutter to exercise it

before you make your photograph. You will also need a shutter release

with a deep throw because you cock and fire the shutter concurrently.

I had to go to a camera store and try out several before I found one

that would cycle the shutter. The ones I used for my Copals simply

did not work. Good Luck

Who had the problem with the camera? The guy that talked to Keith and

was supposed to have been told what wrench to use or you? I do not

believe for a minute that Keith responded in that way unless you or

your friend was excessively abrasive with him. Since Keith is not

here to defend himself, I will only respond with some common sense.

His ability to make a living selling cameras is directly proportional

is to his willingness to provide customers great service. So if he

needs to replace a $10-20 part on a $2,500 camera, why would he not

do it? Only a fool would resort to this proported activity, and Keith

is no fool. The End

I would recommend that you go to a local metal shop and have an

aluminum or stainless set made for you that will allow you to handle

the number of film hangers you expect to use. That way you minimize

your chemistry requirements. In my opinion, finding a used 5x7 tank

will be a long shot, but you can always try camera swaps etc. if you

are not in a hurry. 4x5 tanks are much more readily available as I

found a set of them with lids for $35 at a show here in Colorado last

weekend. Good Luck

Why is it that we feel the need to dish a camera like the Canham 57

that is primarily designed for low weight when we claim its

shortcomings are an inability to lock the focusing

mechanisms "tight". Maybe these folks would like to see a 3/8 inch

bolt with an inch wing nut for a focus lock down? Then we would hear

complaints about the fact that the camera weighs to much. From a

design perspective, the focusing hold down mechanism is to keep the

camera from moving its focus point. And for that designed purpose, it

does a fantastic job. You do not need to get carried away with

cranking on it. I own a Canham 57 and know four others that own the

Canham 45 and the camera has performed perfectly for us for many

years delivering tack sharp images again and again. Why do so many

photographers feel that they need to muscle the controls I do not

know. Must be a macho thing.

 

<p>

 

Even if a problem was experienced, Keith would make it right as

quickly as possible. Customer service to the nines. I would buy a

Canham again and have no problem recommending them to others that use

them as they were designed. They are very light weight and have long

and flexible bellows.

I noticed that Kodak is offering a B&W film called Ektapan in various sizes including 5x7 and 11x14. In the Kodak website it is touted as a fine grained film designed for electronic flash portrature and commercial applications but can be shot with natural light. T Max RS developer is also one of the developers that can be used. Has anyone experience with this film that you can share with us? Many thanks.

I read the reviews from several prior users of the TK45S prior to

acquiring one and am glad that I did not listen to the minor

negatives listed for this camera. The tendency of the bellows to be

pinched and damaged by a mistake when folding it up is easily

resolved by taking the bellows off of the camera. A simple operation

that takes five seconds and involves two levers on the front and rear

standards. No big deal.

 

<p>

 

Bottom line is that while no camera is perfect, your desire to use a

450 mm lens in my opinion would lead me to recommend the TK45S for

your application because of the longer bellows extension as previous

posters have already stated. The Master with the rangefinder, as I

have learned from my friend and pro Richard Boulware, has one

application that bears mention - firing off a sharp hand held 4x5

photograph at the spur of the moment. In the art of compromise,

balancing each of these flexibilities is where you will find the

decision that is best for you. Either way you go, you will not be

disappointed because of the fact that it is a Linhof. Good Luck

Have you eliminated the film holder from the equation? Does it meet

factory specs across the entire surface area?

Simple analysis like you just completed where a review of size,

weight, coverage and cost previously led me down the path of

acquiring mostly Nikon lenses for my work. Last count I have 8 that I

use for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I find all of them to be very sharp and

contrasty and a bargain in the new or used market. I have heard

others say that they feel that Nikon does not care about large format

photographers because Nikon does not promote their products in large

format anymore. As long as they keep manufacturing them and their

quality and price are maintained, large format photographers will

make use of them. The lack of an advertisement campaign is one reason

I feel that they are more reasonably priced than the German

offerings. I think that you would find that Nikon large format lenses

are quite popular as their reputation is very good.

 

<p>

 

Instead of the 135mm, I went for the 150mm Nikon because they are

esentially the same price and the 150mm has better coverage. Both the

135 and the 150 are fantastic. You would not go wrong with either.

I have used T-Max RS at 1:4 with very good results at the

recommended dilution from Kodak. At 21 degrees C, you are looking at

about 6 1/2 to 7 minutes for both TMax 100 and TMax 400. It is a

liquid concentrate that is easy to mix. It can also be used at 1:9. I

have not used XTol myself because I have heard of an occasional

problem from others.

I remember talking with several seasoned photographers about their

venture into the camera bellows experience. Not one of them said that

the results achieved were both cost effective and highly functional

after one considers the the time learning a "craft" and experimenting

with new or unique bellow materials. Remings me of the time I

acquired a tool for synchronization of the carbeurators on my older

Volvo. A week later and $200 poorer I was able to get someone over to

straighten things up so I could get the car running again. That was a

lesson that I never forgot. My point - focus (no pun intended)on what

you know best.

 

<p>

 

I got new bellows from Camera Bellows for my Linhof Technikardan for

$175. And I think that they are on the higher end of the cost scale

because of the double taper.

For anyone considering a Canham large format camera, Badger is currently having a sale on this camera. For details, go to their website.

Not to put you off Ben, but this subject has been one of the more

asked and answered on this forum. For example,a brisk discussion on

the stability of the wooden camera in general was conducted last

week. Most of what you are looking for is available on file here.

I was not aware of that flexibility with the Wista line. Where are

the knowledgable salesman when you in the high end camera stores?

However, after you add the cost of longer bellows and bed extensions,

might it be more cost effective to find a camera that will meet a

high percentage of your photographic requirements right out of the

box?

I have a series of Linhof publications and I will be damned if I can

find the weight of the 5x7 camera. It simply is not listed. I have

heard others say that it is in the range of 9#. The 4x5 Technika from

the literature reports the weight at 6# 1oz. When I put one on the

scale it was closer to 6 3/4#. Maybe someone else can provide you

with the accurate weight.

 

<p>

 

Using the drop bed and the special close focusing knob, the 5x7

camera is listed as being able to use a 75mm and a 90mm wide angle

lens. However, the book lists the smallest lens that can used with

the coupled rangfinder as 120mm. Concurrently, the viewfinder that

fits externally on top of the camera only goes down to a 120mm

perspective. Hope this helps.

In my opinion, the Wista has short bellows for what I would consider

for 4x5, let alone 5x7. You may also find yourself wanting the

flexibility to shoot clos(er) subjects as opposed to more distant

ones where the extra bellows would be a blessing. People on this

forum consistently praise the Ebony, but they are very pricey.

 

<p>

 

The Linhof 5x7 would be a great camera, but they did not make very

many and real nice ones are hard to come by. Plus they are heavy in

the 5x7 variation. I would take a look at the Canham 5x7 in either

the all metal or the wood/metal version. 6#, bellows to spare and

very reasonable price ($2,500). Canham is one of the innovators in

the US large format camera business and Keith is truly a gentleman in

every sense of the word. Give him a call and talk to him about their

products if for nothing more than a reference point.

If you are really thinking about some close work, you may need to

back off of the focal length to afford you some bellow extension

flexibility. Maybe a 200M Nikon? Small brother to the 300M. I have

both and the 200M is even smaller and just as sharp. Just a thought.

Anyone know who has 8x10 T-Max 400 inventory? Checked B&H and it was

not in stock. Thanks

I found the HAKUBA lead film pouch at the B&H website under the film

section for $20. It was rated at 1600 ASA.

Jonathan:

 

<p>

 

I wish I could give you the costs and the purchasing information on

the lead film bag. My brother purchased it in a store that

specializes in professional equipment at my request when I asked him

to bring the 5x7 Fuji Velvia back to the US. On the back of the bag

it says - HAKUBA PHOTO INDUSTRIES CO., LTD. If you would like, I can

ask my brother the name of the store. You might check some of the

larger internet/mail order houses here in the US. I have to believe

that they have a similar product that would be capable of holding a

box or two of 4x5 or even 5x7 film.

I frequently see these small screws on new lenses. I believe that

they are there to act as a non-rotating anchor in the lensboard. I

simply back the screw out completely and mount away. I do not believe

that you need a spacer ring. At least I did not with my Nikon lenses.

Try it without the screw and see if you can adjust your f-stops. If

you can, you are in business.

 

<p>

 

Good luck.

Avoid the whole mess and get a lead bag for your sheet film to and

from your destination. My brother who lives in Tokyo brough me back 2

boxes of Fuji 5x7 Velvia (20 sheets each) in a Hakuba X-Ray safety

case DX IN HIS CARRY ON BAGGAGE. Dimensions are 80mm W x 165mm L x

180mm H. It is rated safe to ISO 1600. However, on the back of the

bag there is a warning "Be sure to put your films into your carry on

baggage when you board a plane." "Never put films them into air

cargoes for even highly resistant X-Ray protective pouches cannot

avoid film exposure from the more powerful CT scanning."

 

<p>

 

Hope this helps.

Cutting out the obvious divergence of political persuasion, several

conclusions on this subject are irrefutable. #1) Once governmental

based bureaucracy gets a toe hold on a new revenue stream, things

will never be the same. #2) The potential costs to you and I (Mr. and

Mrs. American) will continue to escalate proportional with the

growing mission statement of control. And #3) Since our country was

founded, we have never needed oversight while visiting and enjoying

Federal lands. I do not understand what has fundamentally changed.

 

<p>

 

After I let out a Planet of the Apes primal scream from my back porch

after reading the article, off went the letters to my elected

officials. I recommend that you do not accept the status quo and in

your own way justify any nominal cost as the natural progression of

our daily lives. Losing the freedom to go where we want on the

millions of acres of generic but beautiful Federal lands unincumbered

would be a crying shame that I hope my sons do not have to deal with.

 

<p>

 

When I go back to Montana and see huge ranches that have been amassed

and their unwillingness to allow access to Federal lands, it really

hurts. Progress has to have a point where we say NO MORE.

Here is the story address:

 

<p>

 

www.denverpost.com/stories/0,1002,154%257E111503,00.html

 

<p>

 

The more folks know about this subject in whatever state they live

in, the better we all are.