jason l.

Hi Ron,

The 8X10 complete package that I ordered back in 2000 was supposed to have included a Pentax V spot meter. It's 2007...almost 2008, am I ever going to get the meter?

Thanks.

Jason Kefover

Hi Ron,

My 8X10 complete package was real late...I don't recall getting any free stuff. But that was awhile ago..did I get any free stuff? Anyway, no big deal, what I really would like to know is if you would [under the lifetime guarantee] replace the shaky front standard with the more rigid standard of the Traditional model...that's what I ordered, the Traditional. There's also that hardware in the back with the bad finish job I'd still like to get that replaced.

The geared standard design works ok on the back, but the front is not so good. If you would send me the parts I can make the change and send the old parts back to the shop.

Thanks

Jason Kefover

Well, same here. I actually flew up to meet Ron at his shop...there were delays after delays after delays. Ron told me that the camera and lens set [i ordered the $10,000 complete package] were ready for a run-off. I got there and my camera and lenses did not exist! Ron had some "examples" that he said would be exactly like my equipment.

I had to return the camera for defects. Oh, and I did not get the camera that I ordered. I got the Expedition when I ordered the Traditional. When the lenses finally got to me the caseings were not powder-coated like they were supposed to be but they, and the lenses were covered with machine oil and metal chips.

The camera binds in high humidity and I had to make several modifications to get it to work. So sad....

I have to admit though that I have made some really good negs with the equipment, but if I had known the ordeal it would be to get everything I would not have made the purchase.

I hope that Ron turns things around..he's not a bad person -- I don't think he is anyway...but he does have some problems running the business.

Jason Kefover.

Hello,

<p>

I am trying to evaluate Aristo ISO 125 8x10 film using the test procedures outlined by Ansel Adams in _The Negative_.

<p>

I am measuring densities with a Highland transmission densitometer.

<p>

My developer is Ilford ID-11 stock diluted 1:3 with distilled water.

<p>

I am getting a reading of 0.03 for film base + fog

<p>

Based on what I understand from Adams' book, Zone 1 should be at a density reading of 0.13. I can get about this density with the film rated at ISO 100.

<p>

It is also my understanding that an increase in density reading of .3 corresponds to a doubling of the density and thus to a 1 zone increase in density.

<p>

If this were correct, then I would expect that Zone 8 should correspond to a density reading of 2.23. (7 * .3) + .13 = 2.23.

<p>

However, on page 242 of _The Negative_ Adams stated that he found a density of 1.25 to 1.35 ideal for diffusion enlargers. By my reckoning, this density range is at bout Zone 5.

<p>

I am very obviously missing something critical here but I cannot figure out what it is. My step tablet that I bought from Phil Davis at Darkroom Innovations has 21 steps of .15 density increase each. The second step reads about .16. Going through the tablet you get .3 increase in density every second step. This means that on this step tablet Zone 8 would be at step 16; taking the second step to be zone 1. And step 16 on the tablet reads 2.26, very near to what I think Zone 8 ought to be but very different from what Adams states in the testing procedures.

<p>

The matter is further complicated by the fact that I cannot seem to get the density of Aristo 125 (rated at 100 and exposed for Zone 8) up beyond 1.95 regardless of development time.

<p>

I thought someone out there might have some insight into what I am doing wrong here.

<p>

Thanks for any information you can provide.

<p>

Jason Kefover

Congrats. Joe!

<p>

There's even more good news. LF can keep getting bigger. Just

imagine an 8x10 contact print. That is something special. Enjoy and

welcome to LF.

<p>

Regards

<p>

Jason

Of course B&W is on its way out. So is color film and digital, you,

me, the earth, and everything else that exists. So the point is not

to worry about what is inevitable. Enjoy it while it is here.

<p>

Jason

James,

<p>

My bad. Reading too late at night. That is exactly what you were

saying about _Clearing Winter Storm_.

<p>

The comments that threw me in your first post were:

<p>

"You will never get a perfect negative. You can get close but

you'll never get a perfect neg. Why? Because as you print the neg,

you

reinterpret it."

<p>

Anyway, it is true, calibration is the most important key to

consistently appealing tonal ranges in a photographer's prints.

<p>

Ditto on Phil Davis' Book. I have degrees in Physics and Mechanical

Engineering from Penn State [not meaning I'm any kind of mental

giant] and still I get bogged down in the math and charts. A.A.'s

testing methods are the best I've found so far.

<p>

Jason

James,

<p>

I disagree with your statements about _Clearing Winter Storm_. This

image is not like _Frozen Lake_ [taken on the Sierra Club outing] in

that _Frozen Lake_ was re-interpreted many times over many years

whereas _Clearing Winter Storm_ was not. Ansel knew what he saw,

exposed the film for expansion, and printed to meet his original

visualization. He did not make other interpretations once he got the

now famous printing solution.

<p>

I mean lets face it, no one is ever going to get the 'exact' negative

they want even is they know at the time of exposure exactly what they

want in the print. So the photographer exposes and develops the

negative as best as he can and burns/dodges/masks/tones/... to get

what he visualized at exposure. Or, as you have correctly stated,

the photographer can employ these techniques to re-interpret the

visualization post development. However, this is not what happened

with _Clearing Winter Storm_. Ansel manipulated the printing to get

what he saw at the time of exposure.

<p>

Jason

Has anyone out there bought the masking kit from Lynn Radeka?

His site is at www.radekaphotography.com

<p>

I'm thinking about ordering one but I want to see if anyone has had a negative [no pun intended] experience with it first.

<p>

Thanks for any information.

<p>

Jason

Raven,

<p>

The Zone System is all about when to over and under expose. Ever see

those wonderful images where the white trees seem to �glow� against

the dark background? Generally this effect is created by

underexposing the negative by about a stop to a stop & 1/2 and then

giving N+1 or N+2 or sometimes even N+3 development. The same is

true for Adams' famous image of the clearing winter storm in Yosemite.

<p>

On the other hand, it is probably more common to overexpose a

negative to get good detail in the low values and then contract

development to prevent blocking of the highlights [Z8, Z9, and Z10].

This is the old saying "expose for the shadows and develop for the

highlights". The zone system just allows you to consistently predict

the response of your system to various combinations of exposure and

development. I have found that I very rarely give normal exposure

with normal development to a negative.

<p>

You should shoot at least two plates of each scene if you can.

Generally, if you are going to bracket, you only need to go in one

direction. A one-stop difference is usually enough for me. If the

first negative is wanting in some regard, this indicates the correct

development for the second plate.

<p>

Remember that intuition and experience play a big part in this. Ed

Weston rarely used a light meter and when he did he usually doubled

the suggestion of the meter. He then worked miracles in the

darkroom. Likewise, Adams did his share of burning and dodging as

well.

<p>

Regards.

Thanks very much to all.

Ilford did get back to me and I have attached the technician's

response below. Note that it confirms what Brian posted with regard

to the mixed emulsion as opposed to the layered structure. The

technician does indicate that the dual grid (blue/green) should be

effective in contrast control.

<p>

I had copied Calumet's description of the design of the Zone VI

enlarger head and Calumet's description of vc paper emulsion which

they say is layered (Green/Blue) sensitive.

<p>

From Ilford:

" While this description of Multigrade paper is not technically fully

accurate (our paper has 3 emulsions, and they are mixed, not layered),

it is close enough to describe the process. The type of head you

describe should give excellent results, although you may have to

experiment some to find the proper contrast settings. Some cold

light heads have a problem reaching the lowest contrast grades,

but having a green light source should for the most part eliminate

that problem. "

Hi all.

<p>

The next toy on my list for 2001 is the Zone VI 8X10 VC enlarger by Calumet. I'm curious about the accuracy of some of the claims Calumet makes about the enlarger.

<p>

I emailed Ilford to ask them and they have not responded. It's not that I don't believe Calumet's claims about the structure of VC paper emulsions; I'm just curious about their claims regarding the effectiveness of their dual cold light grid.

<p>

Anyway, here's what Calumet says on their web page. If anyone has practical experience with this enlarger or the general design; your input is most appreciated.

<p>

"Here�s how it works. Variable contrast papers are made up of two different emulsion layers: a low, or soft contrast layer sensitive to green light, and a high, or hard layer sensitive to blue light. The variable contrast head features two light grids, one green and one blue, each with its own rheostat. Print contrast is controlled by varying the intensity of these �soft� and �hard� grids. This system allows the ability to adjust contrast within the high and low values independently, and in one exposure. Because there are two different tubes projecting two different spectrums of light, it�s like making two exposures in one, each hitting and effecting the two layers in the paper�s emulsion."

I wrote to _Frends of Arizona Highways_ to ask for information on the

incident. This is what they sent to me. I have recieved permission

from _Frends..._ to post the press release in the forum.

<p>

______________________________________________________________________

<p>

Jason:

Barbara Kramer Hornor, Director for the Friends of Arizona Highways

forwarded me your e-mail.

I have attached the Press Release that Arizona Highways has

released to

the media hoping that this will address your questions and concerns.

If you cannot open the attachment, please let me know and I can

fax or

mail you a hardcopy. However, if you have specific questions

regarding the

incident please address them to Win Holden, the publisher of Arizona

Highways.

Sincerely,

Catherine Coughlin

Arizona Highways (www.arizonahighways.com)

Public Information Officer

2039 West Lewis Ave.

Phoenix, AZ 85009

ccoughlin@dot.state.az.us

602-712-2020

______________________________________________________________________

<p>

ATTACHMENT:

<p>

MEDIA ALERT * * * MEDIA ALERT * * * MEDIA ALERT * * * MEDIA ALERT

<p>

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

<p>

For further information contact:

Arizona Highways Publisher, Win Holden

Office:

602-712-2023

<p>

PHOENIX, ARIZ. (OCTOBER 23, 2000) - -

<p>

Michael Fatali, who is under investigation for setting fires that

scarred

an arch in Arches and Canyonlands National Parks near Moab, Utah, on

September 18, has been suspended for one year from conducting photo

workshops for the Friends of Arizona Highways, a nonprofit support

group of

the magazine.

<p>

In addition, said Arizona Highways Publisher Win Holden, Fatali's

posters of

slot canyons have been removed from the magazine's gift shop. "We are

exceedingly disappointed in Fatali's completely careless action.

Arizona

Highways always has been a powerful voice for protection of the

environment

and preservation of our natural landscapes."

<p>

Fatali set the fires in small aluminum pans to light Delicate Arch

during an

unauthorized nighttime photo session while conducting a workshop

sponsored

by the Friends of Arizona Highways. The magazine itself was not

involved in

the workshops.

<p>

"This was a totally unsanctioned activity by Fatali," said Barbara

Hornor,

executive director of the Friends. "We obtained permits to go into

the park

to photograph as part of an 11-day photo workshop through northern

Arizona

and southern Utah national parks and other scenic locations. We did

not know

he planned on setting fires. The permits specifically prohibit the

use of

fires."

<p>

The Friends have conducted photo workshops in Arizona and surrounding

areas

for 16 years, Hornor said, and nothing like this has ever

occurred. "We have

always worked to promote appreciation of the environment, and this

incident

is offensive to us."

<p>

-30-

Beau:

<p>

Do a search on "Alternative Photographic Processes". You should get

a few hits that lead you in the right direction.

<p>

Check out www.photoformulary.com this is a great source for AP.

<p>

Also look for a book titled "Keepers of the Light" a history and

working guide to AP.

<p>

<IMHO> 'Liquid Light' is ok to get started in making your own

papers. But for serious work you probably should think about making

your own emulsions.

<p>

Regards.

<p>

Jason

You can reject Adams' work on aesthetic grounds if you so desire.

Many competent photographers will disagree with you and may ask you

to produce work that rivals the work you disparaging.

<p>

Unless you meet a person and interact with them, it borders on

foolishness to make public pronouncements regarding their

personality. I have never met Ansel face to face [or face to ghost

as in the case of Mr. Wimberley]. But I did correspond with him

shortly before his death. I was about 17 and I actually sent him a

letter, accompanied by several photographs, wherein I requested to

become his apprentice. IMHO, an egotistical person would have had a

good laugh and tossed the package into the bin. That is not what

Ansel did.

<p>

Ansel sent me a signed reproduction of one of his most famous

photographs and a letter. He did not address my request directly. I

think that was done out of kindness. He said that he liked my work

and that the photographs that I had sent to him would be included in

his archives. He encouraged me to continue to hone my skills.

<p>

His prolific photographic work serves as a goal for many. He did not

hide what he learned; but rather shared it with us so that some might

even excel his technical knowledge. That can not be said of many of

the other great photographers.

<p>

Am I an �Adams Nut�? I don�t know exactly what that means. I can

say that in my library his books come right after the Bible.

Cool. Good idea. I know of only one other LFer in my area, but I'm

sure there have to be many more.

<p>

Jason.

I read in many responses the question "how do you get there without a

car?�

<p>

WALK. Has anyone read Ansel's accounts of how he used to get around

in the High Sierras?

<p>

If you can not hike with your gear, I am truly sorry; and I am being

sincere here. But to say that the Parks "were created for the

citizens to enjoy the outdoor experience..." is a gross

understatement of the reason the Parks exist.

<p>

Humans need to get it through their collective head that this planet

does not belong to us. It is not our possession; and for sure not a

single one of us will take even a grain of sand with us when we check

out. The Parks/Public Lands exist [or should exist] to preserve in

some limited way what we _know_ should be preserved to a much larger

degree.

<p>

Again, the Parks are more important than our enjoyment of them.

There should be NO cars in any of the Parks except public transport

to the main entrances. And I agree, get ALL of the amenities out of

the Parks.

<p>

Is the NPS inefficient? YES! And we should be among the most vocal

groups out there telling the NPS and congress what is wrong.

<p>

By the way, I am renewing my membership in the Sierra Club today.

May I please suggest that, if you love the land, you should support

this most important organization.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason.

The Parks should be preserved; not so photographers can go there and

do their thing but simply because these are the last true "open

spaces" left in our country.

<p>

It's getting worse folks. I don't know what it's like in your area

but here, in SC, they are tearing down every last patch of green they

can find to put up more of 'plastic America.' It's sick.

<p>

Humans need to regain the connection of spirit with the Earth. The

Parks show us something of what this land was like before it was

corrupted. So the Parks are the only viable means of re-awakening

man's need for open, unpolluted, undeveloped spaces.

<p>

So people need to be able to visit the Parks but this must be

accomplished in a way that preserves the very reason that people

should see to the Parks.

<p>

The bus system is a good idea. If you are shooting 8x10 as I do;

carry it on your back along with everything else. If you can not,

then go to a smaller format. The Park is more important than our

desire to photograph them.

<p>

I would even go further to say that the number of visitors allowed to

enter the Parks should be reduced by about 30% in the most visited

ones and anywhere up to 30% in the rest, depending on visitation.

<p>

I know this contradicts my assertion that people need to visit the

Parks to regain the connection with the Earth. But that is more of

an ideal whereas I am now speaking from a more practical viewpoint.

Hay Albert:

<p>

I'm with Dan on this one. I've read Merklinger's book "Focusing The

View Camera" and he is right on the money with his theory. However,

it is kind of difficult to apply in the field. It still seems to me

that the photographer must know, before hand, both the vertical and

horizontal distances to the principal objects in the scene that

determine the principal plane of focus. I might be wrong here, if I

am, please correct me.

<p>

So I look at the scean and visualize where I want the plane of sharp

focus to be. I focus on the foreground, then tilt, then re-focus on

the foreground. Then I examine the ground glass to see if my

background object is also in focus. If not, I tilt one of the

standards accordingly. Then I start over. The process continues

until my plane of sharp focus cuts the foreground and the background

where I want it to.

<p>

The trick is having an understanding of where the depth of field

planes go as the standards are tilted. Merklinger does a fantastic

job of describing this, but, I think an intuitive understanding

or 'feel' for it is sufficient. At least for me anyway.

<p>

I hope this adds something to the discussion.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason.

I am under the impression that using a shorter development time does

not reduce densities to the same degree in shadows and highlights.

It seems to me that the Zone System depends on greater reduction in

highlight areas as opposed to shadow areas with reduced development

time and greater build-up up density in highlights as opposed to

shadows with increased development time. I know that shadows come to

full development long before highlight areas.

<p>

I am also under the impression that the activation energy required in

shadow areas is less than that for highlights. [Disclaimer: I may be

way off here, the truth is, I don't know this to be a fact.] But, it

makes sense to me that this would be the case.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason

There are many methods for controlling the range of densities on a black and white negative. For example, highly diluted 'pre-developers' used in conjunction with development in normal concentration.

<p>

I was thinking that, since the rate of chemical reaction between the silver on the film and the developer is dependent on the temperature of the developer as well as concentration and time, one should be able to control the magnitude of development in shadow areas relative to highlight areas through a period of development in a cold developer solution. Development in a solution at normal temperature may be used to bring up highlight areas after shadows have come to full development in the cold solution.

<p>

I have never tried this and there may be no advantage to doing so. I thought I'd ask about it because someone out there may have tried it. Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason

Most people don't care. Most people would listen to Brittney Spears

before Vivaldi.

<p>

I remember when I got my first 35mm camera, I was in ninth grade. It

was just after I had gone to the Eastman museum in Rochester, NY.

That is when I first saw original works by Adams.

<p>

I started working with my 35mm...something was desperately wrong with

it. I did not have the razor sharp focus from foreground to

background. And I did not have the perfect tonal range from black to

white. I had the camera checked out. They said it was fine. Then I

read "The Negative". Things started to click.

<p>

The people who are inclined to notice, will notice. Who cares about

the rest?

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason

Anyone out there a memberof WFPA (Wood Field Photographers Association)? Anyone have any info on WFPA they would like to share?

<p>

To join, you apperently have to send in what you think is your best photograph. Why? What happens to it after you become a member?

<p>

It looks like a worthwhile organization, but I'd like to get some input from current members and people who have decided not to become members.

<p>

Thanks for your input.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason.

The Wisner Convertable Plasmat lens set for 8X10. Al least that's

where I'm going. If anyone has a negitive[no pun intended]opinion of

this lens set, I would appreciate hearing it.

Albert

<p>

DOF is really only half the problem. You will have a difficult time

getting the sharpness you want if you do not get the best plane of

focus to begin with.

<p>

Someone posted that you should react to your ground glass. I really

agree with this philosophy. Take your camera out and play with the

front and rear tilts and swings. Make notes on what points come into

focus together as you adjust the swings and tilts and re-focus.

<p>

Once you are comfortable with the procedure of placeing the plane of

focus to maximize sharpness in the foreground and the background,

then just shoot at the smallest aperature that suits your goal for

the photograph. Remember that smaller is not always better. With

4X5, if you go much smaller than f/32.5 you start to get into

diffraction problems.

<p>

Regards,

<p>

Jason