richard_deimel

There's another aspect to consider. Because of a family situation, I can't take off on overnight jaunts; I can get out to photograph about every other Sunday morning, and I have been going to various spots in the mostly Dade and Broward areas, with some excursions to Key Largo and to Palm Beach. I'd like company. I have friends in 35mm and MF, but the way we in LF work is too different for them to be very good company. Are there any LF photographers who would like to join with me? I photograph anything outdoors.

Miami.

I suspect the problem may be with ebony, or this particular Ebony. I am in South Florida, than which there are few places more humid, at least in summer. Certainly it is more humid here than in Hawaii, and I have been over many of the islands, including the heights above Kona. I am now on my fourth wood camera over the years, and I have never had a problem such as you describe. Not even close. None of them worked any differently from the one metal camera I had. But all of them (three different makes) have been cherrywood.

More specifically, can the current 110mm RZ lens be used on an RB?

The domestic airlines won't let you carry a tripod on board. It's a weapon! The only way you can take it is to check it as baggage, and it should be in something that doesn't advertise "tripod" as apparently tripods are attractive to baggage handlers.

I agree with Brian Ellis. I have had cameras with and without the

revolving back, and while obviously it's less effort just to turn a

back than to take it off and turn it, (a) it's not something you are

doing constantly and (b) what's the hurry? Most LF photographers are

not in a rush. Certainly the marginal convenience is worth neither

any increase in weight (a pound or two as I recall, not 4 pounds) nor

any increase in cost. Not, at least, to me.

I had a Toyo and I have a friend near me who has a Walker, so I have

had the opportunity to examine it and I have borrowed it nd used it.

Either camera is excellent, and I would not rate the plastic as

better or worse than the Toyo's metal, just different. (My first LF

camera was a Super Graphic, which is plastic, and after 35-40 years

is still a camera in excellent, almost like-new shape.)The Toyo is a

little lighter than the Walker, about 6 lbs. to the Walker's 7-7.5

lbs. The Walker has a brighter fresnel. But the Toyo has a built-in

collapsible GG shade (which is sometimes helpful, but sometimes

annoying too). The Walker does have geared front tilt in addition to

axis tilt (the Toyo has only axis tilt). The Walker has more

movements. Mostly the Walker has a lot more bellows draw, about 18",

as opposed to the Toyo's about 12". This might be important to you. I

liked the Toyo; it's a very precise camera, very well made. I did

find the limited bellows draw to be a disadvantage. I don't like the

additional weight of the Walker, but it's also very impressively

made, and the additional features are nice. I don't know about price;

I believe the Walker is less, but the Toyo is frequently sold with

light meter deals that bring the price down.

At one time I carried a bunch of lenses with me, but because of a bad back I had to lighten up considerably, so for several years now I have been happily functioning with only a 210mm lens. However, from time to time I feel the need for a wide normal lens. I have room for only one additional lens, and I am undecided if it should be a 135 or a 150. Or are these so close that there's no significant difference? I would appreciate opinions.

Does anyone know if a 135mm Kodak Wide Field Ektar lens will fit in a Copal 0 Shutter?

Does anyone know if a 135mm Optar will fit in a Copal 0 board?

It's not the camera, it's the photographer who's creative. LF

movements foster creativity by allowing much more and more precise

control of all elements, but it comes down to the individual

photographer and his style, and what he's comfortable working with.

I have owned both cameras, and they are in different leagues both

dollar-wise and quality-wise. The Toyo is much more expensive, and a

much heavier camera, about 6 lbs. vs about 3.5 lbs. for the

Tachihara. The Toyo is much better made and,like most metal cameras,

is much more a precision instrument than the Tachihara. The Toyo when

folded is completely protected; the Tachihara has an unprotected

ground glass. All of which is in favor of the Toyo other than weight

and cost. But the overriding factor for you may be the 300mm lens you

are planning to use. The Tachihara has about 12" of bellows draw,

which is very minimal for a 300mm lens, which can barely be focused

at infinity. The Toyo has about an inch more of bellows, which makes

a big difference in focusing the 300mm lens closer than infinity.

Other than cost and weight, which are factors for your individual

consideration, the Toyo is a far better choice for you.

If you want to end up with prints, try color negative film. I tried

Ilfochrome, and internegs (and my lab made 4x5 internegs with top

quality equipment and charged less than $10)and found the interneg

route quite satisfactory. Ilfochrome is contrasty, and it's very

difficult to find a lab that can make good 16x20's and do it at a

reasonable price. My lab suggested I try color negative, and I have

been using it ever since, quite happily. Color negative has several

advantages over color positive, not least of which is the very much

greater latitude. True, it doesn't give you a spectacular look on a

light box, but if it's prints you're after, that's unimportant.

Looking for another Dade-Broward 4x5 photographer to do field photography. I usually go out every other Sunday morning.

I don't understand the problem. I have no darkroom and have loaded

and unloaded film holders in a standard changing bag for years, with

no problems. But I don't think I have ever loaded or unloaded more

than six holders at one time, usually four or less. Maybe he is

trying to do too many at one time?

I subscribed to View Camera for a number of years, finally let my

subscription lapse because the editorial quality of the magazine had

deteriorated. After a couple of years I said, well, it's the only LF

magazine we have, so I ought to support it, and just maybe it has

improved, so I subscribed again. I am sorry to say that, on the basis

of the last two issues, it's just not worth reading.

There is no perfect answer; I have tried all kinds of alternatives

(including the BTZS cloth)and there is something good and something

not so good about all of them. Currently I am using something quite

simple and inexpensive -- a size medium black T shirt from Lands' End

(cost, $12) that I find to be light weight, cool, easy to use, and

quite satisfactory for my use. The neck goes over the back, my hands

go through the arm holes, and it works. The disadvantage I find is

that if the neck isn't placed precisely right over the back, it tends

to slip off. But as I said, nothing is perfect in this area.

I used one with my Wista DX II, and it works OK with one or at most

two lenses, plus the minimum of the usual accessories that we need. I

wanted something that was light weight and more convenient to work

out of than a backpack, and on that basis it's all right. But it's

not the most convenient thing in the world, since it's not well

compartmented, plus space is really limited, so if you're not

traveling very light, forget it. If you are, it should be fine.

It's really not a problem.I'm in Miami, Florida, and I have used

nothing but wood field cameras for years, a series of Tachiharas and

now for several years a Wista DX II. All outdoor photography, winter

and summer, in some of the worst possible heat and humidity

conditions. The only problem, as someone has cautioned, might be

condensation on a lens taken from air conditioning and not allowed to

warm up to ambient temperature. If you remember to look at the lens

before your first shot, you'll see it if it's there, and then it's

just a matter of waiting a few minutes. But as to the wood, don't

worry.

Erik's is the first explanation that really makes sense to me. It's

not that the actual circle of coverage varies (that would be limited

by the optical design), but that the USABLE circle of coverage will

vary. However, having gotten that far, the original question still

remains: does it vary by any measureable factor?

OK, you have convinced me that the expansion of the circle of

coverage is limited by the physical design of the lens, but that

really doesn't answer my question. As we stop down the lens, the

circle expands. Are you all saying that there's no logic to its

expansion, but that in each lens it expands at a different rate,

determined by the physical design of that particular lens?

Published circles of coverage for LF lenses are apparently standardized at f22. We know that the area of coverage increases as the lens is stopped down, but by what factor? Would it be a percentage of the dismeter? If so, what would the percentage be, or is there a formula, or what?

Call Calumet (1-800-CALUMET) and ask them. They usually know and will

tell you.

Don't be in a rush. A view camera is very different from 35mm, and

your eventual choice of lenses may be very different from your 35mm

lineup. Stick with your 110 for a while and see how you feel with

more time and experience. You may want another shorter, or longer, or

whatever. And in time, you'll find you could use still another focal

length. Everybody's different. FYI, the single focal length most used

by 4x5 landscape photographers appears to be 210.

You don't say what camera you have, and how much bellows draw it has.

That is a major limiting factor in choosing a long lens.