robert_a._zeichner

Try an Ektar 203mm f7.7 This will fit with ease and is wonderfully

sharp and covers 5x7+! You will need a 33mm slip-on series 6 filter

adapter and then a step up ring if you don't want to deal with series 6

filers.

One of the peculiar things about close up work with a view camera is

that the image magnification keeps changing as you attempt to focus.

What can make it easier is to move the whole camera toward or away from

the subject. Fortunately, you can do this to a degree with the C1/C3.

By loosening the two knobs that clamp the camera to the base, you can

slide the whole mess back & forth. Just make certain the base is

screwed tight to the tripod head and that your head is up to the task

of supporting an unbalanced load. My Majestic 1400 works real well in

this regard. As to your bellows length problem, I'm puzzeled. I have

a 19" Apo Artar on my C1 and have easily done 1/2 life size with it. As

far as closeup work with short lenses goes, I just did some 1/2 life

size with a 203 f7.7 Ektar and had no problem at all. I could have

gotten even closer with ease. Try moving the whole camera and see if

that helps. And let us know how you make out.

When you raise the lens on a view camera, you are raising the cone of

projected light exiting the rear of the lens and moving it up as well.

Since the image is inverted on the ground glass, the ceiling being down

and the floor up, so to speak, if your circle of coverage is

insufficient, vignetting (starting at the corners) of the lower part of

the ground glass image, in this case the ceiling, should become

noticeable. This is exactly opposite of what you report. Is the

cutoff straight across? Do your bellows sag? If you did a substantial

rise and the bellows were sagging enough, they could actually crop the

image on the gg and the film. And guess which part of the image would

it would crop? That's my guess, bellows sag. You're using a

relatively short lens and if you have a lot of bellows and they're

super flexible, they are probably hanging down in the line of fire.

Let us know if this is the case!

A piece of inner tube has worked for me in the past.

Death Valley is certainly one of my favorite places. Be warned though,

it's huge (the size of Connecticut!) and a day trip will be a long day

indeed. It takes about two hours to get to Beatty, NV which is at the

eastern portal to the park. Near Beatty is Rhyolite, a ghost town with

some interesting photographic opportunities. Or, you could enter the

park a bit south at Death Valley Junction. There, you'll get very near

the Amorgosa Opera House, another interesting piece of architecture. I

would get some maps and guides to the park and plan any day trip very

carefully. I would also avoid it during the hot weather. April, May

and later in October or the winter months can be very pleasant. South

of DV are some salt pinnacles. I've never been there, but their

location appears on most maps of the area. Please visit the Death

Valley section of my web site to see some examples of what's possible.

http://www.razeichner.com

Dave, you might also want to consider this rule of thumb: In order for

a threaded fastener with standard threading to achieve its maximum

holding power, three full threads need to screwed into to the socket.

One possible reason for 1/4-20 on your camera might be that a 3/8-16

would not allow this condition to be met. Screwing a bolt into the

camera any further than the three thread depth will not increase the

holding power of the fastening! If you calculate the the surface area

of the contacted thread, beyond that point you will exceed the cross

sectional area of the bolt, which would break first inasmuch as it

would then be the weakest link in the chain, so to speak. A second

1/4-20 socket might be fine in preventing the camera from twisting

loose, but other than for that reason, I would concur with the previous

contributor who so eloquently attempted to put your concerns to rest.

That guy must have been a graduate of the Penn State school of

engineering! My advice is to acquire a broad area quick release

mounting plate and attach to the camera with a good quality bolt (most

come with one) using a piece of inner tube or similar rubber sheet to

keep it from breaking loose. I've done this for years without a hint

of a problem.

This lens has a projection angle of 46 degrees and a diagonal coverage

at infinity of 16.1" Hope this helps.

Well, it's not often that I expose color film, but once in a great while I do and over the years I've collected a handful of slightly underexposed EPN's. A friend showed me a kit he bought from Edwal that was designed to brighten underexposed Kodachrome. He said they also made a kit for Ektachrome, but I have not been able to find info about that on Edwal's web site. I don't need more that about a half a stop of "brightening" in most instances. Any of you chrome experts out there have any ideas? Is there some secret supplier who sells this stuff? Is this one more environmental "worst nightmare" that has been banned? Your input will be appreciated.

Along the lines of what Jeff just posted, one of the reasons I prefer

T-Max emulsions over others is that they seem to be less prone to

building up excessive contrast when shooting long exposures. They are

not totally immune from this problem, but only until you get to

exposures of around 15 minutes, if memory serves me, do they require

some minus development to make the highlights printable without

excessive loss of detail.

Yaakov, you still there? One other thing to consider, at least it's a

factor here in Michigan, USA, is that reciprocity corrections are much

milder for T-Max films. I find this important when doing multi-minute

exposures as is often the case in my work. Also, there isn't the nasty

build-up of contrast one usually gets when making this compensation

with other emulsions. I've used both and still prefer T-Max. I, too

have run into flaws with Delta, however, I've never had a bad piece of

Ilford paper and I have experienced problems with EKC paper a number of

times! They're very good about replacing it, I might add.

I'm assuming that you will be making detail shots of this subject. If

that's the case, there are a couple of things I'd like to point out.

First, since depth of field is influenced by subject to lens distance,

chances are you will need to use a smaller aperture than you might

think in order to keep even a relatively shallow subject in focus.

Secondly, a time exposure might be called for in order to use the

aperture you require, thus making it necessary to consider three more

things! 1. To eliminate the possibility of blur, a rock steady tripod

will be necessary as well as a long cable release. 2. You will have to

compensate for bellows extension when doing this close-up work,

requiring added exposure time. 3. You will need to increase the

exposure indicated by your meter and then modified for bellows factor

to compensate for the reciprocity departure that film exhibits when

making multi-second exposures. The charts indicating what those

adjustments are for a particular film are available from the

manufacturer. One last thing to keep in mind is that while employing

Scheimpflug's rule in doing your set up, be mindful of any portion of

the subject that seems to get more out of focus as you experiment with

tilts and swings. You don't get something for nothing when adjusting

the focus plane! Oh, and I promise this is all I'll add: One reason

photographers use monorails for tabletop work is to be able to rack the

entire camera forward and backward without changing the distance

between front and rear standards. This enables one to focus by moving

the entire camera closer to or further from the subject. Without this

feature, it's a constant jockying of focus and tripod position to get

the subject size correct on the ground glass. I know of some folks who

have mounted their field cameras on large focusing racks to accomplish

the same thing. I hope this helps you.

I just made an adapter out of aluminum to enable my Majestic 1600 to

fit on my Linhof twinleg. I previously made an adapter to replace

the head on the Linhof. What I now have is a 2-1/2" diameter disc with

a 3/8"-16 threaded stud (just like a Bogen). I machined a 1-1/2"

diameter cylinder with a 2" flange (looks like a top hat) and drilled

and tapped a 3/8-16 hole in the base. I screw it onto the Linhof and

slide the Majestic on and tighten the handwheel. Works great! Do I call

this thing a Linjestic or a Malinhof? Whichever, this system

allows me to use any head I have on any tripod I have. Handy! If you

are interested, a friend of mine has an older Majestic head and leg

set that he would be willing to part with for a reasonable price. Let

me know and I'll put you in touch with him.

Well, I've done it! I just posted a response to the wrong thread!

Damn, it's been a long week.

I just made an adapter out of aluminum to enable my Majestic 1600 to

fit on my Linhof twinleg. I previously made an adapter to replace the

head on the Linhof. What I now have is a 2-1/2" diameter disc with a

3/8"-16 threaded stud (just like a Bogen). I machined a 1-1/2"

diameter cylinder with a 2" flange (looks like a top hat) and drilled

and tapped a 3/8-16 hole in the base. I screw it onto the Linhof and

slide the Majestic on and tighten the handwheel. Works great! Do I

call this thing a Linjestic or a Malinhof? Whichever, this system

allows me to use any head I have on any tripod I have. Handy! If you

are interested, a friend of mine has an older Majestic head and leg set

that he would be willing to part with for a reasonable price. Let me

know and I'll put you in touch with him.

I generally pre-soak for about a minute when using T-max emulsions. I

get consistently good results. One thing you might consider if you are

using the Ilford Delta films is that they incorporate a built-in

wetting agent that Ilford says eliminates the need for pre-soak. If

you do pre-soak those films, you will alter your development time, or

so I am led to believe!

What shutter speed to use differs with different focal lengths and/or

distance from the subject. What I might recommend is trying to do this

early in the morning when solar activity hasn't yet had a chance to

stir things up. Sometimes late in the day works too. I just made a 1

minute 10 second exposure of a Hemlock branch hanging over a little

water fall and there wasn't a hint of movement in the Hemlock needles!

I shot that subject after the sun had just about disappeared!

What you need is a copy of ANSI Z38.1.51-1951 This is the Dimensional

information for Photographic Double Film Holders of the Lock-Rib Type.

It will give you dimensions and tolerances for 2-1/4" x 3-1/4" upto 8"

x 10" Holders. As for gg placement, you'll have to factor in the

average film thickness you intend to use and make any necessary

adjustments for a Fresnel brightening screen if you intend to put one

between the gg and the lens. Good luck!

The business of behind or in front of the ground glass is somewhat

confusing if, for instance, behind the ground glass means hidden by it!

I prefer to state it this way: If the Fresnel is "between" the ground

glass and the lens, removing it will cause a shift in focus unless the

shims are changed. This of course assumes the assembly was designed in

such a manner that the user has a choice of Fresnel or no Fresnel. I'm

very familliar with that Horseman back and I do recall some black fiber

shims that lie between the gg and the mounting pads. The Fresnel is

actually "hung" on the gg between the gg and lens with some metal

clips. It does not get sandwiched between the pads and the gg. One

maker of an after market screen failed to notice that, which is how I

became involved in gg alignment in the first place! If you want to

conduct this experiment with assurance that you will be able to get

back to where you started, make a drawing of where everything goes. I

believe what you will need to do to compensate for the removal of the

Fresnel, is to also remove the shims. Those shims should have a total

thinckness of 1/3 of the thickness of the Fresnel, which I believe was

around .0500" if memory serves me. You should then conduct a film test

to confirm proper alignment. See my article in ViewCamera magazine,

Nov./Dec. 1996 for instructions on making and using a ground glass test

target. Feel free to email me if you have any questions.

Not only should this work for reasons previously stated, but I have it

on good authority that short lenses like, perhaps the 90mm you have in

mind are exceedingly sharp when used for closeups. Let us know how

your results turn out!

I knew there was a reason I saved all my Zone VI catalogues! On pg.

three of the '92 edition appears a paragraph entitled "The best

guarantee in the world" .....we guarantee to repair or replace it if

it gets broken during the time you own it - no matter how it was

broken. If you drop it off your truck or your tripod blows over or you

fall on it... the offer is the same. In later issues, I recall seeing

some exclusionary statement about gratuitous abuse or dunking. If you

ask me, it appears you have a case. Good luck!

Charles, I can only speak for my Horseman 45FA. I was able to keep a

135 f4.7 Xenar mounted on this camera. Everything else I tried was

just too deep. The press lenses, Optars, the previously mentioned

Xenar and a handful of others were designed to be kept on a folded

Graphic or similar. Unfortunately, they lacked the coverage I needed

and so they were not an option for me. Hope this helps.

Paul, If it's an f4.5 Raptar Series II, it most likely requires a 38mm

slip-on adapter. Problem is the slip-on types are designed for drop-in

series filters. You may need to find a series 6 to 52mm adapter and

that could be difficult. You may find it easier to just get an

appropriate slip-on adapter and buy some old series 6 filters. I've

seen lots of these at used camera shows. Hope this helps.

The ground glass testing article that I authored a few years back, has

in it, instructions for making an inexpensive ground glass test target.

Your's is just the situation that could benefit from this test. It's

totally non-invasive and the materials to make it are cheap! I would

suggest you read that article (Nov./Dec 1996 issue of ViewCamera). If

you have any questions, I'll be happy to address them via email. Hope

this helps.

Brian, theoretically, if you view a print of any size from a given

negative at a viewing distance that renders it's apparent size to your

eyes/brain at the same magnification, the apparent detail or defects

will look no different. With larger prints, there is a tendency to get

closer to the image. This is where you will begin to see things you

might miss in a smaller print. As print size diminishes, you reach a

point where you just can't get any closer without optical aids. I've

also noticed that defects also become masked by the texture of the

paper at those smaller sizes. Another strange thing I've noticed is

that other photographers always seem to "get out their loupes" when

viewing other's prints.

I've done most of my waterfall shots early in the day when the sun

isn't a factor. Generally, the highlight area of the falls comes in at

zone VII and the darkest area where distinct textural detail is

desired, in zone III. As far as lens selection, I've used just about

everything I own. It's really a matter of how big, how far, etc. I

generally try for an exposure time of around 1/15th to 1/4th. This is

not always even possible. I've made some exposures exceeding a minute

and a half! Obviously this impacts how the blurred water motion is

going to look and often, exposures that long simply won't result in

anything worthwhile. If the fall is gentle and the water is falling in

distinct streams, those translate well in a longer exposure.

Thundering cateracts on the other hand will just be a blob of white.

You might want to take a gander at some I've done. Here are a few

locations to see them. [http://www.razeichner.com/otherlandscapes/

dreamingpoet.htm] [http://www.razeichner.com/otherlandscapes/

cedarfalls.htm] [http://www.razeichner.com/otherlandscapes/

springflowage.htm] Occasionally I'll shoot a fall mid day when it's

overcast or when the sun is securely hidden by clouds. The exposure

options are much more varied when it's brighter, but I often have to

use minus development to keep the the water detail from blocking up and

requiring lots of burning in when printing. Hope this helps you in

some way.