robert_a._zeichner

Depending on the type of outing I've planned, I usually load all twenty

of my holders with mostly Black and White and maybe two or three with

Ektachrome. I typically pack about 6 holders of B&W and 1 or 2 of

color in my backpack and head down the trail. I've got more than

enough to keep me busy until I start to get hungry and head back for my

car at which time I offload the exposed holders and take on some fresh

ones. Seldom do I run out during the day. When I get back to my motel

room, I wait for dark, tape visquene over the bathroom window if there

is one and unload the day's work and reload. This system seems to work

well for me. The only other thing I might recommend is packing each

holder in a ziplock bag and putting some kind of label on each bag so

you can record the exposure info on it. My holders are numbered so I

reference the notes to those numbers.

You might want to check out Steve Grimes' site. There is a wealth of

info about all the various ways to mount lenses in shutters, the costs

involved in having aperture scales engraved, etc. http://

www.skgrimes.com/

One point that I feel should be made here is that the smallest useable

aperture (before diffraction becomes noticeable) changes with the

format of film you are using. On 4x5 that aperture might be f32, in

5x7, f45 and in 8x10, f64. You can't necessarily draw a conclusion

about what seems good enough at a particular aperture unless you know

what size the original negative was. In the case of Edward Weston's

work, I believe he worked almost exclusively with an 8x10. Perhaps

one of you historians out there could confirm this, but I was once told

he never even owned an enlarger. Is this true? His f128 would be like

f45 on a 4x5 and with nothing bigger than a contact print, f128 would

seem pretty sharp!

I've been using this focusing technique for about three years with what

I would characterize as excellent results. Normally in 4x5, I try to

avoid anything smaller than f32. I have, under certain cicumstances

used an aperture of f45 with a delta of as much as 5mm. It's not my

preference, but if the opportunity means getting an important image and

living with slightly lower resolution, I expose the film and decide

after I've developed the negative. Sometimes I'll bias the position of

the lens standard toward the far if the characteristics of the

foreground are such that slightly soft focus wouldn't be all that

noticeable. Apparent sharpness is a function of a number of factors,

one of them being what I call detail scale. If the foreground objects

have relatively large elements of detail in them, even if the focus is

less than optimal, at the normal viewing distance those objects might

seem acceptably sharp in the finished print. Again, this is not ideal,

but sometimes the importance of capturing the scene outweighs living

with these imperfections.

Josh, It has an OD of 63.5mm and requires a slip on adapter. Kodak

made these and they often appear at used camera shows. The adapter

would be threaded for a series 8 retainer (which is 67mm). You could

use without the retainer and screw in 67mm filters!

All the films you mentioned respond differently when exposed for times

longer than a second. The reciprocity departure (it doesn't really

fail) for T-max is less dramatic than for the other two. When making

really long exposures, you have to also contend with altered contrast

in as much as portions of the scene typically need less additional

exposure causing their respective parts of the negative to gain density

faster than others. This needs to be compensated for in development,

which of course can make an even longer exposure required to prevent

loss of detail in the darkest portions of the scene. The interesting

thing about the T-max emulsions is that they seem to withstand longer

exposures without encountering this problem. I think 15 minutes is

about the limit, if I remember correctly. Some suggested values for

TMX are: for 1 sec. expose 1 sec.; for 2, 2.5: for 4, 6; for 8, 11; for

15, 27; for 30, 1'05. For Delta 100, a 1 sec. exposure really needs to

be 1.5 sec. and when you get out to 30 seconds, better give 2 minutes.

At about 12 seconds with Delta 100, you need to start backing off

development to contain build-up of contrast. This is why I use TMX and

TMY as I find myself working earlier and later in the day. On my last

trip (end of June in western NY state), I made an exposure on TMY

rated 240, at about 8:00PM with an adjusted exposure of 1'35" (meter

said 30 seconds) and normal development. Got just what I hoped for. I

hope this is of some help.

How about some tempered masonite. It's available at almost any lumber

yard. I'm willing to bet they will sell you a scrap for a buck or

less.

Paul, you didn't mention what you do as soon as remove the mounted

print from the press. Are you placing a flat weight on top to keep the

print from trying to curl up? Overheating will often cause the edges

to curl because the tissue (glue) is so warm it takes too much time to

set before the force of the print pulls it away from the mount board.

This might be the problem or it may have something to do with uneveness

of heating in the press. Also, do you know that the press is working

at the desired temp? Are you using test strips supplied by the tissue

mfg. or are you just reading the thermometer? There are many variables

to consider. The good news is that once you've nailed it down, you'll

seldom have another problem! Took me a few weeks to find the right

temp./time. Now, I'm just a drymount madman!

There is a technique that was beautifully described in an article in

Photo Techniques a couple years ago that I think will help. It

involves taping or gluing a mm scale to the focusing bed and observing

the exact point at which the nearest and furthest subjects come into

focus with respect to a mark you can make on the front standard or

other moving part of the focusing mechanism. The difference or focus

spread determines the aperture you'll need to achieve acceptable

sharpness. You simply place the front standard smack in the middle of

that range, set the lens and expose your film. I don't remember the

exact issue this appeared in, but I 've been using this technique for

at least two years with great success. It also allows you to use

swings and tilts and any focal length of lens. Hope it helps.

Trying to achieve the blackest black a given paper will yield will most

likely crush any detail there may be in dark tones that are any lighter

than black (Zone II, for example). Toning will darken the darkest

areas of a print and it's safe to assume that there will be some dry

down that will account for an additional deepening of the darkest

tones. If you frame you finished print behind glass (ordinary window

glass), you will darken the overall image even further. Depending on

where the image will hang, the local lighting will impact how black the

blacks look as well. Black only needs to look black when the print is

in its final viewing form. Taking all the above factors into

consideration, the black you need to achieve in the darkroom may not

need to be as black as you think! If by any chance you are printing an

image to be viewed on one of those high intensity light box things that

camera clubs use, the above info may not be of any help.

If the amount you are tilting the lens forward is negligable, why not

just tilt the back backward? This will solve a couple of problems. 1.

you won't need to concern yourself with vignetting that sometimes

occurs with lenses that have limited coverage and 2. assuming you have

an axis tilt at the rear of the camera, you won't impact the

composition significantly. If you have a base tilt, you can compensate

with a little front rise. If you are really close to a foreground

element, the rear tilt will exagerate it's apparent size (making it

larger), which may or may not be a desired effect. You have to be the

judge. Also, by using the rear controls, you'll be closer to what's

going on and have an easier time making that critical adjustment of the

focus plane. Depth of field, by the way is determined by focal length,

aperture and subject to lens distance. The adjustment of tilt simply

changes the plane of focus. Correctly making that adjustment can reduce

the amount of DOF needed to bring all elements into acceptable focus

without using an aperture so small as to make diffraction artifacts

annoying.

Maybe you could modify one of those Russian-made Horizon loupes? They

are only about $60. They do seem to be of decent quality.

It might be useful to know more about what exacty you will do with the

screen. Is this to replace an existing one? What camera? Was that

camera designed to use a Fresnel? Will you be installing this in front

of or behind the gg? These are all important things to know if you

want to add a Fresnel and still get sharp negatives!

I just sold an FA. This is a great camera and one with which I made

some wonderful negatives that continue to sell well. Unfortunately one

of it's shortcomings is limited bellows and movements. For landscape

work, this was never a big problem for me as I had a Fujinon 300T that

overcame the short bellows draw. I started to do some architectural

stuff and it was here that I needed more movement and longer bellows.

After getting used to the Wisner 4x5T, it just didn't make sense to own

both. I just wasn't using the 45FA. I still miss the precise feel of

a metal technical camera.

About two years ago I bought a Gitzo 1349. After the first outing, one

leg came unglued. I sent it back to Gitzo and they replaced it

immediately. The replacement leg set has held up perfectly, including

under the weight of this photographer. On my last trip to the Finger

Lakes, I slipped on a rock and landed on the legs. Aside from a few

scratches on my ball head (the one mounted on the legs) everything

survived just fine.

You might try Aristo. They can be reached at www.aristogrid.com, I

believe. I use their VCL-4500 head and it is marvelous!

Paper loses both speed and contrast over time. Heat just accelerates

the process. Some papers, like Eastman Polymax Fine Art will actually

die after awhile. I've had half a box go bad in just a year and a half

after purchase. And I keep everything in a cool basement (never over

70F and typically cooler. I would suggest not stocking up unless you

expect to do a ton of printing. Buy just what will be used in a month

or two and replenish more often. Leave that film box in the bag until

it reaches room temp. The idea is for the condensation to form on the

bag, not the box.

I have had great results putting 52mm B&W filters on the rear of this

lens. I would caution you to use only first rate optically coated

filters of the same quality of the lens if you do this. You will also

need to do your critical focusing with the filter in place. This not

only saved money, but I carry fewer filters now since I can use the

52's on many of my other lenses.

I bought one of these recently, but have discovered a minor flaw that,

frankly, I find to be a pain. There is a small area on the backing of

some sheets of film that doesn't get sufficient chemistry. The result

is that the violet anti-halation layer doesn't get completely dissolved

away. After fixing, I have to submerse the individual sheets in a bath

of sodium sulfite to get rid of the stains. Otherwise, once you get

the hang of loading it, it works pretty well. I do all my critical

processing in trays.

Bill, What you are concerned about is something called exit pupil

factor. You can actually see some difference in the apparent size of a

given aperture by sighting through the lens first from the front, then

the rear. Every tele has a different EPF, but you'll be relieved to

know that it only comes into play in any appreciable way, when the

object size on the gg is greater than 1/10th the actual object size.

What this means is that in landscape work, where, with lenses that long

you are usually quite some distance from the subject, it won't

typically be a problem.

I don't believe a Super Angulon 90mm is going to have a large enough

image circle to satisfy architectural shooting requirements. I got rid

of mine for exactly that reason and replaced it with a 110 Super Symmar

XL. In architectural work, it's important to be able to do quite a bit

of rise and fall to reduce the convergence one experiences when

shooting from very low or very high vantage points. Perhaps a used

lens designed for the 5x7 format would do the trick.

I generally keep each box of film in a ziplock bag. When I remove a

box from the fridge, I wait an hour or two until the box has reached

room temp. Then, I remove it from the ziplock. This way, when the

warm moist air contacts the cool dry package, the resultant

condensation forms on the outside of the bag. The contents remain dry.

If you load refrigerated film into holders without properly thawing,

you will get condensation on the film the instant the warm air contacts

it. This can't be good!

Andy, you made no inquiry about lens coverage. This is quite an

important issue when selecting lenses for LF. Will a prospective lens

actually cover the 4x5 film area with room to spare for movements?

Unlike hand cameras, where if a lens attaches to the camera, you are

pretty safe, in LF you could wind up with a lens that physically fits

the lensboard, but is only designed to cover a 6x7 cm film frame. When

purchasing used lenses, particularly at camera shows, this get a bit

dicey. If a seller doesn't know the coverage of the lens and will not

take it back if incorrect, you could get stuck. Be careful!