ron_gratz

<p>I have shot a lot of 2-1/4 x 3-1/4 (different from 6.5x9cm) sheet film in double sided film holders using a "baby" Linhof technika IV. The Arista film from Freestyle is very good and I have been pleased with the results.<br>

As for processing, for a few sheets I do tray processing as described in Ansel Adams' "The Negative" book. For larger quantities I use a Yankee sheet film tank that will hold up to 12 sheets at a time. Freestyle looks to have this tank in stock although they advertise it only for 4x5 sheet film. Their photos of this tank and film holder are identical to what I have. Note that if it is the same one that it will also process 6.5 x 9cm, 3-1/4 x 4-1/4 and 9x12cm sheet film.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>You almost certainly have a "baby Ikonta" = "baby Ikomat". These cameras were supplied with 2-inch = 50mm Tessar lenses and took 16 1-5/8" x 1-1/4" negatives on 127 film.<br>

My 1933 and 1936 Zeiss-Ikon catalogs show these cameras with the 50mm Tessar lenses. All of the 6 x 4.5cm cameras (Ikonta, Super Ikonta etc) cameras that Zeiss-Ikon produced came with 75mm lenses.<br>

You can check this by looking at the spool size (if your camera has a take-up spool in it). The baby Ikonta has a much smaller spool than 120 film uses, slightly less than 2" from flange to flange). If the bellows are light tight and the shutter works properly you should get nice images from this camera. Of course, you will probably have to process the film yourself. B&W 127 film is available through Freestyle Photo.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I have a 300 f/9 Geronar on Copal 1 shutter that I use on my Technikardan. It is a compact lens and on a Linhof board weighs in at 380g. I have been very pleased with the results.</p>

<p>I also have a Contessa Piccolette with Tessar lens and compur shutter. It's in great shape and since I can still get 127 film made by Efke it is still usable as it was designed to be.</p>

<p>I have done this several times both with old family negatives and negatives from friends. Since I do have a darkroom I first make the best 8x10 darkroom print I can. This gets all of the "information" from the negative onto a print. From there if there are scratches, etc I use a flatbed scanner (I own a Canon 4490 but any decent flatbed scanner should work) and scan in the print. Then I used Photoshop elements to remove scratches and do any final touch-ups I want. That digital file can then be printed as often as you want, eg to share with relatives.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>3X4 is the same as 3-1/4 x 4-1/4. 3x4 is just easier to type!</p>

 

<p>I own a Zeiss-Ikon Universal Juwel in the 9x12 size and was able to find a 3x4 spring back adaptor that slides into the grooves for the metal 9x12 holders. This allows me to shoot 3x4 film in modern 3x4 double sided Lisco and Fidelity holders. The camera has a convertible Protar lens and a full range of movements which makes it a thoroughly usable instrument. I used it sparingly for many years since I just had a small supply of 3x4 film until J&C Photo and now Freestyle started selling 3x4 film. <br>

Ron Gratz </p><div></div>

<p>Let me know when the digital version comes out.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I have a Linhof Technikardan which uses the same boards as the Technika V. Four of my lenses are mounted on Linhof boards and two are on Toya-View boards. The Toya boards are not as snug as the Linhof boards: there is a slight bit of play - ie they wobble very slightly. However, I have had no problems with light leaks or unsharp images from the lenses on the Toyo boards.<br>

As Bob pointed out used Linhof boards are common on ebay and if you look around can be reasonably priced. I have been gradually replacing my Toyos with genuine Linhof boards, probably more for the name than anything else.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>Bob, I think you mean Grandagon's. :-)<br>

Ron</p>

<p>I disagree with the statement that 65mm is "too wide" for 4x5. As always, the usefulness of a lens depends on the purpose for which it is used. If 65mm were "too wide" then why would Schneider have made a 58mm Super Angulon XL for 4x5?<br>

I own a 6x9 Linhof Technika IV that came with, among others, a 65mm f/8 Super Anglulon. I have on occasion mounted that lens on my 4x5 Technikardan. I used this to make panoramic images on 4x5 film, in which case any vignetting at the corners is irrelevant as those are cropped during printing. I have enlarged the resulting 4x5 negatives to 12 x 20" with excellent results, one of my top selling photographs was made with this combination. I now own the 58 XL and can get even nicer panoramics. Neither of the two lenses allows any significant rise or fall but again for my purposes that too is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>The designation "11 x 14" suggests to me that the lens will cover up to that size film and so could be used on 4x5 or 8x10 cameras with LOTS of movement.<br>

Many (all??) protars (both B&L and original Zeiss) were convertible lenses. You can remove the front element and just use the back element or vice versa. I have read that whichever element is used it should go behind the shutter although my own experience shows little difference if I leave the front element in front of the shutter. Each element has a longer focal length than the two used together. If the two elements are of different focal lengths (sometimes the two elements are the same focal length) you actually have 3 focal lengths with one lens. Generally each element is inscribed with its own focal length. The aperture scale is different for each of the two elements alone as well as for the two used in combination. My protar came with two different focal length elements and three aperture scales. It appears that you have only a single scale so if you want to use the separate elements you will need to calculate the aperture (remember aperture is diameter of iris opening divided by focal length) for each element.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

 

<p>I will be in Germany for 3 weeks in June, primarily near Frankfurt, Wurzburg and Gottingen. I'd like to visit some museums with good exhibits of photography. Does anyone know of museums in those areas (or others - I will be free to travel a bit) that have photography exhibits? thanks</p>

<p>As a user of Zeiss-Ikon cameras I use a Zeiss Ikophot - still very accurate, compact and easy to use with my Super Ikonta B and C.</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>In addition to those already mentioned look at Photo Technique. It covers both digital and film based photography. Howard Bond and Bruce Barnbaum are regular contributors with articles on view camera technique and B&W darkroom printing.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I have not tried Rodinal with TMX or Tri-X but have a large stash of Agfapan 100 in both 120 and 4x5 as well as Agfapan 25 in 120 format and have processed all of these in the JOBO for many years with no problems. Agfa's Technical Data sheet P-16-C recommends lower processing times for rotary processors than for tank/tray processing. EG for APX100 at 20C and 1+25 dilution they recommend 8 min in a tray/tank with intermittant agitation but only 7 min in a rotary processor. I have had excellent results with this.<br>

They do list processing times in tank/tray for non Agfa films but do not have equivalent times for rotary processors. They suggest for Tri-X to rate the film at EI 500 and process for 7 min in 1+25 and 14 min in 1+50 dilution. For TMX (old version) they suggest rating the film at EI 400 and processing for 6 min in 1+25 and 11 min in 1+50 dilution. I'd recommend that you reduce these times by 10 - 20% and run some tests in the JOBO.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>I have several masks for the 2x3 Linhof IV. I have photographed them with a ruler so you should be able to measure the dimensions you need,</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p><div></div>

<p>The only significance of the serial #s (aside from the interest to collectors) is that they indicate the age of the lens. For example, Zeiss produced view camera Tessar lenses at least as early as 1900 and those continued to be produced into the 1960s or 1970s. The later versions are most likely of better quality than the very early versions (though I have gotten excellent results with lenses from the 1930's) and the most recent lenses were coated.<br>

Ron Gratz </p>

<p>You might try holding a yellow (1 stop) or green (2 stop) filter over the lens when you are shooting in bright light situations. That will lessen the amount of light coming in and reduce the negative density. You also get the advantages of the filters for reducing haze, etc.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>At least in the US - and probably world wide - there is a much greater selection of 4x5 film available than there is 9x12. Ron Gratz</p>

<p>It depends on how much time I have. If I have time to travel I'll go somewhere I have not been before and different from my usual haunts. EG for the last 2 summers I have travelled to the Oregon Coast.<br>

When I can't travel far I like to take out one of my antique cameras, load a roll of film (or load several film holders for the old folding plate cameras) and go to a known location with the mission of exposing an entire roll of film or all of the plate holders. This forces me to look more intensely and has resulted in some very nice images. Even when that doesn't happen forcing myself to estimate distance and take hand-held meter readings gets me more involved.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>"i have 1520, 1530, 2830 and 2840 tanks but no spirals in tanks and no clips in drums - any idea what part numbers will fit? can i use spirals from paterson tanks insteed? - i have a few of them"</p>

<p>I have a CPE-2 Plus but the parts numbers are the same.<br>

The adjustable reel for 35mm or 120/220 that fit tanks 1520 is part number 1501. The 1520 tank will hold 2 reels for 35mm or one for 120/220. You will also need the center core - a plastic "pipe" the fits into the center of the reels. This is part #04044. Since you have the extension module #1530 you can attach this to the 1520 tank to increase the capacity to 5 - 35mm reels or 3 -120/220 reels. In this case you will also need the center core extension part #04045. This attaches to the #04044 core.<br>

I dont know whether other reels would work. They may fit but might not rotate, The center core assures that as the tank rotates in the processor the reels do also.<br>

My manual does not give parts numbers for the drum clips.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

<p>The 1970 Master Darkroom dataguide does not have development time tables but used a table of "development numbers" for each film/developer combination. These numbers are applied to a built-in dial on which you set the development number for your temperature and then read from the dial the development time in minutes for low, average and high contrast. It saved a lot of space to provide a lot of information.<br>

The development number for Panatomic-X, 35mm with D-76 straight is 36 which translates to a development time of 7 minutes for average contrast. With D-76 1:1 the number is 35 which translates to a development time of 6:30. The same numbers are also given for 120 Panatomic-X. I agree that for dilute developers the development time should be longer, not shorter and in fact this is true for all other films listed in the data guide. For a development time of 9 minutes the development number should be 39. I'll have to assume a screw-up on Kodak's behalf in making up their table!</p>

<p>Ron Gratz</p>

<p>My 1970 Kodak Master Darkroom Dataguide gives the following times for 35mm Panatomic-X:<br>

D76 1:1: 6 min at 68 F<br>

D76 straight: 7 min at 68 F<br>

Microdol-X: 6 min at 68 F<br>

HC110 dilution A: 2:45 at 68 F<br>

HC110 dilution B: 4:30 at 68 F<br>

Ron Gratz</p>

 

<p>I have 3 rolls of Fuji Super HR100 in 110 format. I received these as part of a box lot of film at an auction several years ago. They are not boxed so no expiration date but are still in their foil envelopes. I have had them in my freezer since I acquired them but cannot vouch for them before that. I do not have a 110 camera and so have no use for them. I am willing to give them to someone for the actual cost of postage. No guarantees of usability, of course.<br>

Contact me at rongratz@charter.net if you are interested.<br>

Ron Gratz</p>