sean_yates

18???? Get that scale re-calibrated man! 18 ???

<p>

The wood partially accounts for the variations in weight (Spanish

Cedar? Honduran Mahogony? Ecudoran ?) as does the metal (nickel

plated brass or the later stainless steel?) the bellows material, etc.

<p>

But I've never heard of a 16 lber! The 11 X 14 weighs 30 lbs. 11 -

13 lbs is more realistic for an 8 X 10 Get with Ken Hough on this

but I just can't imagine a Deardorff weighing as much as a Calumet C-1

This is pure insanity!

<p>

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1230824402

I dunno. I sold mine for $25.00 last year I think. I saw the same

thing sell on Ebay a couple years back for 80.00 some? Can't recall

now, but it was more than I woulda paid.

<p>

There is a nice book about 10 or so years old that has the photos of

the entire line - including the 8 X 10 Technica. Hard to find but

nice, pictures not extensive enough for my liking.

According to Charis Wilson, in her book "Through Another Lens" Weston

was one of many who read bernarr McFadden and swallowed it whole. He

also believed that sunbathing was good for you and the healthiest way

to deficate was to squat.

<p>

If you get a chance, read "The Road to Wellville" and you'll get an

idea of the health notions that still crop up from time to time like

High Colonics (Hey Homer, here's a coupon for a free High Colonic!)

etc.

<p>

I have no idea if it helped his photography, but I suppose it couldn't

hurt....

Would you consider writing a more detailed account for the main

page? Something to add to the good articles by Natahn Congdon, Pat

Kearns and Tuan?

Well, like I say, I'm no engineer, but isn't the big wooden area

under the strings on a piano called a sounding board? And isn't the

back of a banjo called a resonator?

I'll bet these guys might have something to add...

<p>

http://www.brettwestonarchive.com/

<p>

http://www.kimweston.com/index.htm

I haven't seen any studies on the subject and am no engineer.

<p>

While it would seem "common sense" that wood would absorb vibrations

better, at the same time consider the preferred material for violins,

cellos, pianos, etc.

<p>

Have you ever felt the sting of a bat when you hit the ball soundly?

Or when splitting wood, felt the sting when the sledge contacts the

wedge just right?

I'm waiting for my custom finish - Bart Simpson saying "Don't have a

cow."

Ah ha! Remove the inadvertant space between

<p>

/techPubs/g10/g10.s html the s & the html

Don't know why the other link doesn't work. Try this:

<p>

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+AZO+Paper

You can develop Azo in any developer you choose provided it is

appropriate for conventional silver developing out paper- Dektol,

Selectol-soft, Agfa Neutol, Ansco 130 etc. etc. etc. Even the

Clayton developers Freestyle sells. Kodak includes information in

the box of paper or you can get it on their site.

<p>

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/g10/g10.s

html

<p>

Here are some excellent articles on using Azo:

<p>

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/azoamidol.html

<p>

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/azoamidol2.html

<p>

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/onprinting.html

<p>

Use the usual stop and fix (I prefer a non-hardening one) and

safelight you would with any B&W paper. Handle it with care as it is

single weight. This is one paper you will pretty much HAVE to use

your bare hands to develop. I agitate by turning the paper over in

the tray. You could rock it as well if you prefer.

<p>

Exposure will require an intense light source. How intense depends

on its proximity to the paper and the density of your negative. I

have used everything from 25 watt reflector floods to 500 watt clear

uncoated bulbs.

<p>

It has been my experience that Dektol produces a bluish tone with

Azo. Agfa Neutol has recieved positive recommendations from various

folks on-line, but I have yet to try it. Any of the Amidol-like

developers that Photographers Formulary sells are worth investing in.

http://www.redhillphoto.com/albumen.html

<p>

I think youd be hard pressed to beat (no pun intended) this one for

cost, but it takes time and practice and a BIG negative.

It really makes a difference if you'll be working out of the back of

your truck/car or going on long hikes. You can spend an entire day in

one fairly small area and get a lot of work done. Think about one of

those camera cases that converts to wheeled airline luggage, or a

small durable hand truck, with suitable wheels, etc.

<p>

Gordon Hutchings described his working kit for long versus short trips

in a V.C. issue a year or two ago. I have it, but not with me. It's

worth a look. Also bear in mind Edward Weston was all of like 5'5"

and Ansel Adams 6'1" and 120 lbs. soaking wet (in his youth). Read

Charis Wilson's description of Weston's carrying method in "Through

Another Lens..."

<p>

If you insist on metal than you'll want a Toyo 810M (or MII) which

goes ~15/16 lbs. I have an Austrian friend who lugs his all over

creation, overseas, NYC Times Square, etc. and he hasn't complained.

But he's a big healthy young'un. If you're looking at older gear the

Kodak Master is a good idea ~12/13 lbs.

<p>

The Calumet C series is swell but unless you luck into a magnesium one

you are gonna have to spend serious time at the gym. It runs ~14 lbs

in magnesium but ~18 lbs in aluminum.

<p>

If you can afford new I would give the Phillips and the Canham a

SERIOUS look. Yeah they're wood, but the Phillips has so much epoxy

and teflon that it's really not the same thing.

<p>

Also see if you can find a used MIDO system to save on film holder

weight/bulk. I haven't used them myself and they are apprently no

longer available new.

<p>

Get used to shooting less and learn to pare things down to the minimum

- one lens, gelatin filters (or none at all) and a shoulder bag for a

couple of holders.... No extras, just the basics.

Here's what Rudy has to say

<p>

"In 1890 Ernst Gundlach, then living in ROchester, New York, patented

a variant of the Rapid Rectalinear in which he used three cemented

elements in each half instead of two. The numerical construction of

this lens was not disclosed, but probably its performance did not

differ significantly from that of the Rapid Rectalinear."

<p>

So where the source citing 5 cells in two elements got the info from

is anyone's guess. Kingslake does have this to say though, which is

kinda neat:

<p>

"If you compare the structure of the Zeiss Quadruple Protar Series

VII with the structure of the Turner-Reich lens, (the commonly

available convertible) it will be seen each consists of an old-

achromat on the outside with a new-achromat doublet close to the

stop. The difference between the two designs is that in the Zeiss

lens the old-achromat is similar to half a Rapid Rectalinear. while

in the Turner Reich lens the old-achromat resembles hald of

Gundlach's Rapid Rectagraphic objective. As the performance of the

of the Rectagraphic and the Rectalinear were basically the similar,

we may expect to find the Turner-Reich lens would be no better than

the Zeiss Series VII, which is indeed the case."

"The reference also indicates that the lens is composed of 10

elements in two groups (is that possible with a triple convertible?)."

<p>

Indeed it is not only possible but quite likely for a Gundlach

convertible. The front cell is one cemented group of five cells, and

the rear likewise.

Pardon if this goes on to long. Probably belongs in another thread...

<p>

's far 's I'm concerned, "Art" is a guy who lives behind the bowling

alley.

<p>

And to paraphrase the heck out of something Dave Jenkins wrote on the

Phil of Phot Phorum:

<p>

"... only history can judge whether our work is art. To call oneself

an artist is the sure sign of a "wannabe."...Sic transit gloria

mundi -- "So passes the glory of this world."...Ultimately it doesn't

matter what you or I think of ourselves or our work. Only the work

matters, and if it is good it will endure...In our culture many want

to be "artists" because "artists" have status...To those who say to

themselves, "Hot dog! I did an art! I'm an artist!" I would ask one

question: is the work any better because you call it art?"

<p>

And this is so good and so relevant I have to pass it on:

<p>

http://www.afterimagegallery.com/website.htm

<p>

*Below is an entertaining word exercise (which actually can be done

for any field of endeavor). To achieve the usual jargon used in these

landscape photographer artist's statements, place any three words in

the table together, placing a word from the first row first, one from

the second row second and one from the third row last.

<p>

universal all-encompassing transcendent mystical deepening glowing

unchanging

<p>

photographic visionary luminous spiritual life-affirming artistic

intrinsic

<p>

insight reality perception experience concept unveiling realization

My problem with Azo has never been green, but rather BLUE from

Dektol. I've compared prints from the same negative on Azo in Dektol

and in Amidol (although I can't say which of the many published

formulas) - and to my eye the Amidol prints looked 'ere so slightly

warm - ish. Not green atal.

Sekonics off? Not been my experience.

<p>

I have a Sekonic L-398M and just had 3 Weston's CLA'd by QLM and when

they came back they agreed SPOT ON with the Sekonic (which I've had

since 89/90 I believe). It has also always agreed with my Gossen

SBC which is roughly the same age.

There are as many roads to heaven as there are people on the earth.

Or something like that. It's a matter of taste. If price were no

object I would still drive my '68 Dodge Power Wagon - I'd just

convert it to diesel and add front power disc brakes. I have no

interest in a Mercedes.

<p>

<p>

I don't need gears anywhere but focus, and even that could be gotten

around. Calibrated movements are swell but hardly necessary. I

would rather have the front rise than not.

Well, except for something someone else mentioned, it sounds like

you've got the bases covered. Look through the corners, take the

back off AND you could try turning things around by looking through

the lens at the ground glass corners. Take the dark cloth off and

bring it around front with you. When you take the back off, you need

to keep your eye/head about where the corners of the ground glass

would be. I always close one eye when I check.

<p>

If the aperture looks like anything other than an aperture - i.e.

nice and round, or with the small flat edges of the iris blades

showing - you're going to get vignetting. To make it a little easier

on yourself, open the aperture all the way up as you check and then

close it down slowly as you watch the corners from whichever end

works best for you. Close it down until it's round.

<p>

There is debate about this. i.e. it'll introduce astigmatism, etc.

but try using your filters on the rear of the lens.

<p>

Even Adams, the technician supreme, got vignetting from time to time.

From the wording of your post I am not sure if you mean that they are

actively hostile to photography or just indifferent/apathetic. It

can be difficult to speak with those firmly oppossed to something,

especially when they are firmly convinced of the validity of their

own opinions.

<p>

To the question "why bother to use such a camera?" You could respond

rhetorically - "Why not? Why compose and play on a grand piano? Why

paint with oils? For that matter why use film at all when there's

digital?"

<p>

You could respond with all the usual reasons - print quality,

sharpness, tonal range, movements, contemplative approach, ability to

develop one exposure at a time and in effect "customize" each image,

link to early photographers.....etc. etc. etc.

<p>

Or you could say, "It works best for me. It is a tool that most

effectively helps me achieve my goals."

<p>

Definately bring books by accomplished practitioners - the greater

the variety of subject matter and approach the better. If there is

an internet connection in the classroom, I would suggest a few

minutes browsing the sites in the "L.F. Photographers" links page.

An edition or two of "View Camera" "Lenswork Quarterly" and "B&W"

would help as well.

<p>

In my teaching experience, I have found that turning the entire room

into a camera obscura is incredibly rewarding and inspiring. You can

almost see the light bulbs blaze into life in their heads. It is

complicated and takes time - you'd want a room with a window and

access to it well in advance to set things up - but the "EUREEKA!"

or "OH WOW! COOL!" that people respond with when they see the upside

down image projected on the wall from a pinhole lets you know in NO

uncertain terms that they "get it".

Hey Alan!

<p>

Thanks, got it Thursday from Edmund in the mail. Don't know why but

I couldn't access it on their webpage. Bob Atkins got me a link and

I ordered it Monday, I think it was.

Sounds a whole lot like what Erik Ryberg brought up in this forum a

long time ago. I think the conclusion was that a smaller,

more "point" light source will result in sharper prints. As I recall

he was saying he got sharper prints using his condensor enlarger than

with a bare bulb.