sean_yates

Why is the quality of the reproductions so variable?

 

<p>

 

In this issue Messers Fatali & Schory's work looks really good but

Mr.s Spence & Kirby come off pretty dark and mucky. Similarly in the

SEP/OCT issue with the Mammoth Camera Workshop review and portfolios -

Paula Chamlees work was done MUCH better justice than had been done

when you ran an entire article on "High Plains Farm" in the MAR/APR

(or was it May/June) issue. I've seen Kirbys work in Lenswork

Quarterly and know it can look better than it did in this issue of VC.

 

<p>

 

Of late you have been including tech info in the photographers

profiles - for which I am greatful! Keep it at the end though as an

aside rather than dwelling on it UNLESS the article is specifically

about technique. If the technique is something off the beaten path,

some amplification would be appreciated.

 

<p>

 

My favorite issues were the MAR/APR 95 and JAN/FEB 98 - both CHOCK

FULL of good material. I feel like there hasn't been an issue that

useful in a while.

 

<p>

 

Gordon Hutchings' articles have been quite good and his writing style

is much apprecaited.

 

<p>

 

How about an article, or series on "What's in my Camera Case" - i.e.

a break down by photogs with a shot of their case -how they pack it

and when/how they use it, how it applies to their approach, etc. The

same thing could be done for darkrooms, etc.

 

<p>

 

For me the "How" of photography is important, but the "Why" moreso -

I am VERY glad John Paul Caponigro cotributes his interviews! The

darkroom and camera kit articles would hopefully illustrate how the

two - the "how" and the "why" work together.

 

<p>

 

Little bummed at the re-tread of Ron Wisner's on-line Q&A column in

this last issue. I guess that may be part of the reason for my

fading enthusiasm - I'm on-line now and don't feel as isolated as I

was when I first started subscribing. Used to be I couldn't wait the

two months! I think maybe that's why a lot of us were surprised at

the Fatali article - we had all known about the incident and

discussed it pretty extensively back when it happened. I guess a lot

of us assumed it was common knowledge.

I've been lucky enough to own both a pristine Beseler 4 X 5 from the

early 80's (I think? it's blue - not black) and a "Berkey Omega

Universal Pro-lab 4 X 5" with auto-focus that came from a U.S. Govt.

auction.

 

<p>

 

I have no specific preferences. The pro-lab auto focus was a nice

feature and the voltage regulator and motorized elevation unit on the

Bes is nice. I have to cut the 6" X 6" VC filters to fit the Bes, but

not the Omega. I think the Bes is easier to re-align if it drifts.

Certainly I did not look forward to adjusting the Omega when I moved

it (which I did, 3 times - within the U.S. and once overseas).

 

<p>

 

The Bes has the tilting top which will allow you to make REAL BIG

enlargements on the wall if you have the right lens and can mount the

enlarger on a rolling stand that is stable enough not to move during

exposure. Also if you move up to 8 X 10 there is the Alan Ross Cold

light adapter.

 

<p>

 

With the Bes there is the neg-a-flat negative carrier and the one for

roll film - allows you to turn a knob to advance the film from frame

to frame.

 

<p>

 

The Omega seemed to be more susceptible to vibration - a heavy

enlarger head extended aaaaaaaalll the way up to the top.... I'm not

sure it showed in the prints I made, but I was always nervous about

it.

I've owned Majestic, Bogen and Ries and used all under 8 X 10

cameras. I have used Gitzo sticks under Betacams and was impressed,

but I emphatically DO NOT like the screw on leg clamps! They seem to

freeze up at the slightest provocation. Maybe that's becuase the

ones I used were rental sticks and weren't properly cared for -

cleaned and lubed and so on.

 

<p>

 

The Majestic is one helluva pair of sticks. After the apocalypse,

the giant cockroaches will be using Majestic tripods under Calumet C-

1s. A used set is a good investment. However, I was never happy

about carrying those things anywhere. They really belong in an

environment where you don't plan to move around a whole lot, or where

there are nice smooth floors so you can put them on a dolly.

 

<p>

 

The Bogens I have owned - 3046 & 3036 have carried my 13 lb. Kodak

with no difficulty - but I would prefer to attach a Majestic geared

head to them than any Manfrotto product I have seen in the flesh.

But I have not used the Bogen geared heads. My last set was the 3036

and I did have the Majestic head on it and was very pleased. The leg

angles adjust independently and it was plenty tall enough for

anything I was ever going to do.

 

<p>

 

While they are a good bargain and will last with care, they are not

in the same league as the Majestic or Ries. The castings are kinda

cheap and I have broken them in my hands. And I'm no long shoreman

or mill worker - I'm a librarian.

 

<p>

 

Ries is startlingly expensive new. I would not have a set if I

weren't very lucky. When I got them, I knew I would never switch.

The hardware is quality and some parts can be replaced by a trip to

the hardware store. When I got mine they were coated in dust and

yeck - but it was no problem to dissassemble them completely, clean

and lubricate them, and put everything back together in an evening.

Mine weigh less with the single tilt head than the quoted 15lbs,

without head, on the website. Some think mine are made of ash,

others oak. I have never been able to identify wood once it's been

processed. Currently they use rock maple - the same stuff used in

bowling alley lanes and piano pin blocks.

 

<p>

 

Here's my sticks Schtick. I put the head on my foot and extend the

legs until they touch my chin. Maybe a little less. One leg, the

front, or leading leg, the one parallel to the lens axis, is left 2

inches or so longer than the other two.

 

<p>

 

Then I turn it over, set it up as if to take a shot, and attach the

camera. I leave the camera closed - lens attached. I put my

shoulder to the head/crown/camera and lift, standing upright and

closing the legs as I go, so the camera/head is balanced on my right

shoulder and the legs stick out in front of me. My right arm curves

over the legs and holds them in place, my left hand carries the

camera case and a bag of six holders hangs from the left shoulder to

my right hip.

 

<p>

 

When I find something I want to shoot, I put the case down and bend

at the knees and sort of dump the tripod off my shoulder so the

leading leg touches down first. Then I can adjust the height and

angle of the legs with my hands on the two shorter legs - kind of

like stearing a wheel barrow. Once I get things how I want, I lock

the tri-locks.

 

<p>

 

If I have to adjust the leg height, I usually adjust it with the

angle of the leg, rather than extending the leg. If I do have to

extend it, I either release the clamp and rock the tripod on the

other two legs until the third leg drops to where I want (and then

tighten the clamp) or I get down on my haunches and release the clamp

and S - l - o - w - l - y raise one leg at a time.

 

<p>

 

I am on the short side and prefer to keep the center of the ground

glass a little below eye level. Any higher than that and I have to

use a case or something which I'd just as soon avoid.

 

<p>

 

The legs don't need a center brace because the tri-lock is attached

to the crown. Have you been to their web-site?

http://www.riestripod.com

 

<p>

 

Before I lucked into the Ries, I had planned to get an old wooden set

of movie sticks - O'Connor or Mitchell, Birns & Sawyer, etc. They

might be worth a look.

You can use electrical contact clips - a.k.a. "Gator Clips" they

leave a much smaller footprint than clothes pins. Those prone to the

recretional use of pharmaceuticals used to call them "roach clips".

 

<p>

 

I still use wooden clothes pins but I take 'em apart and reverse

them. I'm not sure how to describe this, but the idea is you swap

ends so that the flatter part, the end you would normally grip to

open the clothes pin - becomes the gripping part and the usual

clothes gripping part becomes the outside of the gripping part.

 

<p>

 

Take one apart and you'll see what I mean. I hope.

Well I see Mr. Fatali has made it to the cover of View Camera

3/4/01. No mention of this incident in the article....

Deardorff was in business from 1923 to 1988.

 

<p>

 

In that time, there is very little they DIDN't make. Revolving, not

just rotating Graflock backs exist, but yeah, they're hard to come by

and they go for a pretty penny. Well, actually, not a pretty penny,

just a WHOLE BUNCH of ugly ones.

Not sure this is appro-poetic to this thread or not.

 

<p>

 

I never claimed to be the cripiest fry in the basket, but I could

NEVER understand why Ilford instructions packaged with developer and

tech sheets have the same goofy TIME/TEMP conversion chart/graph.

 

<p>

 

Blamed thing is useless IMHO - too small and vague - leaves you

guessing. Why can't they just publish T&T like Kodak does in their

B&W Darkroom Dataguide - i.e. Tri-X Pro at iso 320 in D-76 1:1 @ 65

68 70 72 & 75 degrees or whatever?

 

<p>

 

Then I came across a conversion method in Aaron Sussmans book from

the late 60's "Amatuer Photographers Handbook".

 

<p>

 

You take the given time at ANY given temperature for whatever

combination you've got and can calculate the given time at any other

given temperature fairly quickly and certainly with a finer degree of

precision than with the aformentioned graph.

 

<p>

 

I know this may seem hypocritcal coming from a guy who develops by

inspection and "eyeballs" exposures with an incident meter but I find

it re-assuring to have something that seems at least a bit less of a

SWAG than the chart.

 

<p>

 

It goes like this:

 

<p>

 

"Given the developing time at 68 degrees, you convert to the time at

any other temperature by multiplying the given time by the desired

temperature factor T. To convert from the time at any temperature

other than 68 degrees, to any other temperature, you divide the time

of the given temperature by its own factor and then multiply by the

factor of the desired temperature."

 

<p>

 

Here's the chart:

 

<p>

 

Temp in Farenheit followed by factor

 

<p>

 

64 deg factor 1.23

65 1.16

66 1.10

67 1.05

68 1.00

69 .95

70 .90

71 .85

72 .81

73 .78

74 .75

75 .72

76 .69

77 .66

 

<p>

 

This is on page 382 of the edition I have. Hopefully the times and

factors will line up when I "send" this to the forum. FWIW Sussman

has all kinds of neat info in his book. It would definatley behoove

us to look over old photo manuals at yardsales, library used book

sales, etc. etc. etc. My copy came with an enlarger my wife bought

me a while back.

http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/

 

<p>

 

Worked for me.

"....he found his niece in the market and has done well from it."

 

<p>

 

Where were her parents?

Thanks a BUNCH!

 

<p>

 

Additionally, somehow or other Bob Atkins accessed a catalog citation

for it on-line at Edmunds and I placed an order. We'll see if I get

it. When I go to their on-line catalog it indicates that that

portion is under construction. Whatever.

 

<p>

 

But Thanks a lot Tuan - if they drop the ball I will have your pdf

version which I've printed out.

Ahem! That's "Duh Reejun", Mr. Marty 8^) *

 

<p>

 

Be sure to check out Flick's Tap along with all the other cultural

highlights!

 

<p>

 

http://www.hammondindiana.com/history/flicks.htm

Anyone know of a source for the USAF Optical Test chart? Something in the $20.00 range? Edmund Scientific has apparently stopped carrying it. Least that's what the gal on the phone said today.

Arista 400

What difference does it make if you like the print on the doormat?

At times like this I am reminded of Weston's line, "I don't care if

you print on a door mat, as long as it is a GOOD print."

I e-mailed Richard Knoppow recently, and he had this to say:

 

<p>

 

"I think this is one case where breaking the rules is better than

following them. In principle, if the rays of light going through a

plane-parallel plate are parallel the plate has no effect whatever on

them. Light from an infinite source are parallel. Rays which go

through the plate at an angle are off-set by an amount proportional

to the angle, the thickness of the plate, and its index of refraction.

 

<p>

 

Light emerging from a lens is convergent. In principle a plane

parallel plate in a convergent or divergent beam of light will

introduce some spherical aberration (even though there are no

spherical surfaces, it is rather the light wavefront which is

spherical), and some chromatic aberration since the index of

refractionn varies with wavelength.

 

<p>

 

Now, if we consider the relative amount of convergence from a single

element of a convertible lens with long focal length, it will be small

compared to the thickness of a good quality filter. So, even though

the filter _will_ introduce some aberrations they will be minor and

probably negligible especially considering the amount of chromatic

already present in these lenses.

 

<p>

 

Meaning, that the filter probably does less damage on the

back of the lens than on the front given the type of lens.

 

<p>

 

Turner-Reich individual lenses seem to have considerable chromatic

error. Probably any narrow filter will improve them. The Orange

filter (probably a #15 or G filter) cuts out virtually all blue light

and some green also so should sharpen up the T-R cells considerably.

If you are using gelatin filters the effect will be so small that it

probably would he hard to measure, they are so thin they have

practically no effect on the optical path except for

extremely short focus lenses.

 

<p>

 

 

A note: Ideally, a single cell should be used behind the diaphragm,

generally the correction is better this way. However, single meniscus

lenses have a slight telephoto or retrofocus effect, depending on

which side you are. The principle planes lie outside or nearly

outside of the lens, one of them usually about at the surface of the

convex side and the other some distance away from it. What that means

practically is that if the performance of the lens is acceptable when

its on the front of the shutter the bellows draw will be

significantly shorter. My Ansco/Agfa camera can not focus the longer

element of my T-R lens when its on the back but has just enough

capacity to focus it on the front. I see little difference with the

shorter FL cell, which I can focus on either side. So, although

putting the single cell on the back is good practice it can be

used on the front too with little visible effect on performance.

Anybody know how fast the sun moves? I'm assuming there's someway to

gigure out how much time has passed by the change in shadows, but of

course that'd be a function of time of year, lattitude, etc. and of

course you couldn't do it on a cloudy day or in Greenland in

winter,etc.............

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/

 

<p>

 

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/pw/mf.html

 

<p>

 

http://www.ex.ac.uk/mfd/

 

<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?

topic_id=23&category=Medium%20Format

2 X 2 what? Centimeters? Inches? or Feet?

 

<p>

 

Seriously though, 6 X 6 cm (2.25 square) is usually considered medium

format - your Hasselblads, Mamiya C330's Rollei-flex's etc. Plenty

of folks shoot that and are pleased as punch with it, but Large

Format is more than film size - it's camera movements and a mind set.

 

<p>

 

Any decent large camera store will carry medium format gear and

there's always Ebay. There are also plenty of M.F. shooters on this

website (although they don't admit it publicly) and at www.photo.net

Take the back off and look through the aperture from the corners of

the rear frame. If there is cut-off, you'll see it in the irregular

shape of the aperture.

Ron Wisner has this to say:

 

<p>

 

"Frankly, after many bench tests, I have never been able to find any

effects from the use of good quality glass filters, as long as they

are used on the outside of the camera. Inside, behind the lens, can

introduce some astigmatism. I have found from experience that some

plastic filters are not especially good, but gels are, of course, the

best."

FWIW,

 

<p>

 

The only one I have been fortunate to see was at the Museum of

Science and Industry in Chicago in a display on Pictorial Photography

circa 1933.

 

<p>

 

It was at least as big as a #5 Ilex, and probably bigger. It was

marked Wollensak. It was air activated (piston on the left side as

you look at the camera from the front) and had at least 3 speeds, T,

B, and 1/30th or something. I doubt it could function much faster

than that anyway, given it's size.

 

<p>

 

I cannot honestly recall now if the lens was mounted in the usual way

(shutter between two halves of the lens) or it was "front mounted" -

i.e. shutter mounted to outside of board, lens mounted to front of

shutter. But I seem to recall the former rather than the latter.

 

<p>

 

Maybe someone who has one of the monsters will chime in?

When I shooting chromes in the last studio I worked for, exposures

run 30 seconds plus on a regular basis. We used quartz digital and

mechanical stop watches purchased at the local hardware store, etc.

I think you had it right the first time. I can't count the number of

imaged I've seen of Adams with his Stetson, and do recall one image

of him using it as a shade with hid 'blad. Weston on the other hand

more often than not seems to have gone "lidless". I can only recall

seeing two shots of him with a chapeaux - a Campaign hat and a

beret. In his list of equipment for his Guggenheim, he always seems

to mention the "Worsching Counter Light Cap" a combination lens

shade/lens cap.

Hasn't Willie Anne Wright been doing this a good long while?

 

<p>

 

http://www.pinhole.com/exhibits/southland/statement.php3