sean_yates

Here's some of what Jobo has to say:

<p>

http://www.jobo-usa.com/faq/faqfrontpage.htm

<p>

http://www.jobo-usa.com/faq/print_vs_film_in_drums.htm

<p>

http://www.jobo-usa.com/faq/film_tanks_vs_print_drums.htm

<p>

You might contact them:

<p>

Equipment or Processing Questions:

Phone: Customer Service Department (734) 205-9421

e-mail: tech@jobo-usa.com

I am not sure I follow you here. Unless he has changed the design,

the Wisner has spring loaded ball bearings that press out on the front

standard - creating a "zero stop" for the front. The rear standard

has a notch cut in the base tilt arms/struts which achieves the same

function.

Actually, the local Ace I go to has buble level key chains - cost

$1.25. Perfect sixe too! I glued mine to the camera with Krazy Glue

but I like the magnet idea better.

FWIW Joel Meyerowitz's color work - "Cape Light" etc. is shot on color

neg with the 10" w.f. Ektar

Grimes is well know for more than repair. Somehow labeling him

a "repairman" seems less than complimentary.

"Isn't this a rather risky method of choosing a lens?"

<p>

Not if you know Steve Grimes it ain't!

<p>

"And after a lens is mounted how will you properly calibrate the

aperture scale?"

<p>

Ditto.

You are concerned that you won't be able to see well enough to focus

because the light is dim? Then show up early when the light is good

and wait. As the punch-line says on the main page - "F/22 and be

there - 20 minutes early."

Does it make a difference if you use decaf or regular? Does Espresso

give higher contrast than Maxwell House? What if I add chicory?

"Self-Casing" cameras sold as kits, holders, tripod, lens, shutter,

fliter etc. and intended to be used on outings when you and your Miss

and her chaperone were conveyed via bicycle.

<p>

Was this the site: http://www.fiberq.com/cam/fcam.htm ?

This cut and pasted from another news group:

<p>

"The table I have lists the 12.5 Wollensak as having a 379 mm

image circle and 100 degrees of coverage. That sounds like it

could be about right. I believe you need to stop right down to

f16 or f22 when shooting to get rid of residual aberrations, but

this is only a guess based on info provided on lenses of similar

vintage (the Angulon) where the wide open aperature is for

viewing only."

<p>

&

<p>

"I don't have access to pricing information of the period and was not

aware that the 159mm f/12.5 Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle lens was

marketed as a cheaper version of the f/9 specimen. It was my

impression that the difference is somewhat like that of the Protar IV

and Protar V, in that the later, though of smaller maximum aperture,

has somewhat greater coverage."

<p>

&

<p>

"Many years ago I had an oppoertunity to compare the f/12.5 and f/9

versions of the two Wollensak EX. WA lenses (they were both

Velostigmats) and the f/12.5 model did indeed have greater coverage.

Since coverage is a really important feature this fact should explain

why the f/12.5 model has a market value close to the f/9. In fact for

my money the greater coverage would make the f/12.5 model more

valuable."

<p>

I have the 9.5 and couldn't be happier - unless of course what they

say about the 12.5 is true.

I'm sorry, he RAPPED the film holders, before inserting them into the

back.

The article on film holders was written by Cervin Robinson and

appears here: Battle of the Bulge - Sheet Film Holders, Mar/Apr

1996. pp 62-67.*

<p>

What kind of work are you doing Sol? Unless you are shooting for

paying customers I am inclined to think you are overly concerned.

<p>

Even then you might be. The last studio I worked in used all

conventional holders Fidelity, etc. except when they shot Polaroid of

course. They were exposing over 30 sheets of 8 X 10 chrome per set-

up (they shot furniture sets) and 2 - 4 sheets of B&W & Color Neg.

Other than cleaning the holders religously they never took any

special precautions. One photographer always raped the holder

smartly in his hand before inserting it into the back, but he was the

exception. The stuido is still in business and brings in a

substanial $um/year. I don't think they'd be competative if they

were handing in poor results.

<p>

Think of Ansel Adams and Brett & Edward Weston, not to mention Paul

Strand, etc. etc. etc. They all shot 8 X 10 with wooden holders and

yet their prints are the standards by which we judge our own work,

right? What kind of holders do Ron Wisner and Michael A. Smith and

Tilman Crane and Linda Connor and Christopher Burket and Clyde

Butcher and other current masters use?

So Sol, have you made any exposures yet? If so, how were they?

Sharp enough or not?

Here ya' go

<p>

http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/information/

FWIW the University of Chicago is on its second N.E.H. grant to

preserve portions of it's "History of Religions" collection, some of

which goes back 400 years. They have chosen scanning and

microfilming along with traditional preservation processes.

<p>

On the other hand, Bruce and Ken Zuckerman who have been working with

portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex use a 4 x 5 (SINAR I

believe), a 210 and 120macro lens and reversed enlarging lenses.

They use strobe to reduce the damage to documents. Supposedly they

are teaching others their techniques. Perhaps they have a web

presence, but you might contact them at:

2 El Portal Palos Verdes CA, 90274 or call 310-541-4573

South west, or South east?

<p>

http://www.clydebutcher.com

Zone VI's "Neg-a-flat" is actually an old idea. They made the

carrier adjustable for film thinckness and marketed it better. B&J

and others have made simpler versions in the past. I have two I got

at various camera store "Fire Sales". IMHO they work quite well, but

I have no experience with the Zone VI product.

<p>

Beseler makes a clamping carrier that I have seen but never used - I

could never afford one - even used they are expensive. The one I saw

looked like it would do a better job - but it was only available in 4

X 5.

We've had 19" in Northwest Indiana by 12/21/00.

<p>

Far as I'm concerned, if you've got to wear snow shoes, you should be

inside - or in an airplane enroute to Jamaica! You never specified

what "deep" was. carnsarn it.

Maybe I'm missing something?

<p>

I have an old A100. My approach has been to stick the legs through

the snow into the soil beneath - as if the snow weren't there in the

first place. Granted, it's not as easy to back and fill that way,

but I don't have to worry about the tripod s - l - o - w - l - y

sinking during an exposure either.

Just to check, have you made more than one exposure with each side of

each holder? If so, do the patterns match from negative to negative -

i.e. two negs from the same side of the same holder held together on

the light box?

<p>

Could it be that the adhesive is getting old and has lost some of

it's tack? Or rather - retained tack on the film side but lost it on

the holder side? Then residual adhesive on the film is lost during

developement?

<p>

If not, then it could be part of your loading procedure - uneven

contact with the adhesive? What about your shooting conditions - are

you loading indoors and then shooting outdoors? Could it be

condensation between the holder and the negative?

<p>

If the emulsion from someone's previous negative was left on the

holder platten - wouldn't you see it?