sean_yates

http://www.michaelandpaula.com

<p>

They still seem to find "new" Azo good enough to print with. They

will use nothing else. Whether it's as "good as old" Azo, I've

noidea, but I'd be tickled pink if I could print on it as well as

they do. Gordon Hutchings seems to have decided to use it too.

Check out their articles on it in the "Writings" section.

<p>

Since switching to development by inspection and Azo I have been very

very happy with my print quality. Haven't switched to PMK or Amidol

yet, but ya never know.

Once I was in my local camera store, yaking and trying to figure out

how I was going to pay for item X when a guy came in with an 8 X 10

he had just bought at a yardsale.

<p>

No, I'm not kidding - $35.00 he said.

<p>

I didn't catch the make, but it had the fanciest parquet bed I have

ever seen - alternating tiles of blonde and deep red wood - like a

chess board, each square perhaps 2" on a side. Deep Red leather

bellows like a Wisner, BRIGHT brass lens and shutter that had

probably (GOOD GOD!) had Brasso taken to it (still makes me cringe)

and really fancy springs and clips holding the ground glass in

place. It probably weighed all of 9 lbs.

<p>

The fellow was very enthused about his purchase, (who wouldn't be)

the camera store owner was a good deal less than enthusiastic, and I

am regret letting him walk out the door with it.

I am not one to get into all the theory here, but the number of posts

caught my eye. Wasn't there a website that demonstrated a format

comparison with unaltered scans of Velvia in 3 formats at varying

apertures? I can't recall where I found the link. Could've been a

year ago.

<p>

Anyone know/remember what I'm talking about? Granted viewing results

on the net is NOT what one would call a final arbiter but it was

interesting, nonetheless.

Acufine is still around.

<p>

http://www.calumetphoto.com/calumet/ProdSearch.taf?

_function=detail&qryItem_Copy_Parent_uid1=BR5732&type=SPDSEARCH&_UserR

eference=DE0811FDF45CBAE63A3D49E5

<p>

If you want the best res though, wouldn't Tech Pan be your meat?

Then you'd have to use Kodaks Technidol or Rodinal at 1:125 or

something

Paul

<p>

hard to tell, but it sure sounds like Bullock to me

I new I'd forgotten some - Meyerowitz's "St. Louis and the Arch" -

should be required viewing for all photo students

<p>

and Nicholas Nixon's "Family Portraits" from Smithsonian Press

"Steam, Steel & Stars" by O. Winston Link & "Brett Weston Master

Photographer" - even if you don't like Brett's work, the

reproductions in this book are the BEST I have ever seen.

<p>

More Anon as I consult the bookshelf I'm sure...

Hey Jules, or is it Julie? I can't remember, sorry!

<p>

Basically, yes, you can contact print with enlarging paper or contact

printing paper or you can "roll your own" by using albumen, VanDyke

Brown, Cyanotype or "the prince of papers" Platinum/Palladium.

<p>

Go here: http://www.redhillphoto.com

<p>

for some info on "Printing Out Paper" and Albumen. The folks at

Photographers Formulary have all manner of coating kits for the

alternative processes as do Chicago Albumen Works, Bostick & Sullivan,

etc. Go to the commercial links page to connect.

<p>

For now though, I would suggest a quality VC fiber based paper and a

standard developer - the liquid ones are easier to mix. I use Azo and

Dektol and am going to switch to one of the Photographer's Formulary

Amidol equivalents for now, although Agfa Neutol has been suggested.

In 1994 I flew from O'Hare to Newark to Orly to Tunis to Rome to

Venice and back the same way. The Italians were wearing submachine

guns, the French were worried about someone bombing the Metro and the

Americans were none to happy about Oklahoma City. I didn't bother,

but had all my film passed through the carry-on luggage X-Ray. This

included Fuji 64Y, Hp5+, XP2 and Tmax 100 I believe. I had no

difficulties that I could see when I had the film processed.

<p>

Recently on Deja.com another l.f. shooter posted that they insisted

on hand inspection of his un-opened film boxes (in his changing bag,

with the gloves) as well as the film holders at O'Hare. That

prompted me to write to an Austrian l.f. acquiantance who has gone

through more and tougher airports than I of late. Here's what he

wrote:

<p>

"I been flying with film several times the last years on Airports like

Newark,JFK,Los Angeles,San Francisco, Frankfurt,Paris, Capetown,

Johannesburg and several more.

<p>

I had never any damages on my films from x ray. I always take my

films in the hand baggage and don't put the in a bag or bagpack.I

take the in here boxes wrapped with some old black plastic bags from

printing paper. The important thing is there should be no metal or

zipper or anything else like this on the films when they go through x

ray!! I have got friends they got damages on Leiffur Erikson airport

in Iceland but they have they film in the bag and you can see on the

film zippers, parts of a lens and something more. In Europe there is

no law like in the US for hand control the films. There is

only one question: yes the film will be x rayed or no and you don't

get into your plane! Never do film in checked baggage They will be

definitively damaged.

<p>

I have used several films on my journeys starting with Tri-X, HP5+,

Fuji Velvia or at the last journey Arista 400 (because my journey

started in LA. When I stay in the USA I buy my film there because it

is cheaper for me and I don't have to x ray the on the way from

Europe to the USA.But I mad journey like the one to South Africa

where my film from beginning to end had been x rayed 5 times.

<p>

Hope this helps!

Achim "

Presumably you mean to exercise the shutter?

<p>

It depend on how old your shutter is and what design. I don't worry

about my Betax's but the Ilex's I take out the night/day before I

hope to use them and run them through the speeds - spending more time

on those speeds I know are slow - until my wife complains. Then I

move to another part of the house.

<p>

The easy way to tell if there is a problem is to set up for that once

in a lifetime shot, and listen for the shutter to stay open too long.

"And it is very hard to dodge and burn a contact print."

<p>

It is? Since when?

Julio,

<p>

Re: barn doors,

<p>

That's what the Calumet Universal Gilter holder is - two barn doors

with a spring clip to hold it to the lens barrel and a slot for one

gelatin filter 3" X 3". I glued two pieces of black felt to the

inside of mine to make it even less reflective.

I've tried grain alcohol, rubbing alcohol, Windex, water, bleach and

amonia on an old uncoated lens I was given free and I couldn't get

the fungus to budge. I soaked one cell in undiluted amonia and later

undiluted bleach. NOTHING!

<p>

However, I can still get negatives good enough to contact print.

<p>

Is this a coated lens? If not you might try acetone.

Your wish is my command Oh Tribolius Maximus:

<p>

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

<p>

&

<p>

http://www.unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Inspection/inspection.htm

<p>

and there's an article in the newest edition of Anchell's "Darkroom

Cookbook". Also it is described in the famous "Photographers Mate

Handbook".

5 X 7 reducing backs are usually intended to be used on 8 X 10

cameras.

<p>

You say you want to shoot with a 4 X 5 camera. You can't "reduce"

from 4 X 5 to 5 X 7. Is it that you have a 5 X 7 with a 4 X 5 back?

If so than the 5 X 7 back wouldn't be a reduction back. If you have

a 4 X 5 than you would need an adapter back to 5 X 7 like the one

Wista used to sell.

<p>

If you intend to use a 5 X 7 with the aformentioned film holder

adapters, that'd definately save on the cost and weight and bulk of

the 4 X 5 reduction back. Don't forget you'll need a mask or a ruled

ground glass to get the composition for the 4 X 5 reducers centered

When I started devloping 4 X 5's in trays, I used 5 X 7 trays and

instead of shuffling, I transfered - i.e. 5 in the first tray - then

pull the bottom one out and put it by itself in the second tray of

developer. Then the fourth one comes out of the first tray and goes

on top of the fifth in the second tray, and so on. When the first

tray is empty, start over. it worked fine and I believe Adams

mentions this approach in "The Negative".

<p>

I'm sorry lumberkjack has such a low opinion of tray processing.

Since switching to development by inspection I won't do it any other

way.

I am not sure from your description if this will help or not.

<p>

I once had a Calumet C that the previous owner had modified by

bending one corner of the sliding clip at the top out and down, and

the one at the bottom out and up and then drilled two small holes in

each end. They put the ends of a small but beefy coil spring through

each hole so the spring pulled the two clips together assuring they

could not slide open.

<p>

It made switching lensboards a bit of a task, but the lensboard

stayed put once in place.

I would think the camera mounted style, like the one Toyo sells,

would offer the most protection from scattered light. I believe

Woody Walters did a test that demonstrated their superiority with a

coated lens, but can't be sure that's correct.

<p>

The ones designed to flip up out of the way are pretty easy to use.

I could see them being a source of vibration, but then so is the

bellows - so wait for the wind to die down. The tree branches and

flowers will be blurred anyway. Unless that's what you want of

course.

<p>

I know Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee use big rubber folding lens

shades like what Tiffen, et. al. sell. However, they don't use

filters much either.

<p>

I use this thing from Calumet: Universal Gelatin Holder Item No:

BG9000 $41.95. I think Adorama or B&H sell it too. It'll fit on

lens barrels up to 70mm in diameter.

<p>

It cost less when I bought mine. It's two barn doors, like for a

light, that clip onto the lens. I modifed mine by gluing black felt

to the inner part to make it less reflective. It weighs only a

couple of ounces and is completely adjustable and folds very flat.

It doesn't cover the entire lens though. It is designed to accept 3"

gelatine filters in cardboard mounts, but I use mine with my glass

screw-in ones.

<p>

When all is said and done I supposse it depends on what approach you

take - gelatine, resin, glass, and how you choose to mount them -

Lee, Tiffen, B&W, Calumet, etc.

Unfortunatley it's not that easy. There are aluminum Green Monsters,

and Magnesium Green Monsters - only one way to tell for sure - drop

it in water and see if it reacts. Or, wait, that's potassium, isn't

it?

Note:

<p>

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=509867378

<p>

This is an OOoooold model. Not the Green Monster or the Black

Beast. The bellows looks original and may well be 30" rather than 34"

The problem with bellows draw citations is that not everyone measures

it the same way. Sometimes the person who does the measuring isn't

aware of the C's second built in extension rail, f'rnstance. Also,

there is always the chance that for whatever reason a bellows may

have been replaced with a shorter rahter than standard length.

Finally, by way of example, the Deardorff camera has a nominal draw

of 30" - but with time the bellows can shrink up to 6"!.

<p>

All that said, the black model I had had exactly 34" of draw when the

bellows was racked out tight and a yardstick was placed at the center

of the ground glass and measurement taken from the inside surface of

a lensboard.

If you find the grain annoying, you can purchase another g.g. - find

out where Dick Phillips get's his made as the company seems to do

really realy good work.

<p>

Another option is to buy a can of varnish or laquer (I can never

remember which - perhaps someone with more wood working background

than I can respond) and take some maksing tape and tape out a pattern

on the ground side of the glass that you find acceptable.

<p>

Then paint the varnish or whatever, on the ground side and let it

dry. It will leave a fairly clear area - not as clear as clear

glass - but close enough - that you can use to foucs with.

<p>

This is how the original Deardorff g.g.'s were made.

Bravo Bill! Have you considered appending your thoughts and

experiences to the Ebony review on the main page?

Divide the focal length by 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, etc.

<p>

F'rnstance 300/5.6 = 53.571428571428 ad infinitum. So drill a hole as

close to 53.5714 mm as possible and that is your f 5.6. THe same

would apply for f/64 etc. Bear in mind though that those values are

for focus at infinity only.