sean_yates

Wild Bill,

<p>

From what I can tell, the scale looks like something sold by a

company (sadly defunct) I think it was called the "Image Quest Quick

Focus Scale" or something or other. The company was in Colorado. I

still have thier 800 #. It was a square of plastic with four

different levels of "precision" depending on how small (or large) a

C.of C. you needed.

<p>

Is your dohickey good for all formats and reproduction ratios?

Just the ASA/ISO and or your personal film speed. I've been using it

for years with no ill effects. Love the stuff at that price!

Edward Weston could go from a closed camera case to an exposed

negative in 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

<p>

Yes, there are ways to get things fast - the right gear, enough time

spent using it to where it becomes like driving your car or getting

food from the plate into your mouth, and keeping everything as simple

as possible - one lens, knowing the correct exposure for a sunny day

with no snow on the ground, etc. etc. etc.

<p>

I would not argue that a monorail is necessarily any slower than a

field camera - yes design is important, but so is working with it.

I'll bet someone who knows their Technikardan well could out-do old

Ed'ard today.

<p>

There are ways to expidite things, little tricks, but I know my wife

can barely sit still long enough for me to work, and we don't have

any kids. There are some really nice 6 X 9 rangefinders out there -

old Mamiyas, KoniOmegas and the new Fujis....

Trigor follows the Goerz logic of Dagor, i.e. TRIple anastigmat

GOerz. Is it a blue dot?

<p>

Contact Richard Knoppow, The Knowledgeable: dickburk@ix.netcom.com

<p>

If he doesn't know it, it's a myth!

Bri,

<p>

You sure you got all the facts right? The Kodak f 6.3 Wide Field

Ektar has an i.c. of 318 at f/16.

The Ektar will cover 8 X 10 according to some sources, but not

according to the literature I have from Kodak. Not to knock the

older lens (that's all I own, old lenses) but if I could afford to

pick, I'd get the Fuji, no question!

Straight from Calumet's website:

<p>

http://www.calumetphoto.com

<p>

Product Speed Search Results

One moment while we search for "zone VI"... Done. Elapsed time:

1.43 seconds.

<p>

Items currently online that match your request: 159

Displaying items 1 through 20.

I am trying to remember, Adams got his thumbprint on "MT. Williamson"

while he was processing, right?

You haven't told us what kind of work you do, or intend to do. Or

has that been in another thread I missed?

<p>

Metering from the ground glass can be indispensible when shooting

macro and you can't get the meter in between the subject and the

light source and things are just too constricted "O.K. you move the c-

stnad out of the way so I can get in here to meter but put it back so

that the flag cuts in right here".

<p>

In the three studios I worked in, those kind of conditions didn't

come up enough to warrant the expense. In my own work I've always

found the lowly Weston Master and Sekonic L398 adequate.

<p>

I once watched a group of students set up to shoot 8 X 10 Polaroid of

the Robey house in Chicago. Granted, that's not the best example -

but it took them a good half hour just to decide on exposure while

using a metering back and they weren't using any filtration.

<p>

Although B&W does say the Polarizer will affect the exposure by

anywhere from 2.3 to 2.8 stops, I have always gotten by with a

straight compensation of 2.5

Hey folks,

<p>

I found this info at the jobo website:

<p>

http://www.jobo-usa.com/faq/drums_on_motorbase.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

I didn't do 'em "hot" cause I don't know how. Must edyewkayt

muhsef! I noticed there was something odd about them when I tried

cutting and pasting to the address bar from the post, but couldn'f

figure it out. Thanks for the diagnosis. Don't know why copying

them from the address bar did that.

<p>

Unfortunatley the only way to search the archives is the ol'

fashioned way - wunatatime.

This is an open forum as I understand it. Participants have the

freedom to respond to questions or not, as they see fit, as

long as they are within the parameters set by the forum

maintainers, independent of what someone else posts. If the "go check

the history posts" response doesn't cover enough ground, than they

should certainly chime in with their experiences. Anything of value

should be posted.

<p>

Meanwhile, on more than one occassion, older threads have been visited

by folks with newer or more relevent or just plain ol' good concrete

specific information with specs and citations and so on, which they

then add by posting. Witness the recently "updated" questions on film

holder repair.

<p>

There is no reason why an individual cannot respond to a queery off

forum.

Go here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=003xuw

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=003iq2

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=003fAK

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=003Lop

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=003AQL

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=0035ID

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=002uec

<p>

& here:http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=002PGg

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=002OVx

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=001OvU

<p>

& here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=000lP4

<p>

& even here: http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=0007hz

<p>

and I'm sure there are a few I missed

I knew this had come up before somewhere.....

<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=000bcL&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet

And of course, there's always:

<p>

http://www.hurrellphotography.com

Sorry if this seems too commercial, but it's an excellent resource:

<p>

Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits

Mark A. Vieira George Hurrell (Photographer)

Format: Hardcover, 224pp.

ISBN: 0810934345

Publisher: Abrams,Harry N Inc

Pub. Date: May 1997

<p>

Synopsis

The Chapman Collection is an archive of photographs by the celebrity

photographer George Hurrell. Vieira includes "275 of the images from

the collection for this book." (Libr J) Index.

<p>

Annotation

A "studio portrait photographer from 1930 to 1943," George

Hurrell "was responsible for creating a bold new idiom, one in which

movie stars were idealized, glamorized, and, ultimately, turned into

icons." Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits: The Chapman Collection by Mark

A. Vieira presents his work in chronological order by studio

affiliation from "one of the world's largest private archives of

original Hurrell photographs."

<p>

From the Publisher

This book presents in depth the work of George Hurrell, the

photographer who more than anyone else was responsible for inventing

the Hollywood "glamour" portrait The genesis of the pictures is

examined in a remarkable text by Mark A. Vieira, himself a highly

regarded portrait photographer, who came to know Hurrell well during

the photographer's later years. Vieira explains in detail Hurrell's

technical feats of lighting and retouching. And drawing on firsthand

accounts, he vividly re-creates the lively interplay between the

photographer and his subjects at the shooting sessions in which these

portraits were taken.

<p>

From the Critics

From Library Journal

George Hurrell was the most sought-after celebrity photographer in

Hollywood's Golden Era. He had total control of light, the complete

confidence of his subjects, and a storied reputation for making the

ordinary beautiful and the beautiful dazzling. A close friend of the

photographer, Vieira has carefully selected 275 of the images from

the collection for this book.

<p>

David Bryant, New Canaan P.L., Ct.

From Patrica Eliot Tobias - The New York Times Book Review

Cecil B. DeMille compared Hurrell to Rembrandt, and no wonder; under

Hurrell's guidance, movie stars became burnished, unreal images.

Hurrell described his work simply: 'Bring out the best, conceal the

worst, and leave something to the imagination.'

<p>

Viera also wrote an article in View Camera Jan/Feb '98 I believe.

You can see it at Borders, Barnes & Noble or the local library. If

it's not available locally, you can interlibrary loan it.

Try these links:

<p>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?

msg_id=000h3H&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet

<p>

and:

<p>

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronbattery.html

<p>

Short answer - the virtue of the Mercury cells is not their loooong

shelf life (although that is a nice feature) but rather their even

discharge curve - i.e. they retain an amazingly constant voltage

output throughout their life.

<p>

This may be of no consequence to the Gossen. The alkaline cells I

have used in my Weston have prooven to erratic for use. ANyone

familiar with the Lithium cells?

I have purchased original cells for my Weston Ranger 9 from a place in

Hong Kong called "Button Online". Shipping was a tad slow, but the

price was great. I don't have their URL with me, but try a search or

go to photo.net and search the discussion threads for Weston Ranger 9,

etc.

I am shooting Arista 400 in 8 X 10 and plan to switch to PMK Pyro

from D-76. I imagine that's all I'll ever need. For me, price was a

deciding factor. Hopefully neither product will be discontinued

before I can amass a life time supply.

<p>

But I haven't tested the Bergger product either.

Familiar with the phrase, "Expose for the shadows, develop for the

highlights"? Well that's what D.B.I. is - developing for the

highlights. It is an older method practiced by Aaron Siskind, Harry

Callahan, Edward Weston, Brett Weston, etc. etc. etc.

<p>

Instead of developing by time and temperature, you develop the film

until you judge the highlights to be adequatley dense, but not too

dense. This is done in open trays and inspecting it for a brief

period of time under a # 3 Green safelight after 1/2 to 2/3rds of the

expected development time has elapsed.

<p>

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

<p>

to learn more

Gordon Hutchings reviewed the Arista films in View Camera a while

back. To quote Mr. Hutchings, re: is it Ilford or not, he said "If

it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

<p>

Our own Dan Smith had this to say a while back in the archives....

<p>

"I thought I better update my answer on this one to reflect some

testing I did with the films. View Camera magazine featured a short

article one of the films & the conclusion was "it is an Ilford

emulsion, in all respects the same as the Ilford named emulsion" when

examined closely. After reading this I bought a few boxes of the

Arista in both film speeds & compared them directly to Ilford HP5+

and FP4+. I found one difference in the negatives-in the 4x5 sheet

film. That difference is not in the grain pattern or how the images

look. It is in the thickness of the material the emulsion is coated

on. The Arista seems to be a bit thinner, having a tendency to curl a

bit where the Ilford named emulsion didn't under the same conditions.

Other than that both films, back to back in the holder, shot of the

same subject, processed in the same JOBO tank at the same time, look

so close that I can't tell any difference. It looks as if I am one of

those who got the info it was an older version. But on testing the

stuff I think it has to be the same film, with the thickness of the

sheet being the difference. At any rate, both films work fine and the

images looked nice. Even with that I will continue shooting Tmax, why

change what works?

<p>

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), February 12, 2000. "

Mr. Rodan,

<p>

I assume you are referring to my second contribution rather than my

first. If that is the case, I am sorry you do not share my sense of

humor. It was all in good fun. Apparently the humor was not as self

evident as you seem to think the post was.

<p>

Mr. Andrews engaged in a little gentle ribbing, and so I returned in

kind. He has not e-mailed me protesting my "rudness" nor has the

forum moderator seen fit to delete my second post. The original

poster hasn't bothered to say anything either. I hope he has

deactivated the automatic forwarding, I'd hate to waste his time with

your post and mine.

<p>

You don't seem to feel the need to take Mr. Andrews to task, so why

me? I was not aware that humor was verbotten and would suggest the

forum would suffer from it's elimination. Perhaps you should over-

look what offends you and exercise the same self control you seem to

feel I need? That or e-mail me off forum? Have the P.C. Police

decided that cartoon swear words are now offensive?

I got into the habit of removing the back to insert the holder

because I am short and often set the camera up with the center of the

g.g. at eye level. What can I say, I'm too lazy to carry a step

ladder around!

<p>

This also allows you to double check that the shutter is closed and

the iris stopped down from the rear, before you pull the darkslide.

Thing is to make sure the darkcloth doesn't get caught between the

back and frame and cause an improper fit and fog the negative.

<p>

A not uncommon problem with older Deardorffs that have seen a lot of

use is that the rear focusing shoes and focus rack wear. The shoes

fit into a slot under the focus rack. When the gear for the focus

wears the focus rack and vice versa with repeated use and poor

lubrication, the shoe sags in that portion of the track where the

gears and teeth are most worn.

<p>

As a result, when the camera is focused, all is well. BUT, when you

insert a loaded holder, the wieght of the holder presses down and the

worn gear/rack allows the shoe to pivot or sag in the slot. So the

smallest amount of pivot in the bottom translates into a larger

amount of pivot at the top. Viola, out of focus image.

<p>

You can either get the rack and shoes replaced, or avoid placing the

rear frame over that portion of the rack that allows sag, or make a

shim to wedge things in place after the focus is locked down.