mark_parsons1

Tom -

As I type this I'm looking at a 12x20 Korona happily perched on a Berlebach 4032, so it would definitely hold your Cambo. I've been pleased with it for a few years now. The built-in ball head works well and has proven very stable and convenient for me but YMMV - be aware that with the banquet camera one usually shoots in "landscape" orientation and very rarely shoots at an extreme angle either up or down. (I'm planning on welding up a bracket someday so I can flop that beast 90 degrees for when I want to shoot the odd "portrait" orientation. When I get the time...)

For general photographic use I think it's fine (and a great value - it's a nice tripod for the money) but if you're doing work that requires pointing the camers up or down greater than 30 degrees then you'll either need another head or a different tripod.

Also, my tripod (the "Reporter" model) has a model number of 4032, not 3042 as you mentioned. (Sounds the same, with the tilting head and all, but it could be a different model or maybe you just juxtaposed a couple of digits...?)

Good luck!

Mark

John -

Like you, I use FP-4 in banquet size (12x20). I love the results I get with D-76 1:1. Because Ilford films have a wetting agent incorporated in them, what I do is pre-soak first (in a tray) using an amount of water equal to the amount of D-76 I will use. Then when the pre-soak time is done (4 min), I simply add the D-76 to the water already in the tray and start the timer. (9 min. works well for me, although your results may vary.) This way you get very smooth, even development by not tossing the wetting agent with the bathwater, so to speak...

I too had thought about going to drums/tubes, but you don't burn through 12x20 like you do 4x5 or roll film, so I never really found it necessary. Plus this method works so well that there's no real reason to switch.

Good luck, and e-mail if questions.

I feel like this thread is the large format community all signing a world-wide sympathy card for Steve's family and friends, which is only fitting as Steve Grimes is basically the patron saint of LF shooters everywhere.

Without his help I probably would have given up on ULF before I really got started. I had an old Dagor (in barrel) for my even older 12x20 and I really needed it to be in a shutter to do what I wanted to do. Money was tight at the time, and Steve said he could mount the lens in front of an old #4 shutter for me. He was honest upfront that he didn't know if it would cover or not, but this was the most affordable option, so I went for it. Well, I got the lens back (and he did a great job, of course) but much to my disappointment it didn't cover the corners. By now I had a lot of money in the camera, the lens, the shutter job, the holders, etc... and I still couldn't take a photo with it. I was THIS close (fingers held a half inch apart) to giving up on ULF and selling the whole kit to finance a new 4x5, which at least I could use right away. I called Steve and explained my predicament, and he said to send the mounted lens back and he would put the amount I had already paid him towards re-mounting it in a Betax #5 (which, although costlier, would definitely work). I couldn't believe it - I figured I'd have to cover the whole new shutter job from scratch, as most of the cost of the previous work had been Steve's labor. Well, he did as promised (of course) and that giant old refurbished #5 worked perfectly (of course). Still does after several years, and the speeds still test out right, too. I'm so glad I opted to have him do it the right way... not only do I have a great lens/shutter on my camera, but I have a piece of Steve's elegant work. Forever. I'll never sell it.

Look up "Master Craftsman" in the dictionary and you'll see a photo of Steve Grimes. Funny thing - look up "Gentleman" and you'll see the same picture.

Best wishes,

Hi, Enrique. You say "I own an Angulon 90/6.8 but am considering

changing it for a Super Angulon 90/8 or 90/5.6."

<p>

I guess the real question here is: Exactly why are you considering

changing lenses? Is there something your Angulon is not doing to

your satisfaction? Are you running out of coverage, or are the

corners a bit soft when you push it? If so, then you'd probably

benefit from the upgrade. But if not, I say enjoy your small and

light lens (with it's small, light, and inexpensive filters!).

<p>

BTW, I have the f/8 90mm SA (modern version) and really like it. And

the 67mm filters it takes are manageable, but unless I was doing

architecture or some other movement-intensive work I don't know that

I'd pay to upgrade from your current lens to this one. Most of my

landscape photos don't require much movement. Your style may be

different, of course.

<p>

Cheers!

There's a good chance the person who did the mod was Patrick Alt.

Don't have his contact info at hand, but he's in L.A. and is well

known for his quality LF repairs and modifications.

<p>

Cheers!

>>> "I have a deep appreciation for the originality, sensitivity,

expression and emotion often conveyed by African American�s,

regardless of their art form." <<<

<p>

How about: "I have a deep appreciation for the originality,

sensitivity, expression and emotion often conveyed by Artists,

regardless of the melanin level in their skin."

<p>

Best wishes,

Carl - I contacted someone in Freestyles' sales dept (female, can't

remember the name) about a year ago with the same query. We had

several e-mails back and forth. The bottom line was that they either

wouldn't or couldn't sell Arista in 12x20 (or presumable other

banquet sizes either). However, more power to you in this effort -

things may change if they think the market is big enough to make it

worth their while. (And if they DO offer it in banquet sizes, I'll

be right behind you in line to buy some.)

<p>

Is the "other dealer" you mentioned Photo Warehouse, in SoCal? I've

had very good luck with their un-branded FP4+ in 12x20 (and the price

is right, too).

<p>

Cheers!

Andy - This is indeed a depressing story. As someone who has had

some prized posessions stolen in the past, I sympathize with your

anger and loss. Whatever happens, let's not let the bastards win -

you should definitely take that Southwest trip with your wife and

your 4x5 in May. (We did the same territory last summer and it was

absolutely wonderful.)

<p>

If necesary, I have a mint Schneider 210 Apo-Symmar (w/filters) and

15 or so clean film holders which I will lend you for the trip. I

don't have a replacement for your 150mm lens, but I do have a very

nice 90mm Super Angulon which I can also send you. (Can't see doing

the S.W. w/o a wide angle!) All I ask is that you treat them as you

would your own gear (and I'm sure you would). Look at it this way -

it's a chance for us to stir up that tired old "Schneider vs.

Rodenstock" debate once again. :-)

<p>

Best wishes, and let me know. I'm in CA, and from your post, you are

too?

<p>

Cheers!

Scott - A similar question came up a while ago. Someone was getting

flat negs when exposing for extended times with the development

adusted as per the manufacturer's recomendation. I'll not repeat

everything here (you can search it in the archives) but here's my

short answer: In many cases you actually shouldn't compensate for

extended exposure with reduced development. This is because most

really long exposures are made in light which doesn't have as large a

brightness range as "normal" (i.e. daylight) exposures. Try it -

just shoot (compensating for reciprocity, of course) and develop as

normal. You may find you prefer it this way. I know I do.

<p>

Another point concerning reciprocity (w/ trad films)on really long

exposures (in the multi-minute range): It's hard to over-do it, so

don't be shy about leaving that shutter open! (Plus, as someone

mentioned, it's getting progressively darker as the minutes wear on.)

<p>

Cheers!

David - You've gotten some good advice so far. Much has already

been said about the films you mention (FP4, HP5, Tri-X) so all I'll

say about them is that good, punchy, crisp prints can be made using

any of them. As someone already mentioned, a LOT of this lies in the

printing process. Again, if you're geting prints you like with

graded papers, there's no reason you can't do as well (or better)

with variable contrast papers. Don't be afraid to do some serious

dodging and burning, and don't shy away from jacking up the contrast

if that's what it takes. (A.A. used to basically say that you have to

go too far to know when you've gone far enough, so take big steps!)

It's a mistake to think every negative should be able to be printed

straight (no dodge/burn/etc.) on grade 2 paper. Look at some of

the "printing workshop" articles in the magazines - almost invariable

the final print is much manipulated (and improved) over the straight

print.

<p>

Having said that, I also think it's frequently a mistake to

automatically reduce development to compensate for long exposures.

Most long exposures are actually made in low contrast lighting (i.e.

not typical "sun & shade" lighting). Next time you make a long

exposure, develop normally and I'll bet you'll like the resulting neg

better. I know I usually do.

<p>

Cheers!

I agree with most of the above. The grain (such as it is) is very

fine, but "mushy". This film has very smooth tonal gradations,

handles highlights very well, but seems to have very little edge

effects. (High resolution but low apparent acutance - "fine" but

not "sharp".) All of this adds up to a film that is (in my opinion)

wonderful for most portraits and other "soft" scenes, but not the

best for most landscapes and architecture. This is based on my

experience with XP-1, XP-2, & XP-2 Super in 35mm and 120. It used to

be available in 4x5 (maybe it still is?) but I've never tried it in

sheet film. It's definitely worth a try.

<p>

Cheers!

Let's try this again. Don't know why it didn't take, but here's the

page with the D-76H info:

<p>

http://www.speakeasy.org/~mrjones/d76.htm

Erik -

<p>

According to <http://www.speakeasy.org/~mrjones/d76.htm> D-76H can be

used for the same development times (with the same results) as D-76,

and also at 1:1 with same results & times as regular D-76 1:1. A

reference WRT this info is given on the above page to Steve Anchell's

Darkroom Cookbook, which I would certainly consider a reliable source

for developer info.

<p>

Please note that I have never personally used D-76H. I'm very happy

with D-76 @ 1:1, which like you I use with FP4+ (and HP5+). What is

the benefit of eliminating the hydroquinone?

<p>

Cheers!

Jules -

<p>

Kodak recommends using 8 oz. of D-76 per 8x10 sheet of film. (At 1:1

this would of course work out to 16 oz. of working developer per

8x10.) This equals approx. 8 oz. of D-76 1:1 per 5x7 sheet. If

you're developing multiple sheets, work out how much soup you need

for the batch and develop them all at the same time in a large tray.

This way they'll all get the same development. Otherwise (as you've

found out) the later sheets will be thin. Or do them one at a time,

but use 8 oz. of 1:1 solution per sheet then throw it out.

<p>

As to pre-soak (the "before water bath"), Ilford films incorporate a

wetting agent which they say eliminates the need for a pre-soak. I

pre-soak anyway, but I incorporate the pre-soak water into the

developer. (i.e. I add water to the tray, soak for 4 min., then add

the same amount of D-76 and restart the timer, thus beginning a 1:1

development with the wetting agent still in the solution.)

<p>

I'm doing almost exactly the same thing as you (HP5+ with D-76 1:1 in

trays, although I have to do one sheet at a time because I'm using

12x20 film). I use the above pre-soak method with very good results

and my times are around 10 min., so your 11 min. should certainly be

in the ballpark assuming you have enough developer in the tray. And

yes, less development time will give you even thinner negatives.

<p>

Good luck!

To the user, the MF digest on photo.net appears very much like this

forum. (More so like it than any of the other forum formats I've

seen - almost identical in use, except you need to log in to post.)

Therefore I'd vote for that route (as a separate forum - NOT as part

of the general photo.net discussion!).

<p>

Cheers, and thanks to Tuan for the great job he does!

I have a 12x20 holder from ABW Enterprises (Alan Brubaker). Drug it

(loaded) all over the Southwest this summer and on one memorable

occasion had it in direct desert sun for an hour during a morning

shoot at Valley of Fire, NV (and on numerous other occasions in

California). Nary a streak. Highly recommended.

<p>

Cheers!

James - Not to worry (unless you have a BIG bubble right in the

middle of an element!). This was common in older glass, and believe

it or not was actually considered a sign of glass quality way back

when (i.e. bubbles = high quality glass). Enjoy the lens - this is a

wonderful piece of glass for that format.

<p>

Cheers!

<whatever artistic aim you have can be acheived by using film and

making ciba prints>

<p>

Not to pick a fight, but what if Mr. (or Mrs.) Rothman's "artistic

aim" IS to get the unusual, bluish, reversed, unique image that one

can get from using Ciba in-camera? Or what if he's using a 12x20

camera and wants to make color images? (Or for that matter, what

does an 8x10 sheet of Velvia go for these days, plus processing? And

how much is a sheet of Ilfochrome? See where I'm going? Assuming

someone is set up to process Ilfochrome, this might be an inexpensive

way to have some fun, and maybe get some unique images in the

process.)

<p>

I've seen some direct-to-Ciba images that were very nice, and if E

wants to pursue it he should contact Ilford, who will send him

literature on how to go about this process. (They say to rate it at

an EI of around 2.5, IIRC. Not screaming, but better than .2)

<p>

Have fun!

Hi, Bill - I have this lens. I love it on 12x20, but I doubt it

would really cover 16x20 at infinity. (Covers 12x20 with just a bit

of movement at f/64.) My copy (ser. #772XXX) is uncoated, but

contrast is really good with this design (only four air-to-glass

surfaces). Sharp as heck, too. Really, a superb design for 12x20.

Never used the 355mm G-Claron but I understand it is of similar

design. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any further questions.

<p>

Cheers!

I agree with Doug - HP5 is fairly bulletproof as far as moderate

overexposure goes. Plus, film speed isn't nearly as precise as we'd

like to think, unless we're shooting an 18% gray card. Consider

this - you're making a photo of a tree. You meter and get ready to

expose, then reconsider. "I think I'd like the bark to be on Zone VI

rather than V", you decide, and open up a stop. Bam! You just went

from EI 320 to 160 (at least in relation to what the meter originally

said).

<p>

As far as developing your film, I haven't used xtol but everything

I've read says NOT to dilute it too much. Again, I'd take Doug's

advice and use what normally works for you, maybe dropping a little

off your normal time. (I find with HP5 that moderate changes in soup

time don't affect the neg density much. I had to go from 8.5 min. to

10 min. [D-76 1:1] to get a change of maybe half a grade.)

<p>

Cheers!

I shoot FP4 and HP5 and find that the reciprocity info from Ilford is

pretty good. The problem comes when you are making an exposure which

is longer than the Ilford chart covers (not sure but I think it goes

to 30 sec. max?). Then you have to extrapolate from the chart and

use your gut. When in doubt I error on the side of more exposure -

it seems hard to over expose when you get into really long times.

This weekend we were making an exposure on a foggy morning deep in

the forest and the meter said 1 min. so we gave 10 min, and the negs

look fine. You're "supposed" to reduce development when reciprocity

comes into play but I almost never do. Maybe this is because the

types of scenes where long exposures are necessary are by nature

fairly low in contrast to begin with, but I find that normal

development gives me the results I want. (I'm using D-76 1:1, by the

way. No experience w/ pyro.)

<p>

Good luck!

It seems like I almost never make exposures in the 1-4 second range,

due to reciprocity. (i.e. if it meters 1/2 sec., the shutter handles

it. If it meters 2 sec., I'll give it 5 or so for reciprocity.)

That doesn't solve your 3 sec. problem if that's the actual exposure,

of course, but I'm just saying not to forget about reciprocity. And

don't worry about getting exactly 3 sec. - just count it out and

you'll be fine. If you're concerned, practice a bit first with your

watch - you'll be plenty close enough.

<p>

Don't worry, be happy, make picture!

James - You've gotten a lot of good info so far, but don't be

discouraged by some of the replies saying how difficult ULF is. It's

not. In a lot of ways, it's simpler: You're probably using one

lens. You probably only have one or two holders, which means you

only make a couple of exposures per outing. You're developing one

neg at a time, probably in a tray. You don't need an enlarger - you

contact print everything. No fancy contact printing frame needed - a

piece of heavy glass and a flat board will do as well.

<p>

Yes, the whole process is more contemplative than the smaller formats

(in other words, SLOWER) and if that doesn't suite your style then

stick with whatever you're using now, but there is something very Zen

about seeing the final image in front of you under the darkcloth, 20"

wide. Digitally enlarged negs or enlarging a smaller format may

indeed give nice results, but it's not the same thing (either the

process or the output).

<p>

You don't need megabuck gear to do ULF. Like Emile, I use a Korona

and a Dagor. Love them both, wouldn't swap for the world. You don't

need a $600 tripod, either - lots of big ol' used ones around. I'm

currently using the largest wooden Berlebach, which I got on sale

from Calumet for $139. For holders, contact Alan Brubaker. I think

he's at Filmholders.com. As for film, Ilford recently INCREASED the

availability of their ULF films, so I wouldn't panic about it. I use

both FP4+ and HP5+, depending on the light. They're both wonderful.

<p>

Good luck!

I came on this thread kind of late, but it's right up my alley - I spent this summer on a little "meter-less" experiment. I took my family on a number of trips to tourist spots (Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Vegas, etc.) and instead of taking the Nikon or the Mamiya or the view camera, I took one of three cheap MF cameras I got on e-bay (two folders and a TLR). I purposely left the meter at home. Admittedly, I was shooting b&w and consciously going for shots like the typical 50's family vacation snapshots, but almost all the exposures were right on or at least close enough to print easily.

I found that it was very easy, once I got started. I first figured out my "normal" exposure (Sunny 16, adapted to my EI for the particular film) then tried to discern how far below that - if any - the scene was. (One, two, or three stops for most daylight scenes.) In practice, it was very quick, and once I made one exposure the rest were either the same or up/down a stop for changing light. Very intuitive, once you got going. I also did a little landscape stuff, using filters and tripods, and again the results were fine.

The real benefit of doing this is that it teaches you to really LOOK at the light. Also, as mentioned, knowing how to expose without a meter can come in handy if your meter fails. (This happened to me a couple of years ago shooting for a magazine assignment and knowing the correct exposure saved my bacon when my meter died.)

It's easier than it might first seem, and while it's certainly not for every occasion, it's a tool that all photographers should have at their disposal.

Cheers,