chad_jarvis1

I concur that it is most likely an albumen print. Hardware-wise, look for what was state of the art for the time period. Looks to be first quarter of the 20th century.

<a href="http://www.redhillphoto.com/aoc.html">www.redhillphoto.com/aoc.html</a>

<br><br>

Feel free to copy the code (all javascript).

Counter-clockwise.

Bogen 3021/3221 legs with 3047 head. I've used mine for six years with no issue. Extending the second leg section fully causes splaying, but I generally don't extend them beyond halfway. This is probably the best bang for the buck combination when looking for something economical and fairly lightweight.

Goerz Hypergon 90mm.

I know it's a hair out of your stated range, but I've always liked the 127mm Raptar. Very flat field, coated and cheap...sweeeeet.

If you're mainly interested in portraits, you don't need a new camera. Invest in a good quality lens or two. You don't need to spend 3K, though.

Read this: <a href=http://www.redhillphoto.com/poptips.pdf>Processing Printing Out Paper</a>.

Contact print.

Thank you, Michael, for illustrating my point. Radioactivity, specifically as related to nuclear resonance, is relative. Your cell phone probably does more damage to your body than your Aero-Ektar.

Don't forget lanthanum, a rare earth metal used in lighting and obviously where the name Lanthar comes from. There are 23 radioactive isotopes of this element in addition to the 25 stable isotopes.

 

Radioactivity is a relative term. Stick your dosimeter under a dental x-ray camera for a second, and compare the reading to what you get off your lens overnight. You will be frightened of the dentist's office the next time you go.

I needed a jack yesterday to change the brake rotors on my Honda. How silly of me to use an auto scissor jack; I could have used my Bogen. The things one learns...

800ml of D76 1:1 for 10 sheets 4x5 Plus-X is right on the edge of developer exhaustion. By the way, my base time is 9 minutes at 68F.

Actually the f/12.5 is more desireable than the f/9.5 version. If it were coated, it would be called a Raptar, not a Velostigmat. I owned an f/9.5 version for a while and used it quite a bit. It won't cover more than 8x10 but is still a pretty sweet little lens for landscapes. Mine was also in a Betax #3...not the greatest shutter ever made, but, like the lens, very light.

 

Oh, I believe the smallest aperture in f/64, not f/84. Not that it matters...you'll probably want to stay at f/32 or f/45 anyway.

A large (5 gallon) drywall compound bucket will accomodate an 11x14 or 7x17 sheet of film. Paint the outside with some opaque acrylic house paint, mount your pinhole lens (I guess those buckets would give you about a 12in focal length), glue some guides inside, and you're in business. Just a large version of the old Quaker Oats camera.

Back

Front

I went to this show at the Phillips in DC. Highly recommended!

Ah, the timeless particle vs. wave debate...

1. Camera Bellows in the UK. www.camerabellows.com

Don't know the answer to #2.

I always carry a 5x7 back with my 8x10. Sometimes I have an 11x14 in the trunk.

I'd say he succeeded.

Whose mother is it that wears combat boots?

Carbon prints are made with gelatin and a pigment like sumi ink handcoated on a base (paper or plastic) and sensitized with dichromate. After exposure the "emulsion" is transferred to another support where the soft, unexposed gelatin is washed away. It is then either trasnferred to another permanent support or left alone to dry. The finished product has a relief effect...very 3D.

Andrew Glover. Good Guy. He's an accomplished photographer and printer but seems to do it (like most of us) just for the love of it. He should have been a 1950s pulp fiction writer.

 

Great suggestion, Bob.