tom_johnston1

I have been very hesitant to make a post about a very negative

experience that I had recently in a National Forest. However, some

other active contributors to photo.net have recommended that I do so

since it may be of interest and concern to other photographers.

In brief, a couple of weeks ago while photographing off of a National

Forest Service road, I was given a $100 fine for obstructing traffic,

even though I was neither parked on the empty gravel road, nor was my

camera on it. It's a long story that I won't bore you with here, but

I will provide you with a link to a newspaper article about it as

well as a link to a bulletin board where the issue has been aired (in

sometimes violent fashion). I wanted to post some pictures as well,

but I just can't remember how to post them on photo.net.

My story was a feature story in two northern Wisconsin newspapers and

the regional TV station even showed an

interest in it but I had to leave the area to return to my home

in Illinois before they could get a TV

crew out to the area. The whole matter opened a huge can of worms. My

life has even been threatened.

But the good news is that virtually

the entire public, the media, resort owners, individuals, sportman's

groups, local political groups, tourism people, and even industrial

interests (the largest logging company in the area) have come down

firmly on my side. My story caused others to come forward and tell

of their own "horror" stories about the NFS law enforcement officers

in

the Chequamegon National Forest, including the alleged solitation of

bribes, etc. by NFS law enforcement officers. The editors of the

newspapers are

being flooded with letters about this matter. It has turned out to be

a very hot issue up that way.

Out of principle, I am driving the 300

mile round trip which will be necessary to fight the case in federal

court in Madison, Wisconsin (which a lawyer told me is virtually

hopeless no matter what the evidence is).

There are some important issues and principles here that go far beyond

my own

personal interests and which can affect other photographers and

individuals who use NFS land for any purpose. If you would like to

know more about this, I am including a link to one of the original

newspaper articles which will give you an idea of what happened (up to

that point). I am also providing a link to a public forum board for

Park

Falls, Wisconsin where the issue is extremely hot but is finally

cooling

down a little, thank goodness. Please feel free

to post your own comments on that board if you like. You won't

believe some of the posts, especially some of the earlier ones.

However, there is a lot more to this than even those sources reveal.

If you live in the area, perhaps you already know about this. If you

have had a similar experience please contact the newspapers and the

proper authorities. They want to hear from you. If enough people

speak up, maybe we can put an end to this.

Also, feel free to email me concerning this matter.

http://www.parkfallswi.com/placed/story/07-20-2000citizens.html

http://www.parkfallswi.com/quickpoll/forum/

Thanks,

Tom Johnston

Some one above said "...50 developments"!!!!?????? I could calibrate

with precision for every film/developer combination I have with that

many tests. I tray develop, but I can offer one suggestion that you

might find useful. I have an old film holder and a set of darkslides

which are drilled in different spots so that I can do 12 tests on each

sheet of film (you could do 16 or 20 or even more on each sheet). You

don't need that many darkslides, though. By flipping them over you

use some for two test. I'm not going to try to describe this any

further (you may have seen this setup before - I didn't invent it).

The bottom line is that for a few bucks at a used camera store you can

set yourself up to do a 12 to 20 (or even more) tests on a single

sheet of film (the savings in film will more than pay for the holder

and darkslides). You can determine your E.I. on the first sheet

then plot a H/D curve for various development times with each after

each additional sheet is exposed identically at the the determined

E.I. If this sounds like something you would be interested in, I

would be happy to describe it in greater detail. It sure makes

testing much faster and more economical.

<p>

I know a photographer that has an even easier and faster method of

testing. He has a grid of stepped neutral density filters that he

simply photographs on a daylight balanced light table. One exposure

and he has a whole grid of tests.

<p>

50 tests????? I'd like to sell that man some film!

I have three modern process lenses (in barrel) that were originally used on a late model computerized 20x24 copy camera. The lenses are Eskofot 305mm, 210mm, and 150mm, all with f/9 maximum apertures. These West German lenses appear to be extremely well made. I am considering having the the 305mm lens mounted in a shutter to use on my 4x5 field camera (a Wisner Technical Field - 4" lensboards), but I would like to get some feedback from others before going this route. I know that this lens is optimized for high magnifications (close-up), but I have also heard that lenses of this type can also perform very well at infinity. The design of this lens is probably similar to the G-Glaron except I suspect that this lens, if anything, is probably built to even higher standards than the G-Glaron. It has ample covering power - about that of the 305mm G-Glaron (also a f/9 lens), as determined by a little experimentation.

<p>

Two questions:

<p>

1) Has anyone heard of Eskofot and, if so, what do you know about these lenses?

<p>

2) Do you think this lens will perform well as a landscape lens?

<p>

Any additional information or recommendations that you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

<p>

Thanks

Tom Johnston

I always use a hardening fixer for negatives. There's really no

reason not to. However, my understanding of hardening fixers is

slightly different from that of a previous post. Hardener, if I am

correct, only protects the negative while it is wet. Once dry,

hardener offers no benefit over a dry non-hardened negative. I may be

wrong about this. It's an obvious fact, but keep in mind that during

your pre-soak(if you include that step), development, and stop, the

negative is not hardened, so excercise extra caution during those

steps.

<p>

Like the poster above, I always use a hardener with RC prints (mostly

proofs). For fiber, I use either a normal or mildly hardening fixer

for the first fix, but I always use plain hypo for the second fix.

This is simply the classic method that Ansel Adams practiced which is

described in THE PRINT. You could also use plain hypo for the first

fix. Using non-hardening fixer for the second fix not only is better

for toning, but it decreases wash time.

I would recommend that you use distilled water not only for your final

rinse, but also for your developer. Stop, fix, rinse, hypo-clear, and

wash can be done in tap water. The reason that I use distilled water

for development is this: Tap water varies widely. If you use

distilled water for development, you will know that no matter where

you move to in the future, your results will be the same. I'm

certainly glad that I have been using distilled water for my developer

for many years because I had very hard water until I finally installed

a water softener. Just out of curiousity, I did a test. I developed

film in my unhardened water and then again with my water after being

softened. The results showed that there was a significant difference

in my negative densities affecting contrast. Even my E.I. was

different. If you use distilled water for development, you can always

be confident that no matter where you are, your results will be the

same. Consistency is most important in darkroom processes.

<p>

As for water spots.....As everyone else has already pointed out, use

distilled water and PhotoFlow. It's as simples as that.

I would recommend that you use distilled water not only for your final

rinse, but also for your developer. Stop, fix, rinse, hypo-clear, and

wash can be done in tap water. The reason that I use distilled water

for development is this: Tap water varies widely. If you use

distilled water for development, you will know that no matter where

you move to in the future, your results will be the same. I'm

certainly glad that I have been using distilled water for my developer

for many years because I had very hard water until I finally installed

a water softener. Just out of curiousity, I did a test. I developed

film in my unhardened water and then again with my water after being

softened. The results showed that there was a significant difference

in my negative densities affecting contrast. Eve my E.I. was

different. If you use distilled water for development, you can always

be confident that no matter where you are, your results will be the

same. Consistency is most important in darkroom processes.

<p>

As for water spots.....As everyone else has already pointed out, use

distilled water and PhotoFlow. It's as simples as that.

As others have pointed out, this is a difficult question to answer.

We don't even know how you are viewing your negatives. On a light

table? Held up to a light?........

The best that I can recommend is that you get a copy of Kodak's Black

& White Darkroom Dataguide. In it, they show examples of good and bad

negatives and describe how to judge them for proper exposure and

development.

If you do decide to add filters to your hot AND cold lines......DON'T!

Rather than using two filters (one a special filter designed to take

hot water) just use a cold water filter and place it in your water

line before it enters the water heater. I use a 5 micron whole house

filter available at any hardware or home improvement store. Remember,

however, that particulate matter from the inside of your pipes down

line from the filter can still get in your water. Use bottled

distilled water for your photoflow rinse. As extra insurance, filter

the distilled water through a paper filter just prior to use. One

more thing that has made a big improvement in reducing particulate

matter for me..... I had a new auto fuel filter (the big can type that

they use these days) that I didn't need because I had sold the car

that it was for. I put this in the inlet line to my Gravity Works

film washer. This final filtering has greatly reduced the number of

imbedded particles in my film.

The salesman you talked to was incorrect. Even with the blue spectrum

cold light lamps that are optimized for graded papers you can get

excellent results. I did for many years. If your lowest contrast

filter won't give you the results you need, try adding a 40cc yellow

filter. You can put in in the cold light above the diffuser. But,

only do this if you can't get the results you need with your lowest

filter. Do not leave it in all the time as some recommend. The

reason is that a yellow filter blocks the blue light of the lamp

making printing times very long. The best thing to do, however, is to

replace your existing lamp with the new V54 lamp which is designed for

use with VC papers.

You are confused about equipment. Knowing the enlarge model does not

tell you what type of light source it has. You can put a dichroic,

condenser, or cold light on almost any enlarger chassis. You can't

use a cold light with a condenser. You use one or the other. Yes,

you can get exellent results with and type of light source. But, if

you are printing black and white, I would recommend either a cold

light or a dichroic head. If you aren't planning on printing color,

there is certainly no necessity of buying a color head. One thing to

consider though, is what type of papers you will be using. VC or

graded. It's best that your light source is optimized for the paper

you will be using most often. For example, if you are using an Aristo

cold light with VC papers, you should get the V54 tube.

Washing sheet film in a tray is just begging for disaster. I use a

Gravity works film washer with a sheet film basket and it works great.

Before I got that, I washed in sheet film hangers and a sheet film

tank. That worked good too. One more fine point: I put a large car

fuel filter in line with the water supply of my film washer. The

results have been noticeably better since doing this.

<p>

As for Ansel Adams. No one can deny the good results he achieved

using his methods. Basically, I use the same methods. I develop

sheet film in trays and only very rarely do I damage a negative doing

it this way. Remember, when removing the bottom (face up) sheet from

the stack when agitating, bend the outer end down then lower the

entire sheet. This avoids scraping the negative against the sheet

above it. They never rub against each other this way.

One more thing: Before someone screams....obviously you only use a

tack cloth on the inside of bellows and light tents. Of course you

would never touch a lens, etc. with it. I use this when I am doing my

periodic really thorough cleaning. Wash your hands before handling

film and equipment after using a tack cloth. But, if you use a old

one that has been exposed to the air for a while, as I recommend, it

will leave no residue on anything. It is the ultimate dust remover.

I must be the exception here, but I have had virtually no dust

problems whatsoever in the many years that I have been loading film in

a light tent in every type of situation imagineable. In fact, about

the only times that I have had a dust problem was when I loaded film

in a bathroom, etc. (If you do this, run the shower a little before

you start). The smaller the space, the easier it is to control dust

problems. Light tents are small. I was a bit surprised to see the

previous poster's remark that he doesn't use a light tent because of

the dust problem, and that he now loads film in a camping tent. It's

just a bigger tent except that it's a lot larger and is infinitely

more diffult to keep clean than a light tent. And, of course, it's not

light tight. I don't know about you, but sometimes I have to reload

during the day. Think about it....he and all his clothes, probably a

sleeping bag, and who knows what else will all be in his tent when he

changes film.

<p>

As I said, I have absolutely no dust problems with a light tent. I

don't do anything special. But here are a couple things that I do

that you may find of help. First, I always keep my holders in

baggies, whether loaded or not, when I'm not using them. Also, every

once in a while I open the light tent and turn it opening side down

and shake it good. Wiping the inside with a damp cloth every now and

then is a good idea too. When I really want to get the inside

spotlessly clean I (you may cringe at this) gently wipe down the

inside with an old tack cloth (available at any hardware store). I

use an old one that has lost most of its tack. This works great for

the inside of bellows too (camera or enlarger). It picks up every spec

of dust. Next, I always brush off the holders BEFORE I open them to

load. I happen to use a Static Master brush. The reason I brush it

off before opening it is that, if you don't, dust on the outside of

the darkslide will get caught in the felt light trap. Then I just

take out the slide and brush out the inside. As a final touch, I give

a gentle puff of breath (don't spit) on the holder and darkslide

before re-inserting (compressed air works good for this too).

<p>

Lastly, remember that even if you do all of this (which only takes a

few seconds), all can be lost if the inside of your camera has dust in

it. If you want the inside to be incredibly clean, try the tack cloth.

<p>

That's it. No problem. Light tents, used correctly, are not only

extremely convenient, but serve their purpose very well.

The reason there are $7000 LF cameras is that a working pro can

justify the price easily by the increased efficiency that such a

camera can allow. If the camera is being used every day, day in and

day out, the difference in the price is of little consequence. But

for the purposes you describe (unless you just have money to throw

away), such a camera is not practical. Since most of your work would

be landscapes, I would recommend a good field camera, not a monorail.

<p>

I'll tell you what. Buy a $7000 status symbol and see if your

pictures are any better than those taken with just about any view

camera at any price. Even an old wooden beater from a pawn shop.

Glass being equal, they won't be. With glass, you should look for the

best you can afford.

<p>

The best LF landscape photographers I have known understand that the

camera is only a tool. Almost without exception, whenever I run into

a LF photographer that simply has to have the most expensive camera

available, the price of that camera is only equalled by his or her

lack of knowledge and skill in it's use. (I'm talking landscape

photography, not studio work, where the cameras you discuss have a

real purpose).

<p>

Stop worrying about having the "best." As others have pointed out

here, you're supposed to enjoy your photography and have fun. If you

get wrapped up in this "I got to have the most expensive" stuff, you

are missing the whole point, and your photography will suffer.

<p>

It's the photograph that counts - not impressing people with your

equipment.

Pete is absolutely right. RIES tripods are the best IMHO. For your

purposes, the J100 backpacker would probably be the best bet. Yes,

they are very expensive. But......well, just re-read what Pete said.

You already have a RIES (so do I) so you know about their quality.

Why not a Ries J100 backpacker. I have one and I love it.

Tim:

<p>

You will MOST DEFINITELY need the cone if you use a 150mm (or 135mm)

lens with the D2. You won't have enought bellows draw without it.

That's what the cone is for, after all. You can, however, use a flat

board for your 50mm lens and 80 or 90mm lens for medium format

negatives as well.

<p>

Yes, you can get replacement lamps for an Aristo head. Get the new

V54 lamp, which is optimized for VC papers, but which should also work

well with graded papers. And, yes, you can use VC filters with this

lamp. In fact, you can even use them with the blue lamp optimized for

graded papers (I did so for years with great results). The only

difference is that your contrast spacing will be more even with the

V54 lamp when printing on VC papers.

John:

<p>

I had the same problem, only with an Omega enlarger. I have now

solved it. What I finally did was build a filter drawer assembly that

is a perfect slip fit over the Aristo. Mine is made of wood (walnut,

as if it matters - but the unit is beautiful to look at as well as

highly functional). It has a drawer with a clear bottom that takes 6

x 6" contrast filters. This accomplishes at least two things: First,

it eliminates the problem you mention. Second, and more importantly,

it eliminates a filter from the optical path that can reduce

sharpness. I never did like the idea of putting a filter in the

optical path.

<p>

One more fine point: Perphaps you read the articles by Ctein and the

subsequent controversy over the possible loss of sharpness that might

be experienced when using modern extended-range VC papers.

Supposedly, these papers are sensitive to UV light that is emitted by

some light sources. The reasoning goes that the UV light focuses on a

different plane (true) which is not visible to the eye when focusing

the image. Since theses papers "see" this UV, an out-of-focus image is

also produced on the paper superimposed over the desired image,

reducing the overall sharpness of the final print. Anyway, after this

whole can of worms was opened (the enlarger lens manufacturers agreed

with this assessment of the problem), it was dropped. All kinds of

weird and compromising solutions were suggested by Ctein and others,

most requiring extensive and ridiculous testing. All were a compromise

solution to this supposed problem. But I wondered all along why, if

the UV is the culprit, wouldn't it be better to simply eliminate the

UV rather than going to extremes to try to reduce the claimed effect.

Wanting to be safe, I decided to eliminate this possibility by making

my filter drawer bottom out of Opar3 plexiglass (I may have that name

slightly wrong). It is UV glass available from Light Impressions that

is normally used for protecting displayed prints from UV exposure

damage. (You could use any UV filter material, of course.) Having a

little left, I cut a round disk of it and placed it above the diffuser

in the Aristo for that little extra bit of peace of mind.

<p>

Oh yea, one more advantage of this drawer unit. My filter drawer

allows me to add neutral density material ( it's not necessary to use

optical grade - I use the stuff made for lighting - very inexpensive)

into the drawer so that I can use my lense's at their sharpest F/stops

without having to change to inconvenient (or impossible) printing

times.

<p>

This whole arrangement works great and it actually takes less time to

change filters than before. I don't have space to tell you exactly

how I built the filter drawer, but it shouldn't be difficult to come

up with a design that works for you. If you wish, I could give you a

more precise description of my unit. In any case, I would recommend

that you eliminate the use of below-the-lens contrast filters.

For years, I used an Aristo head with the standard blue lamp which is

optimized for graded papers. As time went on I found myself using VC

papers more and more and I really didn't have any problem getting a

wide range of contrasts using filters with the graded lamp. Recently,

however, I switched to the V54 lamp and I am very happy with the even

contrast spacing I now get. I have yet to find out how graded papers

will work with the V54 lamp. I suspect that the only difference would

be, maybe, slightly longer printing times, all else equal.

<p>

In response to the other part of your question: There really isn't

anything else, that I know of, in the head to break except, perhaps,

the heating element and the contact points. But I think that they

will probably last virtually forever.

Don't let the extra height bother you - you will find times when you need it. Go with the 3021 legs. This tripod, while not as high in quality as some other very expensive tripods (some of which I also own) is a very good value. But to get the most of it there are some simple modifications that you can make that will greatly enhance its serviceability. I just listed them in a response to "What is a good field tripod" under the "New Questions" category so I won't repeat them here. Check that out and if you need more detailed information on how to make the modifications I describe feel free to send me a message. I have even used my 3021 with my 4 x 5" monorail

camera with great success. I recommend it as a very good value in a tripod especially when you modifiy it as I describe in the above listed Q&A forum.

I also have a Bogen 3021 tripod. Despite some shortcomings, I have found it to be a very serviceable tripod for field use. Considering its price, its a very good value and I recommend it. I did, however make some modifications to it which have improved it greatly. These are:

<p>

1) Mine came with plastic tighteners. I bought metal replacements. Yeah, I know, we're talking aesthetics her, but the set of metal ones are cheap and I like them. I think the newere 3021s come with metal ones.

<p>

2) I don't use the column adjustments except when nothing else will get the job done. I took the column out and cut most of one of its halves off using a tubing cutter. Now when I want to get right to the ground I remove the long section and I'm all set. I still have most of the original column left in case I need it, but I can't conceive of ever using a colum for more than a few inches of lift, and that only when nothing else will do. Even after cutting off most of the bottom half of the column, I still have much more colum that I will ever need. In fact, sometimes I remove the long remaining section and but the end cap on the stub of the remaining top section.

<p>

3) I took the legs off and ground down the bevel on the top part (the part that attaches to the legs). This allows the legs to swing all the way up. In fact, there are businesses that specialize in performing this modification, but it only takes a few minutes and a bench grinder to do yourself.

<p>

4) I added foam to the top leg sections to keep the tripod comfortable to hold in the winter. This modification also cushions the tripod when it is carried over the shoulder and adds almost no weight. I just used pipe insulation tubes sold at any hardware store wrapped with gaffers tape. It's been that way for years.

<p>

5) I drilled out one of the handles so the hole in the end was large enough to epoxy a socket wrench into it which is the size of the adjustment nuts on the tripod. This is much better than the plastic tool that came with the tripod. When I need to adjust something I simply unsrew the handle and use it as a wrench. Nothing extra to carry and nothing to lose.

<p>

6) I was always losing the column lock/allen tool. It seemed that every time I went into the field it fell off and was lost when I carried the tripod over my shoulder. To solve this, I drilled a small hole in the end of the handle and attached a steel fishing leader with to rings at each end. One ring to the handle, the other to a nut on the tripod. Since doing this, I have never lost this handle/tool.

<p>

This might all sound like a lot of trouble, but really these modifications only cost a buck or two and took maybe a half an hour to make. The result is a much better tripod. Admittedly, it could be argued that a good tripod should not have to be modified, but I am very happy with the results. I sometimes even use this tripod with a 4 x 5' monorail with no problems. I have a 3047 head mounted on it.