david vickery

Hello, and thanks for your quick responces. I believe that I can rule out processing as the culpret at this point. I also believe that a lens hood would help my images, but several of the lenses that I use are process lenses in barrels. My shutter is a plastic roll film developing tank, so I haven't been able to figure out how to use a hood with this "cup" shutter. Plus, some of these lenses have a big circle even at infinity so there is a lot of light that is bouncing around inside the camera. Don't you think that it could be the wood that the film holder rests on?????

Hello all.

I have been wondering about this problem for some time and have

decided that I would pose some questions about it before I continued

with a camera that I am trying to build.

I have an old, highly abused Empire State 11x14 and a bellows

from a process camera that is about 14"x17" at the rear opening. I

thought that if I put the 11x14 back on this bigger bellows then I

could get rid of the problem with "bellows flare" for good. But in

looking at the way cameras are made I am not sure that this larger

bellows will solve the problem. It seems that the increased

negative density is about the same on all four sides of the negative

(when its there). If that is indeed the case then it must not be the

bellows that is causing the increased density. On 11x14 with the

back in the horizontal position there is more distance from the

bellows to the top and bottom of the film than there is at the

sides. So it seems that there would be more density at the sides

than at the top and bottom. This leads me to wonder if the problem

is really the camera back itself. The image opening at the camera

back where the film holder rests is fairly thick on most wooden

cameras and no matter how black it is, if there is enough light

striking it then it will reflect onto the film edges with roughly

the same density all the way around, except where enough movements

have been used to cause less reflection on one or more sides.

If the camera back is the real cause of �bellows flare� can I get

rid of it by putting a bevel on the camera back? If that edge that

is closest to the film is as thin as possible then it seems that the

problem would be solved. But how much bevel would be needed and at

what angle?

I would appreciate any thoughts on this before I start cutting

the backs of my cameras with my pocket knife or something.

Thanks, David

Hello, You should try it out and see for yourself before you get rid of it. I have a 210mm Caltar-II S that I use on a regular basis on an 8x10 camera and while it does not have much room for movement it will cover the format and it was inexpensive. If you are going to be doing architectual work then no your lens will not have enough coverage. But for landscapes or detail work I bet that you could get a lot of use with it on an 8x10.

Hello, A couple of years ago I purchased on eBay a Cell that is marked Protar VII, focus 600mm. I don't understand why it is marked 600mm as it was made in New York by B&L, AND the focal length seems to be a little over 27". (I guess it was going to be sold across the settlement pond.) But I only have the one cell. I don't have the original shutter or its partner in light gathering. For a while I thought that I had wasted some money buying the one cell, but recently I built a lens board for it and a little box for water house type stops and put it on my 12x20. I have yet to expose any film with it, But the coverage is incredible! I used front and rear swing and front rise and front and rear tilts to max out the movement capabilities of my bastardized 12x20 and could get nowhere near the edge of this lens cells image circle.

 

So I could see where a Protar VII could cover something that big, but my cell is only about 2" in diameter for the glass and just over 2&1/2" for the total diameter, and about an inch and an eighth in thickness.

Jerry, your 21" lens may have been made for the copy cameras of the early half of the 20th century. A lens that has been labled "Anastigmat" has been corrected for astigmatism as others have stated here. But there were many lenses made with that name---many with different formulas. What is the maximum f-number? If you give us the serial number we may be able to tell what year it was made. I paid $35.oo for mine and consider it a tremendous bargan. It should make a great long lens for the 8x10.

Hello, you need to give us more information about the lens. If it is a copying anastigmat then it would be a great lens for you to use on the 8x10. What is the focal length and f-number? Is it in a barrel or shutter? Kodak made a line of lenses for copy cameras that were called Anastigmat. Then latter on they changed the name to Copying Ektanon. I don't know if the formula of the lens changed much but I do know that any of these lenses would serve you well on your 8x10. I have some and they are sharp as heck. I use a plastic processing tank lined with felt as a shutter.

As per Bob's suggestion I will refrain from Posting my first thoughts. But I would like to say Three things;

 

1---We all print(read expose for the highlights density that we desire) and Developer for the shadow densities that we desire(read choose paper contrast, choose vc filter, adjust development with water bath, or development with two different developers selectol soft/dektol, etc. etc ---- it all depends on the materials being used) And some contradict themselves by not paying close enough attention to what has been said.

 

2----If anyone has had the rare opportunity to view close up even just one of Edward Weston's contact prints, and actually paid some attention to it, you would understand the strong desire to keep the last conventional contact print paper alive.

 

3-----My check for my next Azo order will be in the mail Monday.

Hello, Is it inside the emulsion of the film? Or is it stuck to it? If it is stuck to the emulsion then it most likely happened at the processing lab.

Hello,

Yes to larger trays, more developer soln., rotate the stack of film after each cycle of agitation, and I think you should try nearly constant agitation. Keep rotating the sheets through the stack. Letting the film sit there in a stack lets the dev. seep in at the edges but doesn't let the rest of the film get fresh solution.

I think you should do what Bill says and don't listen to any of the naysayers.

Look in the camping section of Walmart. They have some big thick ones that are almost big enough for 12x20 film holders.

If precision Photo doesn't have it you might try Holland photo on S. Lamar in Austin or Camera Co-op on S. Congress and I think that the University Co-op may have 4x5 film??? I live in Wimberley and if you don't find what you need I have some old 4x5 film in the freezer, but it is not Tri-x. Contact me at dtv392003@yahoo.com if you want. David

Hello, 11x14 is Great!! JandC Photo is currently having a sale on 11x14 film and other sizes also. I just bought some pl100 efke film, but have not used any yet. They have good prices on film and very fast shipping.

My opinion is that if you are even only a little interested in 11x14 then you should do it and do it soon. Film holders are getting more expensive as more people get into ULF.

Quality Camera has some good new holders.

DOF is not a problem.

Focusing is easier for me because of the large focusing screen, instead of the smaller ones that you have to use a loop for.

Dust is less of a problem than with any negative that will be enlarged. The dust does not get enlarged with 11x14 or any contact print.

I carry my 11x14 in an old large size ALICE backpack. It holds the camera and two or three lenses, meter and water. I put the film holders in a large bookbag and either carry it in my hand for short walks or strap it to the ALICE for longer walks. If you decide to get an ALICE make sure that you get a Large, not medium and an original ALICE as issued by the US>>not one of the Copies that you may see on eBay or elswhere, as they are not quite a good.

I think that any new format/size camera takes some adjustment. I currently use 8x10, 11x14, and 12x20 and find that the subject really determines which camera I use. Unless I go for a little hike, then I have to use whatever I took with me, oh well. I have aquired all of my equipment on the cheap by reconditioning and rebuilding, etc. and by using process lenses and a patterson roll film development tank as shutter-easy and I almost through that thing away!

The contact print is worth it, and you know it is from your years of working with 8x10. So obviously I think you should do it, but give yourself some time to get used to it and have fun.

Hello, I am not positive about this, but I think that the Korona, F&S, and modern 11x14 cameras will accept the newer holders without any problems. It seems that it is the Empire State cameras that require their own empire state holders. I know for a fact that the old Empire State 11x14 that I have came with an Empire State holder (or it may have been a Sterling holder?) that is thiner than the Graphic holders (less distance to the film plain).

Hello, I have an old 12x20 camera that may have started life as a korona, but its hard to tell, as when I got it it was highly modified. It was still on its original geared bed that is typical of the koronas and other cameras from that era. I felt that the bed was not stable enough for such a large camera and it also had cracks in the wood that I did not think that I could fix. So, I thought about the way that the Bender cameras and other monorails are put together, and decided to replace the bed with a monorail. It was not all that difficult to do and now I have a monorail system that I can use with the 12x20 and an 11x14 camera that I also modified to fit the same rail. My rails are made of two 1 1/4" square aluminum tubes with 1" spacers between them. I have three rails of different lengths, and the front and rear standards just slide on and off when the tightening bolts are removed. Either camera will fit inside a large ALICE backpack(the 12x20 sticks out at the top, but that is okay) and the rail will then just strap to the backpack or stay on the tripod if I am walking a short distance. I think that for 12x20 the most important movements are front rise/fall, swing on the front and rear, and tilt on the front and rear. If you have front and rear swing then you don't need any shift, as you can create shift with the swings. The other reason that you don't need shift is that most affordable lenses for the 12x20 will not give enough coverage for much shift anyway. I do have rear shift on my 11x14, but I have only used it when photographing buildings. If I were to do it again I would definitely get the cheap korona and build another monorail for it. I believe that the rail and associated parts on the camera are lighter than the geared beds of the original, and easier to use. One of the things that I did on the 12x20 that I am very happy about, but wasn't really sure about when I built it, is a rear swing that pivots on one end instead of at the center. This makes using the movements much easier and faster for me. If you are interested I may be able to take pictures of my camera and email them to you.

I think it means Even Heavier.

Hello all! Thanks for your responses. I will be getting back to each

of you individually during the course of the summer, and maybe we can

get something worked out for this fall. Early November or Early

December would be nice to plan for. It would be nice if we could

find a place to get together and have a little R&R after we've been

out exposing film to that harsh Texas sun all day!

You can use regular Spotone print retouching dyes with a good sharp

brush. If you use too much on the negative then you can spot that out

on the print since it'll be a light area now on the print.

Hello, I would like to suggest that you not ever turn down a good

deal on a good process lens(no more than a few hundred bucks for a

lens in good shape--I paid $35.00 for a 21.25" Kodak copying

Ektanon;one of my favorite lenses, $200.00 for a brand new 455mm

nikkor process lens in the box,$100.00 for a 240mm apo-ronar and

$100.00 for a 35" apo-ronar----all far sharper then really necessary

for contact prints). For a shutter I use a patterson roll film

developing tank. It will fit over all of my process lenses from 240mm

ronar to a 47.5 inch artar(yet to be used). I seem to only use these

lenses in situations where I need a lot of depth of field so my

exposures are almost always long and the tank works great. It is

better than a lens cap because it is bigger and easy to remove

without moving the camera. I have a piece of gaffers tape on the side

that I use to attach it over the lens while I remove the dark

slide. If you can find a large lot of film holders you may

get some bad ones in the batch but you'll be able to strip parts off

of them to repair the others. You really don't have to spend a lot

of money to get into 8x10 photography, although you may have to be a

little more determined.

"Essentially, they owned the physical negative, and you owned the

rights the photograph."

Hello, The image is all that you really ever have. It does not

matter what the image is on, if you give away or sell all rights to

the image, then all you have is what you got for it. When a song or

novel is composed, it is not the material that the stuff was

originally written on that is copyrighted, it is the actual song or

novel that is copyrighted. If you sell or give away all rights to

your intellectual property make sure that it is of significant

benefit to you (and the industry that you are in)to do so.

I would like to suggest that Mr. Shields does not know what he is

talking about except to the extend that we should take good care of

the media that our copyrighted property exists on.

Hello, Are any of you working in West Texas with Large format? I have started making trips from central Texas to west Texas with 8x10 and 12x20 with 11x14 adapter back.

Hello, I use my 210/5.6 Caltar-s II (symmar-s), I originally bought

it for the 4x5 of course, but found that it covers 8x10 and is great

for landscape work. If I were doing architecture or studio work then

it would not have enough coverage, but it works great in the canyons

and mountains of west Texas.

Hello, Does anyone know if there is any difference in the Repro-Clarons and the more current G-Clarons, other than when they were made and the names?

12"x20" from any manufacturer.