[LargeFormat] magnola

[Les Newcomer]

ffranta@volny.cz wrote:
> 
> Les, thank you for tips!
> May I ask some more questions below?
> 
> At 09:41 10.2.2001 -0800, Les Newcomer wrote:
> >Wow for a guy just starting out you sure have it on most of the problems
> >of LF!
>         *** Thanks :) That comes from long hours of lurking here ;)
> 
> *** BTW, the 13x18cm size is better for me than 5x7", because I live in
> Central Europe (Czech republic), and most of the film here, including
> colour, is cheaper here in metric sizes than in imperial sizes,
> substantialy cheaper (even developing of it). [btw, metric measuring is
> after all _default_ in photography, ain't it? Photography being invented in
> France, which used metric even at the time :)
> 
> >would prove difficult. You may have to look for a 13x18 to 4x5 reducing
> >back and then a roll back for the 4x5. But I have to say this is a lot
> >of camera to end up using 120 roll film.
> 
> I think that too! I just fell in love with 13x18cm contact prints I saw
> exhibitioned. And I saw great contacts of landscapes shot on 24x30cm camera
> (that's about 9.5x12.5" for the metric-impaired :)
> But colour would be nice - at least I could make some money out of it - I
> have a small base for calendar photos already (nothing much though), using
> my 35mm and MF cameras. It's just the price of having 13x18cm slide
> developed - it's horrible how much they charge for it.
> 
> >(Panorama rollbacks)
> >it's cheaper to shoot sheet film and crop it. You could even make a mask
> >from a spare darkslide, so you can get two images on each sheet of film.
> 
>         *** But when I do this, I cannot use shorter lenses with coverage only of
> the 6x12 or 6x17 format, but not 9x12 or 13x18 ones, no?

I'm not sure what you are saying here, But if you have a lens that will
cover 6x12 or 6x17 it will cover that size wether using a roll back or
cropped film. With a mask you may have to shift the lens so the masked
area is in the center of the image circle. For instance I have a wide
angle protar of 90mm. It will cover 4x5 nicely, 5x7 barely. I can put it
on my 8x10 and see most of the image circle, but I can get a 2"x9"
panorama out of it that knocks most people's socks off.  I would suspect
that at least some of the lens used on 6x17 would cover 13x18cm as well.

 
>         I hoped one technician I know could make me   panorama roll-back at
> reasonable price. He recently made a 6x12 one, for his Linhof, and he did
> it greatly!
> 
> >A good scanner capable of negs/trannies in 4x5 is two to three times
> >that of medium format. Once you hit 5x7 you need a drum scanner, which
> >will cost the price of a decent car. At this point its cheaper to find a
> 
>         *** I will have a normal flatbed with trannie option by the time I get
> this camera, but all the models I am looking at have only 4x5 or 5x5"
> maximum. The *nice* models like Agfa Duoscan T2500 or ScanMaker 5 (trannies
> up to 8x10") with enough resolution and greater Dmax are just WAY too
> expensive if they do not generate profit, which they won't for me I think.
>         I thought of if doing colour with either reducing back or rollback, I
> could scan the up to 4x5" trannies on my lesser flatbed and have them
> printed on Fuji Frontier (they won't accept 9x12 or larger film, only 120
> up to 6x9cm) - Frontier does very nice prints from digital onto chemical
> colour paper, if the operator is skilled.
>         But B&W is the best anyway :)
> 
> >When doing still deverlopment (very dilute developer, no/little
> >agitation and times ranging inthe 45min to 1 hour) it also makes a good
> >light tight box.
> 
>         *** Is there a text on this development method? I can't find any tips on
> it either in my B&W cookbooks from 50s or Focal press Encyclopedia... What
> are the benefits? Won't you get too much of the edge effect? I think only
> few developers/films are suitable?

this technique goes back to the teens and 20s and probably before that.
Long before there were meters people used all sorts of tables and chants
to come up with the proper exposure. Ed Weston, in an article written
around WWI said, "Expose the film until you think the subject will
move." He was doing portraits, not landscapes.

Many times the plate was over exposed. If you developed it normally, the
shadow details would be in the midtones and the highlights would be
bullet proof. 

with Still Development as it was called then, the developer poops out
around the highlights  but stays active, process the shadow area. The
best way to use the system is by developing by inspection. With Tri-X or
Tmax, when the highlights come through the back, the film is done. This
also corrects for inaccurate wrists and boler hat, which seem to be
favored by photogrpahers at the turn of the century.

Check some of the older British Journal Almanacs. 
> 
> >way head or mini geard head. Forget the sandbags, they are a pain when
> >traveling without assistants and a day rate :-)
> 
>         *** Hmmm, I guess my significant other won't be much pleased to carry
> tripod AND sandbags ;-)
> [it's the other way around in fact. I carry my photo gear PLUS the tent and
> all the food ;) ]
> 
> >If you've got the bellows a long focus will outperform a tele of the
> >same focal lenght nearly every time. Barrel lenses are okay as long as
> >you realize shooting transparencies would be difficult as exposure times
> >are only as accurate and repeatable as your wrist.
> 
>         *** Which is not much (my wrist). The Magnola has triple extension
> bellows, I think more than enough for any tele I can get.
> 
>         *** Are some of the simpler shutters like Packard reliable enough for
> slides with those lenses? As I understand it, they don't offer much speed
> options - just 1/5 and B or similar, yes?
You are right, "instantaneous and Bulb was all there was/is. Intant
varies depending on how hard or soft you squeeze the bulb, but it's
something around 1/15 to 1/5. Just goes to prove that things were slower
back then. Some people have used a threaded clamp on the hose to
regulate the pressure and therefore the time. Not sure if it works or not.
> 
> >Id look for a 6" dagor It will be great for contacting or moderate
> >enlargement, the front element can be removed and using the rear element
> >get a roughly 10" lens. A 135/150 Tessar won't cover 13x18. Nor would
> >the older Protars.
> 
>         *** The WA I can get is not a tessar, of course. It's 4-element
> symmetrical design, don't remember which design type now. Simple lens, but
> at least it does not flare at all if clean.
> 
>         *** What is the widest WA still covering 13x18 with at least some movements?

Well a 90 SA is said to cover 5x7, I know a 135 Wide Field Ektar will
cover, but without movements.
If you can find specs youll need a 230mm image circle to just cover 13x18


> Is there any other option other than the newest Super/XL/grandagon (going
> for big bucks) ?
> Like older Angulon designs? I am pretty sure I wouldn't be able to afford a
> Super Angulon or similar newer lens for quite a while - after all, LF will
> be more of a hobby for me, at least now (or an obsession ;) I am pretty
> sure about that)
> 
> I am already looking to the fun and work it will be...
> 
> *** BTW, in case I miss the deal on Magnola, or get some more money to have
> both, what is a decent system for 120 film (like Baby Graphic or something
> similar, or small 4x5"/9x12cm with rollback) which can be had cheaply, if
> it isn't an oxymoron? Most of the 'Graphics are out of option, as they are
> pretty rare in Central Europe (and most prices around, especially UK's used
> prices are very overpriced compared to everywhere else). The 120 could be a
> a field or even a monorail, I think it will be small enough for backpacking
> when 120. I would like to get something like that for colour - just add
> some cheaper lens like WA Ektar or similar, few Tessars and go :)

On ebay the cheapest 4x5 cameras are the Anniversary graphics and Kodak
Master View (also known as a Grey Calumet) This wont have an
international back, so you'd need to get a Calumet roll holder, The
cheapest of these are the 6x7 but it will take both 120 and 220 film,
Newer versions have 6x9cm and HOrseman makes a 6x12, but that will cost
twice the price of the camera with a lens.  Both of these are monorail
so it won't be great backpacking.

I've seen two Ansco view cameras that were 2x3. These were wood and
prbably pre WWII.  you'd have to invent a way to use 120 film, but these
go cheap. Shipping on the other hand......

As for a true backpacking camera, Calumet markets a Cadet, and Gowland
made a bare bones monorail that weighs next to nothing. They show up on
ebay too.

Les
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LargeFormat mailing list
> LargeFormat@f32.net
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/largeformat