Chamonix 45n bellows not infrared proof?

[archphoto]

My God, Sal, I thought this was about a bellows problem, not semantics and other things that have nothing to do with the subject at all !!!

You have a problem with your bellows ? Fine ! Go to the guy who made it and solve it with them !
And if you try to do it in this way with them ........ good luck and good riddens !

Peter

 

[keithwms]

I used to have some horseman bellows that were not IR-proof.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

My God, Sal, I thought this was about a bellows problem, not semantics and other things that have nothing to do with the subject at all !!!

You have a problem with your bellows ? Fine ! Go to the guy who made it and solve it with them !
And if you try to do it in this way with them ........ good luck and good riddens !

Peter

Peter, you seem to be confused. I'm not the original poster. I don't have any problem with my bellows. This thread is about IR opacity. When I made a post that suggested it's wise to question blanket assertions an attack resulted. My most recent post simply responded with an explanation.

What "way" do you refer to when ending with "good luck and good riddens?" Is clear communication something to be disdained? Should only those who embrace ambiguity post on forums? Please explain.

 

[wildbill]

I'm not sure why posts often end up this way. Thanks guys, lots of class here!

 

[2F/2F]

I'm not sure why posts often end up this way. Thanks guys, lots of class here!

Sal, it seems that my meaning was not understood by you. In reality, we are in agreement about ambiguous use of "they", etc. In response to a statement that IMO is much more like the kind of statement by which you are bothered (and by which I am also bothered), I stated what I have learned, with at least some semblance of a reference, unlike the person to whom I was responding. The "they" I used referred directly to the film company I had just mentioned, and was not an ambiguous "they". I deliberately chose the words I did so that it was not a proclamation of absolute fact; inviting other ideas. If you disagree about the plastic tank thingy, please say so and say why.

Two of my classmates are a lady who just turned 60, and a lady who has not even graduated high school yet. I am older than two of my instructors! The word "student" does not have an age limit, and does not equate with young and immature as a rule...and being older in no way makes one more correct as a judge of how others need to change. I had nearly half a career before I went to college for journalism and discovered photography classes instead, so I find your assumption of my age to be in need of reconsideration.

...and, I just have to ask; Do you really think I would make such a statement without ever having processed IR film in a plastic vessel? No. I, personally, would not. I have done HIE, EIR, and Efke IR820 in plastic tanks (and the Efke in open trays), not to mention soliciting the experience of those with more experience than myself, and, of course, reading data sheets. You and I feel the same way about blanket statements, etc. I think you have picked an unsuitable target for such criticisms.

The main issue is that the things you are needling me about - non-stated "they" as a source and statement of fact based on information alone, not personal experience - are things that I did not even do. I simply responded to a statement that something "can be" with similarly disclaimed "I was always told that this is just a myth" statement, and named one source that gave me this info, "at any rate". I would not know how to be any MORE non-committal to a statement than that!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Two of my classmates are a lady who just turned 60, and a lady who has not even graduated high school yet. I am older than two of my instructors! The word "student" does not have an age limit, and does not equate with young and immature as a rule...and being older in no way makes one more correct as a judge of how others need to change...not to mention soliciting the experience of those with more experience than myself, and, of course, reading data sheets...

I apologize for having thought that, since you're a student, you are in the neighborhood of 20 years old. That was a poor assumption, and was the only reason I posted in this thread.

My very error underscores the point I was trying to make. Older people like me, with long experience, cannot be relied on as sources of absolutely correct information. Also, the number of data sheet errors I've seen is large.

Let's move on and return this thread to a discussion of IR opacity.

 

[Marco B]

Let's move on and return this thread to a discussion of IR opacity.

Yes, please do!

Because the OP is not the only one interested in the answers... I have been thinking of shooting Efke 820 IR film too with my Tachihara. However, before starting to waist film, it would definitely be nice to know if this is a REAL issue, or if it might be caused by other issues, like a small leak in the bellows. It seems to me we still haven't got a good explanation...

And is there someone who can actually explain why a black bellows made to block light up into the (far) red, can not block the near infrared? Far red / near infrared as the film is sensitized too, is not yet the "heat" infrared as sensed by heat seeking missiles or goggles, because that is even further up in the longwaves spectrum, well beyond what film can capture. So it is unlikely that the simple heating up of the bellows due to for example sunlight, would cause re-transmittance of higher wavelength IR that could cause the fogging, or am I wrong here??? :confused:

I used to have some horseman bellows that were not IR-proof.

Keith has been the only one up to now definitely confirming a possible issue with some belows, but again, no real explanation here...

Is there someone who could give new insights as to why the bellows are potentially "near-infrared" transparent? :confused:

Marco

 

[L Gebhardt]

If you start doing more tests could you try the Shen-Hao bag bellows. I have the same camera and a box of Maco 820 that has been in the freezer for too long. Your post may have saved me from assuming it had gone bad. If the Shen-Hao bag bellows works i will start with that.

 

[keithwms]

Keith has been the only one up to now definitely confirming a possible issue with some belows, but again, no real explanation here...

Is there someone who could give new insights as to why the bellows are potentially "near-infrared" transparent? :confused:

Marco

Some plastics are transparent in the IR, maybe also down into the near-IR. I don't have my horseman any more but I recall that the bellows were not leather, they were some sort of thin (almost papery) synthetic material.

Of course, the sensitivity of IR films currently on the market is rather low[*].... thus forcing rather long exposures if you are shooting with an opaque filter like a #87. So any minor light leak will be much more of an issue than it would be if the exposure were short so that the ratio of light through the lens and light through the leak were better. One really should do a careful bulb-in-the-bellows examination in a dark room.

Anyway, it is a good policy to drape the whole camera in a darkcloth while shooting.

[*] N.b. perhaps because higher-sensitivity IR films like HIE really do not store well, so manufacturers are less inclined to make them, given their concerns about their ability to move the product off the shelves with appropriate haste.

 

[wildbill]

I guess we first need to know which dark cloths are ir proof. I'm sure the manufacturers haven't tested this. Mine is made of two T-shirts sewn together and likely not ir proof. As I said, I've covered the camera even indoors and that didn't help. That's why I'm still not 100% convinced it's the bellows at fault here. It could be a the connection at the front/rear standards, right? The connection seems fine and I've never had an issue with light leaks. No leaks are visible with a xenon flashlight inside and camera in the dark room. I don't have a problem waisting roll film on more tests but not the 4x5 HIE that I have limited supply of. My expsosures with an 89b and the efke ir820 are about 4 seconds @22. Only 1/15@22 with the HIE, and 1/8@22 with the Konica 750. I'm hoping Chamonix will do some tests and that Hugo will get back to me but I'm really not expecting them too get back to me any time soon. The factory bellows are very thin. I'll try the shen hao bag bellows this weekend.

 

[Marco B]

It could be a the connection at the front/rear standards, right? The connection seems fine and I've never had an issue with light leaks. No leaks are visible with a xenon flashlight inside and camera in the dark room.

OK, good to hear you did the light leak test, because that makes it more likely than there might be a real issue with the bellows, like Keith also suggests. Still, any more insights on the specifics and confirmation of this issue are welcome I think.

And do recheck that connection at the front / rear standard a second time. Sometimes you have to turn over the camera and watch it closely from every direction to see or find an issue. And waiting 10-15 minutes in complete darkness to have your eyes adapt to the minutest amount of light, might help too in finding issues.

 

[wildbill]

UPDATE: I did another indoor test today with some konica 750 and my 6x12 roll film back which gives 6 exposures. Here are the resulting exposure #'s
#1 put on a lens with caps on (metal lensboard w/baffle), extended bellows to about 300mm, covered bellows with aluminum foil (the fit of the foil was loose on the bottom), pulled darkslide for 2 minutes. film was fogged a bit overall and quite a bit more on the bottom 1/3 of the exposure where bellows wasn't covered.
#2 pulled foil off, pulled dark slide for 2 minutes. tons of fog density
#3 put leather shen hao bag bellows on and pulled dark slide for 4 minutes. no fog whatsoever.
#4 shen hao bag bellows in direct sunlight, pulled dark slide, rotated camera around for 2 minutes. no fog whatsoever.
#5 w/bag bellows removed lens caps and exposed film w/o filter for 1/60@5.6 pointing outside. film is over exposed but no fog.
#6 with bag bellows exposed film with Red 29 filter 1/60@5.6. neg looks like it should w/o fog.

At this point I'm convinced that standard chamonix 45N bellows* aren't opaque enough to use with ir films of any sort.
*my bellows. If yours are IR proof and you'd like to trade, let me know!
vinny

 

[L Gebhardt]

Thanks for doing this test and publishing it. I will certainly keep my Shen-Hao bag bellows for IR work.

I bet the Shen-Hao regular bellows would fit the camera just fine as well. I haven't tested this for IR work, but I think I remember hearing it works. It might be easy to get one if you need more extension than the bag allows.

 

[Marco B]

At this point I'm convinced that standard chamonix 45N bellows* aren't opaque enough to use with ir films of any sort.
*my bellows. If yours are IR proof and you'd like to trade, let me know!
vinny

Thanks for doing this final conclusive test. I think you've now definitely proved there is an issue with the IR "opaqueness" of the standard plastic bellows, as Keith also pointed out. This is a big warning to other LF users like myself.

 

[harri129]

My Shen Hao (HZX4x5-IIA model I think) is IR tight. I've tested both normal and bag bellows with Efke IR820. I've also photographed it with a digital camera using a R72 filter and a halogen light as an IR-source to see any leaks (which I did not notice).

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Vinny, did you ever get a real answer from Hugo, or anyone at Chamonix? If not Kerry Thalmann of really big cameras might be the way to go??

A.

 

[domaz]

None of your test conclusively ruled out small pinholes or defects in your bellows that is not "IR proof". Why not put a sheet of photo paper in there and do like a 10 minute exposure to test for conventional (non-IR) fog?

 

[lilmsmaggie]

If not Kerry Thalmann of really big cameras might be the way to go??A.

Just who is this Kerry Thalmann? Does he really exist? He hasn't responded to any of my e-mail inquiries. :confused:

I've seen his posts but I've yet to see any camera gear on his web site.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Just who is this Kerry Thalmann? Does he really exist? He hasn't responded to any of my e-mail inquiries. :confused:

Assuming you are the person who sent me a single email inquiry (singlular, not plural) concerning this issue, I emailed you a response yesterday morning at 10:06am Pacific Standard Time.

Are you that person (I can't tell your real identity from a "handle" used in a forum)? If so, did you not receive my response? If that wasn't you, I haven't received any email correspondence from you on this subject.

I will work this issue with the factory and post their response once I hear back from them. It may take a while as I don't speak Chinese and the only English-speaking contact I have at the forctory isn't always immediately available.

The standard bellows that come with the Chamonix cameras are not advertised as being IR opaque. In the past, I have seen other manufacturers offer optional IR safe bellows for users that need this feature. I will also ask the factory about the possibility of offering such an option.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Thanks for stepping up Kerry, as an avid Chamonix user, any info would be useful as it is extremely hard to get info back from the factory for the reasons you spoke about. I used EFKE IR in my 451N and had no problems earlier this spring, but I was on a sheltered deck... Still I got no fog whatsoever, but I am reluctant to try it in direct light for the same reasons as Vinny.

 

[lilmsmaggie]

Are you that person (I can't tell your real identity from a "handle" used in a forum)? [/URL]

Nope. The name's Dwain and I sent you two separate e-mail messages to two of you e-mail addresses. One was sales@ and the other was one from your personal website.

I've received no acknowledgement from you.

 

[ReallyBigCameras]

Nope. The name's Dwain and I sent you two separate e-mail messages to two of you e-mail addresses. One was sales@ and the other was one from your personal website.

I've received no acknowledgement from you.

Dwain,

I just went and triple checked my inbox and spam filters for my business address:

sales@reallybigcameras.com

and all three of my personal email addresses.

I have not received any emails from you within the last month on this, or any other subject. I'm not sure why I haven't received them, but I can't respond to something I've never received.

For the record, the best email address to use for conacting me is my business address. Again that address is:

sales@reallybigcameras.com

If you don't get a response to emails sent to that address within 24 hours, please send me a PM through APUG.

Also, if you'd like to corresond by email, please send your full email address to me by PM. That way, I can set up my spam filter to insure future emails from you are not blocked.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

 

[lilmsmaggie]

I can set up my spam filter to insure future emails from you are not blocked.[/URL]

methinks the e-mails I sent probably got blocked.

 

[wildbill]

None of your test conclusively ruled out small pinholes or defects in your bellows that is not "IR proof". Why not put a sheet of photo paper in there and do like a 10 minute exposure to test for conventional (non-IR) fog?

Well, if you think using paper with an asa of 1.5-6 would be more effective than using a 400 asa film, that's fine.

 

[wildbill]

Vinny, did you ever get a real answer from Hugo, or anyone at Chamonix? If not Kerry Thalmann of really big cameras might be the way to go??

A.

I've sent this thread to Hugo and he did get back to me but I'm not expecting the company to replace my bellows. I emailed the guy on flickr who had posted some shots done with the same set up. I'm waiting to get his camera serial # so Hugo can send it and my serial # to the factory to compare the models. I'd like to have a replacement bellows to try out to see if I just had a bad one. I know the camera isn't advertised as being opaque to ir but I'd to get this issue resolved before I head back to Michigan this summer.

Kerry responded as well. Thanks
* I read on the LF forum that Chamonix has aquired new levels for use on their cameras. I'd love to get some of those too, rather than getting more faulty replacements every time they dry out.