Chinese Knock-offs of Known Darkroom Products: Post your example

[Roseha]

Okay, thanks

 

[MattKing]

Hi, hope this isn't too off topic, but for those using the B and W King 4x5 tank, what capacity of chemicals is necessary for developing? I know they write capacity 1050 ml, but is 1000 ml, or a liter, adequate? I would probably not use the full 10 sheet capacity to start. and can the Nikor reel fit a smaller tank? Thanks

You can always check.
Put the reel plus some sheets of developed film into the tank.
Fill the tank with enough water to ensure that the film is completely immersed, but there is at least some air space above it to ensure effective agitation.
Pour out the water into a graduate to measure how much you needed.
If you don't have any sheets of film that you are willing to get wet, try the test without the film, to see if 1 litre is enough.

 

[reddesert]

If the tank requires 1050 ml to fill fully, but you only have 1000 ml of developer, add 50 ml of water to make up the volume. You're only increasing the dilution of the developer by 5%. At the precision of home photographic processes, it won't matter. It will make even less difference with stop and fixer.

For example, using D-76 or Xtol at 1+1 dilution versus stock requires about 40% increase in developing time. You'd be making a change of about 1/20th of that, so a 2% increase in developing time?

 

[Roseha]

Thanks everyone! I do have some old film I can use for a test when I get to that point. and thanks for the point about adding water if necessary.

 

[B&W MAN]

Hi, hope this isn't too off topic, but for those using the B and W King 4x5 tank, what capacity of chemicals is necessary for developing? I know they write capacity 1050 ml, but is 1000 ml, or a liter, adequate? I would probably not use the full 10 sheet capacity to start. and can the Nikor reel fit a smaller tank? Thanks

Dear Ms. Roseha and photographers,
hello，everybody.
I am the designer and producer of B&W KING Film Developing Tank.I'm glad to see that there are a lot of photographers using and caring for B&W KING.I am very glad to participate in the discussion and share the problems with each other.
Regarding the capacity of B&W KING 4X5, 1000 ml is ok if you install 10 films at a time.But if you install one film at a time, you need 1050 milliliters to meet the needs of the development.The amount of film will affect the height of the liquid in the development tank.
In order to avoid the mistake caused by this difference, I uniformly labeled the liquid capacity of B&W KING 4X5 as 1050ml.
I'm a retired photographer.I am 66 years old now. B&W KING was designed and produced by me for 8 years.It was originally designed for my own use, and I was the first to use a photographer.
Any large-format photographer has a strict choice of supplies.B&W KING this is a new brand, a new product.It has been recognized and used by large-format photographers in many countries.I really appreciate their support for B&W KING!
I can't speak English.The letter was translated by computer.It may not be accurate, please forgive me.
Thank you for your attention to B&W KING.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@B&W MAN Glad to hear from you, and welcome to Photrio! Your film cage is very similar to a product that's been obsolete for decades, the Nikor 4x5 film cage. I have one of the tanks that fit that cage, which I acquired in 2005, but have never managed to afford the cage itself, and they're seldom found with the formed stainless steel band that retains the film in the grooves; much more commonly, a user must put a rubber band (elastic) around to hold the film. Your product fills the same need -- unfortunately, still at a price beyond my budget.

There is an impression among many Americans that any product that comes from China and isn't absolutely original is a "knock-off" -- a cheap copy, with the implication that it's "stealing" business from a "legitimate" manufacturer or vendor. Based on the photos I've seen of your film cage, it's certainly not cheaply made, and it replaces a product that went out of production nearly thirty years ago. I hope you continue to do well selling your tank and cage.

I hope the translation works as well from English to Chinese as it did the other way. Your message was very understandable, and, at least to me, very welcome.

 

[Roseha]

@B&W MAN Thank you very much for your explanation about the volume necessary for developing the 4x5 film in your tank, and the reason for it. It looks like a fine product and I hope you continue to have success with it.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It's my understanding that Chamonix expressly asked permission from Dick Phillips to make a similar design camera. Since he no longer made cameras, he gave them his blessing...

This comes up from time to time. I'm not sure where else it's appeared lately (perhaps another post here or at the Large Format Forum), but, since I'm in semi-regular contact with Dick, decided to ask him for the actual details of what happened. Today he provided a summary.

In June 2006, Dick met Hugo at a large format conference in Rockford, IL. Hugo thanked Dick for the "inspiration" for Chamonix's design. The word "copy" never came up. Dick didn't give "permission" for anything. Dick had never gone to the trouble and expense of patenting his design, something Chamonix probably researched and knew about. Hugo said Chamonix wanted to thank him for the inspiration by sending him one of its cameras, and asked what size he preferred. Dick replied "whatever size you like." A few weeks later he received an 8x10. Dick sent a thank-you note that pointed out the Chamonix's shortcomings, which included lack of a handle, focus lock and bail.

In June 2008, Dick attended another large format conference in Ft. Collins CO at which Chamonix was exhibiting. Afterward, Dick received another camera from them, this time a 4x5, which he described as improved compared to the 8x10, but still lacking a bail.

Dick closed his business and moved to Texas in 2009. He says he was never concerned about Chamonix because digital was putting film into a sharp decline. In fact, Dick himself has gone completely digital now for his own work.

Now you know "the rest of the story."

 

[AgX]

What does "bail" mean in this context?

 

[neilt3]

What does "bail" mean in this context?

Isn't a bail the U shaped bar that straddles the back of the focus screen and when it's pulled back it raises the focus screen up so a film holder can be inserted without disturbing the camera ?
The part I'm lifting up here .

 

[AgX]

Thank you. Actually I even have to think what the best term in German is...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thank you for more details, Sal. I have not seen Dick for a long time. After a fair amount of use, I made certain modifications of my very early serial no. 9 original Phillips 8x10 design which I felt significantly improved its reliability (and has indeed held up superbly ever since), and described this in detail with Dick in person at a trade show. He was already aware of the issues, but was involved with his own kind of workaround which resulted in his version II camera, which is more the concept Chamonix later got ahold of. I actually prefer the original for its even greater simplification.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This comes up from time to time. I'm not sure where else it's appeared lately (perhaps another post here or at the Large Format Forum), but, since I'm in semi-regular contact with Dick, decided to ask him for the actual details of what happened. Today he provided a summary.

In June 2006, Dick met Hugo at a large format conference in Rockford, IL. Hugo thanked Dick for the "inspiration" for Chamonix's design. The word "copy" never came up. Dick didn't give "permission" for anything. Dick had never gone to the trouble and expense of patenting his design, something Chamonix probably researched and knew about. Hugo said Chamonix wanted to thank him for the inspiration by sending him one of its cameras, and asked what size he preferred. Dick replied "whatever size you like." A few weeks later he received an 8x10. Dick sent a thank-you note that pointed out the Chamonix's shortcomings, which included lack of a handle, focus lock and bail.

In June 2008, Dick attended another large format conference in Ft. Collins CO at which Chamonix was exhibiting. Afterward, Dick received another camera from them, this time a 4x5, which he described as improved compared to the 8x10, but still lacking a bail.

Dick closed his business and moved to Texas in 2009. He says he was never concerned about Chamonix because digital was putting film into a sharp decline. In fact, Dick himself has gone completely digital now for his own work.

Now you know "the rest of the story."

The focus lock on the Chamonix H-1 series I find difficult to work. It ties up both hands leaving no hand for a loupe.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

The focus lock on the Chamonix H-1 series I find difficult to work. It ties up both hands leaving no hand for a loupe.

As best I can understand this issue, having never used that camera but dealing with several Ebony models that appear to have the same focus locking approach, what you need is a neck strap for your loupe.

Hold the loupe against the focus screen with one hand, adjust focus with the other hand, drop the loupe on its strap and, while restraining the focus knob from turning, use the now-free loupe hand to tighten the focus lock.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As best I can understand this issue, having never used that camera but dealing with several Ebony models that appear to have the same focus locking approach, what you need is a neck strap for your loupe.

Hold the loupe against the focus screen with one hand, adjust focus with the other hand, drop the loupe on its strap and, while restraining the focus knob from turning, use the now-free loupe hand to tighten the focus lock.

It's hard to tighten the left knob lock while trying to hold the focus knob from shifting. What I do and what's recommended by Chamonix, is once you got to rough focus, I tighten the left knob so you can barely move the right focus knob. That prevents drift. It won't move on its own. Then while you're looking through the loupe with your left hand, you adjust the focus with the right knob overcoming the tension from the tightened left knob.

You're probably best leaving it there. If you try to tighten the left knob lock more after final focus, it could cause the focus to move. So you're better off leaving it alone even if slightly less tightened.

Frankly, it's very finicky and there's got to be a better way. What it needs is a locking ring on the right knob. Then you can lock when focused or unlock to turn all with one hand. Like a diopter ring on a binocular or camera viewfinder that has a lock.