/ Register

Kodak D2, paper, and complaints...

Discussion in 'Large Format Cameras and Accessories' started by JohnRichard, Sep 22, 2009.

Thread Tools

Thread Tools

  1. Sep 22, 2009 #1
    JohnRichard

    JohnRichard Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Location:
    Lexington, K
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    So I have this Kodak D2. It's ghetto... it has some sort of aftermarket go-faster clamp deal to hold the front rise in place. Takes 3 hands to rise the front. The back gets a little carried away and swings completely off its track. Takes another 3 hands to get it back on.

    It is however, the only 10x8 I own. I have 3 film carriers, and 5 dark slides. I don't know where the other one went. They are old, wooden, and don't work very well.

    Anyhow, I decided to try out some paper. ASA 6, f16 at 1 minute sounded like a good plan, until the darkslide ate the first sheet. No big loss, its like 50 cents. So I tried again, and it worked better this time.

    I haven't developed yet, saving the other two shots for tomorrow, bright sun (hopefully).

    My question is this: I don't have a nice big 300mm, so I used the Ektar 127 from my Speed Graphic. Is it correct to have the front almost not racked out at all with this "wide angle" lens?

    It looked sharp, and I assume I could almost do some macro work. It's fairly dark inside, and since its almost 10pm here, its dark outside.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. Sep 22, 2009 #2
    fschifano

    fschifano Member

    Messages:
    3,216
    Joined:
    May 12, 2003
    Location:
    Valley Strea
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A ghetto 10x8 camera. Now there's a guy who's from the neighborhood. A regular guy, just like the kind we used to have in Brooklyn before the swells and the hipsters took over all the good parts. Well, you asked for thoughts so here goes.

    On the subject of the lens, I'd be surprised if you got anywhere near full coverage of the full 10x8 frame. Remember that the lens was designed for the Speed and Crown Graphic cameras and these were not known for having movements. Why design a lens with more coverage than you need? I can get a tiny bit of rise or fall on 5x4 with the 135 Xenar on my Crown. It's not much, and the edges start falling apart pretty badly, pretty quickly. Considering the rather short focal length of the lens, it doesn't surprise me either that the bellows are very compressed. The Kodak D was designed way before ultra wide lenses were common, and again, why built in a feature that will not be used? Could you use it for macro work? Maybe. It's worth a shot anyway, though I think even in that application you might have a problem covering the full 10x8 frame.
     
  3. Sep 23, 2009 #3
    jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    22,491
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:
  4. Sep 23, 2009 #4
    OP
    OP
    JohnRichard

    JohnRichard Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Location:
    Lexington, K
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    OK! So Last night and this morning I made 3 exposures. Well, I actually made 4 but you know... it ate one.

    Anyhow. Oh my Jesus. These paper negs are AMAZING! The texture, the detail, I am excited.

    So I went and contact printed. I porbabily should have waited till the negs were dry but whatever. For some reason, I can't get the contrast just right. If I light it too long, the blacks are black enough, but the whites blow out; too little, and its all just grey mush.

    I am using Multi VI RC paper or whatever its called. I hate it for prints, but for paper negs, I have found my new friend. They really do look amazing. As soon as they are more dry, I am going to scan them in so you can see. I'll also scan the contact positive, tho they don't look very good.

    I am seriously thinking about selling my D2 and getting a monorail, or something a bit lighter. It's such a hassle; takes two tripods just to level it. Maybe I'm doing something wrong, and I know I don't have the right tripod. Anyhow I'll update in a bit.
     
  5. Sep 23, 2009 #5
    OP
    OP
    JohnRichard

    JohnRichard Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Location:
    Lexington, K
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Here is what the paper negative looks like:
    [​IMG]



    The first contact positive:
    [​IMG]

    The second:
    [​IMG]

    Don't hate me, this is what I WANT the image to look like. I just simply said "invert" when I scanned it with my cheap POS scanner.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. Sep 23, 2009 #6
    jnanian

    jnanian Advertiser Advertiser

    Messages:
    22,491
    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2003
    Location:
    paswonquitte
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Groups:
    it looks like your paper positives aren't getting enough exposure in
    order for everything to go black and white as you want.
    you might also try to use a higher grade filter if using your enlarger ( a 3.5 ? )
    so you keep your whites white, your blacks black and your mid tones like you want them.
    part of what that wild mid-tone swirl you are seeing in your print might be the water from your wet negative .. more exposure might get rid of that too ..
    good stuff, i kind of like 2nd print a whole lot ..

    john
     
  7. Sep 23, 2009 #7
    Vaughn

    Vaughn Subscriber

    Messages:
    5,790
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2006
    Location:
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    Since you are exposing VC paper in-camera, you might try taping a lower number VC printing filter (#1 perhaps) to the back of your lens and double your exposure time. In theory, this might reduce the contrast of your paper negs.

    Your image is very interesting!

    Vaughn
     
  8. Sep 23, 2009 #8
    John Jarosz

    John Jarosz Member

    Messages:
    146
    Joined:
    May 17, 2006
    Location:
    Fairfax Iowa
    Shooter:
    ULarge Format
    nice image.

    About the D2. (I have 2, one has been "expanded" to be 8x20)

    The D2 folds up to be quite small and easily portable. Consider rehabbing it and then you have some additional $$ for the lens part. Film holders too.

    John