on 4x5 cameras and lenses.

[Alex Hawley]

That was Elmer Keith.

Wayne

Glad to see I'm not the only one here that remembers Elmer Keith. And I loved that book "Hell, I was There".

Now we're really off-topic!

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Eh, I could take us REALLY off topic - I'm trying to figure out how the hell to stop the minerals in the water from leaving little drops on my 35mm film. I've tried everything short of distilled water...and even had some problems with that. I develop anyway, though.

 

[Wayne R. Scott]

Steph,

Go to Wally world and pick up a cheap plastic salad spinner. Drop your reels of developed and rinsed film into the spinner and give it a whirl for about a minute. The centrifical force generated will throw the water off of your negatives.

Wayne

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I tried the running the fingers down the film thing and that seems to work to a degree...but a salad spinner is a good idea. If I keep shooting like I am, maybe I should make the time to create a drying cabinet.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Eh, I could take us REALLY off topic - I'm trying to figure out how the hell to stop the minerals in the water from leaving little drops on my 35mm film. I've tried everything short of distilled water...and even had some problems with that. I develop anyway, though.

I live in the south of England, where the tap water is very hard. I have tried numerous strategies for avoiding drying marks, including distilled water for the final rinse and the use of squeegees. I now simply use tap water with a splash of wetting agent in it and hang the films up as wet as possible and at a slight diagonal, so that the water runs off to one side and not just straight down the film. I find this works as well as anything and very seldom have to spot prints.

Regards,

David

 

[Jim Jones]

My Missouri tap water must be as hard as Stephanie's Iowa water, but a final bath of distilled water with a wetting agent works well. A clothes line in the darkroom is convenient for drying sheet film. While the film is drying, block any air vents and keep out of the darkroom.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Me to. Our water is liquid chalk and a final rinse with photo-flo and distilled works fine.

Some place I've got a formula that adds alcohol to the mix to speed up the drying but I've never felt the need.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

I'm a little slow...I went back and looked at earlier posts in this thread for Elmer Keith's - no need to explain now...

Wayne - nice portrait!

 

[Charles Webb]

Hey Guy's
Thanks for the heads up, but I knew very well who said it,
but I did not give enough credit to members of this list to know.

It is a shame, Elmer is now gone, but "hell he was here,"
and in my opinion nobody ever did more for .45 Colt.

Old Hawg Leg Packin Charlie...................................

 

[Jim Jones]

Hey Guy's
. . . It is a shame, Elmer is now gone, but "hell he was here,"
and in my opinion nobody ever did more for .45 Colt.

Old Hawg Leg Packin Charlie...................................

Or more for the anemic .44 special, or less to impress some people around here who knew him long ago. Fortunately, when I met him late in his life, the fires that drove him were fading embers.

Sorry, Stephanie, for hijacking the thread. Shooting with cameras is an enjoyable diversion. On the farm we sometimes have the unpleasant need to shoot with something a little more potent.

 

[jolefler]

Stephanie...PM sent

 

[darinwc]

Stephanie,
Something no one has mentioned to any degree, is the fact that All of the lenses factory attached to a Speed or Crown were very good to excellent for their time. They still stand tall today!

Just a year or so ago practically everyone on this list poo-pooed Wollensak lenses. Today they are among the most sought after and "Pricy" on ebay. Take a look at what Jim Galli does with old projection lenses that were never designed or intended for quality picture making. The Velostigmats and Raptars that sold for less than a hundered dollars are now selling for 250 to a 1000 dollars or more.

My point in what I am trying to get accross is simply there is/was nothing at all wrong with the standard stock lenses that Graphlex placed on their various models of cameras.
Of those buying press type "boxes" most were professional picture makers. They were Graphlex's largest market. The pro camera man would not allow them to put inferior quality lenses on their products. I have never used any model of Graphlex's camera that had a factory installed
lens on it that did not make excellent negatives. Excellent
negatives equal excellent prints.

What I have said here is fact, not speculation as to how the lenses actually performed. As somebody once said, "Hell I was there!"

Charlie.........................................

Charlie, to stem confusion, perhaps you better qualify some of your statements with some details. Because because what most would consider 'normal' Ektars and Raptars, the 127mm and 135mm tessar types, are still quite common and i would not consider them more sought-after than the modern plasmats. I havent heard many people poo-poo them, either. They are what they are: Medium focal length tessar type lenses with limited coverage yet sharp optics in a small and lightweight package.
The Commercial ektars, 203mm ektars, pro-raptars, and other less-common variations have allways been popular. They may have risen in value due to rising popularity in large format, which i hope it factual and not imagined.

Jim Galili and others of his ilk I think can be credited with the rise in poularity of older pre-coated lenses and especially bizarre brassies and projector/magic lantern lenses. Having many examples posted of the numerous artistic possibilities is a great addition to the photographic community.

Also, it would seem to me that LF portaits in general seem to have become more popular in the recent years, where before the buzz was all landscape this, wide-angle that, and some velvia thown in to boot.

 

[Charles Webb]

darinwc,
Why is it's only you who feel I have created "confusion" with my comments? I made my point! Now exactly what is yours? and exactly how will it aid Stephanie in making her selection?

I truly would like to be able to understand why and what motivation triggered you to make your post designed simply to "Bash" me and my post?

Naw, don't waste your time, as I won't bother to read
any more of your intelectual opinions and speculations.

Charlie......................................

PS: I apologize to any one I may have confused with my interpretation of what I know has occurred in the United States over the past 50 plus years.

 

[jimgalli]

Eh, I could take us REALLY off topic - I'm trying to figure out how the hell to stop the minerals in the water from leaving little drops on my 35mm film. I've tried everything short of distilled water...and even had some problems with that. I develop anyway, though.

Hi Steph

Here's what I finally discovered after years of heartburn and white crudballs on my film. Calgon. Same thing that makes your wine glasses glisten in the dishwasher. It's cheap. Lifetime supply on ebay for 16 bucks or so. I don't know what the measure is, but enough to cover about a half a penny mixed with my final wash solved my problem. Well that one problem anyway. I've got others. :rolleyes:

For your old curtain speed, you'd be very hard pressed to find a finer lens than the old 18cm sunken mount Heliar I picked up the other day

Good luck.

 

[walter23]

I think I'm finally going to get a larger format camera. 4x5 is as high as I'm willing to go at this point, though, with a baby on the way. I bid on a Speed Graphic without lenses that looks a bit rough (cosmetically horrible and the bellows may need patching, but that's not a big problem), but otherwise it's usable. The focal plane shutter even works.

Considering I don't get a lens with the camera, I have more choice for a first lens. What's a good, decently cheap lens, in a shutter or not, that would work well for landscapes and general photography with slow shutter speeds?

I think the best bargain in LF lenses, other than process / enlarging lenses if you can get one in a shutter, are the Caltar-II N lenses (which are rebranded, but completely identical (made in the same factory) rodenstock grandagon-N and sironar-N lenses). They typically have quite a bit of coverage for movements, and are sharp (not that sharpness is much of an issue at 4x5 for most people - most lenses are more than adequate!), good quality, multicoated optics.

You really need to decide if you want to start wide angle or more normal. I have two lenses and together they meet most of my needs from landscapes to still life shots to architecture and macro. The Caltar-II N 90mm f/6.8 cost me about $400 on ebay (I've seen them go for $350 to $550, depending on the auction), and is a great wide angle lens (similar to a 24 to 28mm lens on 35mm format). My other lens, a caltar-II N 210mm f/5.6, is more of a normal to slightly long lens - it feels about like a 50mm to 60mm lens in 35mm terms. It gives tons of movement and is easier to use with the standard bellows (the 90mm lens has to be racked in pretty close to the ground glass, which compresses the bellows a fair bit and doesn't allow much for movements - you would need a bag bellows or a recessed lens board to get movements out of this kind of lens on a speed graphic, I think).

For macro, I typically use the 90mm lens, because I use a folding field camera with limited bellows (I can get up to about 2.5x magnification with the 90mm lens).

There's also a Caltar-II N 150mm f/5.6 which is a relatively small and lightweight lens with reasonable image circle for movements. This would be similar to a 35mm lens in 35mm terms.

Here's a list of lenses & image circle coverage for 4x5:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html

 

[walter23]

I have this stuff called 'wetting agent' that comes in a little bottle (about 1 oz or less). You add two drops to your final wash and the water (and mineral deposits) slide off your film like, well, something slippery.

I suspect it's just a detergent or something similar like a long chain alcohol (eg octanol), so calgon probably works just as well.

Hi Steph

Here's what I finally discovered after years of heartburn and white crudballs on my film. Calgon. Same thing that makes your wine glasses glisten in the dishwasher. It's cheap. Lifetime supply on ebay for 16 bucks or so. I don't know what the measure is, but enough to cover about a half a penny mixed with my final wash solved my problem. Well that one problem anyway. I've got others. :rolleyes:

For your old curtain speed, you'd be very hard pressed to find a finer lens than the old 18cm sunken mount Heliar I picked up the other day

Good luck.

 

[darinwc]

Charles,
I was not intending to bash you. I was simply disagreeing with you in an open discussion. If you feel strongly about your statements, I would be happy to hear more from you.

Here are the statements I disagree with:
1. "Just a year or so ago practically everyone on this list poo-pooed Wollensak lenses."
I've been on this board for a couple of years and I dont remember anyone saying that wollensak lenses are bad. In fact I did a quick search of this forum and I saw many people reccomending wollensak and some reports that the wollensak lenses were their favorite. A prime example from a year ago is a post titled: "Are there any good lenses from 'unclean' brands?" If you still think otherwise please post some examples of people "poo-pooing" wollensak.

2. "Today they are among the most sought after and "Pricy" on ebay."
I ran a search of completed auctions on ebay. Here is the query i used:
(wollensak, verito, raptar, velostigmat, veritar, Vitax , Voltas, Varium)
Here are the top 5 single-lens auctions that completed:
Extremely Rare & Desired Wollensak Veritar Lens 4x5 (10 inch) sold for $385.00 with 9 bids.
Wollensak Vitax Portrait Lens No.2 - Variable Diffusion sold for $293.88 with 10 bids
12" f 4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat Series II sold for $271.00 with 10 bids
Wollensak Velo. Wide Angle Ser. III f 9,5 8x10 6 1/4 sold for $245 BIN
RAPAX WOLLENSAK 135 mm f4.7 RAPTAR LARGE FORMAT LENS sold for $125.00 with 7 bids
Comparing these recent sales to other major lens manufacturers sales and I would say wollensak lenses are not the most sought-after or pricey. In fact i would say they are a great bargain. Allthough admittedly the recent ebay sales may be too small a sample.

3. "The Velostigmats and Raptars that sold for less than a hundered dollars are now selling for 250 to a 1000 dollars or more. " Here is where i think others may have gotten confused. because there are different series of the velostigmat and different types of raptars as well. I did not want someone to overspend on a common tessar-type 135mm raptar thinking it could be worth over $1000. I had wanted you to clarify which of these lenses were so expensive and why.

"My point in what I am trying to get accross is simply there is/was nothing at all wrong with the standard stock lenses that Graphlex placed on their various models of cameras." Definately agree with you there. But I would like to add that other lenses have different qualities that may make them more or less desireable.

"What I have said here is fact, not speculation as to how the lenses actually performed. As somebody once said, "Hell I was there!"" What you have said is an opinion, and should be taken with a grain of salt just like everything else. I dont want to trivialize advice from someone with many years of experience, but i will suggest some humility.

"I read it on the internet so it must be true!"

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

lens to check out

APUG member Harrigan has a 250 mm f/6.3 Astrogon lens, described as apparently a process Tessar. He wants $45 + shipping. It's a barrel lens, decently fast, but I don't know any more about it.

I have a Kodak Enlarging Ektanon 10" also a Tessar, and I guess I do not need redundant lenses...