First effort - a bit nervous here!

Well !!!

From previous posts, you will know that I am slowly getting into LF
photography a bit, and am in the process of building my own 8x10 unit,
but....in the meantime, seeing as how 4x5 film is about 1/3 or less of
the price of 8x10, I thought I 'd try that first. I purchased a Calumet
4x5, 21" monorail thru' Ebay, and also picked up a 210mm lens and
shutter ass'y, and having those items safely delivered, went out and
bought the developing materials needed. I must be a nutcase!! I've never
done this before and know absolutely nothing! about this stuff, but
anyway..........Having purchased Ilford FP4 125 film, I went to the
Ilford website to find out how to orient the film. If I've read
correctly, when the film is in portrait mode, with the notches at the
top right, then the photo (emulsion) side is toward you. I closed off
the bathroom tightly so that I couldn't see my hands in front of my
face, (which incidentally reminded me very much of the few times
working underground when my battery would go dead), and then proceeded
to load the film holder. I think it was successfull, but having only
taken one of two negatives, I will have to wait until I've shot the
other side and developed the pair to see how I've made out............I
don't think I'm going to be able to sleep.

cheers eh?

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John
irst effort - a bit nervous here!

...........I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep.

You will do fine. Just get a copy of "This is Photography". Things have not
changed that much in the last 60 years.
Oh I have some 4 up 4X5 film hangers. One uses them with a 8X10 tank.

Bob AZ

John Bartley wrote:
Well !!!

From previous posts, you will know that I am slowly getting into LF
photography a bit, and am in the process of building my own 8x10 unit,
but....in the meantime, seeing as how 4x5 film is about 1/3 or less of
the price of 8x10, I thought I 'd try that first. I purchased a Calumet
4x5, 21" monorail thru' Ebay, and also picked up a 210mm lens and

The big 401? You'll find the 8x10 light after that-)

done this before and know absolutely nothing! about this stuff, but
anyway..........Having purchased Ilford FP4 125 film, I went to the
Ilford website to find out how to orient the film. If I've read
correctly, when the film is in portrait mode, with the notches at the
top right, then the photo (emulsion) side is toward you. I closed off


Best info on film loading out there is he

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

The big 401? You'll find the 8x10 light after that-)



Hi Nick,

I'm embarrassed to say that I have no idea what the model number is of
the unit that I bought, but here is the auction :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3820068485 Knowing
the model number will be a big help in tracking down an owners manual.

Best info on film loading out there is he

http://www.butzi.net/articles/filmload.htm

Nick



The's interesting reading !! I'm quite happy to report that other than a
couple of minor technique differences, that's exactly how I loaded mine .

cheers

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:
Nick Zentena wrote:

The big 401? You'll find the 8x10 light after that-)



Hi Nick,

I'm embarrassed to say that I have no idea what the model number is of
the unit that I bought, but here is the auction :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=3820068485 Knowing
the model number will be a big help in tracking down an owners manual.


That looks like the CC-400. I've got the 401. Other then mine having
longer bellows I think the two models are 100% the same. Manual? Just get
yourself a good book on how to use a view camera. Calumet might still sell
manuals. They still sell parts I think.

Nick

I've been dabbling in LF for a while now. Only thing I can be sure of is
that I have, over time, greatly improved in my ability to load a filmholder
( 4x5 thru 11x14). I'm not a better photographer by any measure--but now I
can load a film holder like a pro--but why do I want to close my eyes in the
dark?????????????????
Great choice in film BTW--Ilford FP4--my favorite!
Your film holder loading buddy (the one with the eyes closed in the dark!!)
J Burke
"John Bartley" wrote in message
. ..
Well !!!

From previous posts, you will know that I am slowly getting into LF
photography a bit, and am in the process of building my own 8x10 unit,
but....in the meantime, seeing as how 4x5 film is about 1/3 or less of
the price of 8x10, I thought I 'd try that first. I purchased a Calumet
4x5, 21" monorail thru' Ebay, and also picked up a 210mm lens and
shutter ass'y, and having those items safely delivered, went out and
bought the developing materials needed. I must be a nutcase!! I've never
done this before and know absolutely nothing! about this stuff, but
anyway..........Having purchased Ilford FP4 125 film, I went to the
Ilford website to find out how to orient the film. If I've read
correctly, when the film is in portrait mode, with the notches at the
top right, then the photo (emulsion) side is toward you. I closed off
the bathroom tightly so that I couldn't see my hands in front of my
face, (which incidentally reminded me very much of the few times
working underground when my battery would go dead), and then proceeded
to load the film holder. I think it was successfull, but having only
taken one of two negatives, I will have to wait until I've shot the
other side and developed the pair to see how I've made out............I
don't think I'm going to be able to sleep.

cheers eh?

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:

Well !!!

From previous posts, you will know that I am slowly getting into LF
photography a bit,............and he goes blogging on mercilessly :-)


So here's the results of the very first LF photo I've taken, along with
the very first home developing that I've done. I'm very pleased with the
results. Even if not up to the standard that I am aiming for, this
turned out not as well as I had hoped, but certainly far better than I
expected. I seem to have had a bit of trouble focussing, so I've
extracted a lens from an old slide projector, and have found that when I
focus by eye, and then examine with the lens, I'm waaaay off. This
should help make the next image much more sharp by using the lens to aid
in the focussing. The pic specs (simply) are;

2004-06-26
7:30pm
20'C
broken @3000'
Ilford FP4 - 125 iso
Calumet 21" monorail
1/2 second
F/22

Developing ;

Tray developing
Agfa Rodinal @1:25 for 8 minutes - steady slow agitation
Kodak indicator stop bath @ 1:60 for 30 sec
Kodak Kodafix, fix and hardener @ 1:3 for 3 min
Running water rinse for 4 minutes
All above @20'C
Dried with chamois and let sit 10 minutes before scanning

Scan ;

Epson Perfection 3170 Photo
8 bit greyscale @ 600dpi
Paintshop Pro8 rotated and cropped
Reduced to 800 pixels wide
Saved as JPG with 25% compression
NO other digital manipulation

Also should have noted a stiff breeze (probably 20 knots) from the West,
and quite a poor tripod arrangment. I think the focus is poor, there is
some motion in the camera, so a remote shutter release is next on the
shopping list, and I'm going to have to study up on exposure times. I
was trying to get the broken clouds in the background, and all I got was
grey - hmmph! - Oh well - try again.

pic : http://www3.sympatico.ca/oldrad/Phot...1-20040626.jpg

cheers eh?

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:

2004-06-26
7:30pm
20'C
broken @3000'

Eh? 3000 feet?


All above @20'C
Dried with chamois and let sit 10 minutes before scanning

This isn't what I think is it? Just hang them to dry.


some motion in the camera, so a remote shutter release is next on the
shopping list, and I'm going to have to study up on exposure times. I
was trying to get the broken clouds in the background, and all I got was
grey - hmmph! - Oh well - try again.

pic : http://www3.sympatico.ca/oldrad/Phot...1-20040626.jpg


Well a meter helps. Or at the very least look up Sunny f/16.

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

Eh? 3000 feet?

And ::

This isn't what I think is it? Just hang them to dry.

And ::

Well a meter helps. Or at the very least look up Sunny f/16.

Nick



I guess I wasn't too clear - sorry :-[

The broken at 3000' refers to the ceiling, or cloud cover if you wish.
It's more a way for me to remember what the sky looked like that day.

The chamois drying was because I haven't yet set up a way to dry by
hanging, but do have chamois' in surplus - seemed to work pretty well
for me, so I think for now, unless there's a reason that I shouldn't,
I'll probably keep doing it that way. I'm very much open to constructive
suggestions, so please fire away :-) .

I do have a light meter, albeit an antique, and the only thing I wasn't
sure of was whether I should be metering at the glass under the cloth,
or out in the open in various places around the lens. Figuring that I
wanted to meter what the lens was gathering, I metered at the lens -
probably wrong but....there's gotta be room for improvement or it would
all be pretty dull!

cheers and thank

ps : Just got back from looking up "Sunny F/16" and son-of-a-gun, when I
took this picture, I had a gut feeling that I was exposing too long, no
matter what the meter said! An exposure time of 1/2 second in the amount
of cloudy daylight I had just plain seemed wrong. Next time I'll
experiment a bit - thanks again!

--
regards from ::

John Bartley
43 Norway Spruce Street
Stittsville, Ontario
Canada, K2S1P5

( If you slow down it takes longer
- does that apply to life also?)

John Bartley wrote:
The chamois drying was because I haven't yet set up a way to dry by
hanging, but do have chamois' in surplus - seemed to work pretty well
for me, so I think for now, unless there's a reason that I shouldn't,
I'll probably keep doing it that way. I'm very much open to constructive
suggestions, so please fire away :-) .

The reason is that even though chamois is very soft, the film base and
especially the emulsion is softer and extremely prone to damage. No
contact should be made with the negative at all. Any contact, even when
dry can result in scratches or other sorts of damage.

The best thing to do is to congratulate yourself on getting an image and
learn the proper techniques from scratch. This might sound a bit anal,
but you will be rewarded in the long run with good technique. If you
take things slowly and learn one step at a time, including exposure and
processing, your frustrations will be lessened. If you know someone who
is willing to help you, all the better. SOD's (Society of Old
Photographers) are often only too willing to help in exchange for a
crate of beer (YMMV)