Hope someone can guide me with this question. I am currently using crown graphics and speed graphics 4x5 cameras in my old time photo studio. I am using Polaroid T55 P/N 4x5 sheet film and 545i film holders and was wanting to switch over to Polaroid Type 665 P/N 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 sheet film with 405 film holders. Is this possible? Is there anything I have to change on the camera to make this work? The lens? The glass? or can I just insert film and holders and fire away? (wishful thinking on that last part, I'm sure) I really need the P/N type of film as we use the proofs to show the customer what the pic looks like and the negative to develope it. If this is not a feasable idea, does anyone else make P/N 4x5 sheet film that is less expensive than Polaroid? Not to mention the fact that before too long the T55 sheet film along with others will be unobtainable. Thanks for any and all information. I greatly aprriciate it!
Sincerely
Tracie

If you have a Graflok back on your speed or crown, then it's only a matter of slipping off the ground glass and putting the Polaroid 405 back on. You'll probably have to back up slightly as your print got smaller with the same lens. Also you may find that ground glass focusing will be a pain, but I suspect that if your in a studio you know exactly where to focus without looking.

Polaroid is going to consentrate on the profesional peel apart films and drop the other stuff so the T55 film will be availible for some time, though they are dropping there smaller distributors at this time.

thanks for the info... yes my cameras have the graflok backs... so to change them over to the 405 backs I need to remove the graflok backs and ground glass... right? Then I have to put the 405 backs on, but am clueless how to focus the cameras without the ground glass... and I figured that I would have to pull the cameras back a bit since the film will be smaller... and if I understand this correctly I will not have to change lenses right? And I also take it that polaroid is the ONLY one who makes p/n film? Switching over to the smaller film shouldn't be to difficult or costly, which is good. My boss is a tight wad and I am looking for cheaper solutions to running my store, without giving up quality.
Thanks again for all your help.
Tracie

Well there are several ways to focus without the ground glass.
You could do like all the motion picture people and use a measuring tape. You could ground glas focus a person standing on the dot on the ground and mark it on the rails with a piece of tape and marker.
This could be done for several points in the studio.

If your cameras have a Kalart rangefind you could adjust them to work.

If yours has a top handle finder, you could get the proper cam for your lens and use that ( should this be your option, a pair of AA inside the top finder will allow you to project and image onto your subject to focus.)

In addition to those suggestions, the 405 back also shoots a smaller film size so you'll lose about a half inch or so off the sides of the image. If you have the mask that comes with the back when it's new, you can lay this over the groudglass to see the cropping for the 665 film etc. Plus the image itself will be offset to one side by the the design of the film back. On a press camera, since you don't have any rear movements, you'll just have to live with this--i.e. the image won't be centered on the film as it corresponds directly to the ground glass.

I wouldn't worry about removing the graflok back though....there isn't anything to move back there, and as long as the camera is locked down on the tripod you should be fine.

When I shoot with my Graphics handheld, what I do is to prefocus on a set spot as test. Say, ten feet out....I then tie a string to the front standard, and put a big knot at the end--I use an empty 120 film spool actually. If I'm doing grab shots of people, I just have them hold the knot, I back up 'til it's taught & shoot.... I use either the peep sight or the sportsfinder to frame the image & shoot at small apertures--let depth of field carry the focus. This works amazingly well...

But as for direct proofing? 665 is 80 ASA. The print will look good at 80 asa, but the neg looks best at 40 asa +1 stop. If the positive looks good on 665/55, the neg will be thin. You may be able to get a print out of it, but if the neg is the end result, you'll have to open up a stop at least off the positive...

hope this helps.

Actually...you could do a shift on the front standard if you have the mask or just experiment, as long as you always mount the back in the same orientation....you'll see what I'm talking about when you start shooting...it's one of the main reasons why I hate proofing with those backs for 4x5 film....the film is cheaper though. FWIW, I use the 405 backs quite a bit as well as the 545's...

Oh yeah if you try the string trick?? Make sure the subjects drop the string out of the shot.....after a while you can get pretty good at guestimating focus & probably won't need it at all. Sometimes in the studio, I tie strings to light stands to be able to repeat lighting setups quickly....it's an old trick in portrait studios etc.

_________________
as always, MY OPINIONS only.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dkt on 2002-04-03 10:04 ]</font>

Thanks for the help... being that my studio is an amusement photo place I have lots of employees and the easier something is the better. Accuracy is important as well as speed. (less photos wasted and more people in and out in less time) So with that said I guess it is best I stay with what I have and hope that Polaroid holds on long enough for me to get enough film to last a summer or two. At the end of this season I may end up without a job if polaroid buckles as everyone insists they will do as soon as their current supplies are gone. (Supposedly going to continue making the professional stuff until the materials that they currently have which are needed for them are gone.) I am hoping I can talk my boss into going ahead and making the big switch to digital and keep on going. I know it will be a major cost at first as I will insist on the high quality stuff so we can continue to put out excellent results. Eventually we will make money with the digital but the initial costs are going to make him balk. Then again if he decides to close the doors and quit then he may sell me the clothes and stuff for cheap. I have dreams of owning my own studio, be it antique amusement photography or portrait. Thanks again for the help. I do appriciate it.
Tracie

Don't try stocking up on Polaroid. Freezing doesn't work as it will burst some of the chemical pods -- you just won't know which ones, so you end up running through a box, looking like an idiot infront of customers to find the three or 4 that work.

As you may know out of date Polaorid takes on a nasty cyan look.

Polaroid's not going anywhere soon.....they may shed some products, but I wouldn't worry too much about type 55/665 disappearing soon--FWIW, we order this stuff on contracts and the thing about Polaroid is that you a) can't freeze it as Les says above b) you can only get it about 9 months out from the expiration date. We specify in our contracts that we need at *least* a year from the exp. date. You can't do that with Polaroid. 9 mos. is about the max length. We buy a case or two at a time and refrigerate it until we need it, then take it out & let it warm up for about an hour or two--cut the foil packs to pseed it up if you want. Do not stick it back in the fridge afterwards....it won't do too well if the foil is busted open....store the boxes flat as well...don't keep them on end.

We just got 2 cases of type 55 in last week, they changed the packagine of the film...it now has a black paper sleeve....it's not gray anymore. Polaroid said they updated it for better quality control because of their "dedication" to the product...it's a unique product that alot of people use, don't listen to folks who say they're selling off old stock....

Yeah I know what the new film looks like as we have been using it for a few months now... and I have had pretty good luck using out of date film... occasionally come across a "dud" but for the most part they have been useful still. There was like 4 different stores that told me that stuff about Polaroid. I hope it is all just hearsay about the company quitting for good. I know my boss will refuse to switch over to digital. Which will mean I will be out of a job. Unless I find the backing to buy him out IF he will do that. So getting back to business here... do any of you have any clue what would make my picture have dark almost cloudy shadows? Could it be the camera? Or the film? Or maybe the flash? Photography was always a hobby for me and I never went to school for it or anything. I got the manager postion because the original manager left and there was no one else there that was competent enough to do it... so I have been learning as I go. We set the cameras on 50 and on 8 when we take the picture. This is the way we have always done it and it gives the best results for us. But lately there have been some major shadows happening and for the life of me I can not figure out why. One other question for you guys if you don't mind... do any of you guys have a idiot proof method of getting the camera square with the wall/people? I am having a hard time with the other employees not getting the camera square and as a result the sets look like they just got finished with an earthquake. We use levels to keep the camera level with the floor but getting it so it is square with the bar and with the bank (the 2 sets we have LOTS of issues with as they all have edges and lines that show drastic problems when the camera is not positioned properly) so that the bar does not look like it is slanting and heading into a > like shape with the wall and floor behind it. I hope I am making sense as I am having a hard time explaining what I mean. My mind is a tad numb tonight, forgive me please. :eek:) We use photogenic flashes, in case that matters. (completely clueless here) Our darkroom is set up with a Beseler Dichro 45 color enlarger set to make browntones. Anyone know anything about browntones and doing them with a color enlarger? We use a beseler digitimer along with it. For the developing process we use a Mohr Pro 14. For the most part it is a pretty simple set up. I have learned how to fix my processor quite efficiently for most if not all failures. But getting the same browntone colors consistantly is iluding me. Any clue if it is the processor, the chems, the digitimer, or the enlarger that could be at fault with this? (More than likely the idiot trying to run it all :eek:)) I have some many questions and have no where to turn with them... sorry if I am overdoing it with you guys but I have a thirst for knowledge and a drive for perfection or at least as close as possible to perfection. I do not like sending out substandard quality photos. If you guys know where I can get more tech info on any of this stuff I would appriciate it if you could let me know. Again thanks a bunch for all your help. I go to talk to my boss tomorrow. Wish me luck.
Tracie

[quote]
On 2002-04-04 17:56, tracie68 wrote:
>>>do any of you have any clue what would make my picture have dark almost cloudy shadows? Could it be the camera? Or the film? Or maybe the flash?

Yes to all of the above...maybe just one or maybe a little bity of everything. Without actually *seeing* the film or print, I offer up these suggestions.

55/665 positives look good at the ASA on the box--i.e. 55 is *about* 50 asa nominally....we test this & come up with anywhere from 50-100 asa for the print. It varies from batch to batch. The one we're on now is a deadringer for 64 ASA. How do we know? Well, we run a deeptank for b&w and an E6 machine and run control strips. We use the film to proof Fujichrome films and TMX films. With everything tuned up together, it's easy to see the speed of the proof film.....

665 is 80 asa for the print more or less.

The negative part will be too thin--about one stop underexposed if the positive part looks good. If you shoot to be able to use the negative to make a print on regular paper? You need to have a positive that looks light--washed out. If the positive is to your liking, open up the lens by one stop or adjust the output of your flash to give you one stop more. You can do it with time too, of course, but you said you're using flash. he f-stop and the flash output are your only options.

>>> This is the way we have always done it and it gives the best results for us.

Could be that it has worked in the past for you because the speeds of the emulsion batches have been closer to 100 ASA than 50. We went from being able to accurately proof Fujichrome Provia 100 straight off a type 55 print, to having to stop down a half stop off it on a new batch of film. It was a dramatic shift.

>>>> But lately there have been some major shadows happening

Look at the negs...are they thin? Or are you talking about the little polaroid print itself? If the negative is thin, you can still print it, but you'll probably have to increase the paper contrast to the point where the shadows will be all plugged up....to get detail in the shadows--where there is little--would mean a lower contrast or lighter exposure. The print may be washed out, or the shadows may be murky....

The best type 55 negative is a thick, chunky one....one or two stops off the print--if the print is blown out, unusable almost...the neg will be good....you won't be able to use the same shot for both the positive and the negative. It doesn't work that way.

>>>>method of getting the camera square with the wall/people?

hmm..trying to visualize this...if everything is squared off by levels & is locked down & not moving on the tripod?? How does it look on the ground glass? In my experience with the type 55, it has been notorious for shifting in the holder ever so slightly....it will be skewed sometimes, when regular film holders are perfect. The other problem could be with the lenses...could be a distortion or perspective problem. Without seeing what you're talking about, it's hard to imagine...sounds like a perspective problem though. It doesn't take much--you could be shooting at an extremely slight angle--not dead-on. I do alot of copywork of large paintings with view cameras, and it can be a real hassle to get a big flat item square even with a monorail camera sometimes....sometimes they're not square. It doesn't take much to be off on either the camera or the subject to make something look weird on film....

>>> We use photogenic flashes
what model? What setting are they are on now, I only sorta know photogenics...I think you need to get a flashmeter perhaps....

>>>Anyone know anything about browntones and doing them with a color enlarger?

yeah...if this is getting offtopic, figure out a way to get my email off this list & contact me--I work in the lab & studio of a history museum & do exhibit production work. This is part of my job what you're describing.....I use those enlargers too.

>>Mohr Pro 14.

those are nice...you all must be a portrait lab....not many commercial folks use those, good, solid processors though.


>>> getting the same browntone colors consistantly is iluding me.

you'll never get them to match consistently....as the toner ages in the tray it changes with every print you run through it. It's almost impossible to match a brown or sepia tone to anything...whether another new print or an old one. Are you doing these on color printing papers, or on b&w and using toners?--

i.e. are you using the 55 neg and printing onto color paper--dialing in the brown tone?? Is the Mohr running RA4 chemistry?




_________________
as always, MY OPINIONS only.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dkt on 2002-04-05 13:37 ]</font>

I am going to do things a little backwards here so bare with me ok? first of all my e-mail is ntbdra@jvlnet.com and would LOVE any and all help I could get from you regarding all of this. All of my knowledge regarding my profession has been acquired via trial and error. As such can be quite frusterating.

***i.e. are you using the 55 neg and printing onto color paper--dialing in the brown tone?? Is the Mohr running RA4 chemistry?***
Yes and Yes
we use the postive as a proof for the customer to be able to see their portrait BEFORE we make them pay for it. Then we use the sulfite to clear the neg and do the rinse and fotoflo. We put quite a volume of pictures thru our Mohr Pro 14. We are an amusement photography studio BUT we put out higher quality portraits and I strive to keep the quality as high as possible. I use kodak portra III surface E color paper and kodak RA-4 chems. I dial my dichro to produce browntone prints thru the T55 b&w negative.

***you'll never get them to match consistently....as the toner ages in the tray it changes with every print you run through it. It's almost impossible to match a brown or sepia tone to anything...whether another new print or an old one. Are you doing these on color printing papers, or on b&w and using toners?-- ***
Well at least now I know it is not ME that is the problem with the fluctuating colors. and see the above reply for the latter part of your question.

***We use photogenic flashes
what model? What setting are they are on now, I only sorta know photogenics...I think you need to get a flashmeter perhaps.... ***
UMMMM I can not remember what model flash it is. Will have to get back to you on that one.

***you could be shooting at an extremely slight angle--not dead-on.***
that is exactly what is happening because my photographers are either unable to handle squaring off the camera OR they say they are unable and really just don't care... either way I need to find a way to "idiot-proof" the camera that way so the pictures stop angling off to the right or the left and sloping downward on the top corner while slanting upwards on the bottom corner on the same side. A slight angle I can usually correct with my dicro and the negative holder but the major ones look bad no matter what I do.

***Look at the negs...are they thin? Or are you talking about the little polaroid print itself?***
I am talking about the negatives AND the pictures it creates when printed. It is almost like an irredescent looking shadow where if you move the negative just the right way you can see it shine and glimmer. The positive looks ok for the most part but you can tell the shadows behind their legs for example is "foggy" and not crisp like most are. This does not happen all the time... just occasionally and has happened on both cameras which are set up in different areas of my studio.

***The best type 55 negative is a thick, chunky one....one or two stops off the print--if the print is blown out, unusable almost...the neg will be good....***
I couldn't tell you whether my negatives are thick and chunky or thin as I have never had a comparison before. I can tell you that they are pretty sturdy and not as fragile as I was led to believe so I assume this would me thick and chunky. When I look at my positive it looks really good. Not washed out or too dark. And when it is too light the neg is to light as well and I have to print the pic a bit longer than the normal negs. And vice versa if the pos is too dark.

***open up the lens by one stop***
Ok here is where my lack of knowledge steps in... I assume the f-stop is what you are talking about here and the f-stop would be the range between 4.5-32. Am I right? I will assume that I am and I can tell you when the stop is set anywhere below the 8 the pic is too light and washed out. And anything above the 8 is too dark and cloudy so to speak.

***55 is *about* 50 asa nominally***
lack of knowledge speaking here again but just what does the asa do? We keep ours set at 50. period. And since I was told to do this from word go I have never challenged it. But I would like to know more about all of this. Maybe I should take some time off from work and get some schooling or something. If only I could do that feisably.

Thanks so much for the help. please feel free to e-mail me so we can stop cluttering up this forum with any off-topic subjects. I tend to get carried away with questions and stuff when I finally find someplace/one that is knowledgable about the process I use.

Tracie

[quote]
On 2002-04-05 22:01, tracie68 wrote:


>>> postive as a proof for the customer to be able to see their portrait BEFORE we make them pay for it.

You're probably not going to want to do this...but burn two sheets, or show them a washed out print. The negative has a different film speed than the print material. The pring is "50"...the negative is closer to "25".

>>>> I use kodak portra III surface E color paper and kodak RA-4 chems. I dial my dichro to produce browntone prints thru the T55 b&w negative.


Okay, so what's the problem with the browntone, is it not consistent? Are you sandwiching the type 55 neg with a scrap of unexposed, but processed color negative sheet film? Sometimes you can mimic a color neg this way, and help the filter pack out a bit....you probably will need a glass carrier to make it work the best, since the 55 negs are thin....


>>>>least now I know it is not ME that is the problem with the fluctuating colors.

If you're doing with color prints, the problem is probably that the density of the negs is not the same every time...in color printing, the actual color balance of the print is dependent on the exposure as well as the filter settings....if the negs aren't consistent, this could be a problem....


>>>> either way I need to find a way to "idiot-proof" the camera that way so the pictures stop angling off

Smarta** answer--"don't hire idiots"...just kidding....look, can you try to really lock it down on the tripod mount so it won't swivel or move? Maybe you need to physically clamp it or screw it into a base or something...what you really need is not a Speed Graphic, but a Polaroid pack camera like an old mamiya or something.....I would try to get a better tripod mount though, or physically clamp the thing in place. Or pay by the square picture only....that might get the employees to care a little bit more....(joke)


>>>>I am talking about the negatives AND the pictures it creates when printed. It is almost like an irredescent looking shadow where if you move the negative just the right way you can see it shine and glimmer.

I'd have to see it...it sounds almost like the film is solarized or something...like it was fogged during development ever so slightly....I really don't know what though....you need to realize this though, even though the film & the neg come in the same packet, they are completely different. If the print looks good, the neg will be so-so....the print needs to look too light--hot, overexposed--to have a good neg. The customer may not be happy with the polaroid print (not the final print)...it's just the way it is.

>>>> The positive looks ok for the most part but you can tell the shadows behind their legs for example is "foggy" and not crisp like most are.

Well, that could be lighting....not necessarily the film.


>>>I couldn't tell you whether my negatives are thick and chunky or thin as I have never had a comparison before.When I look at my positive it looks really good.

The negs are probably thin then....take a box of film and decide to learn on that...set the lens at f11 and look at the neg. Do another at f 5.6 and look at that. The 5.6 will be thick, the 11 will be thin. (if f8 is a good print) Like I keep saying, the positive should be too light if you shoot for the negative part...you don't need a meter really, if you shoot polaroid...BUT you need to pay attention to it and know how to use it.


**>>>> f-stop would be the range between 4.5-32. Am I right?

yes...4.5 is a large opening=more light. 32 is a small opening=less light....


***55 is *about* 50 asa nominally***
lack of knowledge speaking here again but just what does the asa do? We keep ours set at 50. period.

Look, uhhh, you're shooting a Graflex camera of some type right? When you say 50, you meant the shutter speed I assume (??) right? ASA is the film speed...i.e. how sensitvie to light it is....you need to get a book on photography...just a basic book, really....sorry...I sympathize with you really......the higher the ASA number, the more senstive to light the film is. Polaroid is 50 asa, so it's not that sensitive. The negative is 25, so it's even less sensitive. It will take more light to make a good negative on type 55, than a good positive proof print.

>>> If only I could do that feisably.


Okay, there are two ways to look at this...it's not your fault, it's great that you want to improve your product, but someone hired you into this spot......



>>> please feel free to e-mail me so we can stop cluttering up this forum with any off-topic subjects.

I will...good luck either way. I'd be interested in hearing about the Mohr a bit....but as far as books go, I recommend both Basic Photography and Color Photography by Henry Horenstein. Or just baout anything by Kodak or Time-Life. Good luck....

KT

_________________
as always, MY OPINIONS only.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dkt on 2002-04-08 09:15 ]</font>

I am going to experiment with the film tomorrow. And print the results to compare so I can actually visually SEE the difference between the thin neg with a good proof and the washed out proof with the thick negative. And I am going to stop by the book store and see what photo books they have.
The tripods we have are manfrotto. But I do not think they are meant for large format cameras. My boss bought them last spring. The ones we were using before were measly little 35mm tripods and the cameras were constantly slipping on the heads. I even tried using heavy duty double stick tape to help hold them in place. Finally demanded new tripods and instead of allowing me to go looking for some that would work he came back with the manfrottos. I like the manfrottos alot but they are just not sturdy enough. I have been tossing about the concept of buying tripod dollys to stabilize the tripod legs and prevent them from moving in when bumped. That or just flat out finding a couple decent used large format tripods. Any suggestions???
As for the MohrPro processor... what would you like to know? I had to call my contact at Mohr Enterprises Friday for some tech help and discovered alot of problems that were easily fixed on my processor. Mainly the reason my prints were coming out "blue" was because my chems were too cold. So today I called him back and told him about the chems being 10 degrees colder than necessary and he told me how to adjust and regulate it. So now that I have that figured out I can move along to the next obsticle.
No I do not snadwich my t55 neg. I use it as is in a beseler 4x5 carrier. I dial up the cyan to about 30 if my memory is correct and the magenta is around 125 (???) and my yellow is around 130 (????) but anyways I print it on the color paper and end up with rich warm browntones. Problem is no 2 browntone pictures are the exact same tones. Which has befuddled me for a long time but thanks mostly to you guys and in part to Mohr Enterprises I now realize that I will never get the same exact tomes on 2 seperate pictures because the chems always change. Not sure why I didn't think of that before. But anyways... I need to look up info on my beseler as there are a few things that have me stumped and have not been finding the answers.
btw I am using crown graphic cameras and crown graphic specials. We have a couple different lenses. I need to figure out which lense works best for which sets and write them down someplace so we can interchange if/when needed.
thanks again... Lord knows I need the info you have been supplying me with... my brain is like a sponge... wanting to soak as much up as I can.
Tracie