Right then I'm all set...

**vickersdc** · 28-Aug-2013, 10:59

It's been ages and ages since I was last on here - kept up with the photography, but mainly digital stuff - although I did work on my Churches project using my home-made 9x12 sliding box camera.

Anyway, I've just bought and received a Sinar Wolf (Alpina / Alpine / A1 - I think?) and I can't wait to get using it! I'm planning a trip over to the Ardeche very soon and it'll be coming with me.

The camera did not have a lensboard fitted, so I made my own, actually i made three just to be on the safe side

That meant I could fit my old brass lens, a Rapid Symmetrical to the Sinar, as shown in the image.

Click image for larger version.

Name: IMG_0717.jpg
Views: 68
Size: 81.2 KB
ID: 100970

I just can't wait to use this thing!

All the best,
David.

**Roger Thoms** · 28-Aug-2013, 21:52

Congratulations from another Alpina user!

Roger

**vickersdc** · 30-Aug-2013, 07:50

Here's my first image from this camera, taken with the Rapid Symmetrical lens and using Ilford Multigrade MGIV as a paper negative. The negative was developed in Caffenol.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Greenhouse_1000px.jpg
Views: 86
Size: 58.1 KB
ID: 101056

**John Kasaian** · 30-Aug-2013, 12:45

Originally Posted by vickersdc

Here's my first image from this camera, taken with the Rapid Symmetrical lens and using Ilford Multigrade MGIV as a paper negative. The negative was developed in Caffenol.

Cool!

**rknewcomb** · 30-Aug-2013, 15:58

It does indeed look like you know what you're doing.
Nice image!
Robert N.

**vickersdc** · 1-Sep-2013, 09:42

I've been doing some testing today to try and ascertain the speed rating for the paper negatives - and I think it's about EI1.5 (I say that as I'm working on Weston units and it's around 1 Weston). I also wanted to try and increase the contrast a little as I'm using Caffenol to develop the negatives.

Anyhow, after taking a few pictures round the garden, I decided to take the camera down to a very small stream that runs near to here, it's quite overgrown and I just wanted to try a 'real world' test with that brass Rapid Symmetrical lens...

Click image for larger version.

Name: At the bottom of the steps 1200px.jpg
Views: 33
Size: 104.9 KB
ID: 101143

I'd set the camera up under a particularly horrible concrete bridge, standing in the water got the frame I wanted then calculated the exposure to be 2 minutes at f22, put the filters in place, inserted the film holder, got myself sorted and exposed the paper neg by removing the lens cap. About 25-30 seconds in, I realised that I hadn't actually set the lens to f22 but left it at f8.

As it turned out, I shot a second time (this time 'properly') and the best negative was the one that I'd got 'wrong' (the image above is from the 'wrong' neg). Now I'm not suggesting that this is a great image, but it was fun to get out with the camera and try it out

**Plungefrog** · 1-Sep-2013, 09:55

Originally Posted by vickersdc

I've been doing some testing today to try and ascertain the speed rating for the paper negatives - and I think it's about EI1.5 (I say that as I'm working on Weston units and it's around 1 Weston). I also wanted to try and increase the contrast a little as I'm using Caffenol to develop the negatives.

Anyhow, after taking a few pictures round the garden, I decided to take the camera down to a very small stream that runs near to here, it's quite overgrown and I just wanted to try a 'real world' test with that brass Rapid Symmetrical lens...

I'd set the camera up under a particularly horrible concrete bridge, standing in the water got the frame I wanted then calculated the exposure to be 2 minutes at f22, put the filters in place, inserted the film holder, got myself sorted and exposed the paper neg by removing the lens cap. About 25-30 seconds in, I realised that I hadn't actually set the lens to f22 but left it at f8.

As it turned out, I shot a second time (this time 'properly') and the best negative was the one that I'd got 'wrong' (the image above is from the 'wrong' neg). Now I'm not suggesting that this is a great image, but it was fun to get out with the camera and try it out

Perhaps it's just me but I can see a demonic figure at the bottom left of the image. The gap of light in the tree base is his nose, then you can see his ear to the left, a suggestion of demonic shaded eyes and finally the folded wing in the foreground. I just can't unsee it now!

p.s I do like the image, demon or no demon!