Jump to content

ed_farmer

Members
  • Posts

    865
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

269 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The hood is the FIRST suggestion but you also need to make sure that there is no filter on the front of the lens since you say that you used the same hood on another of the same lens. Even at that, you need to make sure that both of those lenses were of the same vintage since small changes happen all of the time. You MAY find that you can see this through the viewfinder if you stop the lens down or that it might disappear as you open the aperture.
  2. I used Quantums for YEARS and never saw this. I don't believe it's the battery though. Its most likely the light. But, what are you using to trigger it? The problem could also be there.
  3. No. The two films are NOT similar. Plus-X has always been known as a fine grained, smooth, film. Not so much a Pan-F but very nice. Tri-X has always been a staple and used to be considered "high speed". It's now known more for grit and grain. Both have always been great films with very different feels.
  4. The right side is pretty clearly the shutter hanging up. Nothing to do with development. The "noise" on the left is clearly just the edge of the image area on the film. You say that this a refurbished camera? The shutter issue might clear up with some use but it could also be on it's way out.
  5. Only one image is shown . . . Are the defects in the same place on the two frames?
  6. While this CAN be true, it isn't always. Scientists working in a lab aren't photographers shooting in the wild and printing in their darkrooms. Things like acuity and "local" contrast differences created by different developer formulations can create many differences even if subtly seen. I liked TMax Developer for TMX. I never liked TMY for anything. But, I did shoot TMZ at EI 25,000 and process in TMax to make some beautiful portraits.
  7. If your film edges are not solidly dark, you can only have one of a few problems: First, you may be under developing which could be improper dilution, poor temperature control, poor agitation or old developer. Second, the problem could be your film stock. I've never seen poor latent image retention with Tri-X but today, it's possible that you are using very old stock that may, or may not, have been properly stored despite what you have been told about it. Third, as noted elsewhere, there have been several slightly different versions of Tri-X. I don't remember how different processing times were but you need make sure that you are using time/temp for correct version. I can't think of much else . . . but . . . I just reread the thread before hitting submit . . . Yes, over fixing CAN reduce density. Fixer is supposed to remove the unexposed silver only but if left too long (standard fix time in rapid fixer?)
  8. "Run and gun" doesn't work at weddings. The culling/editing will kill you and it isn't needed. Learn to shoot to capture the expressions. Practice. When I first started shooting weddings (1996), I shot with an RB-67 and the studio I worked for promised 140 proofs to choose from. They used to complain when I came back with 180. When I moved on to shoot for myself, I usually came back with about 400-500 images (on film). Keep in mind, every shot COST me one dollar for file, processing and a 4x5 inch proof. As I moved to digital, the number grew from about 600 to about 1200 for most jobs. Today, I rarely go over about 1000. Clients don't want to go through that many images. One studio that I worked with promised, in their advertising, 600 pictures. They sent to shoot a wedding at a small venue. There was no bridal party, only about 25 guests and, although there was a DJ, NOBODY on the dance floor all afternoon. The groom had no patience for pictures and was not cooperative at all. I came back with about 400 images, many of them showing the entire room at the reception with nothing happening. Two weeks later, the bride wrote a complain letter to the studio about the number of pictures. I think that they were forced to give her a few hundred dollars back. After that, the shooters there made CERTAIN to come up with 600 until they removed the number from their literature. I remember shooting 75 pictures of the empty dance floor or shooting 20 of each bridal party pose at small events. At no time, did I even work toward or offer my clients any maximum or minimum number. What I always told clients was, "I shoot what's required to cover your wedding. I can't promise that I will shoot 500 images at a small event and I can't limit myself 1000 at a huge event." Shoot what you need. Don't overshoot any one thing. People notice. But, make sure that you have a picture of everything that anyone paid for. Food, flowers, details on dresses, invitations, church programs, kids in tuxes, rings, ice sculptures, limos . . .
  9. I wouldn't jump into the mirrorless system until you are sure that it offers you something more than extra battery consumption. Go get a used D850 and see if it meets your needs. High ISO acceptability is VERY subjective and you are the only one who can say what will meet your needs. Plus, if it doesn't work for you, you will not take a bath if you decide to sell for another choice.
  10. Too some extent, as I remember, much of this is going to depend on the scene. Over exposing should add detail in your shadows and pull processing should increase detail in your highlights. But, if you don't have a scene with much of either, you will not see much of a difference. On another point, how well controlled and known are your starting points? It may be that your "pull" processing is still completely developing the film? If that's the case, your overexposure is just producing a denser negative. I did B&W for many years and creating flatter negatives was never my problem. I was always looking for more contract that I could then tame iin the printing.
  11. This is a direct positive B&W film so filters will act backwards. With reversal film, a red filter darks blue so here, blue darkens blue. The effect is surprisingly strong! I don't think that a red filter would have given the same response with any film that I have shot. I like the effect and can see where the buildings aren't lit by the same sky that's in the image. They are lit by light coming from behind the camera. I would try to dodge the roof and dark side of the windmill in the first picture and see if there is more detail there. It also looks just a little out of kilter. The second picture really only interests me because of the sky. The building is a bit of a bore. I like these very much. You don't see images like this in the digital age. The strong effect is reminiscent of a different time.
  12. I've been shooting Nikon since 1978. If I was starting today, I would probably end up with Canons. Not because they are better but because their marketing is better. I have always advised that people start out with Canon or Nikon. I always get a lot of pushback on that. The reason is that the farther you go into photography as a hobby or a profession, the more diverse your needs become. Lenses, flashes and bodies start to pile up. As you learn and your photography grows "kit" lenses no longer fill the bill. The current Nikon and Canon lines (particularly when you get into the third party manufacturers) fill almost every need. the used market in these systems has everything that you need. It's not that Sony, Panasonic, Pentax, et al. don't make quality gear. It's that quality gear for these two manufactures in everywhere.
  13. Called . . . No go . . . 25 sheets at a time. Over $1100 + shipping . . .
×
×
  • Create New...