josepmiro

Josep, cu᮴es vegades has demanat inspecci� manual y han acceptat?

Yo no ho he aconseguit MAI.

En quins aeroports has aconseguit inspecci� manual?. En el meu cas, no ho he aconseguit cap vegada al Prat, a Girona, a Carcassone, a Paris, a Stansted, a Heathrow ni a Nova York. Es una q�esti� de mala sort per part meva o potser es que el teu cas ha estat un fet puntual que es dona una vegada de cada 100?

For shooting landscapes or other subjects iluminated by full moon light (with no moon on the photo), you have to consider that moonlight is a fraction of 1/250000 respect sun light. In terms of stops, it's equivalent to 18 stops.

It's important to adjust the long exposure acordly to the film manufacturer specifications. There are big differences between different types of film. For example, TMAX need much less adjustement that TXP.

Example: if a landscape needs 1/1000 sec. at f22, with full moon light, it needs 18 stops more: 1 second at f2.8

If the result were more than one second, you should adjust depending on the film used.

I've used TXP320 with PMK and stains very well, although my favourite combination is HP5+ in PMK

FP4+ y HP5+ son mis pelí£µlas preferidas. Con FP4+ he usado durante mucho tiempo Ilfosol-S así £omo Rodinal... hasta que descubrí �MK, basado en Pyrogallol. Con este tipo de reveladores, ademá³ de conseguir densidad por la propia plata de la emulsi�n, se consigue tambié® por la oxidaci�n de la gelatina, la cual es proporcional a la cantidad de plata. Hasta ahora, no he probado ning�n otro revelador que me dé µnos resultados tan buenos como PMK.

Try Microphen

"For the record there are no customs between Andorra and either France or Spain"

 

This is not true at all.

I think you, Craig and PCB, are totaly wrong with your answers.

 

It seems that you didn't read the original question of the thread but... you have no problem in saying that my answer is "unsubstantiated".

 

Have you ever thought that, perhaps, the unsubstantiated are you, my friends?

 

In Spanish is said: "que valiente es la ignorancia!"

 

Regards,

Josep

In Kodak website, there's another link about scanners at the airports:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml#SEC43

XTOL is a solvent developer that gives reasonable sharpness and fine grain but, if you want more sharpness I think you should consider a non solvent developer.

Tetenal Neofin Blau or Pyro-PMK or other Pyro developers give high acutance with good shadow detail.

The answer of your question is clearly Ilfosol-S. It's a very good developer for acutance and works very well in HP5+ if you don't mind grain.

 

Pyro developers work also very well with HP5+. Neofin Blau is also a high acutance developer (more than Ilfosol-S or Rodinal)

I don't think there's a look of the 60's. At that time, there were, as nowadays, many combinations of cameras, lenses, developers and films and there were also a lot of photographers with different tastes about composition, light, etc.

My choice would be Apo-Symmar 110mm.

I have one and is my favourite for some reasons: moderate wide angle, good depth of field, very good coverture (near 8x10) and, the best, high sharpness not only in the center of the image.

"Wash aids are almost a necessity for fiber based papers, no matter which type of fixer you choose"

 

I don't agree with this statement. Hypo clearing agents are ineffective and unnecessary with alkaline fixers (TF-3, TF4, ...)

Washaid is useful and reccomended with "regular" fixer and with rapid fixer also.

 

The only fixers that don't need washaid are the alkaline fixers as, for example TF4 sold by Photographers formulary.

I think there has been a misundestanding with my previous posts. I was responding to the original question: "Safe to transport black & white film in CHECK IN LUGGAGE?".

 

I'm not a native English speaker and, perhaps, I'm wrong, but I understand that CHECK-IN LUGGAGE is the one that is allocated in the cellar of the plane, outside the cabin.

 

So, for this reason, I was referring to scanners that are for the luggage allocated outside the cabin.

 

After reading your comments, I realise that, perhaps, I misunderstood the meaning of "CHECK-IN LUGGAGE". I'm sorry if this is the case. I didn't want to create any confusion.

 

Thanks,

Josep

Here you are a link to ilford web page with this content:

 

"AIRPORT SECURITY: PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM

The very recent changes in airport security requirements mean that under the present circumstances, films cannot now be carried on board the aircraft. However, as a reminder, we do not recommend placing film in checked luggage. Extensive testing carried out by the industry, and with the cooperation of the security authorities, has shown that all films, colour and B&W, stand a strong chance of being severely fogged after passing through the scanners currently in use in airports around the world for checked luggage. As a result we strongly advise customers wherever possible to purchase film at their destination and have it processed locally."

 

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/faqentries.asp?n=15&t=Airport+Security

Here you are another link of a big scanner for containers. It works with high power X-Ray

 

http://www.dsxray.com/cargoscreen/cx-450p.htm

Not all the scanners at the airports are of the same type and not all the airports have the same degree of security. For this reason, many times, you will not have a problem with the film but one time, it will.

 

Here you are an example of a new type of scanner that, perhaps, is working in some airports of the world:

 

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2003/06/26/news/nation/nat01.txt

A positive experience does not imply that next time will be the same. Scanners at the airports can be adjusted at different scales of power; it depends on the critery of the person who is checking. At the maximum power, even an EI 25 film can be totally fogged.

I recently switched from Rodinal and XTOL to PMK. I think PMK is much better if you want rich gradation. PMK is superb in midtones and highlights.

TXP 320 gives more than normal contrast and is designed for portraits in studio or with very controlled light conditions, although can be a very good film for outdoors if light is not too hard. I would not reccomend it for outdoors in Italy (days are very very sunny there)

I don't think is a good idea to use a colour filter for reducing light. Neutral density filters are created for this functionallity.

In your case, if you don't have neutral density filters, I'd reccomend to expose at EI of 800 or 1000 and decrease a little the development time (about 20 or 30 %, although I can't say exactly because I've never used fuji whith HC110).

The problem you report about infra-red is VERY different because standard light meters don't measure IR light

I can't say in 120 but in 4x5 sheets, I tried ADOX 100 in PMK with very good results: great gradations, detailed highlights and quite detailes shadows. It can be compared with FP4+, except for the grain, that is more noticeable in ADOX (but no problem in 4x5).

I normally shoot FP4+, HP5+, TMAX-100 and TMAX-400 and my preferred developers

are Rodinal, Ilfosol-S, Neofin Blue and XTOL and I'm satisfied with the

results.

Last week, I bought a kit of PMK developer, that I never tried before, and I

souped T-MAX 100 and ADOX 100 in 4x5 sheets, and FP4+ and HP5+ in 120.

I used the standard recommended times and dilution, with no previous tests,

and shoot film at nominal speed (EI 100 for 100TMAX and ADOX, EI 400 for HP5+

and EI 125 for FP4+).

I did landscapes in high contrast light and other not so contrasty, and I also

made some portraits in studio.

The results were MUCH better than I expected. ALL of the photos have full

tonal scale, quite detailed shadows and highlights (not burned at all), and

GREAT MIDTONES!!!

I'm very excited with PMK!

I'm thinking about using it as a general purpose developer but I'm not decided

to do it because I don't have much experience and, on the other hand, I don't

see much threads talking about it.

Any of you is using normally PMK? Are there any problem that I don't know?...

Please, let me know your experiences with it.

Thanks,

Josep

First of all, you have to answer this question: What type of contrast do you want to achieve, microcontrast or macrocontrast?