allen_friday

<p>I shoot mostly tri-x and love the look of the film. But, I have never shot it at 3200 for general photographic work. Why don't you just order a 3200 speed film? You can get either Kodak or Ilford films in 3200. Either will give you much better results for general photography than pushing a 400 speed film to 3200. The 3200 speed films can be developed in D-76 with good results. I use D-76 exclusively.</p>

<p>As for shipping costs, you would only have a normal shipping charge when ordering only film. There is nothing hazardous about film. You could continue to buy the D-76 locally. Cost wise, I think you will be ahead by ordering a higher speed film and using it as designed, as opposed to trying to force the 400 speed film to fit your requirements. You state you are new to all this. I recommend that you learn to use the materials as designed before experimenting with pushing and pulling. You may spend a few extra dollars on shipping in the short run, but you will learn how to make good prints much faster and save money in the long run. </p>

<p>Find the book "Into Your Darkroom Step by Step." It gives detailed instructions on developing film, including a complete list of chemicals you will need, and illustrates the way to do it, step by step.</p>

<p>It sounds good to me. The bottles, trays, etc. can easily add up to more than $50. No matter what you do with the rest of the equipment. </p>

<p>My first enlarger was a 1940s Kodak enlarger. I made some great images with it. I later upgraded, more for convenience and to print larger negatives than because of quality concerns. I would go for it. </p>

<p>This process is called solarisation, and is sometimes referred to as the Sabitter Effect (sometimes spelled with only one "t"). There are numerous articles on controlling the effect on the net. You might check out "unblinking eye" for some pretty detailed work on the process. It could save you a lot of time. </p>

<p>Your basic approach is right on. You need to expose the film to light before it is fixed. This can be done by simply turning on the lights while the film is still in the developer, or by stopping the developer, flashing the film and then redeveloping. <br>

When I've done this in the past, I would develop the negative for X minutes, flash, finish development then stop and fix. </p>

<p>I shoot a Mamiya 7II when traveling. Excellent camera.</p>

<p>For hand holding, I use faster film rather than pushing the limits of how steady I can hold the camera. Also, I generally carry a small tripod. The camera has no mirror. By using the camera's self timer, I can get great, vibration free photographs on a cheap, easy to carry tripod. </p>

<p>I had a Hasselblad but sold it after getting the Mamiya. The Hasselblad is a great camera also. I just prefer the Mamiya. A good friend of mine had exactly the opposite experience. He tried my Mamiya for a week end trip and decided to buy a Hasselblad. If you can, try renting both to see which fits the way you shoot and fits your vision. </p>

 

<p>Yep, read the book and then decide. Light Science and Magic is the one lighting book every photographer should read. It will answer your questions and give you a lot of other ideas on how to shoot watches and jewelry.</p>

<p>I have two timers in my darkroom and several pieces of glow in the dark tape stuck in strategic places around the darkroom. (The tape helps to cut down on bruised shins and bumped heads). I have never had a problem fogging film. My timers are about six feet from where I develop film. I have heard, but not tested, that as long as the timers are over four feet from the film, there shouldn't be a problem with fogging. </p>

<p>When loading holders, I do turn the timers around so they face the wall or I cover them with a towel. I don't know if this is necessary, but I haven't had a problem with fogging doing it and it is easy to do, so why change? </p>

<p>I just typed "paper negative" into the search function here on photo.net and came up with 10 pages of posts. I suppose we can describe how to reinvent the wheel, or you could actually read the posts that have been made already. </p>

<p>I disagree with Bruce Cahn. <br>

I don't think the photographic skills of the general public have improved at all. What has gotten "better" is the automation and the public's ability to buy higher quality cameras because of the automation. Years ago the general public shot a Kodak Brownie, "You press the button, we do the rest." The general public moved on to instamatic cameras, but they were still a PHD camera--press here dummy. Today, the general public shoots digital point and shoots or digital SLRs. But how many general photographers know how to shoot in any thing other than program mode? The only thing most general photographers knows how to do is to point, press the button half way to focus and then press the button to expose. A sophisticated member of the general public may even turn the dial a bit to a flower for close ups or a running figure for sports photography. Does turning the dial really add up to improved photographic skills? </p>

<p>Give a member of the general public a manual camera and see if they can make a good exposure. Most general photographers don't know an aperture from the shutter speed. As long as the results look pretty good, they're happy. Ask the general public to shoot with a shallow depth of field and how many would have a clue how to do that? </p>

<p>Let's stat by talking about how the civil war era photos were taken. The photographer would have used the wet plate, collodion process. Wet plates are sensitive to UV and the extreme blue end of the spectrum. The photos were probably taken in a daylight studio, a studio with large north facing windows to let in the sun light. Hence the "soft" diffused lighting and shallow depth of field. Also, most cameras of that era used very simple lenses with wide apertures. A wet plate has an effective ISO of around 1, so they needed a lot of light to make an exposure without movement or blur. (The photos also could have been taken outside, with a backdrop and a canopy over the subject to diffuse the light. Richard Avedon used a similar set up in his American West shoot. Although, the example you posted looks like it was in studio.) </p>

<p>Now, how can you recreate the above. One way would be to actually shoot wet plate collodion. I do this and the results are unique, but the process is time consuming and there is a long learning curve. Studio lights are worthless for collodion, however. You would need sunlight.</p>

<p>Another way to get close to the look is to shoot ortho or lith film, a film that is only sensitive to blue light. Freestyle has these types of film in stock and their website has instructions for developing the film to get a full scale negative. This film will get you close to the tonality of the wet plates. Combine that with a period lens and very soft lighting and you should get close. Using studio lights, you will need to make them as big as you can, very large soft boxes at a minimum. or you could bounce light off the walls and ceiling if you have white walls. The windows in civil war studios usually covered the whole wall and were angled back at the top to take up part of the ceiling.</p>

<p>The next step would be to print the negative in a manner similar to that used during the civil war. The photos from that time would have been either tintypes, a direct positive on a sheet of tin covered with an asphalt like substance, or a paper print made on albumen paper. The albumen paper has a very distinct look. Untoned, it has an orange cast, toned with gold it will go toward black or purple. You can get close to the look of albumen paper with Ilford warm tone paper toned in selenium. Ilford paper will go toward brown and purple with a strong toning bath and an extended toning time. The tintypes have a coloring similar to modern enlarging papers. </p>

<p>Wet plates also had a very long tonal range. My wet plate negatives print well on platinum or print out paper. To duplicate the look, you will need to develop your film to a long tonal range and print on a soft grade of paper, say grade 0. </p>

<p>Hope that helps. </p>

<p>One that folds multiple times so I could carry it in my shirt pocket. </p>

<p>How about a matchbox pinhole camera. Take a matchbox, put a pinhole on the side and load with a single frame of 35mm film. It should come about to be just slightly larger than the film, or a little bigger than 1 x 1/2 x 1/4 inch. Of course, you will have to change the film in the dark between exposures. This assumes you want to shoot full frame.</p>

<p>I find that most artist statements are meaningless.</p>

<p>My meter gives readings in 1/10 increments also, and I don't find it too big of a deal. Just round off the reading to the nearest setting you have on your lens. If the lens has 1/3 stops, just round it in thirds as Dave Sims describes above. If the lens only has 1/2 stops, round to the nearest 1/2. </p>

<p>Where the 1/10 increments comes in handy is when adjusting lights in a studio. You can really dial in the lights to precise ratios with such a meter.</p>

<p>Carl, I have no recommendations for a lab in NYC, but you should be able to find one. I have found one in Omaha that does great work, and Omaha is a lot smaller than NYC. In general, labs will have one standard developer for all B&W film. If you want to have it developed in something exotic, meaning any developer other than what they regularly use, it will cost extra. I recommend that you shoot several rolls of similarly lit subjects, take them to different labs and see which lab gives you the best results. </p>

<p>Try shooting at 1600 and have it developed for the standard time (as if shot at 3200). You do not need to tell the lab you shot it at 1600, just ask for standard development, which should also be the cheapest development offered. </p>

<p>If you can't get by with 1600, then have the lab develop it for the next higher ISO setting than you use. For example, if you shoot it at 3200, have it developed for the time specified for film shot at 6400. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Okay then, a girlfriend who became his wife and he continued to photograph. Stieglitz and O'Keefe were married in 1924 and remained married until his death, albeit they lived apart at the time of his death. </p>

<p>Perhaps you should take a look at Alfred Stieglitz's photos of O'Keeffe. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep. "Light Science and Magic" will have all the information you need to get going. Save yourself a lot of aggravation and expense by reading it before you start buying equipment. </p>

<p>You might be getting refraction at extremely small apertures. This would cause the problem you describe in the third paragraph of your post. Next time you are out, try shooting the same scene at different apertures and compare the sharpness of the images. Pick a scene with detail throughout the depth of the photo, for example a fence row running over a hill. If nothing else, the exercise will help you to tell how accurate the depth of field scale is on your lens. </p>

<p>I use lavender oil for making the varnish for wet plate negatives. It is not terribly expensive in small quantities. How much do you need to develop a plate? Are you sure you need a gallon? I would check out the process a bit more with the lavender oil to determine quantities needed. If it is like wet plate, you use a very small amount per plate. </p>

<p>The article makes me wonder about some of the posts here on Photonet: "My first wedding shoot is on Saturday, what do I need?" </p>

<p>You should not have taken the traditional B&W film to CVS for 1 hour processing.</p>

<p>CVS should not have tried to process the traditional B&W film. </p>

<p>You were both wrong. Learn from it. But as Randy says, they should give you a replacement roll of film. </p>

<p>Sylvian,</p>

<p>You need to do your research. You are thinking about buying a large format camera, and yet you don't even understand the basics of the two most common designs. Check the archives here on Photonet, google "large format view camera", "large format field camera" and "large format monorail camera." Go to the library and check out the books on large format photography. Yes, there have been entire books written on the subject.<br>

Asking such a general and uninformed question will generate a few quick responses, but it is not a substitute for research. Large format is an expensive undertaking. Save yourself some money and much frustration by reading up on it fully before plunging in. </p>

<p>There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who don't. </p>

<p>"Art and Fear." I re-read it every year or so. </p>