allen_friday

The processes you want to try, cyanotype, salt print, etc. are contact processes only. The two main reasons are 1) the emulsions are only sensitive to UV light and 2) the emulsions are very slow. A silver gelitin paper is somewhere on the magnitude of 1,000,000 times faster than the processes you mention. It is almost imposible to get that much light through an enlarger--although Durst makes one that cost $20,000 that will print platinum.

 

The UV light mentioned above is for silver chloride paper (azo), which is slower than silver gelitin, but not nearly as slow as platinum or salt prints. The UV light is specially manufatured in the UV spectrum to match the sensitivity of Azo. It is not recommended for other processes.

I have seen many beautiful medium format negtives contact printed. There are several threads regarding contact printing medium format on the Michael and Paula Smith web site.

 

You are just learning. You will learn as much from printing the small negs as from printing bigger ones. Plus, you will use fewer chemicals with the small negs. Alterntive processes are dependent on using a properly exposed and developed negatives. Why complicate the learning process by adding a layer of complexity--i.e. enlarging negs--when you don't yet know what a good alternative process negative looks like.

 

My advice: Learn the processes with small negs. Then you can learn to make enlarged negs later on. There are two good articles on the B&S web site about making enlarged negs using different types of film. Once you have the process nailed, go to that site and try enlarging negs.

I got my last batch from Fred Newman at the view camera store.

 

I have learned in ULF to always plan ahead. The film may not be available when you need it. Order a year's supply and freeze that which you are not using now. In 6 months, order another year's supply.

On my bookshelf I have a copy of "Nude: Theory", published by Lustrum in 1979. It contains essay by Manual Alvarez Brovo, Harry Callahan, Helmut Newton and others. Edited by Jain Kelly. I thought you might find some of Helmut Newton's comments interesting.

 

 

"I chose the model for the particular series of photographs because her body is sensational. It's very much a fashion body. It seems to be made to draw or to put an elegant dress on. It wouldn't have done to use a woman with a very lush body. I was interested in the archtecture or the studio where I made the pictures, and this woman fits the archetecture. Spare, very spare. The shape of the body and the shapes in the studio reflect each other." p. 153.

 

The shooting was done in winter, when her skin was very white. Whenever I do fashion photographs, I have a make-up artist put cream on the woman whereever a bit of shoulder or arm is exposed. We got an extra glow to this woman's skin by creaming the entire body, even the daylight pictures. The cream gives a kind of richness to the skin, a luminousity." p. 155.

 

"I used a Pentax with a 40mm lens, which I consider a perfect focal length. There is no distortion because the center of the lens is about the level of her belly button." p. 157.

 

"The film I use is Tri-X exposed at 400 ASA. If I have very bright sunlight with a lot of speed left over, then it is beautiful to make negatives at an exposure index of 200, which is much better. Personally, I don't like to see grain in a photograph...especially on nudes." p. 157.

 

"Besides speed, Tri-X is good for the shadows. They don't get too hard, too contrasty. If I do need a little contrast in the shadows, I can always get it in the final print.

 

"I like to expose and develop normally. Everything is done by the book." p. 157.

 

"As a rule, I use an orange filter the moment I get in sunshine...The orange filter helps the skin look smoother and suppresses minor blemishes. I just have to be careful that the lips don't go too pale...I don't think there is ever any point in putting a filter on when there is flat light." p. 162.

 

"When I look at my photographs, I would say that generally my shootings are completely controlled...The perfect picture is a controlled snapshot that does not Look as if it is controlled or contrived." p. 162.

I flew into Heatrow a few weeks ago, and they did not x-ray the film on arrival. I flew out of CDG in Paris, and they hand inspected my 3200 medium format film with out any problem. They were much nicer than alot of the US inspectors. I go to Paris about once a year, and I have never had it x-rayed on arrival.

 

On a side note, I did have my bags x-rayed upon arrival in Chicago by the custom's sevice. They were looking for agricultural products. I just pulled my plastic bag with my high speed film out and showed it to the customs agent and he let me hand carry it around the x-ray.

You have hit the two most likely reasons for the uneven density on the edge of the negative. In my photography, I have noticed that the problem is more pronounced the larger the format I use.

 

If you saw the 11x14 contact prints reproduced in the last issue of Lenswork, the edge effects are very pronounced. I would have cropped the negative.

 

The problem is often light reflecting off the edge of the film holder. It will be more noticable on one or two edges than around the entire film.

 

My solution was to closely inspect the edges of the film holder. If they are 90 degrees to the film, you get more reflection onto the film than with an angled edge. I have a number of S&S holders, which are made of a cream colored wood. I painted the edges with a flat black model paint and that took care of the worst of the reflection.

If you are really interested in Mortensen's lighting methods, check out his book "Pictorial Lighting", 1936. I have a copy on my sshelf at home and it is very interesting. Also, there was an article on Mortensen lighting in Phototechniques a few years ago. You can pick up a copy of his book for $10 at abebooks.com.

"The New Platinum Print"--get it from B&S. Very practical and straight forward. It will save you hours of frustration.

I have used the Berrger BPF 200 developed in ABC for about a year now. I like most things about the film, except for the quality control. I have had a significant number of negs with flaws in the emulsion. As soon as I shoot my remaining supply, I will be searching for a new film.

The January/February issue of View Camera Magazine has an aricle by Brad Hinkel that covers this very topic. The article is reproduced on his website, www.bradhinkel.com. The instructions are pretty easy to follow if you have a good background in photoshop. it also helps if you have read Dan Burkholter's book.

 

The keys to producing negs on your desk top is to use a printer that has pigment inks, I use the epson 2200. And the neg material is key. The Pictorico Hi-Gloss White Film mentioned in the article is very good. You can order from their website. Just type Pictorico into google.

I have been using a tray like you describe for several years now. They provide very even development with a minimum of hassel. Since I started using the tray, the number of scratches on my negs has dropped to near zero. What I do is place the schlosser in a tray of water and then add my negatives, emulsion up, one by one directly from the film holders. Once they are loaded, I rock the schlosser around for thirty seconds and then move to the developer tray. Once in the developer, I gently rock the tray for the first thirty seconds and then for five seconds every thirty seconds thereafter. At the end of each agitation, I grab the tray in the middly and wiggle it back and forth for a second or two. The wiggle is key. The holes in the bottom are to make sure the film dosen't stick to the bottom of the tray. When I move from water to developer, I poke my finger through each hole to make sure the film is loose. Also, when putting the tray into chemicals, press it straight down with some force. This shoots chemical through the holes and makes sure the film is floating free. I have two such trays, so I can develop 12 sheets at a time. One will be in the fix when I start the second tray into the developer.

I have scanned numerous 4x5 glass negs on my Epson 2450. I laid the glass neg on top of the 4x5 film holder provided and it worked great. Clean the negs first with a standard film cleaner if they are dirty. Mine were very scratched, so the healing brush and clone tools quickly became my best friends.

One other point: Use a yellow filter to bring out the texture of the snow. The shadows on snow, even the little ones that show texture, are blue in color. By using the yellow filter, the local contrast increases.

Go to the B&S website and read the articles there on using lito and other films for making enlarged negs. Also, the book "The New Platinum Print" form B& S has a terrific section on how to fine tune enlarged negs using step wedges instead of a densitometer to tweek exposure and deveolpment.

Kodak Tri-X, 320, with filter same color as foliage you wish to stand out.

Get Johnson's book, "The Practical Zone System. It is well written, has good examples and is pretty easy to follow. IMHO the best intro to the zone system there is.

 

Allen

I have a 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 camera. I would like an 11x14 camera, but

I don't want to spent $$$$ to purchase one, given that it will have

limited use. Consequently, I have been toying with the idea of

building a back for my 8x10 camera that will accommodate 11x14 film.

 

Yesterday, I build a mock-up of my design using my 4x5 camera and my

8x10 back. I used a cardboard box for the main body of the new

camera. It worked fine. I could use the movements of my 4x5 camera

but shoot on 8x10 film.

 

The mock-up encouraged me that I am not totally crazy.

 

Has anyone tried something similar. Does anyone

manufacture "expansion backs." I have never seen one in the

literature

There is a learning curve to large format, but, if you are well versed in general photography, you will have most of it licked. One peice of advice in learning large format: when learning to use camera movements, shoot polaroid film. You can immediately see the results of each movement and you will save hours developing film. If you are learning 8x10, use RC printing paper instead of film. Open up 3-4 stops and shoot away. Develop in regular paper developer and contact print. It will save time and money. Before long you will have the movements down and can move on to regular film.

I do a fair amount of photography under low light. I shoot at concerts, football games, plays etc. for a local high school. I have adopted the following proceedure: when you arrive at the bar, set you camera to the aperature that you want to use, determine and set on your camera the minimum shutter speed you want. You then determine the film speed by varying the ISO setting on your camera. When your meter tells you that you can get the shot, you have a minimum film speed determined. You can then pick the film that will give you the astetic result you want.

 

For example, on Friday, I took photos of our local marching band performing at half time. I was using a 28-200 zoom. I wanted to keep the shutter at 250 for static subjects and I wanted to use f5.6 to keep the subject sharp but the background out of focus. Under the stadium lighting, I needed a film rated at 1600. I had two choices, Ilford delta 400 uprated to 1600 or Delta 3200 down rated. I shot two rolls of 400 film at 1600 ( I have found I prefer uprating the 400 to downrating the 3200 from past shoots under like circumstances.) I then switched to Delta 3200, rated at 6400, to give me grain and a "puncy" look. The rolls look very different, but both turned out as expected. The decision on which film to use was based on experience and determined by what I was trying to accomplish: normal looking (albeit slighly elevated grain and contrast) from the 400 speed film and gritty negs fromt the 3200 rated at 6400.

Wayne,

 

I have been doing both Ziatype and DOP prints for two years now. I must tell you up front that I now do almost all DOP prints. I just like the color and feel of the DOP prints better. Nevertheless, I think you would be wise to start out with the Ziatype.

 

Order the kit from B&S. Also get the book "the New Platinum Print" from B&S. Read it a couple of times before you start. It will save you hours of frustration. You should also get a glass coating rod. The brush marks on a print look better, but the glass rod approach is easier to get consistent results and you use less coating.

 

I did almost all Ziatypes until I got a UV light box. For me the DOP process was too hard to monitor using the sun. Even waiting a half hour between exposures could dramatically alter the printing time. The Ziatype, being POP, is much easier to monitor. With the light box, I know the exposures will be consistent each time, so I can use the DOP approach.

 

I still use Ziatypes when I want a very neutral color print. Also, I do print Extravatypes on occasion, which is a hybrid DOP and POP process, using chemicals from both sets.

 

I love the color of the Cranes paper, but I only use it for 4x5 prints because it is thin and fragile. I use plantine on all larger prints.

 

You also should consider getting step wedges for testing you negs and paper. It is all explained in "the New Platinum Print."

 

Happy printing.

I always find it interesting in these forums that people who have

never tried a product have very definite opinions on them, e.g "So

what, no lense can resolve that fine.." I don't really care much

for lab tests, other than as a rough guide line because different

companies use different standards and comparing the final results is

a bit like apples and oranges. I do care about what I can see on

the negtive and on the final print!

 

<p>

 

I purchased 10 rolls of 35 gigabit and 50 sheets of 4x5 film. I

ordered from photoimpx from their US web site. Here are my

observations:

 

<p>

 

I have shot 35 or so of the 4x5 negs. I am currently working on a

project to photograph the rural churches, school houses and meeting

houses in the county in which I live. As a test for Gigabit, I shot

it along side Kodak T-max 100 and Delta 100.

 

<p>

 

I started using the gigabit developed with the supplied developer.

The negs look very thin but print fine using an enlarger. They are

not very good for contact prints.

 

<p>

 

From my side by side comparisons, I found I like Gigabit better than

the Kodak oor Ilford in contrasty situations. The Gigabit has a

very long stright line. I can "overexpose" one stop, keep the

highlights on the straight potion of the curve and still get good

shadow detail. With the Delta and Kodak film, I get almost no

shadow detail or blow the highlights, or I have to use n-

development to keep them on the straight one. I took three

negatives of a church, only the gigabit showes detail in the stained

glass window which was partially in the shade.

 

<p>

 

I have shot kodak Tech film in the past and I have never liked the

tone or lack of edge sharpness. In the past, fine grain=low edge

acutance. Gigabit film is a quantum leap forward in this regard. I

have found excellent tone even in large prints.

 

<p>

 

I have started making contact platinum prints from the gigabit

film. I develop the negs in PMK pyro, however. I followed the

instructions for n+ development for Kodak Tech Pan film from

Hutchins Complete book of pyro. It worked very well for the gigabit

film. The gigabit film, developed in pyro, delivers very good

contact prints, it allows more seperation in the highlights--perfect

for platinum prints--than delta 100 or T-max, but retains much more

detail in the shadows.

 

<p>

 

I have not swithed completely to gigabit because of its low speed

and high cost. But for the very contrasty scene, it is my 'go to

film." I hope they bring it out in roll film and 8x 10.

Stop worrying. The main reason medium format is "better" than 35 is it produces a larger negative. Larger negatives mean more information and the ability to make larger prints with out loss of detail or tone.

 

The advantage continues in digital. I scan my negatives to into the computer. The larger negative means a larger file size and better prints.

 

What happens if film becomes obsolete? First, until digital becomes archival, it won't be obsolete. Second, as digital sensors become cheaper, they will get more and more use. The medium format camera will still be better than the 35 because a 6x6 or 6x7 film/sensor area will still provide more info than one the size of a 35 neg (24x 36 mm). The current sensors are all smaller than a 35 neg. Ten years from now the technology will be better and sensor size will be matched to the size of the camera. A medium format camera will have a larger sensor area than for a 35--hence we will have come full circle. Larger format equals larger film or more mega pixels of info than from a 35.

Until 14 months ago, a Hassy 501cm was my "go to" camera. Nevertheless, like you, I wanted something lighter and easier to use for candid situations. I rented both the Mamiya 7 II and the Pentax 67 for a couple of week ends before buying. I decided on the M7 II and have been very happy with it. It is now my "go to" camera--I leave the Hassy in the studio.

 

My main reasons for going with the Mamiya over the Pentax were: 1. Size and convience in shooting. The Pentax looks like a 35, but it is bulky and a pain to carry about. My mamiya (with lens) weights about the same as my Nikon F-100. 2. The M7II has better lenses. The rangefinder lenses do not have to make compromises for a mirror. The quality really shows up on the wider angle lenses. 3. The Pentax shutter and mirror are noisy and shake the camera. With the Mamiya, I can use a slower film and hand hold at much slower speeds than with the Pentax. I can shoot the Mamiya in a theater and not have everyone turn and look at me. The Mamiya is not as quite as a Leica, but it is much quiter than the Hassy or Pentx.

 

There are draw backs to the Mamiya. 1. it has a limited number of lenses. I use the 65, 80 and 150. The 150 is a little bit hard to focus in low light. Focusing with the rangefinder is different from focusing with a SLR. Not better, not worse, just different. I have to think about focus when ever I switch back and forth between the M7 and my Hassy or F-100. Since you already use medium format, you should have a good idea whether the few number of lenses will greatly limit your photography. 2. The Mamiya does not have TTL mettering. Frankly, I have not found this to be a problem. You do have to think a bit more in setting up your flash unit, but once properly set, it is a breeze to use.

 

If you are looking for a lighter, easier to use camera, the Mamiya is probably the way to go. If you decide you need more lenses and have to have an SLR, perhaps you should consider a pentaprism for your Hassy and adding a TTL meter to it. This could save you a boat load of money. The Pentax is a great camera, but it is bulky. I didn't find much advantage to it over my Hassy.

I just started using Ortho film for the positive and Arista APHS

litho film for the final neg. The final neg is developed in PMK Pyro

developer. The results are fabulous.

 

<p>

 

There are two papers posted on the Bostich & Sullivan website

detailing exposure and development times for you to start with. The

main advantage of using litho film is the relative cheap cost

compared to conventional film.

Murry,

 

<p>

 

The platinum process used most often actually contains palladium, or

a mix of platinum and palladium. Either way, the paper is coated

using a brush or coating rod.

 

<p>

 

The negatives used for this process can be in camera negs or enlarged

negs. The main problem with using negs developed to print on silver

paper is that the pt/pl process needs much more dense negatives to

take full advantage of the extended tonal range of the process.

 

<p>

 

I make enlarged negatives from 6x7 negs by making a 4x5 positive on

ortho film and then make the final contact neg using lith film

developed in PMK Pyro. All this sounds complicated, but it really

isn't that hard if you want to do some research.

 

<p>

 

If you want to get into this process, go to Bostich & Sullivan on the

web. They offer kits to get you started. They have a Ziatype kit,

which is a Print out Process using platinum or palladium. They also

have the book, The New Platinum Print which is an excellent guide to

making your first neg and print. I also recommend you order step

wedges from them so you can fine tune your begs without the hassel

and cost of always printing them to see the result. The people at B

& S are a wealth of information on all sorts of alternative or

historical processes and they have the chemicals you need.