jim_chinn1

Eliminate the acetic stop bath and use water. According to Anchell

and Troop in The Film Dveloping Cookbook an acetic stop used in

combination with a developer containing carbonate such as FX-1 will

lead to pinholes and reticulation and may cause clumping of grain.

They also recommend slightly shorter development times due to the

fact that development will continue for a brief time when water is

first introduced. I changed from acetic to water bath about 5 years

ago and never noticed any change in negative density.

First, i don't know if I would blow air on the film holders once the

film is loaded, because you will probably force any stray dust or

sand accumualted at the top of the darkslide into the film holder.

Second if the conditions are windy, do not remove the darkslide all

the way. I mark mine so i know how far to pull to expose the entire

neg, then slide it back in and put a pice of white tape on the slide

to tell me that the film has been exposed. Third I load my film

holders in the bathroom after I have run a hot shower to eliminate

dust. And finally I built a simple drying tent out of '2x'3 wood

frame from which hangs a shower curtain held in place by velcro and

has a series of wires and clothespins for hanging 12 sheets. After

washing the film i carry it in a tray with the photflo and then pull

them from the tray inside the tent, keeping the negs in the dust free

environment. This may sound totally paranoid, but it has eliminated

99% of dust spots during exposure and processing.

I want to first thank you for all your efforts maintianing the forum.

And I don't think you should change your approach. When i first

started reading these forums I spent a great deal of time reading

through all the archives because of the gold mine of information

there. I have been involved in photography for 17 years and I hope

that the context of any question i ask is unique and relevant.

However, for many newcomers to photography these forums are the only

resource to answer confusing issues. A question that seems painfully

obvious to me may be totally bewildering to a beginner. So I think

we need to have some patience and do one of three things. First we

could answer the question. Second, perhaps the moderator could

provide a stock answer explaining the archives. It may seem obvious

but newbies may not realize it for the resource it is. Third,

instead of being rude, just don't reply to the post.

 

<p>

 

On another thought, I do find it frustrating when someone will post

questions that they should answer themselves through testing and

experimentation. If someone asks me what is the best developer to

use with a particular film, I tell them to buy different developers

and test the film with each one. What is acceptable for me probably

is not for many others.

If the interview I heard was the same one it was on Fresh Air with

Terri Gross. It really was an exceptional interview as Meyerowitz

presented incredible details of what the scene was just 10 days after

the attack. I was especially moved by his candor about his

fascination with the destruction and the magnitude of the

devastation. He plans on contributing the body of work to the city of

New York. It was also interesting when asked about the use of

the "old camera" his response was that no other medium could provide

the impact, detail and clarity as an 8x10 negative.

A system will have to be devised to allow certain films through the

mail. X-rays are frequently shipped overnight, as well as a variety

of magnetic media. Electron beam irradiation has a degrading effect

on digital media such as hard drives, photo-discs, CDs etc. The only

option I can think of off hand is that UPS and FED-EX will probably

set up a system to have your parcel designated for hand inspection

for an additonal charge, thus bypassing the need for x-ray or

irradiation.

Thanks for the quick responses. I am very interested in the XL5.6

Scneider. The post by dg has made me realize I need to take some

time, research what is available and test a couple of lenses before I

make a purchase. Money is an issue but if after determining final

costs the savings from Robert White is only 30 or 40 dollars, I would

perfer to support a US company such as Badger and have a little

closer support.

Thanks again.

I have a couple of questions regarding the purchase of a new lens to replace one destroyed in a fire. I have always bought used, but have decided to go the new route since it was the lens I most frequently use. Badger Graphics is the lowest domestic source i have found- $810 for a 90mm F9 Super Angulon. However, Robert White in the UK has the same lens for $660 U.S. dollars less the VAT tax. My first question is how much is the value added tax? Is it a straight percentage, is it based on the commodity, and how much is it. I have been to the UK several times and never paid that much attention to it.

Second question- are there warranty concerns when purchasing overseas, or any warranty issues concerning Robert White specifically.

As always, thanks for any replies in advance.

I process 35, 120 and 4x5 all in a JOBO and use the same times for

all three and have never seen any difference in the negatives. I

think I read somewhere that T-grain films have a different thickness

of emulsion between roll film and sheets, although if true, I have

not seen a difference with these films after processing.

FWIW, I use a bathroom to load film holders. Run the shower hot for

5 or 6 minutes to settle all the dust, let the steam clear and load.

I also load JOBO reels the same way. Anything you can do to minimize

dust on negs will save you a huge amount of time in the long run.

I would buy at least 2 new film holders and use these while you are

learning to use the camera. They will eliminate one variable when

exposing film- light leaks you may get with used holders. Nothing is

more discouraging than exposing film and finding it fogged or

hopelessly marked with dust spots and scratches. For any used that

you do buy, clean thoroughly and expose a test sheet on a grey card

with every holder to check for deficiencies before using in the field.

With regards to the JOBO, I find that you get absolute consistency

once you have established processing times for a given devloper and

film combination. Also once film is loaded the lights stay on, which

allows me to perform other tasks while the processor is running.

With regards to chemistry, as long as you use the minimum required

stock developer of 100-150ml as recommended by various sources for 80

sq inches of film and use at least the minimum of chemistry, there

are no problems. I use older style tanks and reels that require 170ml

for 6 sheets of film and total volume allows for 1-1 dilutions and 1-

2 if less film processed at one time.

 

<p>

 

With regards to agitation, you have to establish new times for

processing the film, anywhere from 10-30% less then with tray or

inversion. I have never seen any difference in grain between a JOBO

and tray, the constant agitation just increases developer activity

and thus you reach a certain degree of contrast quicker. I have

tested and used a variety of developers, D-76, XTOL, HC-110 and rollo-

pyro. I still have some problems getting the times down with Rollo-

Pyro to equal tray with ABC Pyro, but I may stick with the trays for

Pyro as I have read it is more forgiving for inspection processing.

For more information on JOBO processing, John Hicks who is a

frequent contributor to these forums has an article at

unblinkingeye.com where he discusses these issues in greater depth.

I usually use a Jobo for processing sheet film, but for 8x10 and 4x5

that requires N-/N+ development I go to trays. I could never get the

hang of shuffling film without scratches, so I use multiple trays

with one and no more than two per tray. This also makes it easier to

do a batch of negs that require different dev times. I use 5x7 trays

for the 4x5 negs, two 11x14 trays for a water bath and a couple of

the smaller for fixing. If you use one sheet per tray, you never

have to touch the film, just rock the tray during development. If

you don't want to mess with so many trays, you can take an 11x14 or

16x20 and make a divider to have 4 or 6 bays. The divider has holes

drilled in it to let the developer circulate but keeps the film in

place. I bring these ideas up because as you get aclimated, you are

going to want to see the fruit of your efforts quicker than one sheet

at a time. If you want further consistency look at various threads

concerning JOBO processors, mine is superb for most jobs and formats.

 

<p>

 

Good luck and enjoy,

In the current economic climate it is almost inevitable that Polaroid

will either declare bankruptcy or be bought by another imaging

company. I believe we will soon see the elimination of most Polaroid

products not related to digital imaging. Commercial shooters are

moving to the use of digital to serve the same function as Polaroid

for proofing, exposure tests, checking lighting, compositions etc. I

notice more and more articles in Photo District News on this subject

and I beleive there was a recent article in Camera Arts discussing

how to use a digital camera in tandem with your view camera as an aid

in composition and extablishing exposure. Digital may not be able to

replace the unique quality of a 20x24 Polaroid print, but the company

can't survive on that alone. I don't think I would be buying one of

the 20x24 cameras with Polaroid back at this time, even if I could

afford it.

I don't think you will find anything more advanced than the two

Anchell cookbooks. Any chemistry in the four books you have listed

can be found there. I would recommend the Graves book as an

excellent advanced printing source and it goes into a little more

depth about how paper developers work and how they can be made to

suit specific printing needs. One book not on your list is Creative

Elements: Darkroom Techniques for Landscape Photography by Eddie

Ephraums, also the author of the first book you listed. He does

extensive toning of his prints and this book contains some valuable

toning formulas and information on use. I would also go to

Unblinkingeye.com where there are sveral excellent articles about

developers and toning of prints and all pertinent formulas.

You are right Matt. maybe that is the other reason I don't delve

more into the digital realm. For myself there is a certain ritual

and serenity in setting up the darkroom for work, mixing chemicals,

manually manipulating the exposure with dodging, burning, flashing

masking, anticipating the result as the print emerges. All the

processes require a patience that is hard to practice for most people.

Maybe these aspects of the wet darkroom will be a strength to keep it

alive as photographers who in the future know nothing but digital

cameras and computer screens return to the slower more meditative wet

darkroom.

I would have to agree with Mr. Hutchings to a certain extent. I am

no expert about computers or software, but i am confident I could buy

a scanner, photoshop and quad ink sets for my printer and produce

good looking prints in a few days of learning and trial and error.

But to produce exceptional or gallery quality fine prints to rival

the best that a master sliver printer can print would take a much

greater investment in time to learn the nuiances of the software.

Once one really understands the software, the porcess probably

becomes much quicker but still great time and effort will be involved

in making various proofs, applying masks, digitally dodging and

burning, adjusting contrast, sharpness etc.

 

<p>

 

I think you can make a realistic comparison to learning how to print

in a wet darkroom. With some instruction and trial and error a

person could produce straight representations of negatives in a

couple hours of practice with out a whole lot of effort. Yet this is

a long way from producing a fine print that coveys what was felt when

the negative was exposed. That only comes with learning all the

tools and techniques at your disposal and exposing a lot of paper in

the process.

 

<p>

 

It really is a matter of the quality of work you want to produce.

Right now my time is so limited I feel I am more productive in the

wet darkroom where I can produce quality work. I will probably learn

digital someday but right now I would rather spend the time further

refining my wet printing skills.

I concur with Pete. When I began with Large format I found it

difficult to translate highlights and quality of light I remembered

into a negative. The prints always were flat and lacked any real

impact. What I discovered, as Pete explains, your mind keys on the

highlights and constructs the contrast of the scene you remeber based

on those highlights. To achieve satisfactory results I learned to

expose and develop for slightly more contrast than you would normally

expect (also considering this may mean reducing development slightly

less then you had been doing) or using a faster film such as TMY or

HP5 and pulling to slightly increase highlight seperation. With the

detail available in the highlights you can use printing for more

contrast control. highlight detail even when printed down always

seems to give the impression of more luminosity then the same area

with no detail IMHO.

There was a post about pulling certain films for zone increases on

the film and processing board.

Hope this helps.

Ken i apologize for not reading the post abit more closely. I would

agree with Jorge that it may be an exposure problem since you

describe the density change in the middle of the neg.

One other possibility could be film holders. I recently bought a 4

used riteway film holders and after using them had a couple negs with

the same problem you describe but showing overexposure indicating

some sort of a light leak. In any event once a narrowed it done to

the offending holders the problem was eliminated. Just another

possibility.

Greetings,

I am moving up the ladder, and have decided to begin mixing some of my own chemistry. I would greatly appreciate any advice on what scale to purchase, and if a suitable one can be be purchased for under $200 and what is the degree of accuracy required. As always, thanks for all responses.

Ken,

 

<p>

 

A few years ago a made a set of rollers and tubes for 8x10 negs from

ABS. I had a similar problem, especially when longer development was

required. My rollers allowed the tube to travel laterally while it

was being rolled. A friend suggested that if the movement was

excessive back and forth, the developer would slosh slightly side to

side and in the middle their would be an increase in turbulence where

the wave fronts met. He was a mechanical engineer, and I don't know

if he really knew anything about fluid dynamics, but after I put a

couple of stops on each end to hold the tube stationary while rolling

the problem was eliminated. If you notice sideways "walking" of the

tube this may be your problem.

I don't mean to belittle Adams tremendous talent and craftsmanship.

All art opinion is subjective by the viewer, and IMHO Adam's work for

me is beautiful in the way that a beautiful object is used to

decorate a room. I know his work fairly well, the first phtography

exhibit I ever attended was the 117 print, "Ansel Adams: The Imprint

of his Vision" at the Museum of Photographic Arts in San Diego in

1985. After seeing the 30x40 enlargements of "Aspens" and I believe

an even larger print of "Monolith: The Face of Half Dome", I left the

book store with "Examples", and the three book photography series.

Then and there I decided to upgrade from my college issue Pentax and

acquire a view camera. Since then I have seen three other exhibits

of his work. I would have to say 90% of how I first approached

photography was directly influenced by his images and books. And I

will even concede he was probably one of the greatest photographers

of the 20th century, and may have done more to champion the cause of

conservation and enviromentalism than any other person. I just don't

think he was a great artist. IMHO his work never moved beyond showing

us the granduer and majesty of the landscape. The problem for me is

it doesn't matter if it is 1927 or or 1960, it all the same granduer

and majesty. this is the work of a master craftsman, not a great

artist.

 

<p>

 

I will add one more comment as food for thought. I believe while

his legacy was indeed great it has also been a curse for many

photographers. Instead of pursuing their own vision, they spend

their photographic lives trying to duplicate Ansel's lens selection,

and developer, and printing technique etc, all in the hope that

matching his technical skills will make their work somehow meaningful.

Looking at the Weston prints I admired the skill with which the

images were produced, but I was far more interested in how the prints

communicated to me the essence of who Weston was and his vison.

I may be wrong but I am almost positive that at least one of the

title cards with a print stated something to the effect, "printed by

assistant to Edward Weston". The information about the exhibit on

the walls I beleive only mentioned Cole and Brett and that these were

part of a large group printing of several portfolios. It also stated

that it would be impossible to assemble such a group of prints done

by Edward because of limited number of prints available, or something

to that effect.

 

<p>

 

The previous issue of Black and White Magazine (August/Sept?) had a

review and I believe a schedule of the tour. I did not purchase a

copy but perhaps someone else can provide the info, or E-mail the mag

at www.bandwmag.com.

A quick addition to the previous post. These images were printed by Brett and Cole and unamed assistants under Weston's supervision circa 1952-1953. So I am assuming that the prints represent the results he would have achieved on his own, or he would not have approved them. Also please correct any factual errors, I did not aquire any exhibit literature, so anything presented as fact is from memory. Thanks for any discussion.

I would like to make a few comments and observations after viewing "Edward Weston: The Last Years in Carmel", currently exhibiting at the Art Institute of Chicago.

 

<p>

 

I have seen previous Weston exhibits and prints as part of gallery collections, and while always acknowledging Weston as a great photographer and 20th century influence, I did not agree with the near "god" status many have given him. However, upon seeing this show I will elevate him much nearer that status. For those who have not seen a review (see previous issue of Black and White magazine or archives of Chicago Tribune) the exhibit is mainly landscapes and abtracts from Point Lobos, nudes and images of his sons and family from 1938-1945.

While I was not impressed with the nudes or family work, the landscapes are quite incredible. The images are much darker with a wonderfully complex balance between the subdued highlights and shadows of the prints. Upon first examination of one print ( I forget the title) which shows a setting sun behind clouds taken from hills above Point Lobos the ocean looks almost completely black. Upon closer examination one begins to see an incredible tonal delineation in the shadows, subtley revealing every wave crest, ripple and trough. I have never seen prints that show such depth and gradation in the shadows while stil maintaining a perfect compelment in the highlights. many of thes images are of chaotic, almost random subjects and Weston's use of lighting and printing brings a beautiful melancholy to each compostion.

 

<p>

 

Alright, sorry to be so long winded, these thoughts bugged the entire trip home so two observations: First, Anyone who can see this show will have a new appreciation for his talents and vision as an artist, especially when one knows how primitive his methods were.

Second, and not to start a firestorm, this exhibit demostrates why Weston is one of the great artists of any medium in the 20th century. Here was a man who obviously knew his life would be cut short and yet continued to grow and evolve his vision and art. That is something that not even the much more famous Ansel Adams did, as his work was basically a repetion of old themes after 1950, even though he was blessed with many more years to work than Weston.

I am fanatical about keeping dust from my film while drying, and have had consistent results up untill today. Somehow a series of 12 4x5 negs picked up some dirt or dust either from the darkroom or sloppy handling of film and holders. The kind of stuff that sticks and will not come off with an ant-static brush or compressed air. What is the recommended way to "re-clean" film. I could probably just resoak and agitate in photo-flo and try to a film sponge to carefully wipe of loosened dirt. Any other recommendations?

 

<p>

 

Thanks, Jim C.