sean_yates2

FWIW,

<p>

I have my safelight plugged into one of the old Time-O-Lite

enlarger/safelight timers which has a 4 pin flat bladed port for a

foot switch. I think the type of connector used to be called a

Wollensak after the many a.v. devices that company made that used

that type of connection. But that could be wrong.

<p>

In the U.S. if you look around - old photo stores, garage sales, the

classifieds in the local paper, etc. you may find what you need. But

in The United Kingdom, I can't say what avenue to approach. You

could try B&H though - I'm not connected with them in anyway, but a

short search of their website produced the following options:

<p>

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?

FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___26180___KEFS___REG___CatID=7

49___SID=E8BF4C39FA0

<p>

<p>

http://www03.bhphotovideo.com/default.sph/FrameWork.class?

FNC=ProductActivator__Aproductlist_html___130090___TIFS___REG___CatID=

749___SID=E8BF4C39FA0

I'll betcha "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" would have been easier

to print if Adams had developed it by inspection.

Why? To appease your puritan work ethic? If D.B.I. works, and it

does, and it's easier, why make "a bunch of tests"? You have to re-

test your system continuoosly to make sure it stays in calibration,

no? With D.B.I. you can make adjustments "as you go" in the second

most important part of the entire process - the film development.

You are not held to one time and can compensate for any changes or

variations. Have you tried D.B.I. Mr Marderness?

p.s. Aaron Siskind, Wynn Bullock, Andrea Modica, Douglas Busch and

Harry (not Dirty) Callahan, as well as the Westons, all D.B.I.'d

<p>

Anyone can name any others?

FWIW, Galloping Caveats, IMHO yadda yadda yadda.

<p>

There are as many approaches to photography as there are roads to

Valhalla, Grasshopper. Personally, I think D.B.I. is the only way to

go, but then I have a more "cook-book" approach than some. A pinch

of this, a smidgen of that, and season to taste. My most expensive

lens cost me $400.00 and the most recently manufactured one cost me

$25.00.

<p>

Read here:

<p>

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Inspection/inspection.htm

<p>

and here:

<p>

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/devinsp.html

<p>

and that covers most of it. In short, if you don't like the idea of

standing (or sitting) in the dark with your hands (maybe gloved) in

chemistry, shuffling your film, counting the seconds as the metronome

clicks them off, then maybe you should invest in a JOBO or a Besseler

color drum. Seriously though, it is easy! If I can do it, anyone

can. Whether it's to your liking or not.....

<p>

All film/developer combos work well, but the staining developers have

the advantage of making the film less sensitive to light faster than

your standard D-76/Rodinal, etc. etc. developers. I would recommend

using a 15 watt bulb instead of the little 7.5 watt one I started out

with - that was too dim. Also, it'd be nice if I had a sink in my

darkroom, but I don't, so developer drips down my arms, onto my

shoes, the floor, etc. when I hold the film up to inspect.

<p>

You write: "Just how accurately can one monitor densities, etc."

<p>

This strikes me as the wrong attitude entirely. It's more like how

you cook your steak, or bake a cake. How can you tell when they are

done? Al Dente! Anywho, good luck. I can scan and e-mail you some

articles on the topic from some more arcane sources if you like

Presbyopia? Does this afflict other denominations? Or does it

mainly afflict elected executive officers?

Although he used Azo (and of course Amidol) he also used Velox, Apex,

Convira, Defender Velour Black and Haloid, which was certainly among

his favorites.

I haven't used Tri-X, only HP5 and Arista 400. It sure sounds like

you did everything by the book.

<p>

Did you bathe the HP5 and then the Tri- X or were they intermingled?

Have you tried alcohol or Edwals drying agent? How about blotting

e'er so gently the corners where the water collects with a paper

towel?

They ('dorff vs. Zone VI) should be pretty close in weight -

the 'dorf goes ~12 - 13 lbs. and the Calumet catalog I have lists the

Zone VI at 13.75 lbs.

Marv likes his,

<p>

http://frontpage.home.net/mthompsonn/l_f.htm

<p>

drop him a line

Based on Ron Wisner's design of the 4 X 5. Relatively light,

adequately flexible. Plenty good for what you have been shooting.

Some accessories available - reduction backs, fresnel, lensboard

reducer (which, for some reason, is also an extension, rather than a

recessed board). Comes with a bail opening back which is nice on an

8 X 10. 30" + bellows draw if you cantilever the front out. They

say you can squash it down to 90mm. Don't know about Calumet's

service though. You're looking at used, right David? Wood, you

could fix most of it yourself if it broke.

Soft focus lenses used by large format photographers in the past do

not in any way negate the value of the large negative.

<p>

A true soft-focus designed lens will allow a variable amount

of "softness" and depending on how that softness is achieved, can

produce effects completely unlike anything a conventional lens or

recent construction with LC or SF filters or a nylon stocking etc,

could produce.

<p>

Additionally the use of heavy pencil re-touching on the negative, hot

lights, orthochromatic film, etc. etc. etc. are essential to

achieving the same look. I think perhaps you have orthochromatic

film confused with un-coated lenses when you refer to problems with

red lipstick.

<p>

While lighting technique is essential, it is by no means the only

thing necessary to achieve the look of Hollywood glamour portraits.

<p>

Mark Vieira has written several books on the subject and I would

heartily recommend them, especially, "Hurrell's Hollywood" and his

article in View Camera magazine.

I can't believe I never thought of that! Old copier glass! Great

idea - except that often old copier glass has scratches and dings and

*yech* on it. Still, great idea if you find a clean one!

<p>

Meanwhile - I have been using a 1/4" thick piece of 18" X 20" glass I

got from the local glass shop and it works fine. I insisted that it

had to be flawless - no bubbles, scratches, ridges, pock marks etc.

but they managed. I attached it to an old piece of counter top with

the hinges for an "entertainment center" glass door. I think all

together the cost was $39.00

My experiences parallel those above.

<p>

I've done it both ways - holders loaded and empty, boxes opened and

unopened. It's easier to go with empty holders and an unopened box,

but it's not impossible to go with loaded holders and an opened box.

Coming back, unless you can process on the road, you'll have exposed

film anyway.

<p>

Be polite, dress well, show up well in advance and try to time your

pass through security when the crowds are at a minimum. Hard to do

this time of year! It helps to have at least one empty holder, an

exposed and processed negative, and a sacrificial unexposed negative

to demonstrate if necessary. Different airports, different personel,

you'll get different results. You might get different results at the

same airport on the same day!

<p>

Overseas, don't even think about it. Buy your film there, try to

have it shipped (no guarantee it's not X-rayed then either though) or

just pass it through. Even then, expect to have to explain things.

Every time I pass a camera through, I know I will have to open the

case and show what it is.

<p>

I have traveled with loaded holders from O'Hare to Newark to Orly to

Tunis to Rome to Florence and back the same route and could not

detect any damage to the Velvia, 64T, or HP5+ I passed through. I

didn't submit any of it to a lab for examination though either.

<p>

Don't forget - you and your film are getting bombarded with radiation

on the plane anyway.

<p>

http://www.creativedevelopment.com/radair/

<p>

http://www.merck.com/pubs/mmanual_home/sec24/279.htm