john bode

To summarize what everyone else has said:

 

With the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, the maximum aperture value doesn't change as you change the focal length; you get f/2.8 at 17mm and at 55mm. With the EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6, the maximum aperture does change; you get f/3.5 at 28mm, but only f/5.6 at 135mm (which is kind of slow). Both lenses should allow you to stop down to f/22 or so.

 

The sensor on an XTi is physically smaller than a frame of 35 mm film, so it cannot capture as wide a field of view for a given focal length. A 28mm lens on an XTi will capture roughly the same field of view as a 45mm lens on a full-frame or 35mm body, which is much closer to normal than wide-angle. So on the XTi, the 28-135mm lens is normal to telephoto, not wide to moderately telephoto. The 17-55mm gives you more wide-angle room, at the expense of a little telephoto (55mm on the XTi is roughly equivalent to 88mm on a full-frame).

My wife and I were in Yellowstone last week and asked some of the park rangers about the incident.

 

First off, Cole has been repeatedly cited and banned from other national parks (Glacier, I think, as well as others) for harassing wildlife. Secondly, according to the ranger we talked to, Cole's account of what happened did not match up with the pictures in his camera. He had gone off-trail, obviously pursuing this sow and her cubs, and apparently got well within the 100-yard minimum radius. And finally, according the ranger, the bear will most likely be euthanized or removed to a zoo. All bear attacks have to be treated the same way, regardless of the cause. Even though his injuries are consistent with defensive, not predatory, behavior, and even though this bear was not otherwise considered a dangerous or nuisance bear, the fact that the bear felt it necessary to attack him means that she will be more likely to attack other humans in the future. He effectively killed his subject.

 

I completely understand the motivation to get the kinds of shots other photographers aren't willing or able to get. I don't care that this jackass is willing to put his life at risk to get them. What bothers me is that to get those shots he is also putting the life of his subjects at risk.

I don't quite have my process down yet, but here's my experience for what it's worth. I

don't have a conventional enlarger; I scan my negs directly with a Canon FS4000 film

scanner and process the image in Gimp. I think my images suffer from grain aliasing a bit

when I scan at 4000 dpi, and I don't think they'll appear as grainy in a conventional print,

but I have no way to confirm that.

<p>

So far I've had the best results with a 1:45 dilution for ~15:30 at 66 deg F, initial agitation

of 30 seconds followed by 3 inversions every 30 seconds. Good density, scanned well,

grain wasn't hugely obnoxious. Here's an example from the last roll:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/153/339149523_7e3e3ccef4_b.jpg">Coach

interview</a>

<p>

I've heard from others that keeping the temperature at 68 or below helps keep the grain

from blowing up; I haven't tested that systematically, but based on that last roll I'd say

there's a germ of truth there.

<p>

I've tried pushing two rolls to 1600 with mixed results. The first time I used a 1:50

dilution for about 30 minutes at 68 deg F, and wound up with very thin negs with no

shadow detail at all. I had to do some extensive postprocessing to get a usable image:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/129/330590910_2eab7c7faf_b.jpg">In the

booth</a>

<p>

The second time I tried a stand development technique, using a 1:225 dilution and letting

it sit for 5 hours, with 1 minute initial agitation and 30 seconds agitation at the 2 1/2 hour

mark:

<p>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/138/335952424_1bfedca2a3_b.jpg">Front

porch</a>

<p>

Density was better, although I still lost a lot of shadow detail, and had to enhance the

contrast a bit. Grain was pretty obnoxious, but after applying a selective gaussian blur,

the result was interesting.

The first image was from a roll rated at 1600, btw.

Increased contrast, some increased graininess, loss of shadow detail. Bear in mind you will have to increase development time to compensate for the underexposure.

<br>

<a href="http://members.arstechnica.com/x/jbode/mark4_small.jpg">Here's</a> an example I shot a couple of weeks ago. However, bear in mind that I underdeveloped a <em>lot</em>, and some of the contrastiness comes from compensating for that, but I think it gives a good feel. Compare against <a href="http://members.arstechnica.com/x/jbode/mark3_small.jpg">this</a> image which was rated and developed normally.

The fixer proponents were indeed correct. Mixed up a fresh batch this morning and

processed another roll, and no staining is visible.

 

Thanks.

I didn't leave the film standing for more than a couple of seconds between each bath. I'm also doing full inversions on the tank, and rotating it a quarter-turn when I set it back down.

 

If it helps, the stain appears towards the middle of the film, not at either edge (the edges are relatively clear).

 

It could be that I'm overfilling the tank, and there isn't enough air to allow sufficient agitation (I measure out 8 oz, which is what I thought the tank used).

 

I'll have to play with it. Unfortunately, I'm on business trip at the moment and won't be able to do anything before the weekend.

Chris,

 

It's possible that the fixer may be nearing exhaustion, but it still clears a snippet of the leader in about 2 minutes, so I thought it was still okay. I will mix a fresh batch and see what happens.

 

Thanks.

My last couple of rolls of Tri-X in Rodinal 1:50 have come out underdeveloped with a brownish stain on

the first 10 frames or so. Based on what I've found in the archives, the problem is insufficient agitation (I

did 3-5 inversions once a minute, instead of every 30 seconds). I've been so paranoid about grain and

contrast that I've gone too far the other direction.

 

I understand that. What I don't understand is why the stain only appears on the front half of the roll.

That's the half that's on the inner part of the reel, and the stain is apparent as soon as I pull it out of the

tank, so it's not a matter of crud dripping down as it's hanging to dry. The roll is uniformly

underdeveloped, but not uniformly stained. Does the center part of the tank not respond to agitation the

same way the outer part does? This is a stainless steel tank and reel.

Magenta blocks green, so the effect will be that greens render as slightly darker tones (similar to how a yellow filter darkens blues slightly). CC filters aren't as strong as B&W contrast filters AFAICT, so I don't know if the effect will be that great.

Thanks all. I'm not looking for fine grain with this combination, I'm just trying to avoid really ugly grain.

 

I don't have much control over temperature; water comes out of the tap at over 80 deg F (26 deg C), and ambient temp in the house doesn't get below 75 (23 C) during the day; welcome to central Texas in August. That's why I went with 6.25 minutes, based on a time/temperature adjustment chart from Ilford. However, it's possible that I misread the thermometer and thought the solution was a couple of degrees warmer than it really was (it's a cheapo thermometer, not a digital or dial).

 

I scanned the denser frames, but they're all too thin to work with. However, the grain looked pretty good. ;-)

I processed a roll of Tri-X (400TX) rated at EI 200 in Rodinal at 1:50 for

6.25 minutes at ~75 deg F, with continual agitation for the first 20 seconds

and then 2 inversions each minute, and wound up with some pretty thin negs.

Time was taken from the Massive Dev Chart at digitaltruth.com.

 

It appears that I underdeveloped, but I'm not sure whether the problem was too

little agitation or too little time. All my past attempts with Tri-X and

Rodinal were at 1:25 with 30 seconds agitation followed by 5 inversions every

30 seconds, and I always wound up with ugly, obnoxious grain. I was trying a

higher dilution with less agitation to see if that would minimize the problem,

but obviously went too far in the other direction.

 

With Tri-X and Rodinal, is it better to agitate more or soak longer to avoid

overemphasized grain? I'm not specifically looking for a compensating effect

(not even really sure what a compensating effect looks like), I was just

trying to control grain and contrast.

 

Speaking of which, I rated the film at EI 200 because most of the shots were

going to be at midday in some pretty harsh light, and hoped that the pull

would help with the contrast some.

US$800 is not going to buy a "professional" level digital kit. DSLRs are getting cheaper, but they're not that cheap yet. Entry-level starts at around US$600. If he still has his old gear, let him use what he knows and scan the film.

 

There's another factor I want you to consider, though. Do you want your uncle to be there as a photographer, or as a family member? Because after having done it a couple of times, I've found that it's really, really, really hard to be both. If you're expecting the same kind of coverage that you would get from a professional, then he's going to spend *all* his time taking pictures, and won't really be able to enjoy the ceremony or the reception. If you want him to be able to enjoy the ceremony and reception, then he's not going to get anywhere near the coverage you'll want.

I've never gotten a satsifactory print from a minilab; they've all had a greenish cast. I figure chromogenic B&W accounts for less than a fraction of a percent of all the rolls processed in a day, so there's no real pressure to make sure the printer has a truly neutral gray dialed in. Go ahead and take the film to Wal Mart for processing (IME, their equipment is as clean and well-maintained as anyone else's), but have the keepers printed on true B&W paper at a custom lab.

Thanks all. I had seen all the threads about the dreaded purple negatives and just wanted to know what I should expect from a properly fixed and washed neg. I didn't think it should be completely clear, but I wasn't sure if that was the case.

 

Like I said, I haven't done this very much yet, so I'm still feeling out the process.

After processing and drying, how clear should the unexposed portions

of the film be (specifically for Tri-X and Plus-X, the new stuff,

processed in D-76)? Should it be totally clear (no tint at all)?

Should there be a slight neutral gray (not purple!) tint, which is

what I currently get? I've only processed 4 rolls so far, so I don't

have my process nailed down yet. I suspect I may be underwashing,

but I'm not sure how I would determine that. How do I tell if I have

a problem with base film tint? I don't have the space for a

traditional darkroom setup, so I scan my negs and make digital

prints. So far things seem to work fairly well, but I don't know if

they could or should be better.

 

Thanks.<div></div>

I used Rodinal (not Special) at 1:25 with Tri-X some years ago and the grain was pretty obvious, especially at 8x10. I have since used D-76 at 1:1 and the grain is much finer, with better separation in tones. I never tried Rodinal at 1:50, that might give better results.

Todd --

<p>

I just got back into processing my own film this past weekend (did it 5 years ago for a darkroom class, been itching to do it again ever since).

</p><p>

Here's how I'm currently set up. I don't have the space for a traditional darkroom (enlarger, trays, etc.), so I process film and then scan it with a film scanner.

</p><p>

Equipment:

</p><p>

Changing bag for loading film into developing tank<br>

Stainless steel developing tank with PVC top for one 35mm reel<br>

Stainless steel 35mm reel<br>

Glass darkroom thermometer (to 120 deg F)<br>

4 32-oz chemical storage containers (developer, stop bath, fixer, perma wash). Need one more for PhotoFlo.<br>

3 11-oz graduates for measuring out developer, stop, and fixer<br>

Assorted graduates for mixing chemicals<br>

Stirring paddle for mixing chemicals<br>

Film clips<br>

Sponge film squeegee<br>

Sleeves for negatives<br>

Notebook for writing everything down (film, developer, time, temp)<br>

</p><p>

Chemistry:

</p><p>

Kodak D-76 developer (powder for 1 liter)<br>

Kodak Indicator Stop Bath (liquid concentrate)<br>

Kodak Kodafix fixer (liquid concentrate)<br>

Kodak PhotoFlo wetting agent<br>

Perma Wash archival film washing solution<br>

</p><p>

So far I've processed one roll of Tri-X with this setup, and the results were far better than I expected. I wasn't anal about temperature or timing because I was so anxious to get started. In spite of that, the images came out with good contrast and relatively fine grain. The Perma Wash isn't strictly necessary, but it cuts wash times down dramatically. I agree with everyone else regarding Tri-X; it's great film to start with because of its wide latitude. It also looks damn good if you manage to do it right. I'd stick with it exclusively until you get your process down.

</p><p>

The only other things I would add to the equipment list would be a dedicated film washer (right now I just run a non-aerated tap over the open tank), and a quick-read digital thermometer. The glass thermometer is cheap, but it takes a while before it gives a reading.</p>

Frankly, those four rolls are worth the jobs of the tech who can't tell the difference between conventional B&W and C-41 B&W (or can't be bothered to check) and the manager who allowed that kind of sloppiness to happen. Seriously. The absolute minimum level of competence for any photo lab employee should be "doesn't destroy the customer's film." If that level of competence can't be met, then a career change is in order.

 

I have learned from bitter experience not to trust any conventional B&W to any kind of chain lab. Best to find a custom lab or do your own.