jnanian

<p>i know what you mean AT, seeing this forum and the large format forum were started by him back in the day,<br> but i liked the new software, so i appreciate the work the moderators, staff, programmers<br> and other people behind the scenes are doing so the site stays free from spam, and malicious <br> folks who attack forums that might not be up to date with "modern" software .. im probably wrong<br> but that might be one of the reasons the update happened ...</p>

<p>the person who runs thelightfarm.com coats her own film<br> it explains how to do it in her book too.</p>

<p>if you haven't found him already,<br> look for the photography / blog &c of joe van cleave. he has worked with ilford DPP<br> and paper negatives &c for a long time and can give you info on preflashing the paper &c.</p> <p>good luck !<br />john</p>

<p>there have been recent posts on the large format website regarding non-light-proof-toyo-darkslides.<br> this one was from a few months ago on the lf forum: <br> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131636-Blotchy-pattern-on-4x5-negatives<br> similar issues have appeared on other websites as well.</p>

<p>it is sad that a magazine that has been around since 1988 has folded<br /> and now there is nothing that caters specifically to large format users.</p> <p>while i am not a fan of the publisher for a handful of reasons i will not get into here<br /> ... it still is sad when a magazine stops.</p>

<p>you will get a dense orange mask. if you process E6 you will get a mask as well ( not orange )<br> prnting takes extra contrast filters and extra time because the negatives are a bit dense at times<br> i don't have a local lab that will process E6 or C41 bigger than 35mm anymore and rather than<br> deal with shipping out of state i just process it all in either caffenol C with a little dekol mixed in, or dektol,<br> or half the time in dektol and half the time in caffenolc with a little dektol, never really have much trouble<br> but im not a perfectionist, YMMV</p>

<p>as long as you aren't doing things like "save for the web" or using "color channels"<br> and some of the other things that PS/CC make so simple, and as long as you have simple<br> questions that might be answered through their crowd-supported help forum, or by looking at a <br> 2 minute video on vimeo on how to masterfully do a complicated process you might like affinity.<br> they do not have customer support and while they do have a 800# the people there have no idea how to use <br> the program. some of the things that might take 1-click and are intuitive in PS are 10 tedius steps in this other program. </p> <p>maybe it is a work in progress and it is always getting better ?<br> at the very least, they could do is have customer support or have the <br> "expert" from the video library monitor and answer questions in the support forum. </p> <p>they might still have the "free 10 day trial" but be advised<br> that if you post to their forum, sometimes it is glitchy and might<br> not appear until a portion of your free trial is over ...</p>

<p>hi glenL:</p> <p>maybe the reason they were still wet plate images is old habits die hard and the photographer who made them had been using wet plate since 1851 and didn't want to have to get the bugs out of a new process. just like someone wouldn't pick up a box of film and a developer or a new lab, or new process he/she has no experience with to do a job, the work and reputation of the photographer would suffer. </p>

<p>i tried it ( free trial ) it wasnt' as useful as i had hoped. 10$/month for PS is a deal.</p>

<p>almost 13 years later, and my POV hasn't changed.<br> there is a lot of photography masquerading as one or the other<br> and a lot of the time it isn't either, its just photography.</p>

<p>thanks for your help(s).</p> <p>that listing is pretty extensive, i knew upto 11x14 <br> but i didn't know they were made bigger. i've never seen plate holders bigger than 8x10 either.</p>

<p>aside from modern ones, what is the largest size for dry plate holders?</p>

<p>i haven't used a graphmatic back in 20 years, and even when i did, never noticed focus slop.<br /> if this same problem exists with bagmagz or using a graphic"23" roll film back, or polaroid 545i with a graflex slr,<br />or modern film holders in plate cameras ( or plates with a modern camera <br />i haven't ever noticed difference in focus / focus slop.<br />and i've been using the above configurations for nearly 2 decades, and some of the images<br />include macro and close focus photographs where plane of focus is critical.</p>

<p>chrome was an earlier run. if you take the serial number and go the schneider website<br> you will be able to determine the "born date" of the lens. i'm not sure of the black barrel lenses<br> but i know ( from having one ) sometimes the chrome barrelled lenses get schneideritis.</p>

<p> can you please link to the schneider optics website where it says film holders are like this ?<br> i was under the impressoin that film holders are built to specific ansi / asa standards to assure T distances<br> so there wouldn't be focus issues. i've been using film holders/large format for nearly 30 years<br> and never had any issues, have never needed to change my focus, or stop down 3 stops,<br> and often times i am shooting wide open with a fast lens. whats strange that if this is such an issue<br> people who regularly do macro work with large format cameras and use film holders, when DOF <br> is thin and critical haven't abandonned LF for more focus friendly formats.. <br> thanks</p>

<p>i havn't developed new 55 film<br> but if it has to be fixed, isn't it the same thing ?: develop and fix.<br> clearing the new film is done in fixer the only difference is the lights are on ?</p>

<p>hi eric<br> i know of a couple of people who built and enjoyed the camera. i've been building cameras for <br> a handful of years, even barrel lenses, and film/plate/paper holders. its a lot of fun. </p> <p>good luck !</p>

<p>the idea that only your camera that you advertise in this forum endless is the only<br> spontaneous large format camera is absurd. it amazes me that anyone can be closed minded<br> enough to believe that. no, i don't care about the 17 years worth of upgrades to polaroids already<br> timeless design you made, or how many hollywood types bought your camera. or how you can use it <br> with 1 lens ... yes the graflex camera takes 3 seconds to set up. and you can rattle 12 shots out of it<br> in 12-15 seconds if you want. it has nothing to do with nostalgia, or a sales pitch.<br> i really wish the moderators would moderate these threads, endless advertising is tedious.</p>

<p>there is 100 years of spontinaity made with those cameras.</p>

<p>people believe whatever fairy tales they want.<br> just like truman</p>

<p>it has more to do with the truman show than anything else.<br> ==<br> i've been using a speed graphic since 1988 and a graflex slr ( D/4x5 ) since like 1996,<br> neither takes more than 2 hands to operate, and while i don't plan on using the new 55 film, both have<br> taken great photographs handheld with polaroid film from the 90s. if they did take so much effort<br> to operate i don't think the press corps would have used both these styles of cameas since about world war 1.<br> its too bad inorder to elevate your own camera you need to degrade others, and the gear they use.</p>

<p>not sure .. it never posed a problem .., neither has stopping down a tiny bit <br> when focusing tessars either .. but i am sure there are issues with some lenses ...<br> i have heard schneider symmars (convertibles) have focus shift, but they aren't old<br> brass and fast ... </p>

<p>hi bob</p> <p>wollensak used to suggest stopping down a tad to focus their veritar and i have done that regularly<br> with vitax and veritos as well. never a problem with shift or accurate focus.</p>

<p>duplicate post</p>

<p>my comment had nothing to do with politics .... </p>