brian_c._miller

I own both a Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 645.

 

Handholding: The 645 is exquisitely hand holdable, but the 67 is a beast and the shutter slap will require fast shutter speed. I would recommend using at least 1/500 with the 67.

 

Film real estate: I would only consider this to be an issue if you are going to be using fast film and large prints and you don't want grain. Otherwise, you are not going to see a difference between either camera with any of the modern asa 100 films. I have made a 4ft wide enlargement from a 645 frame with Kodak E100S. While the 67 would have been better, the 645 was up to the task.

 

Batteries: The 645 does not eat batteries, and I'm not sure how long the battery in my 67 has been in there.

 

Film loading: Since the 645 uses a cassette, you can have a couple of loaded cassettes ready to make a film change. Loading film is quick anyways.

 

Lenses: 67 lenses fit on the 645 with an adapter. I use my 67 lenses on my 645. Its one of the reasons I bought the system.

 

Noise: The 67 mirror slap is loud, while the 645's noise comes from the motor winder.

 

Reliability: Both are quite reliable. I have never had a malfunction with either of them.

 

The 645 allows for multiple exposures on one frame, it has an additional tripod socket on the side, and if the batteries run down then you can still wind the film with a little crank-wheel.

I can't imagine that it would do the developing process any good. As for shelf life of powder, if the bag is sealed like the Tetenal packs, it should be good indefinitely.

A scanner with a large light source would be the fastest and least messy and most likely cheapest. Costco sells the Epson 4990 for $420.

 

I have seen a video camera system where you could put the negatives on a light table, but that was very expensive. The messy way would be to make contact prints.

"<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DQT9">Is 110 film being phased out?</a>" or "Darth Digital vs Analog Luke".

The other night I was looking at one of my panoramas. Its 44x13 inches, from a drum-scanned 645 frame on Kodak E100S. At a print resolution of 300 dots per inch, that's 13,200 pixels. For 55mm film length, that's 240 pixels per milimeter. So for a 55x41mm frame, that's 13200x9340, or 117.6Mp, and that's not the maximum resolution for the film.

 

You still want to compare digital to film? One of the recent threads around here got into 110 format vs digital cameras. It was hillarious looking at all of the detail that's in a 110 frame. For detail, good film and good scanner beats digital all the time.

In comparison to what? It would be good for you to post both a photo showing no problem and a photo showing a _serious_ problem. Like one is on Plus-X, and the other is on Tri-X.

Your filter is not red enough. I suggest using B+W 092, or at a bare minimum Kodak #29. Using a hand-held meter, I would rate the film at EI6, but you should experiment for yourself.

 

The 645 is just fine for IR photography. Xtol does not increase contrast specifically with IR film. Try Xtol 1:1 for 7.5 minutes.

 

When I use IR I bracket by one and two stops, so each scene takes five shots.

OK, his camera is a 9x18. One fellow made a <a href="http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/503089.html">9x20 camera</a>. A 9-inch width is standard for arial film rolls. Usually the photographer makes contact sheets. This guy is blowing his up to 5ft by 10ft.

<p>

To give you some perspective on how this is not a story, I have a Pentax 645 camera. I have a <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2428176">panorama</a> from it which is 44in by 13in, and you can see the all of the minute detail, like the windows on the ferry boat (first white blob on the water from the right). If this had been shot on 4x5 film, then I could have blown up the image to 8ft, and if I had shot it with an 8x10 then it could have been 16ft. And that was with Kodak E100S, not the current E100G.

<p>

With my Graflex Super Graphic and its Optar 135mm lens (mfg 1957-1973), it will produce a photo with <i>bicycle spokes</i> clearly visible at two blocks. Or check out the <a href="http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/information/24x36/examples/examples_main.htm">Gigabitfilm</a> page at the bottom for 35mm with 1000x magnification.

This is probably a question for Pentax support.

 

Very likely changing to a non-Pentax focusing screen means that the sensor in the prism and the sensor in the mirror box need to be synced up.

 

I'll bet that it would mainly be a problem for manual mode. Imagine if you were using the camera in manual mode, and you were adjusting the settings based on what you read in the prism. Since the Beattie screen is brighter, that means more light is getting to the in-prism sensor, and you'd actually need to open up more than what the sensor suggests.

 

I myself always use an external ambient light or spot meter (Sekonic 408), because the internal meter will usually give a bum reading.

"At this point - who wants to get into a business that others are already getting out of?"

 

There is always somebody who will go for it. Always. Somebody will either be delusional or else they will actually have a good business model which will work with a diminished market.

For washing fiber prints, you can use the soak-and-dump method. After hypo clear, place the print in a tray of water. Change the water every 30 minutes. Repeat for 8 hours. Before using this method, be sure to test your paper to see that it will stand up to the treatment.

Technidol is still widely available. Do a Froogle search and you'll come up with quite a few stores with remaining stocks. The Photographer's Formulary also has a Technidol replacement available.

You want to *increase* the dilution (1:12, 1:20, whatever, see Massive Dev Chart at digitaltruth.com) _or_ *decrease* the time. Since you have already significantly reduced the time, increasing the dilution is what you need to do.

 

You have already pulled the film one whole stop (EI50 instead of EI100) so that should have given you shadow detail.

 

But actually your first problem seems that you have a high contrast scene. What filter did you use? If you used a red filter, that will make an apparent increase in contrast because the light in shadows is blue, and red blocks blue light. You might try a blue filter instead, or no filter.

Time for experimentation. Remember to make good notes, you'll need them.

 

The following is valid only if you also do your own printing. If you are not printing what you photograph, then you really don't know what is going on, as changing printing labs could solve your problems.

 

The first thing you need is a repeatable scene. Set up a still life, along with a grey scale card like the Kodak Q-14. This will allow you to see what the film and development combination are really giving you. You don't need to use a densiometer, just look at the film.

 

First make a reference point using your current film & developer combination.

 

The next thing you need to do is try a couple of different developers. Try Xtol and Ilford's DD-X. Use straight and use diluted.

 

Now try Tri-X 400 and compare to what you got previously.

 

As for the different versions of Tri-X, the 320 and 400 are different formulas. The 400 is for outdoor photography, and the 320 is for indoor/studio photography. Personally, I recommend TMax for detail. Fuji Neopan Acros is also good, but I think it has a coarser grain than TMax. Other films which have better detail require special developers, like Gigabitfilm.

Personally, I would leave well enough alone. Looking at the skin tones in the enhanced image, you will see that the groom's neck and ear got a bit red. They don't stand out in the original image. I would recommend that you simply talk to the lab people and tell them you want the skin tones enhanced.

 

Drum scanning a negative will run you probably at least $50. So for digital manipulation you'd have to spend some good money on the drum scan, then you'd have to send the image off to some place like Winkflash for printing. And you also say that you don't have much experience with Photoshop.

 

Overall, take it to a pro lab, tell them what you want, and order an 8x10. You'll only pay $10 or so to see what it looks like. If its what you want, then tell them to match it.

I have a feeling that you won't need to do anything at all.

 

Lift up the mirror with your finger, and on the bottom of the 645 you will see a sensor. I think this is the sensor that is actually used to determine the light exposure on the film using the automatic modes. When you drop the focusing screen, you will see a little bit of circuit board in the corner. I think this is where the viewfinder light measurement comes from. And do you really believe what it says anyways? I never do.

 

As far as readjusting for a different thickness of the screen, wouldn't that mean that Beattie sells a defective product? I don't think they do. The image on a Pentax screen is formed on the bottom side, and I am pretty sure that is where Beattie forms its image, too.

 

Install the screen, and I'm sure you'll have no problems.

If you are looking at things 1-2 YEARS away for digital, then why not just wait for a digital back in your price range? You keep the camera, use it with film, and then a digital back will be available and you can just slap it on.

 

Since the remote area will include your computer, then you are not all that remote. Things may be inconvenient, but it isn't remote. (I have lived without electricity and running water. I know what remote is.) Buy a decent scanner. If you develop B&W, develop for scanning, not for making a paper image.

 

I recommend that you stick with your MF gear until film is gone. That's the only way that you will get the most money out of your investment.

 

If you want to get rid of your gear, consider the largest print size you want to make. You can get an 8Mp DSLR for appx $1000, and that may be enough for you. It should be good enough for a decent 11x14, but the print won't match what you can do _now_ with your current equipment.

 

I have a 44-inch panorama from my Pentax 645 that's excellent, so think about what you can do with your equipment now.

Russ, from what I understand Xtol only had problems with the 1-liter packages. I personally never had problems with it myself, but when the chemicals didn't combine to be clear I dumped the solution. I have never had any problems with the 5-liter packages. I mix it up in a 2-gallon plastic bucket that I use only for mixing Xtol.

 

Patrick: It's time to experiment! :-) I have had a full range of tones when using Delta 3200 at 1600, with Xtol 1:3 for 20 minutes, 68F.

If I remember right, the digital backs for LF are not specific to individual cameras, but they may require the use of specific lenses.

 

You should be able to rent all-digital LF systems. One of the Seattle shops is now exclusively digital, and they rent out a large number of digital LF cameras. Check Sinar's website, as they have at least a couple of digital configurations.

 

If a client wants a digital file, then 4x5 film is the easiest to scan.

Photographer's Formulary: <a href="http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopModules/StoreProductDetails.aspx?productID=158&tabid=9&tabindex=2&categoryid=38&selection=0&langId=0">Reducer II for Negatives</a> is a superproportional reducer.

I have some negatives which take three minutes at f4.5 to print with an Ilford grade 00 filter. (I made the mistake of trying to pull a film when I had not previously experimented with pulling the film.) I have also been told (but I've never tried it) that a green filter over the enlarger lens will reduce contrast, too.

 

The problem with preflashing the entire paper is that your whites will never be totally white after development. To get them totally white, you will have to bleach them. There is a good article at Black & White World on the process.

Since Tech Pan is no longer produced, why would you want to experiment with it? Either toss it, or else use it for something you care about and develop as recomended.

(<a href="http://www.jobo-usa.com/bulletins/xtol.htm">Jobo Xtol page</a>) The minimum amount of Xtol is really only a concern when using a dilution. If you use only the stock solution, then no problem.

The Jobo CPE-2 doesn't have a drum specifically for processing 8x10 film. The paper drum might suffice. If you don't have a darkroom of some sort, ignore the rest of this, because you won't be able to load the film using a changing bag.

 

You will need to load the film in the drum with the emulsion side facing the center (notches on the top-right of the sheet). After you are done processing, you may still need to give it a little more time in the fixer with a tray (some film layers clear in the fixer). You will not be able to wash the film inside the drum, that will need to be done in a tray (11x14).

It hasn't been in the freezer, right? Just the fridge? You don't want to freeze this film because the developing solution will burst in the holder.