James G. Dainis

I don't know why but I really like that house on the water. Everything seems to fit, even the small strip of road and white stripe.   All seems in balance.

   I had a partial eclipse here in Florida. About 1/2 of the sun got covered.  I took a gray card reading before and after. It didn't look that much darker during the 1/2 eclipse but I did get about a one stop difference on my gray card reading. If I didn't know that there was a partial eclipse I never would have know that it was occurring. The sun was too bright to look at. 

I had heard that one could see the stars during a  total eclipse.

Living in Florida I only saw a partial eclipse.  I had heard that during a total eclipse things got very dark and shadows from tree leaves took on a surrealistic appearance.  There was no longer direct light from a   ball in the sky but lighting from a circular source in the sky causing strange shadows. Many people joined large crowds such as at the grandstand at Indianapolis speedway.  They saw just as much as the people at home watching on television, just staring up at the sky.

How dark did the scenery get on the ground during totality? It was impossible to tell. The TV cameramen did not know what exposure to use to show the true scene.  At one time everything looked dark then, blink, an exposure change so everything looked light like normal daylight then, blink, everything looked very much brighter than normal daylight. Then another blink and everything looked  very dark again.

There will be another USA eclipse in another 20 years. Perhaps by then the TV people will figure out what exposure to use to show the correct scene.  And, people will realize it is better to be in a park or open area  to seen the effect that the eclipse has on the landscape rather than just staring up at the sky to see what people watching on television are seeing.

i never had any problem changing from a horizontal to a vertical position quite quickly. Are you worried about getting dust in the camera when you momentarily remove the back?

AJG, that doesn't look  translucent to me.  It doesn't even look like glass.

In my above photo of  the swan the light is traveling toward the camera off  the backdrop. there is no front lighting except dim ambient.  I think all photos of glassware looks best with the light traveling through the glass.

I took this shot long ago  using a Sony Mavica FD73 digital camera. The purpose was to show eBay users how to back light a translucent item very simply.  It is just a straight photo with the lighting supplied by a desk spot lamp shining on a light background.  No real magic needed.

I agree with AJG.  Also, use of the Zone system, (expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights) would be of tremendous help.

https://www.jdainis.com/zone.html

Maybe this:, Outdoor Photography:

https://www.outdoorphotographymagazine.co.uk/

I would say that all film cameras are classics in the making.

"sucker" is used as a verb as in "entice  film shooters to buy scanners requiring endless hacks and antique OS adaptions.

c_watson1,  is sharing his opinion. This moderator fails to see it as a nasty toxic response.

 I used to make Cibachrome prints for friends from their slides until I got tired of hearing, "But these don't glow like the projected slides do." Project a slide of a light bulb on a slide screen and the darkened room lights up from the light reflected off of the screen.  Stick a photograph of the light bulb on the wall and what do you see? Nothing. The room remains dark. You've lost the glow.

19 hours ago, Brooklyncraftsman said:

Thanks! I shot this at 100 and developed with D76 at 1:1 for 8.5 minutes. So I will try another strip with longer development time and see what I can get! 

Note: The longer the development time the darker the blacks on the film will get.

It is good to know that all desiccants are not the same.  Make sure it is silica gel.

19 hours ago, Niels - NHSN said:

That particular linked warning is based on stupidity of the third degree from someone who should know better.
I wish moderators would change his title as he is obviously NOT using Silica Gel that damaged his camera.

 

Niels, It looks to me that the silica gel in contact with the lens caused damage. Or are you saying that is not a silica gel pack?

When developing individual sheet film it might be best to go "Ansel Adams" or expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights.

http://www.jdainis.com/zone.html

BTW, Ansel Adam suggested using selenium   toner on the negative to increase tonal range.

On 6/12/2023 at 10:24 PM, arthur_smith1 said:

I wouldn't trust that book as a credible source- hopelessly out of date. 

 The latest McKeown's 12th edition was published in 2006; quite some time ago. I wonder if the prices in the book would be higher than since eBay started flooding the market.

Most of the offers on eBay seemed to be highly optimistic and got no bids. Offers within the McKeown's price range did get bids.

Try selenium toner. It  attaches to low values  and increases both contrast and density in dark tones, i.e. enhances a prints tonal range. Remove the print from the toner  and wash as soon as you start to see a color change. It will continue to darken and change color even after being removed. Too long in the toner and the blacks  become purple in color. Toning also increases the archival property of the print.

McKeown's Price Guide lists that camera as $70 -$150

"With color film, the emulsion needs a minimum of three days to fully react to the light that exposed it. "

That is the first time I have ever heard that. Is it true?

I believe the OP is asking about film not which digital camera to buy.

Rick, That tiny space between the front tire and the shadow bothers me. Otherwise, great shot.

Rick, I have to agree with Gary. The ones you developed in PMK Pyro had a much more silvery look to the grays.