william_john_smith

1903 Autochrome patented by Auguste and Louis Lumi鲥 of Lyons, France. <BR>

Kodachrome was first made in 8mm movie film size in Spring 1936. Kodachrome film in

35mm and 828 Bantam size was introduced in August or September 1936.

<I>It's probably not worthwhile starting to work with what little is left of the Kodachrome of

old. It isn't but a trace of the quality it was a long time ago.</I><P>That might be true but

Eggleston is still using it and Patrick wanted the "Eggleston look", so if it still good enough

for Eggleston then why not for Patrick?

Eggleston uses Kodachrome. Most of his prints are dye transfer which look has yet to be

obtained digitally or with chromogenic color prints. BTW, Kodak stopped making the

materials for dye transfer printing about 15 years ago.

Had the same problem with my M7. A Leica tech, at a Leica demo day, swapped the pressure

plate with my M6 plate and the scratch disappeared. He checked it out at the time with a roll

of

film he had, before and after. He suggested that I buy a pressure plate from Leica, $44, and

change it myself.

Did, and

the scratch disappeared. Beats sending back to Leica.<BR>Not saying this is what caused

your

scratch but It can happen.

To see where all begain: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/

240048_firstdigital09.html?source=rss

As of 1:30PDT international news services report the following:<P>

"U.S. authorities made a rare request for help from Europe over the weekend, asking for

anything from diapers and baby formula to forklifts and veterinarian supplies."<P>

"The NATO alliance has also started to coordinate shipments of food, drinking water,

generators and tarpaulins through its disaster coordination center."<P>

"The United States has been enormously grateful for the outpouring of support both

emotional and concrete from allies over the past week," said Victoria Nuland, the U.S.

ambassador to NATO."<P>

NATO officials said the alliance was coordinating offers of food, shelter and other aid from

several allies, including Germany, Canada and Norway which was offering navy divers as

well as 10,000 blankets. Latvia and France were preparing to send disaster relief

teams.<P>

Non-NATO members were also working with the alliance disaster coordination center,

including Switzerland and Russia which has offered generators, tents and 10,000

meals.<P>

Germany and Britain had already sent 570,000 emergency food rations over the weekend,

while Luxembourg was preparing to send a team of five aid experts, two jeeps, and

bedding. The Netherlands had deployed a naval frigate, which was transporting drinking

water, medical supplies and much needed helicopters."<P>

I store my developer, Rodinal, in a plastic bottle, seems to last for years. Being of the same

generation as Mr. Kaplan I concur with his methodology. After all, most chemicals do come

in plastic containers now days. I do mark what ever, "darkroom chemicals", just in case.

<I>I've seen this comment before but have yet to see any plausible proof to support it.

</I><P>Keep looking and learning and you will one day see it. The problem is yours, not

mine or the others who use VueScan.

I would suggest reading the users guide, filter secton.<P>I only scan B&W and have been

using NIkon scanners since the very first one and yes the grass is very much greener then

Nikon Scan when using VueScan, like night and day.

B&H regular price for Agfapan 100 x 36 is 2.99 ea. Agfapan 400 x 36 is 3.09 ea. So where

is the savings?<P>The Arista, which is Ilford FP 4, is somewhat cheaper then B&H.

Polaroid, up until the mid nineties, made four 35-mm instant films. PolaChrome,

PolaBlue,

PolaGraph and a grayscale one which name escapes me. They were developed using a

tabletop processor. As such you would have full length films strips when done. Polaroid

sold

a film cutter and slide mounts to work with the processor. As said above the film was

meant

for

short term use. I shot 1000s of PolaBlue and PolaChromes for an engineering company I

had

a contract with at the time. At first they were used in a slide projector for presentations.

When

the first film scanners appeared we switched to scanning and importing into Powerpoint.

The

quality of the grayscale was very good, just so you used it to print post haste.<P>BTW, I

have

a used Polaroid 35mm processor and one roll of PolaGraph for sale if anyone is interested

but

I'm not holding my breath.

It doesn't matter what Sandy's concerns are, he doesn't want to use paypal, that is all we need

to known. I don't use paypal either, and the reason is my business. I have paid for other

sites

by sending them a check, worked fine.<P>Sandy, have you emailed the powers to be? Seems

like they would welcome your money in any form.

I can only speak of Kodak IR but your filter is a #25-Red which is the correct filter for your

basic B&W landscape photography. To get a darker/contrast scene use a #87 filter, and if

you really want a dark sky combine the #25 with a Polarizing Filter. The #25 is a good choice

because in most cases it can be handheld. Bracket it and watch your focus, IR needs to be

focused on the near plane of what you want sharp, not the center.

The more popular fixers and developers are stocked at B&H and Calumet. They are on the

shelve at the San Francisco Calumet, I use the fixer and developer and just walk in and buy

it.<BR>In any

case

Photographer's Formulary is a great company, I ordered a contact printer from them and got

it in less then a week. Don't know how long chemicals will take as I pick mine up from

Calumet.

I print up to 20"x30" on a 7600 using AgfaPan 100 and Elke 100 developed in Rodinal and

then scanned on a Nikon LS 4000. I develop the same as I have been doing for the last 35

years, haven't changed a thing. The problem with B&W is that most people don't want to

take

the time in learning how to scan/print it. One doesn't learn how to print in the darkroom

overnight, no different with digital.<BR>You might want to get one of your negatives

scanned

at a pro lab and scan it yourself and see if you see any difference. My guess it is your

scanning that is the problem. Your printing setup is top notch so the problem isn't there,

that is

if you have the proper printing work flow. If you can get good 8x10s there is reason you

can't do 11x14s.

Why don't you email Roy Harrington the maker of QTR and ask him? I would think he would

know a little more about it then anyone on Photo.net.

<B><I>I can honestly say that no one could tell the difference........</I></B><BR>Speaking

for a

whole lot people arn't you young man? I think you mean you can tell the difference don't

you? I haven't seen it so you best leave me out for now.