tom_johnston4

I am working up and estimate for work that I will be doing for a major Chicago

hospital. This type of thing is new to me and I would appreciate pricing

guidelines or suggestions that anyone may be able to share.

 

For now, I will be producing from 12 to 15 20x24" b&w prints for decor in a

wing of the hospital. The overall framed size for all will be 28"x32". Briefly,

here's what the job involves: I am going to keep to a unified theme and I think

the photographs will be Chicago city scenes... landmarks, architecture,

neighborhood, etc. (I have great latitude in the choice of subject matter.)

 

I will be shooting in 4x5". I may shoot some in 8x10" but I probably won't

because I want uniformity as much as possible. They will be printed on double-

weight fiber-based papers and receive archival processing including selenium

toning. They will dry-mounted on museum rag board and have an over-mat of the

same type. They will be backed by acid-free foam core and framed in aluminum

frames with double-strength plexi (as required by the hospital for safety

reasons).

 

I have my cost basis worked out pretty well. Although I am published and my

prints are in private collections, I am basically an unknown photographer but

the hospital is buying my work for decor, of course, not for investment

potential. The job will require frequent travel to and around Chicago (about 60

miles round-trip to likely locations. Of course, the hospital won't care about

my travel expenses. They will only care about the price of the prints but I

have worked those costs into my cost estimate. (I am not going to say what that

estimate is here because I don't want that to influence any price

recommendations I may get.) I want to know what a generally fair price range is

for prints of this type (assuming very high quality) sold to a hospital or

similar institution for this purpose.

 

Does anyone have any rough starting point suggestions? Links to pricing guides?

 

Thanks,

Tom

I am in the conceptual stages of a project to produce a series of large framed

b&w prints for a wing of a major Chicago hospital. To start, I am probably

looking at 12 to 15 16x20" or 20x24" black & prints that I will mat and frame

myself as always do with my prints. (I always give prints archival processing

and toning.) If things work out, I will also be producing prints for hospital

rooms but that is a different story and the constraints will be different.

 

This type of project is new to me and I would appreciate some practical advice

from others here who may have done similar projects. For most of my b&w prints,

which are displayed in private homes, I have generally used regular picture

glass. Obviously I will be using Plexi or a similar material for safety reasons

with this project. Besides, plexi is required by the hospital. I sometimes use

regular plexi for prints displayed in private homes where there are children or

there are other safety concerns but because the light in those conditions can

be controlled to minimize glare glare, glare has never been an issue. But I am

concerned that shiny glass will cause a glare problems in hospital lighting

conditions so I may want to go with a non-glare type of glass. However, I know

that there are more than one type of non-glare Plexi materials to choose from

and I remember reading something about the advantages and disadvantages of

various kinds. Some obscure fine detail. The prints will be matted so they

won't be touching the glass, of course. I shoot with with large format cameras

and I exploit the fine detail capabilities of those formats and fine detail is

generally a characteristic of my work so I do not want to suppress or hide

detail. I would appreciate recommendations for the best type of Plexi type

material for my purposes. That is, a safe material that reduces or eliminates

glare while revealing as much detail as possible. I need to know this before

working up an estimate.

 

Also, I would appreciate any other comments or advice from photographers who

have done this sort of project that I may not have thought of. For example, any

information on pricing for hospital work would be good to know.

 

Thanks,

Tom

Thanks Alexis but I have not done any tests with the combination yet. That's why I asked for starting times for tray processing sheet film. Since I specified how I will process the film in the original question, I hope that I don't get responses from people who are processing in a totally different way or with roll film, etc. I know how easily these threads can get off track. That's why I took care to specify how I was processing. Yes, I know that there are other variables, of course, but I was looking for a good starting point from someone here that tray processes Tmax100 in Rodinol. Once the film speed test is done, I will, of course, run a series of development tests. That's a given. I do that with all films that I test but I have found that it is hard to find reliable information on this particular film/developer combination for tray processing. I want to get recommendations for dilutions and basic development times for normal development to use for the speed test. For example, I don't want to do speed tests at, say, a dilution of 1:25, if it would be a better idea to do normal development at 1:50, etc. I expected someone to say, "Do the tests." Of course I am going to do the tests! But it's easier to do the tests with a good starting point for the film speed test and I know that there are photographers here who have worked with this combination.

 

Thanks

Richard,

 

Yes, I actually checked it first. Unfortunately, it doesn't have development times for the new version of Tmax100 sheet film. However, I went back to the site and now notice that it says the starting points are the same for the new film (note) so, if I don't get any recommendations from others who use the same combination, I will use that for a starting point. I am very skeptical about the far shorter development times that Kodak lists for the new version of the film. Also, I'm not sure if the MDC specifies what type processing is used... tank or tray, in this case. I will check that out again right now. Thanks.

 

I would still like to hear from others who tray process the new version of Tmax100 in Rodinol.

I am doing my calibration testing again primarily because I finally ran out of

my stock of the old version of Tmax100 but other variables have changed over

time too so it's time to test. I decided that this is a good time to test

some other developers as well. Believe it or not, in 40 years of darkroom

work, I have never used Rodinol and I want to test it with Tmax100. The

problem is finding reliable starting points for doing the tests. Everyone

seems to have their favorite dilution for this film and development times for a

given dilution vary widely... much more widely than they usu sally do for other

films. Of course, it is normal for everyone to have different development

times (all else being equal) but info I have found on Rodinol varies too widely

to determine a good starting point for testing.

 

So, I would like to hear from people who have tray processed the new version of

Tmax100 sheet film in Rodinol. What dilution, temperature and time give you

the best N development? Please let me know why you chose that dilution. I

am looking for a ball-park starting point for film speed and development time

tests with this film/developer combination. I have searched for answers but,

in forums like this, the question is generally not the same and most of the

responses do not apply to my specific situation.

 

If you have N- and N+ time/temp combinations that work for you well, I would

like to hear about that too.

 

Thanks

Why hasn't someone thrown Pico off these boards? Every time I see one of his responses, it is downright nasty and uncalled for.

Bill,

 

Well, I've been listening to shutters for over 40 years and there is no way in the world I would claim that I could judge speeds from 1 second to 1/100 of a second accurately by sound, let alone easily. In fact, it would be interesting to place a bet on your ability to do so. I would give you 10 to 1 odds (at least) that you cannot do it with accuracy good enough for practical purposes, especially with faster speeds. Even the sound program cannot pick up diffences at those speeds and you cannot even judge them carefully studying the sound graph while taking your time. At those speeds, the mechanical functions vary among lenses too. Even at, say, a 1/4 second shutter speed, it would be difficult to identify a 1/3 - 1/2 stop error, let alone at fast speeds. But if you can do it, all power to you.

 

Can you catch bullets in your teeth too? LOL

 

Best

John,

 

I knew when I stumbled onto this method that others probably knew about it since it is so easy. I don't have any Compur shutters so I don't know how they record but the results I am getting are incredibly accurate when compared to test data that S.K. Grimes sent back with a lens last week - far greater accuracy, in fact, that I need for practical purposes but which provides me with a wide margin of confidence in the method. But you are right about the fast shutter speeds. I don't have the confidence in the results I am getting with fast shutter speeds that I am getting with slow speeds. It's difficult to judge the high speed graphs. However, I am seeing extremely good accuracy up to 1/60th of a second and, even at the fastest speeds, the results I'm getting does seem to correlate with the data S.K. Grimes has sent out recently with two lenses including the one I just got back last week. I am going to inspect the high speed graphs more carefully today, crunch some numbers, and see how it works out. But I am not concerned about those speeds anyway. I cannot remember when I last used a high shutter speed in LF. It would have been years ago in the studio with electronic flash and, in that situation, shutter speed is not important anyway, unless you are adjusting ambient/flash ratios, as you know.

 

As for judging slow shutter speeds by ear: Yes, I can do that to a degree too. But I would not bet you that I could tell if, say, a 1/2 second shutter speed was off by 1/3 stop, etc. The No. 5 shutter I mentioned above sounded good to me at 1 second but the test shows that it is actually running at about .75 or .80 second or about 1/3rd stop fast. That's not terribly off, of course, but with the narrow latitude E6 films that I use when shooting color, it can make a difference and it's good to know about. Also, when I need a shutter speed of several seconds, I generally simply shoot multiple one-second exposures and the error would accumulate in that case. (When my exposures get above five seconds or so, I use a stop watch or just count the time out.) I keep a little chart taped inside the lens caps of my LF lenses with compensation info for shutter speeds that are off. Now, with this method, I can check that data whenever I want to see if the shutter speeds have drifted. I see no reason not compensate when it takes no time at all. I am not an accuracy freak by any stretch of the imagination but it only makes sense to me to have reasonable control of the variables involved when it involves no real effort.

 

For moderately higher speeds like 1/15th - 1/60th, I don't think anyone could actually judge accuracy by ear.

 

But what makes me most happy about this method is that now I can keep track of how my shutters are performing without having to send them in for a CLA while not knowing if they actually need it or not. Until now, I sent in each of my lenses every year or two and considered it to be simply preventative maintenance. But two of my lenses that have gone the longest without a CLA are testing out to be beautifully calibrated - even better than the one that S.K. Grimes just adjusted. I was planning on sending them in soon but now I don't have to. I can now be confident that their shutter speeds are fine. That's a nice feeling.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Best

Jason,

 

I just began work on the Podcast. In fact, I was sitting down to do some more work on the first episode right now when your message showed up. I haven't produced a Podcast before so I am not sure how the uploading and listing part works yet although I have information on how to do it. LOL! But, seriously, she has an outstanding Podcast that has already won awards and she has been invited to do a presentation at a major symposium in Chicago about it!) I will have to learn how to get it listed in various places which should be no problem but one place I definitely want it to be listed is in iTunes. I will post something when it is up and running. Thanks for your interest.

Michael,

 

Thanks again for sharing those plans. Thats neat! I think I'll make one. The nice thing about it is that you can test focal plane shutters with it as well. As far as accuracy goes, it looks like either will produce excellent accuracy with leaf shutters.

Thanks Michael. Yes, I know about shutter efficiency as I mentioned in a previous post. Efficiency is, of course, higher at slow shutter speeds. Efficiency is even greater when using a slow shutter speed in combination with a small aperture as is usual when shooting in large format. I'm not sure if any shutter tester takes that into account.

 

Thanks for the link. You can also simply buy a relatively inexpensive shutter tester. However, the big advantage of the method I described above is that you don't need to buy or make anything at all, assuming you have a PC or Mac with a sound card, and the results I got using this method are almost precisely the same as S.K. Grimes got with their testers which, I assume, are very accurate. You can clearly see the shutter snapping open and closed in the graph produced. The results I got match S.K. Grimes test results with incredible accuracy.

 

Thanks much.

Tim,

 

Oh no, I never forget reciprocity. After decades of shooting LF, it's second nature to me. Well, actually I can pretty much forget it with Tmax 100 (100 Tmax now) which has been my standard b&w film since the original version came out. But I always had to compensate for reciprocity with my standard color film which was Velvia 50 for many years. But now that I have switched to Velvia 100, I hardly ever have to figure it in even for color which is very nice. However, I do use other films that do require compensation. Most of my exposures are in the 1/8 to 30 second range. In 8x10", about 1 to 2 seconds is probably about average for me. That's why I'm glad I found out that my 1 second shutter speed is running fast running fast for my 360 Commercial Ektar lens. All my other useful shutter speeds with all my lenses are well within tolerances which is nice to know.

 

I have just finished testing all of my LF lenses and I am happy to report that the tests were very good and almost perfectly consistent. In fact, they pretty much agree almost exactly with test charts that I received the last time each lens had a CLA. The only real exception I found was the 1 second shutter speed for the No. 5 shutter mentioned above. Based on how consistent the tests were (I repeated them several times) I am now confident that they are accurate. In fact, the fast shutter speed tests may be accurate too because most fast shutter speeds are off on LF lenses anyway and, in fact, my tests pretty much agree with S.K. Grimes tests for each lens at the fast shutter speeds. The fastest shutter speeds are off with all my lenses which is pretty much to be expected but I never use those speeds anyway and if I ever did need them for some reason, I know how much to compensate so that's no problem.

 

I'm pretty excited about this because now I can quickly test my lenses any time I feel like it and note any changes over time. In the past, I was not always confident that the shutter speeds had not drifted and, for that reason, I just sent my lenses in for a CLA every couple years. Now, unless they really need a cleaning, I won't have to send them in unless the tests indicate it's time. In the meantime, I can track their speeds with simple tests that only take a minute to do. It's a warm and fuzzy feeling to know how the shutters are performing. I hope anyone who has not thought of this or heard about this before will give this a try. Of course, you can always buy a basic shutter speed tester but this method works fine for my purposes.

And thank you for sharing your tests, Tim. I'm going to test my other shutter speeds with the No. 5 shutter now. I'm almost afraid to see the results but it's better to know what's really going on. The Universal Synchro shutters are known to be pretty inaccurate and even S.K. Grimes couldn't get the fastest speed (1/50th second) to within one stop of it's rated speed. But I don't like it that the 1 second speed is off as much as it is because I use it a lot. Also, when I need, say, a 4 second shutter speed, I often give four 1 second exposures and if it's off by as much as the graph indicates, that error would accumulate. On the other hand slow shutter are more efficient than fast shutter speeds. Combine that with small f/stops which are more efficient than large f/stops and which are are generally used with long LF lenses and the effective exposure may be accurate. (I'm just thinking out loud.) If anyone knows if that may be the case, I would appreciate hearing about it.

Rick,

 

That's neat! Thanks for posting the link. That would be useful for the high speeds. But the nice thing about using the audio program is that it costs nothing and no extra equipment is necessary. And, for me anyway, I almost never use fast shutter speeds in LF anyway and I rarely shoot in small formats so the limitation with this method really is no problem for me at all. However, the method you mentioned would be very useful for testing small format shutters. Thanks much!

Tim,

 

No, I didn't play with the graph or alter it in any way except to slide the graph down to the beginning of the time line. What you see is exactly what it recorded without any alterations. No effects or enhancements were applied at all. If you have a Copal shutter, give it a try and you should see the same pattern.

 

By the way, the shutter shown was a Copal 1. I am not familiar with your lens and I don't know what kind of shutter it has but, with the lens test I show here, the aperture is set before the shutter is released so the aperture has no effect on the graph at all, as you know. I always use a cable release and no sound is recorded for that since the shutter fires instantly when the release is pressed. The graph does show the shutter opening and closing sharply and Copal shutters make a whirring sound during exposure so that is why the graph records sound through the entire test. It's making noise during the exposure. But you bring up an interesting point. I am going to try this with a No. 5 Universal Synchro Shutter that I have. That shutter makes noise before and after the exposure so that should show up in the graph. Wait! Let me do it right now and attach the graph with this post since it only takes a minute.

 

This will be a 1 second exposure. This shutter is a self-cocking design so it should pick up sound before the shutter opens and after it closes.

 

OK, the test is done. This lens had a CLA about one year ago and S.K. Grimes' test sheet showed that the 1 second shutter speed was on the button at that time. But the attached graph indicates that the actual shutter speed is about 3/4 second. Either the speed is now off or the test is not as accurate with this type of shutter. But the graph does clearly show the shutter snapping open and closed so I think I can assume that this test is valid. I use 1 second exposures quite frequently so that is information to know and I will increase 1 second exposures by 1/3rd stop with this shutter now. I will test the other speeds in a minute.

 

Notice that the sound of the cable release moving the lever is recorded in this graph and also the whirring sound that this lens makes after the shutter is closed is also recorded.

 

I figured that other people have found this method of testing shutters but I thought I would post it anyway for those who haven't thought of it. I know I didn't think of it until after I had recorded the shutter to produce a sound-effect. This method can give you a good picture of how your shutters are performing. In fact, it can give you information that a regular shutter test cannot give you.

 

This method is not a perfect substitute for a shutter tester but it is clearly very useful. It is extremely accurate for speeds up to about 1/60th of a second with my Copal shutters. And it can obviously also be used to test for smooth or erratic shutter operation. You can easily compare repeated shutter graphs with great detail to see if they are consistent.

BTW, you can expand the time-line in your audio program to get as much resolution as you want.

I think Mr. Whittier has it right. His explanation makes good sense. On the other hand, Pigo's response was rude and totally uncalled for. I would suggest that Pigo simply not post here if he can't behave decently.

Someone mentioned Nigerian scams. What's that all about? I have a deal going on right now with a Nigerian prince that will make me millions!

 

LOL!

 

Classic scam.

 

Thanks for posting it. It's good to make other people aware of this particular scam.

I stumbled across a way to test your large format shutter speeds without a

shutter tester. I am putting together a Podcast for large format photographers

and I decided to use the sound of a large format shutter firing as a sound

effect. After recording it, I realized that the graph produced by the audio

program I was using gave me a picture of the shutter in operation. I used

Audacity, which is a wonderful freeware audio program, but you could use any

audio program that you have. It just so happens that I had S.K. Grimes do a

CLA on one of my lenses last week. I compared the graph produced by recording

the shutter in operation with the sheet S.K. Grimes sent back with the lens and

it was clear immediately that this procedure is extremely accurate up to speeds

of 1/30th to 1/60th of a second. In fact, the graph matched the speeds that

S.K. Grimes listed perfectly for the slower shutter speeds. At higher speeds,

this procedure was no longer accurate but I rarely shoot at those speeds

anyway. Even so, the audio program should still be useful in determining if

the shutter is performing smoothly and consistently at high speeds. Using this

program, I am also going to see if the shutter speeds remain the same when the

lens is cold. I have always wondered about that and now I can tell in an

instant.

 

The attached screenshot of the Audacity page shows my results for 1 second, 1/2

second, and 1/4 second tests. These match the speeds that S.K. Grimes

reported with uncanny accuracy.<div></div>

I realize that this is an old thread but I just came across it and I will add something for anyone who may read it in the future.

 

What S.K. Grimes told you is correct. The Fresnel CAN go on the lens side of the ground glass but, as Grimes said, that is ONLY true if the camera came equipped from the factory with the Fresnel installed. If it didn't, do not put the Fresnel in front of the ground glass unless you attach it without having to move the position of the ground glass in it's recess. If you move the ground glass by placing the Fresnel under it, the film plane will not be in the same place as the ground glass and focusing will be off. The ground side of the ground glass (lens side) must be in the same plane that the film will occupy. Do not move the ground glass. If your camera originally came without a ground glass installed from the factory, put the Fresnel behind the ground glass with the rough side facing the ground glass... or.... if you can find a way to hold it firmly against the lens side of the ground glass without moving the ground glass, that's OK.

 

Also, as someone else correctly pointed out, the Fresnel is not intended to be put under the ground glass clips on the Calumet camera. As that person said, the springs hold the Fresnel in by pressure on those cameras.

 

While I'm on this, here's a trick that I use to prevent scratching your Fresnel lens when using magnifiers, etc., in contact with it while focusing: Cut off the clear side of a transparency sleeve that labs use to protect your film. Put that over the Fresnel. Attaching it can be different with various cameras but it fits right under the washers on my Wisner 4x5" and under the clips on my Agfa/Ansco 8x10.

Thanks guys! From what you are saying, it sounds like Rodinol will give me just about the same E.I. or it might be just slightly slower. I was hoping that it might produce slightly faster film speed than the E.I. 64 that I get with HC110-B but that's O.K. I'll give it a try. I appreciate you sharing your development times. That will give me excellent starting points. Thanks again.

HC110 has been my primary developer for many years and I have never had a single problem with it no matter how long it has been on the shelf, even if it has been opened - as long as it has not been diluted. In fact, I have found bottles almost empty that I forgot I had for years and the HC110 had blood red streaks in it but it still worked perfectly. It may oxidize as someone else pointed out here, but it has always worked perfectly for me no matter how old it is and even if the bottle was mostly empty and sat for years. In fact, that, and the ease of use (I mix directly from concentrate) are two of the main reasons that it is my primary developer. I get great results withit too. It's wonderful stuff!

I am about to do all my Zone System calibration testing from scratch because

of variables that have changed over the years. I shoot in 4x5" and 8x10",

processing most of my film in trays but sometimes in large dip & dunk tanks

when I have large amounts of film to develop... like after an extended trip.

 

I will be testing several films with various developers but my primary film is

100 TMAX. My primary developer for it has been HC110-B since the film's

introduction. I get great results with that combination despite the fact that

some others do not. The only problem is that 100 TMAX is very unresponsive

to changes in development time with HC110 limiting expansion and contraction.

(There is a reason for this. A Kodak chemist explained it to me long ago but

I have forgotten that reason.) For expansion over N+1, I use other developers

and for contraction more than N-1, I use greater dilutions or other

developers. Another minor disadvantage of developing 100 TMAX in HC110-B is

that film speeds (E.I. 64) are lower than with some other developers that I

have used. Other developers that I sometimes use are D23, D23 split

development, TMAX-RS, D76, and also water bath, but most of my developing is

done with HC110-B. I have experimented with PMK Pyro but I just don't care

for it that much and it doesn't seem to be worth the trouble for my purposes.

 

Since I will be doing all my testing again, this is a great time to experiment

with other developers. My plan is to not go too crazy and stick with HC110,

TMAX-RS, XTOL, and Rodinol. I am especially intrigued with the idea of

developing 100 TMAX in Rodinol since I have read comments by other

photographers who really like that combination. So, I would like to hear

from anyone who develops 100 TMAX sheet film in Rodinol. I would like to

know what characteristics you like the most about the combination, what

dilutions you use, normal, n-, and n+ developing times you have arrived at

(for a starting point for my testing), and any other information and general

observations you might like to share about this film/developer combination,

including comments about sharpness, acutance, tonal gradation, etc.

 

Also, if you have another favorite developer for 100 TMAX that is not on my

tentative list (above) please let me know about it and why you like.

 

Thanks in advance.

Thanks guys. I should have mentioned that I always process my sheet film in trays except when I have very large amounts to do and, in that case, I use deep tanks. I almost never process one sheet of film at a time. I don't even like doing that for testing because I like to simulate actual working conditions when doing tests. I have never had a problem with sticking sheets... well, not for about 30 years. I have read some who claim that the pre-soak helps prevent sticking and, in fact, Ansel seems to say that in The Negative, but that doesn't make sense to me because, while it's true that you may eliminate the risk of films sticking in the developer when you pre-soak the film first, that same risk would exist when you go into the pre-soak itself. In any case, sticking films have never been a problem for me. By the way, I don't use the "fanning" method suggested by Adams. Having once been a pretty darn good card magician (sleight-of-hand), I instinctively did it in a better and more foolproof way.

 

I appreciate the suggestion about possible streaking with roll film in tanks when a pre-soak is not used. That makes good sense and I think I will stick with a pre-soak for roll film although I have no plans to do calibration testing on it in the near future anyway since I shoot so little of it.

 

I also appreciate hearing from people who do not pre-soak sheet film and who have not experienced any problems.

I am about to re-do all my Zone System calibration testing because of changes

in films, new films that I am using, changes in my equipment, etc. I shoot

almost exclusively in 4x5" and 8x10" formats although I still shoot some roll

film on occasion. For 35 years, I have always used a pre-soak step before

development based largely on recommendations by Ansel Adams, etc., who claim

that film development is more even when a pre-soak step is used. But before I

start my testing again, I would like to hear from anyone who has actually

tested differences between film that receives a pre-soak and film that does

not. If you have done testing on this, did you find that pre-soaked film had

more even development or showed any other advantage over film that does not

receive a pre-soak?

 

If I remember correctly, Ilford used to recommend that you skip the pre-soak

step. I am not sure what Kodak recommended.

 

Anyway, it would be nice to skip that step if I can be convinced that it

produces no practical advantage so I would appreciate any information anyone

may have about this based on testing or experience, not just something they

have read. When I start testing, I will do a quick experiment myself by

developing a sheet of film both with and without a pre-soak step and then

reading densities across the films and visually inspecting them but I would

also appreciate hearing from anyone who has tested this.