nathanielpaust

I'm guessing that you're correct in your guess about not pulling the sleeve all the way.

I've done this a few times with readyloads and polaroids, and it results in a nice clean

line dividing the normally exposed part from the completely unexposed part.

You don't have to cock it, simply pressing the shutter release works.

 

Both work just as you'd expect. B stays open for as long as you hold it, T opens with one press and shuts with another.

I just got a new (very old) lens, and I have a question about it that I'm hoping the group here can answer.

 

Between f11 and f16, there's a red dot on the aperture scale. It's not just a random drip of paint, it looks like it's there on purpose since there's a little engraved hole that's filled with the red paint.

 

Does anyone know what this dot could signify?<div></div>

According to St. Ansel, you shouldn't change your exposure based on the polarizer position.

 

I know that in 35mm, I always used to meter through the polarizer. However, this means that I would turn the polarizer until I darkened the sky and then change the exposure to bring the sky back to its original brightness. Of course, the relative brightness between the sky and clouds or other things changed changed, so everything seemed to work.

 

However, the idea with the zone system (or just trying to visualize the picture before you take it) is that mid-tone things should have a set density on the film. Thus the grey rock in the middle of the picture (which doesn't polarize the light it reflects) should have the same density on the film so we use a set filter factor. By rotating the polarizer we can adjust the relative brightness of the sky, but it doesn't change the exposure which we based on the rock. If the exposure was based on the sky, rotating the polarizer would be changing the film density for the rock and messing up all the neat zone system controls that we have.

 

With that said, I only think it really matters if you're concerned about using all of the zone system controls. The difference between metering through the polarizer and using a filter factor probably maxes out around 1 stop which would be important for transparencies, but not much else. With my 4x5, I don't meter through the filter, just because that way I don't have to keep screwing and unscrewing the filter.

 

Hope this helps.

I'm a grad student at Dartmouth, which unfortunately is keeping me away from the camera more than I'd like. However, I try to get my 4x5 out a few times a month.

I'm not sure how important having a color meter would be, but it wouldn't be that hard to just build one using a normal spot meter. The only trick is that you'd have to take two measurments.

 

Basically, you just need to get two filters that fit on your spotmeter. One blue and one red (or yellowish). If I were doing this, I would go to someplace that sells astronomical filters since you'll know the bandpass. If you could get something like a B and R (or V) filter you'd be set. Any intro astronomy book can tell you the temperature of a blackbody based on the B-R (or B-V) color. It should even be measureable... for example something with a color temperature of 10,000K should have a B-V color of 0 (ie, the same brightness in the two filters) whereas something at 3000K will have a brightness difference of around 2.5 times.

 

A few caveats.

1. It would only work for blackbodies or things reflecting light from blackbodies.

2. The object itself would have to be neutral gray.

3. You'll have to do a bit of calibration of the system to account for the sensitivity of your meter.

4. If you use an astro book to determine the temperature, you'll have to figure out the conversion between magnitudes and stops since 1 magnitude difference is a factor of 2.51 or so in brightness whereas 1 stop is a factor of 2.

 

However, if you really need something like this, it might be worth doing.

 

Nathaniel

I've tried doing portraits using front tilt with good results. I just tilted the front standard quite a ways (20 degrees or so) and then focussed until the band of focus was where I wanted it.

 

One thing to watch out for is any sort of rear tilt or swing because of the distortion that it introduces. I initially figured that if front tilt was good, front and rear tilt would be even better. However, oval stretched heads aren't really that appealing.

I rented a Toyo for a day and then tried out the Canham in the store, and instantly purchased the Canham. For me, it's really what I was looking for in a 4x5. Light, compact, dependable. With that said, there are some niggling faults... it would be nice if it were easier to zero the movements and if it were a little bit more rigid. However, none of the little faults have ever ruined a picture and I'm not planning to get another camera anytime soon.

You can hyper film by heating it in a hydrogen atmosphere (sounds like a great idea) to drive off water and improve long-exposure performance of the film. This is used a lot in astronomy.

 

Maybe microwaving the film helps do something similar by removing excess water from the film.

As the earlier posters mentioned, the colors will probably have shifted. With that said, the results might still be very interesting... Robert Capa's photographs of the Normandy invasion were damaged by heat (during the drying stage) which gave them the blurry look that we now instantly associate with WWII.

 

Perhaps the pictures will get you a spot in Life magazine.

 

Nathaniel

I'm sure that you're probably set on buying a windows system, but you might want to take a look at the new PowerMacintoshes that were released today. DDR Ram and all of them are dual processors. Apple's quote is that the fast one is 90% faster than a 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 system.

 

I have to admit that I'm inherently biased against Dell/Microsoft/Intel, but there is a reason why so many creative professionals use Macs. Photoshop takes advantage of the vector processor in the G4 and color workflows are relatively simple. It's something to look into. Also, ignore anyone who recites the "Don't buy from Apple, they're not going to be around in a year." Those people are largely uniformed morons who simply buy equipment because magazines tell them to. Your choice of OS is largely one of personal preference. For me at least, using a Macintosh makes me much less frustrated and much more productive.

Richard, I thought of one little piece of information that might explain why there should be a difference in effective shutter speed with aperture when you aren't measuring one.

 

The problem, I'm betting, is that you have developed a constant system to test your lens. It sounds like you've been thorough with your test, so I'm sure that you carefully center your lenses in the tester each time. Assuming that your tester uses a narrow beam of light, this would give you the exact speed of your shutter. However, if you offset your lens so that you're testing near the edge of the aperture iris, I think that you may see more variability. If you're getting good results, I'm not sure that the difference really matters. One interesting thing that I'd like to know from your tests is what kind of click-to-click variability your shutters give. That is, what is the standard deviation of the exposure time?

 

As a side note, in astronomy, we have to worry about shutter shading quite often. In infrared astronomy the exposures are usually pretty short and the time required to open and shut the shutter becomes important.

I think that everybody is right that you shouldn't try to use the film normally. It's been compromised, and it would be a lot cheaper to replace it than it would be to replace a once-in-a-lifetime photo.

 

With that said, I would probably shoot a sheet of it along with a sheet of non-wet "good" film each time you want to take a picture. That way, the "good" film will be sure to get the picture, but you might get an interesting picture from the previously wet film.

 

I have some great pictures that came about by accident (color shifting on old tungsten polaroid film). I definitely wouldn't just throw the film away.

 

Nathaniel

Perhaps I'm overly trusting of the postal service, but I usually just put my quickloads (with the exposed sticker well stuck on) in a priority mail envelope with a piece of cardboard to make sure that they aren't bent. I'm shipping film from New Hampshire to Seattle, and I haven't had a problem yet.

 

Express mail would probably be even better, it would give them less time to mess things up.

 

Nathaniel

I've been using a lab in Seattle called "Photobition Seattle" (they used to be called Ivey Seright) and I have never had a problem with them. They do great Type-R prints too. Their prices are better than the labs here in New England... $1.60 (or $2.60 I don't remember) for C-41 or E6 4x5, about $14 for 35mm C-41 with a contact sheet, $7 or $8 for 35mm E6 slides, around $14 or $15 for an 8x10 color print.

 

You can give them a call at (206) 623-8113. They also have an 800 number, but I don't have that with me right now.

 

Nathaniel

A few issues here:

 

<p>

 

1) I checked your entire site and found nothing about photography,

just some random celebrity photos.

 

<p>

 

2) Please use a spell checker and learn the difference between your

and you're.

I want to add another question, because it sounds like I have exactly

the same question as Lawrence.

 

<p>

 

For those of you using the Epson 2450, do you have problems with noise

in the shadows of the scan? Or is the scanner good enough to do it

more or less noise-free in dense areas of the neg or transparency?

 

<p>

 

Thanks,

I use a lab called Photobition in Seattle. It used to be called Ivey

Seright. They have always been great, on time, and the quality is

perfect. The only problem that I ever had was one fingerprint on a

35mm slide. They washed it and had it back in my hands within a half

hour. (In hindsight however, it may have been my thumbprint.)

 

<p>

 

Now that I'm living in New Hampshire, I still send my film back to

Seattle for processing. They also do great type R prints.

Just a quick addition, since the moon is being lit up by sunlight, you

can basically use the sunny 16 rule to take pictures of it. The

problem is that it's albedo (reflection) is only around 10% instead of

the ~18% used normally. That makes it a sunny 11 rule.

I'm not a medium format user, so you can take this advice with a grain

of salt, but the only difference between 120 and 220 is that 220 is

twice as long and doesn't have backing paper along the entire strip of

film. The difference between a 120 holder and a 220 holder is mainly

just a shim to hold the 220 film in the correct focal plane.

Otherwise it would be a paper-thickness too far back.

 

<p>

 

I would assume that you could probably shoot 120 in a 220 holder if

you 1. either compensated for the backing when you focus or 2.

stopped down and extra stop or two to get some extra depth of focus.

I tend to shoot Velvia because I get a huge thrill plunking my

transparencies on the light box and looking at them with a fairly

powerfull loupe. E100VS looks pretty grainy to my eye.

I don't have an answer to the schneider vs. rodenstock debate, but I

can tell you that the 180mm fuji is a great lens. I've had mine for

about a year and I have never had a problem with the lens even though

mine is older and only single coated.

 

<p>

 

Looking at Badger Graphic's web site though, I would probably go with

the Nikkor. It's $100 less expensive, which would be an important

factor to me since all four lenses would perform about the same in the

real world.

 

<p>

 

Nathaniel

I use this head with both my 35mm and 4x5 gear (Canham DLC). I don't

have any great critique to offer, it just works for me. One

interesting thing is that the QR plates have a small hole forward of

the mounting bolt. (I think it's intended to stop rotation on video

equipment?) On my camera, this hole lines up with one of the mounting

holes, so it's easy to make sure that the QR plate doesn't rotate. It

might not work with your camera though.

 

<p>

 

All in all, I think it's a fine head. There isn't another that I

would switch too. (Although I'm not a ballhead person.)

 

<p>

 

Nathaniel

One thing you probably should check before you get too concerned is

that _your_ lens works the same as Ctein's. There's always some

positional uncertainty (slop) when you build something and your lens

may be amazing and sharpest at 5.6 or you may have to stop down to f16

to get to the sharpest point. There's also the issue of making sure

that your enlarger is aligned and properly damped from vibration and

everything.

 

<p>

 

Second, you may want to look into getting some kind of regulated

dimmer for your head. With a lot of lights (and I'm not sure about

the one you have, someone else can hopefully give you a definite

answer), if you reduce the voltage to the bulb you can 1) make the

light dimmer 2) reduce aging of the bulb (hugely) and 3) make the

bulb last much longer. It may give you longer printing times with

larger apertures and increase how long your equipment works.

My personal feeling is that the decision to work in digital or

conventional photography is really driven by what you want to do. The

fact that you can still get the chemicals to produce cyanotypes

despite the fact that they're almost ancient technology shows that new

tech very seldom completely replaces old tech. Of course, if you do

catalogs or advertising people are probably going to think that you're

stupid for not using digital within a few years.

 

<p>

 

The fact of the matter though, is that there are going to be people

willing to buy film, paper, and chemistry for a long time into the

future. I know that once we get to the point when film is no longer

available I will have been in my grave for a long time, and I'm only

at the quarter century mark right now.