peter_witkop

I use a cheap ($6.00) watch from k-mart that stays in my camera bag. It also lets me keep an eye on the time too, though I try not to pay too much attention to that when I'm shooting (at least when shooting for fun anyway) :o)

Peter

Fix is often mixed at differant dillutions for film and paper, paper is generally mixed stronger. Silver halides are left in the fix after either film or paper, neither will spot the paper, they're microspic in size. The fixer removes the silver halides that have not been developed into metalic silver, after which the film or paper is no longer sensative to light. The dyes in the film could spot paper, I've never tried using the same chemistry for both, but it cerntainly would make sense, particularly with films like t-max that leave much dye in the fix.

Peter

I've used the old tri-x in 4x5 sheets a bit, which, as you stated, is the same emulsion as txp in 120. It's a great film, it's just not as forgiving as TXT, you'll likely need to do some testing to arrive at an E.I. and development time that works well for you, and you'll need to be pretty consistant with it, it's still not as picky as t-max films though. I always liked the skin tones in HP5 myself, but that's a subjective thing, and our processing methods can make a good deal of differance too. Good luck!

Peter

You might try Calumet, www.calumetphoto.com

Peter

The RZ works with an electronic shutter, and most cameras with electic shutters have a single mechanical shutter speed that will work then battery is dead, could that be the problem? Since the RB lenses have mechanical shutters, they would probably work just fine in that case.

Peter

Monolights have built in slaves, so when the key light fires, the rest see it, and fire. It might be a good idea to have a few extra synch cords and a couple of peanut slaves, since sometimes the slave doesn't see the other flashes. The built in slave is ussually enabled when the synch cord isn't pluged in, sometimes there's a switch to to let you turn it on or off too, and it's disabled when the synch cord is plugged in to the light, ussually. Just make sure all the lights are firing, check each one, and you should be fine.

Peter

I've got 12 holders now, 4 of which I bought new when I first started LF for the same reasons you mentioned, not wanting to deal with potential light leaks etc. The rest I bought used on E-Bay, and had no problems. I looked for modern holders, i.e. not older wooden holders, etc. I'd test any used film holders (maybe even new ones if the first shots with them were going be important or difficult/impossible to duplicate). I tested them all by cutting pieces of rc-paper to 4x5, loading them into holders and putting them out in the sun for an hour or so on each side, loading them each into the camera pulling the dark slide and poping a good size flash all around. I compared the processed paper to a piece of fixed out paper from the same box to see if I could find any density at all.

Peter

This is correct, but there's an easier way (at least easier for me anyway) to adjust the guide number to a differant ISO. I divide the GN by 10 (since 10 makes the math easy to do in my head), treat that number as an aperture setting for 10' away, adjust that up or down depending on film speed, then multiply that by 10 again to get the new guide number. So for GN 250 @ ISO 100 going to ISO 160, 250/10 = 25, f/25 + 2/3'rds stop (the differance between 100 and 160) is f/32, 32x10 = GN 320, which is equivilant to a GN of 315 (the differance is neglegable, and it's rounded off when shooting anyway, this way rounds earlier in the process). The only thing is, you said you're using two strobes, which changes things a bit, you have to start dealing with additive light. The easiest way is to just meter the thing, and that's what's done most of the time. There are ways of calclulating it, which isn't too hard, but it's kind of a long explanation, so I'll skip it unless you'd like me to go over it.

Peter

It's all about the degree of enlargement. At the same enlargement, their tonalities will be the same, but with a 4x5 negative, you'll have an 8x10, with 35mm you'll be looking at a little bigger than wallet size. The tonality differance happen because you're spacing the grains of silver farther appart, similar thing happens when you look at a print from a fine grained film like pan-f (iso 50) next to one from hp5 (iso 400), the pan-f print will have nicer tonality. For me though, the differances between LF and 35 are more than tonality. With a fine grained film, exposed correctly with good teqnique and properly processed, most parts of an image show no visible grain, but there are always places with smooth, subtle gradations that show grain, that bothers me. When you enlarge 35 to 8x10 (about as far as I ever go with it), and compare those prints to 8x10, 11x14 or larger prints from LF negs, the prints from the bigger negs just seem sharper, and have a much better feeling of texture, and even bigger than 11x14 there just isn't any grain, anywere, even in the smooth subtle gradations like sky areas or running water. I think non photographers do notice the differance (note: I shoot 4x5 because _I_ see the differance), it never fails whenever I show a set of prints from 4x5 negs to non photographers they always comment on the texture and detail, I don't get that comment about 35mm work. That's my point of view of it all anyway :o)

Peter

The link above is dead, could be a typo or it's down already. These are two other stories about it:

<p>

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html">http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616268111.html</a>

<br>

<a href="http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491273">http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000491273</a>

Kevin,

I can cerntainly understand that it could be comforting for a family of the service man/woman, but I see it as a basic freedom of the press issue. The traditional litmus (sp?) test of the american public's support for a military action has always been the reaction to flag draped coffins, and miltary funerals. Not allowing the press to show those images is essentially a side steping of that test of support.

Peter

The orange cast is from the video lighiting being tunsten. The the two options I would consider would be to shoot tungsten balanced film, and either use the avialable light from the video, or balance the flash to tungsten. I believe (and hopefully someone will confirm or correct me on this, it's been a little wihle since I've done it) that to balance daylight to tungsten you'd either use a full CTO gell, or an 85 series filter over the flash.

Peter

Jason

If you don't like the weather on Rochester (particularly in the winter), you can always come out to Santa Barbara and visit Brooks :o)

Peter

My understanding was that it did not always happen, but I've never used t-max (not rs) developer with sheet film. I've heard the recomendation not to use this combo quit a bit (it is kodak's recomendation), but the sexton article was the first time I found an explanation as to why.

Peter

T-Max RS is the replenishable version of the developer, though many people (myself included) use it as a 1 shot developer. Regular T-Max developer is not recomended for sheet films because it has a tendancy to cause dichroic fog (see the john sexton <a href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/sexton-tmax.html">article</a> on t-max films, he mentions it and how to deal with it).

<p>

Machine processing in a jobo is continious aggitation, while hand processing is intermitant agitation; the differant processing times are because of the differant aggitation methods primarily. Most often the differances in times for sheet vs. roll films are due to the differances in processing methods.

<p>

Peter

You might want to try a lower magnifcation like a 4x or 5x. Some focusing screens use a fresnel (sp?) lens behind the focusing screen (or ground glass in a view camera) to make the image brighter, which when looked at with a high magnifcation loupe, you just see the fresnel, not the image. Your idea should work fine though, that's how I check critical focus when shooting stationary things in medium format. Also if you have trouble finding a loupe that you can fit onto the focusing screen, try turning it around and just move it up and down to get focus, that's how I check focus on polaroid negs so I don't get gunk on my loupe. Something to put over your head and the camera to keep out stray light will make the image much easier to see and focus.

Peter

My understanding is the x-ray equiptment used for checked baggabe is much stronger than for carry-on, and I beleive they say it damages film; I wouldn't have very high hopes for either film. If it was unexposed film, I wouldn't bother exposing it, if it was already exposed, like a previous poster suggested, process one and see if it's worth trying the rest.

Peter

A soft cloth (no paper fibers, they're abrasive) should work fine. I use Pec pad and the Pec-12 cleaner, which is made for film, and evaporates very quickly (not to mention has a rather strong smell).

Peter

I often shoot on location without an assistant, and most often what I use is a support arm on a light stand, or gaffers tape it to something convenient like a tree. Even when it is possible for the model to hold the reflector, I don't like to have them do it because it can be distracting; when we're shooting I want to the model to be able to just focus on my instructions and posing etc, and let me worry about all the technical stuff like were the reflector is.

Peter

I have this pack and use it for carrying a my tachihara, and other accesories, for me it works great. I think the longest I've carried it was about 2 miles, and it was comfortable over that distance. I've found it to be pretty adjustable, the harness adjustment is kinda neat, you slip a plastic thing behind the harness and padding which releases velcro, then you can move the harness up and down quit a bit, and when the plastic comes out the harness is secure. I haven't had a problem resting the weight on my hips comfortably, but your a good deal taller than I am (I'm 5' 9"). If it's at all possible, it'd probably be best if you could see one in a showroom, even if that's not were you buy from. It's worked well for me as a carryon luggage so far, I flew with it around christmass of this year, LAX to Maine and back, and the only issue I ran into was the regional jet from Philidalpia to Portland didn't have enough room in the overhead, and I had to leave at the gate when I boarded, and I collected it when I got off with no problems either way. I was flying United, that's the only time I've flown with it. I packed the tripod on my checked bag, were it was easily accesable if the bag was searched, and bought my film in Maine, and shipped it home and let the x-ray the bag to their hearts' content. Hope that helps :o)

Peter

John, just curious what conclusions you came to exactly? I've been experimenting with pyrocat-hd (pyrocatchol based), and thinking about trying pmk (pyrogalol based) but I haven't been able to find information I understand about the effects of either of these chemicals (my biology and chemistry experience is pretty limited, to what I took in high school). I've read quit often that inhalation is the worst for of exposure, and of course I wear nitril gloves to avoid skin contact, but how bad is skin contact, and how much contact would be dangerous? I'd really like to have a better understanding of the chemistry I'm working with, as I suspect from the responses this thread has generated so far.

Peter

A small inexpensive slide viewer will work fine. As has been said before, you won't be judging critical sharpness with one, but then again the only real way to do that is with a good loupe on a properly illuminated light table/box. Also, every pro lab with an E-6 line I've ever used have light tables on the counters, and generally loupes as well too, so that's an option if you've got one in your area. A descent loupe and a light table isn't bad investment anyway though, all my negs and chromes get evaluated for sharpness, exposure, grain structure with a loupe on a light table.

Peter

Yes an 80A should give pretty good results, particularly for negative film, and occasional chrome shot. Since the lights are likely to be a little warner than 3200K, if you're shooting much chrome and are particular about color, you may want to do some experimenting and testing to see if you want to add some CC filters to dial in the color exactly were you want it.

Peter

Perceptol is a great developer, particularly with slower films like plus-x (though I've never tried the combo, I've used it alot with FP4+), and ID-11 is nearly identical to D-76, which t-max and tri-x work very well in. Ilford does have data on perceptol on their web site, with, I believe development times for those films. It's in the pdf on their powder developers (http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/powder_dev.pdf) along with ID-11 and Microphen. Unlike ID-11, Microphen and Perceptol don't have their own PDF's. Your best bet for finding developing times, particularly starting out, is to check with the manufacturers of the film, or the chemistry. Occasionally they'll disagree. When that happens, try a test roll both ways, see what results look better to you. Paper manufacturers generally give recomendations for development also, as a starting point with Dektol (my perfered paper dev.) I use kodak's recomended times of 1 min. for RC papers, and 2 min. for fiber.

Peter