floren_pge

This is a reply to an old thread. I think I know why the D1X overexposed outdoor scenes. I think it's my 50mm f/1.8 lens. I recently tried this lens on a D200, and it also overexposed outdoor scenes. I recently acquired a 85mm f/1.4 and it exposes correctly on the D200. I also tried a 50mm f/1.4 lens which exposes correctly on the same camera. I think my old lens overexposed on both cameras because it lacks the D technology of the other lenses. I will try to get a hold of the 50mm f/1.8 D to see if this is the case.

 

Has anyone else have the same experience with a non D 50mm lens? Too bad, that old lens worked well on my F100.

Hello,

 

Wow, it's been years since I posted here. I searched photo.net and google and

couldn't find any answers, I apologize if this has been posted before. I got a

chance to play with an old Nikon D1X. The camera consistently overexposes all

shots. This behavior occurs in bright and dim lighting, in scenes that have lots

of contrast or not. I don't think there's anything wrong with the D1X's matrix

metering because I get similar readings from my F100 and an incident light

meter. I've checked the histogram for different shots, and there's always a

large peak heavily skewed to the right. The rest of the histogram has a small

plateau throughout the graph. I bracket around the recommended exposure.

Underexposing renders the brights correctly, but everything else falls to a dark

black.

 

The pictures always looked washed out. I know digital behaves differently from

film, but I suspect there's something wrong with the sensor. Has anyone

encountered this problem? Someone wants to sell me this on the cheap, but I

don't want a dud.

 

Best,

flcpge

I used to do research in a biochemistry lab, and we used chemicals nastier than anything in photography. We used a powder detergent from Alconox that rinsed very clean. No residual soap from this detergent. It's so safe I use it for eating utensils.

 

In my lab, we never dedicated any glassware, plasticware, or other utensils to certain chemicals because this stuff cleans it all.

 

Here's the detergent on Fisher Scientific's website:

https://www1.fishersci.com/catalogs/coupon_page.jsp?catalogParamId=692311&catalogParamType=I

 

Cheerio

I have a 2.8f and I'm happy with it. I know people don't like the gx compared to the f. But I wonder if the fx is more like the gx in build quality than the f?

Hullo,

 

I've already decided I will purchase a Rollei 2.8F tlr, but I can't

decide between the Planar and Xenotar. I don't care about the lens

per se. A German lens is a German lens to me. I want to know if the

camera build changed when Rollei switched lenses (i.e. did they

change shutters, or film counter, or...). I know some people don't

like the GX build when compared to the F.

 

So does anyone know if the camera stayed the same when Rollei

switched from the Planar to the Xenotar? Is the quality the same

between models (Type 1, 2, 3, and 4)? Did Rollei switch to Pepsi when

they should have kept the Coke?

 

Imagine if Rollei used a Rodenstock lens for the 2.8F. Chaos ensues!

 

Cheerio

Hullo,

 

I've checked the archives, but I can't find any definitive answer to

xtol increasing the speed of film. So, does anyone know how much xtol

increases film speed when using a 1:1 dilution?? Kodak's website says

it's a "slight" increase, which is vague. I have "The Film Developing

Cookbook", and it doesn't say how much xtol increases film speed at a

1:1 dilution. I normally develop all my film formats in id-11 1:1,

but I'd like to try xtol since Anchell and Troop like it.

 

Thanks for the help.

Someone asked the same question about the reciprocity of FP4+. I checked Ilford's website and the graphs for FP4+ and Delta 100 look the same. I have a formula, but David Carper of Ilford gave one that should also work for Delta 100.

 

***

 

If you wish to calculate a corrected exposure time based on the ILFORD chart, use the formula

Ec=Em^1.48

 

Where Ec is the corrected exposure, and Em is the measured exposure, in seconds. Measured exposures of one second or less do not require any compensation.

 

Note that this formula is based on the chart. The chart was determined from experimentation. Times calculated past the chart should be good estimates, but are not based on ILFORD experiments.

 

David Carper ILFORD Technical Service

 

-- David Carper (david.carper@ilford.com), September 18, 2001.

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006PxQ

I've posted on LUSENET, in particular the large format page, since 2001 and sparingly on photo.net. But I opened my account on photo.net this April or May. So I'm just wondering if all my responses for LUSENET were automatically transferred to photo.net.

 

Am I doing something wrong, or are there bugs? This is what I get for not using photo.net enough.

I'm wondering if all old messages were saved. I've had an account at photo.net for awhile. However, when I do a search none of my responses are shown. Did everything from LUSENET transfer?

I'm 27 and have been shooting 4x5 for 3 years. Don't have much time

for it now because of med school. Instead, I photograph my classmates

with a Mamiya C330 and get dirty looks. They think I'm working some

evil mojo on them or something.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Cool, someone else who uses primes. Yeah, the 50mm is great for your

landscapes. If not, I'd get a 24mm f/2.8 lens. Another alternative is

to use your 50mm and take several photos end to end. Then use

software to stitch the pictures together... potentially you could get

a 360 degree view of the scene.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Shooting large format is superior to everthing else. What a load of

crap. I have the same attitude towards those who expound 35mm or

digital only. Elitism and dogma should never be encouraged.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Something you might want to look into is purchasing an old hot plate

with the magnetic stirrer function. I used to work in a biochemistry

lab and my boss let me have an old one. Heat your water in a glass

flask with a thermometer in it (or pour some hot water into any old

container), put a magnetic stir bar inside and turn it on, and slowly

add your powder. This completely dissolves all solute particles

quickly, and you can leave the hot plate on at a constant temperature.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Sounds like it could be the processing. Maybe your lab hired someone

new... it's strange the photos weren't sharp. In any case, ask for

your money back (respectfully).

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

50 mm lens. Sublime and easy to use.

I like FP4+ for 35 mm, HP5+ for 120 and 4x5. ID-11 diluted 1:1 for

all of them. I fudge the EI for each film.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Original flavor Kool-Aid diluted 1:50 with 5 parts sugar, j/k. I like

XTOL full strength or 1:3.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Kevin,

 

<p>

 

Thought provoking ideas. Don't tell that to many of the crowd at

photo.net... they might try to tear you a new one. I've always used

one film, one developer, and a 4x5 with three lenses. Subsequently, I

have learned immensely about the craft of photography. I've been

fortunate enough to learn photography from people who aren't obsessed

with "magic bullets"... they helped me avoid that trap.

 

<p>

 

Now what do we do about lazy photographers and Photoshop?

I also use FP4+ and find it very peachy. However, I'm starting to use

HP5+ because of the speed and I like it in the other formats. I'm

trying to decide whether or not to ditch the FP4 for the faster film.

I like the look of FP4. My prints are 5x max, I'm not how HP5 would

handle this. It's nice to see other people shooting large format with

EI of 100 or less.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

You can actually extrapolate the rest of the times for the graph

using a number of statistical software. Plug in the numbers from the

Ilford chart and let the program graph it. The program can then

extend the graph indefinitely. It will also give a formula for the

graph. I extrapolated the new times for FP4 up to 1 hour (I don't

have the corrected times in front of me) using a program called

Cricket. I then tested the corrected times for 1, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30,

and 60 minutes. All the exposures came out correct. I heard MS Excel

can also extrapolate data but I've never tried it.

 

<p>

 

I also don't change the development times when I use ID11 1:1.

Hmmm, sarcasm is the recourse of a feeble mind. If my answer offended

you (and I didn't intend it to be such), that's too bad. As for a

point and shoot, I've used all formats. Medium and large format is

cheap because I buy used equipment. Understand? Both systems with 3

lenses cost less than $2000, which I've collected over 10 years. But

go ahead, buy more toys. I guarantee you WILL BE JADED with your

photographs.

 

<p>

 

And I can take better photographs. Tell you what, POST your photos

with your favorite toys, and I'll post mine with my point and shoot.

Let's compare who has the greater skill. Up for the challenge?

 

<p>

 

I've had photo teachers and professionals critique these P&S photos.

As a whole, they liked them. And I know what I'm capable of doing as

a photographer, thus I'm secure in my ability and skill as a

photographer.

 

<p>

 

But feel free vent your feelings. You're left with empty and

invective insults, nothing more. Except your *photographs*.

*I've also noticed that the Camera Equipment forum also seems to be

not nearly as well visited. Does anybody know why this is?*

 

<p>

 

Because camera equipment is the least important factor in

photography. More experienced photographers not only tend to try

different formats and brands, they also care more about the images

they create. Talking about the latest greatest camera, lens, film,

etc., is interesting and fun to the newbie and novice photographer...

I suppose. But it's ultimately boring to discuss equipment (i.e. nice

equipment, now show me your photographs!) and futile (i.e. you're

destined to take mediocre photographs the rest of your life if all

you worry about is equipment). I can take better pictures with an old

point and shoot than beginners and most intermediate skilled people

with expensive equipment.

 

<p>

 

You'll notice here on Lusenet that the 3 B&W Photo forums, Philosophy

of Photography forum, and Large Format photography forum are the most

active (which happens to be the forums I visit frequently)of all the

photo related forum. And for good reason, they tend to focus on image

making (with the exception of LF, but the people who use this format

have images that speak for themselves) as opposed to a pissing

contest about who has the most expensive toys.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Hmmm. Old technology films in the 100 to 400 range. I like FP4+ in

120. I've also had succes with HP5+ also in 120. Natural light is

peachy.

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

This is Kodak's subtle way to get all their cusmtomers to buy Ilford

films. Tri-X? Tri-X? We don't need no stinkin' Tri-X!

 

<p>

 

Cheerio

Yeah Chris, it's confusing. I always hear there are 10 zones. I've

seen the system starting at Zone 0 or 1 going up to Zone 10 or 11.

In "The Negative", Adams says there are 10 zones, but he showes a

gray scale including Zone 0. I guess Zones 0 and 10 are the absolute

black and white produced on the paper... even though the negative is

supposed to capture more information than this. Very vexing, isn't it?

 

<p>

 

Cheerio