Jump to content

philip_sweeney

Members
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by philip_sweeney

  1. OK I think I got my answer thanks. Hyun, I call them error-prone because for a user like me the software, operating systems and hardware are somewhat indistinguishable. Generally I am amazed at the things that occur with PCs. Its ironic, that on one hand we can accomplish so much with a PC and on the other, there are these errors that occur. I guess I thought a couple hundred more investment might get rid of a few errors. I have two computers in the house. One is rock solid (for the most part - yes errors occur with it occasionally) and the other has been one problem after another. In fact I am so gun shy about it I am inclined to not use one component from it when I upgrade.
  2. Francis: I think most folks define normal SBR to be 7 where zone VIII minus Zone 1 = 7. If your metered values place an EV=9 in zone III then your EV=17 ends up in zone XI and this would be N-4 if you want your resultant XI to be a zone VIII value in the negative. If you want the high value to result in zone VII then its N-5. N-4 or 5 is a tough situation! Whatever developer you use I'd suggest you wait to develop that negative until you have done a couple of tests! As pointed out your shadow values may suffer if you have not given additional exposure for the N- development needed. What are you going to print on? If you are using AZO or pt/pd maybe development by inspection is in order?
  3. PMK is great, but understanding its drawbacks is important too. I never use PMK negatives with VC paper. I strongly suggest you try graded paper at least once and compare the result to VC (say a grade 2 graded print vs a grade 1 (or 1/2) VC. I find VC print's to be lacking in good overall contrast. To me PMK's greatest attribute is a sharp print. The standard dilution is probably a poor choice for N+ developments (or N for that matter). I use it at 10-20-500 for N and N+. Checkout how at normal dilution there is a shoulder whereas at 10-20-500 the characteristics' curves are more straight.

    <html>

    <a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/FP4_BTZS_curves.html">FP4 with PMK and pyrocatHD</a>

    </body>

    </html>

  4. When Epson was phasing out the 1270s they went for $300 new. At the same time I bought a refurbed unit from Epson for $250 and added the 3 year warranty for $100. Net $350. One year later the unit crapped out and no problem a day later the replacement was there. I am usually not a fan of extended warranties. But I think in this case it was well worth it and I still have a year to go. Just my 2 cents
  5. I see you did not get much of a response. I never found a bureau that did 4800dpi either. I guess you want to print to silver gelatin paper. I am looking at the process again through Copygraphics. I had problems with streaking at 3600dpi with diffusion dither bitmaps. Peter Ellzey has isolated the problem to be mechanical in the imagesetter, and has found what I think is a tolerable workaround. I am sending 900dpi grayscale files and he is using rastus to screen the image. I was happy with the initial tests and I am working on a curve for Forte warm tone paper right now.
  6. I use photoshop for pan projects:

    <html>

    <ul>

    <li><a href=http://home.att.net/~shipale/pitts.html>a pittsburgh panorama</a></li>

    </ul>

    <html>

    That image is 3 4x5 overlapped transparencies. The left and right images were shot at close to 45 deg. I usually slice off parts of the center shot (sometimes you need to defringe) and use numerous layers. I had about 10 layers on this project. The new healing brush can be helpful. The sky was tricky as each shot had a slightly different black and the scanner introduced noise on the darker ones - used noise filter. A very impotant tool is the clone stamp in lighten and darken mode. I consider this the most important tool in photoshop, I almost never use the clone stamp in normal mode. Of course all the perspective tools in tranform were used. Final image 36 x 13 after 4 hours.

  7. OK that's alot of info! I probably should have listed existing hardware and also emphasized my goal. I believe if you buy appx 1 year old technology you can get a good bang for your buck. I was running 98 on a 733PIII and 1G of RAM. I wanted to run 1.5G of RAM so I upgraded to WIN XP pro. I have worked on files up to 300M and sometimes the wait was excruciating! After moving to XP I had nothing but problems with the machine, and some could be explained and some not. The 733 CPU seemed to be defective and I replaced it at no cost to a 533PIII. I confess to using cheap RAM and the system never liked over 1G (98 did not mind it). So my long term investment in computers is low and decided to upgrade (and never use cheap RAM again!). I'll conclude the best pick and ease of use (i.e., easy for me to build and startup) will be the single CPU, and new RAM. I think its safe to say the new hardware should show a significant increase in performance over the existing. I'll will probably wait a few more months!
  8. I have read previous posts on hardware upgrade but since it is an ever

    changing scene I like to ask for opinions on a specific comparison.

    MAC is just too expensive. I have built PCs, so for the money that's

    my direction.

     

    On RAM I'll probably get 1G although I may get 1.5G (for that rare

    multiple layers image.) I am comparing motherboard/CPU combos using

    AMD XP 2400 CPU (2GHz) in the price range of $200 versus the multiple

    processor route using say AMD palomino MP1200 (1.2GHz) in the $300

    range (motherboard and 2 CPUs). Here is the question: for about $100

    more can I expect the specified multiple CPUs will outperform the

    single CPU? I have witnessed dual CPU G4s and that is why I keep

    thinking about the dual CPUs! I don't really understand RAID so that's

    not a question.

  9. I use pyrocatHD with FP4 (rated at 64) for AZO at 2-2-100 (metol version). With a tube at 70 deg F a normal FP4 AZO neg is 8 min. at a full scale target density of 1.5 (blue channel). This is an outstanding film and developer combo. The developer will darken with agitation (don't worry). Sandy King recently tested JandC 200 and it expands only slightly more than FP4. At 75 deg F HP5 at 8 min is slightly less than normal.

     

    1-1-100 is more for enlargement negs. I also use it at 1-1-100 for N- negs and when my darkroom gets to 75 deg F.

  10. Recently someone recommended checking out Veronica Cass for retouching dyes. I bought some "dark" negative dye from them, for spotting 8 x 10 negatives. I let a couple drops dry out first and pick up the dye with a barely wetted brush. I use the dye and saliva to wet the brush.

     

    I had no luck with dyene, it would not stick well to the negative.

  11. E100S has a scale of about 3 stops (or 4 if your definition includes all zones in which values are placed). In zone terms: III-VII. You have to get the highlight values (lamps etc.) at the upper end of the scale. I ususally try to find the brightest area and yes that metered value is then placed 2 stops over (VII). For good detail go no lower than IV (one under). You can place white lamps to VIII but try to keep the brightest colors at VII.

     

    I use the same method for daylight use also. I can't tell you much about color negative film.

  12. I can't keep up with changing films but here is a shot I did with E100S. <html>

    <ul>

    <li><a href=http://home.att.net/~shipale/pitts.html>a pittsburgh panorama</a></li>

    </ul>

    <html> I recall you can expose 8-10 seconds without reciprocity failure. With the spotmeter I place the values in zone VII (two stops over) and see where all the other values land. Some lighting is OK about one stop over if you are losing shadow detail, otherwise I hold it to zone VII.

  13. As Ellis pointed out I think you need a yaw-free camera, ideally. For a field camera to be yaw-free with rear swing, the rear standard and the bed have to be at 90 degrees. That is if the rear standard is tilted all rear swings are off axis resulting in geometric distortion. If you are really serious about architecture get a F1 or like camera. I have a F1 and rarely use it versus my field cameras, as I don't really do any architectural shots. But if I did I would not use my field cameras. All choices are always about tradeoffs. I think the F1 or F2 is very affordable, and of course there are cheaper cameras. But the F1 is extremely well made and worth considering.
  14. I agree with William. Check these curves for FP4:

     

    <html>

    <a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/FP4_BTZS_curves.html">FP4 with PMK and pyrocatHD</a>

    </body>

    </html>

     

    Notice the PMK 10-20-500 results in a straight line curve whereas the standard PMK dilution 10-20-1000 has a significant shoulder. I think generally standard PMK is good for N- developments, not N+ and I think that's why AZO users (and pt/pd) have problems with standard PMK. I am using pyrocatHD for AZO.

     

    Along those lines Sandy King's recent tests indicate to me JandC 200 would be only a little better than FP4 for maximum N+ developments. I am considering HP5 for lower contrast SBRs, but still only use FP4.

×
×
  • Create New...