philip_sweeney
-
Posts
112 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by philip_sweeney
-
-
Take a look at how much light the shade is collecting, often times shading the lens with a card or darkslide (I do with my 8 x 10) is more effective. Direct light sources are always a problem. I would imagine you saw alot of light falling onto the shade.
-
I am looking for Kodak's discontinued "opaque black" and/or
discontinued "korn dye," for touching up my 8 x 10 negatives. I have
tried "dyene" with no luck - it just does not stick. I have already
looked through the 2 local shops I know of - you know the little shops
where everything is used and you name it its there, you got to just
look and sift through the stuff. I would appreciate phone numbers of
similiar type shops you know of, or does anyone have some they would
like to sell to me?
-
I finally bought a densitometer. But for years I would use the one at a local shop. At first I would ask them to do a quick read of a negative and eventually they would just let me use it.
-
Hogarth: thanks for getting me straight on that, I guess I understand film area better than angles. phil
-
I checked their site Doug, they do silver prints. I am looking for someone who uses something like the Epson 9600 or 7600, or others I am not even aware of.
-
sorry Ken its still a 600mm lens. on a 4 x 5 it covers 1/4 the area of the 8 x 10 image.
-
With all the fancy new B & W printers that supposedly do a good job,
can anyone recommend a service that uses them. I have 3 or 4 badly
damaged negatives I had scanned. Now I have no way to print them. I am
not interested in buying a printer.
-
After reading sandy king's article on kallitypes at the unblinkingeye
site I am curious. I've never done any pt/pd printing. I have read the
kallitype print if toned in pt or pd has all the qualities of a pt/pd
print. And overall it is apparently cheaper. So it sounds like if you
went that route there is no reason to try pt/pd?
Anyone printing kallitypes? and once you do, do you ever have any
reason to print pt/pd again?
-
Just a little more info: <html>
<a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/DOF.html">Depth of field with a 90mm lense on a 4 x 5</a>
</body>
</html>
Also: unfortunately the F1 does not have center tilt and only base tilt. I have read all the reasons why they designed it that way. However you should be aware of the ease of focus with center tilt if you ever get another camera. Rotate your camera on your tripod 90 degrees and use your front swing as a center tilt - easy eh! I don't bother with the sinar method. Whenever I go for my F1 I forget how to do it. Try focussing infinity at the bottom of the glass and tilt to bring in the foreground focus - then refocus overall. repeat as necessary.
-
I keep hearing there is a renewed interest in large format and
especially the larger sizes. It may well end up there will be this
large group of people who would like to have AZO and it will not be
there. Photography is not cheap and never will be. Yet some folks buy
new equipment but are slow to buy $100 worth of paper. Even if you
only use 4 x 5 you should check out AZO.
<html>
<a href="http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/index.html">AZO</a>
</body>
</html>
Many negatives destined for enlargement would print well on grade 3.
Much thanks to Michael and Paula!
-
a number of short exposures is one way. e.g. if your meter indicates 1/2s at f22, try 2 exposures at 1/4, or 4 at 1/125. You get the idea. Keep the aperature the same and divide the metered speed by the speed you want to use for the number of exposures. I do not think the total multiple exposures is the same as one longer exposure. But you will be well within the ballpark.
-
FYI: <html>
<a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/DOF.html">Depth of field with a 90mm lense on a 4 x 5</a>
</body>
</html>
-
I was checking the specs on 8 1/4 red dots and found some original
literature. In barrel the 8 1/4 is listed for 9 x 12 film. However
mounted on a shutter it is listed for 4 x 6 film. I know often times
published data is conservative. Mounted on a shutter will this lens
cover 8 x 10 at F45?
-
Don: here is a link to my site where there is data for HC110. I do not use it anymore but you can see I did use it at various dilutions from stock, not syrup. just FYI <html>
<a href="http://home.att.net/~shipale/index.html">phil sweeney's website</a>
</body>
</html>
-
For the BTZS tests I have been doing the 4 minute curve is hardly long enough. So I have been doing a 6th negative 4 stops over. This gives me 6 more increments on the 4 minute curve. Of course you cannot add the extra data with the BTZS software, this has to be done on hand drawn curves. (I have not bought the software for this reason. I think it is a serious limitation.) Phil has mentioned a couple of work arounds. One includes the step wedge I mention and one would omit a few steps in the middle of the curve.
I use a photoflood for my exposures not an enlarger lamp.
No the view camera store does not have any.
-
On the BTZS forum phil mentioned a longer scale step wedge may be
available which goes to 4.0 with 27 steps. Does anyone know where
these may be available?
-
I would find 1/8" plastic or aluminum and make the bottom. Tape the neg to the bottom and lay the glass on. I do not know how your glass fits in or on. I use 1/16" plastic (acrylic white 2447) instead of glass pin-registered to the alum bottom with the neg taped on. This presses the negative very flat. I use 1/16" so I can see the neg to align masks, but you can use 1/8 inch. I fold over the end of the tape so it can be removed easily.
-
Ron: everyone should learn from their mistakes. Despite your feedback there are some real complaints here. Too many! What other conclusion can be made. Just give honest expected times on equipment everytime. You make good cameras (I have two), why give people reason to want to shop elsewhere?
-
I have the 4 x 5 and the 8 x 10 backpacks. I wish the 8 x 10 was a little wider, my wisner just fits - but it is still better than a case for short hikes.
-
shane: the zone system includes development controls; however: putting aside those controls, using zone system language and the spotmeter one can learn much about the film you are using. if you are using transparencies for example, remember a zone is a stop. I use E100S and have it processed at a shop and know the film holds good detail from IV to VII. III gets dark and will not be open and luminous. VIII starts to blowout.
-
james: I did the comparisons just for the reason you state: to prove it for myself. the test negative is tailored for VC paper in terms of density. My point is the problems PMK negs can cause for VC papers. I have used VC paper significantly, but I will not with PMK!
-
I was alerted to this subject by the forum: PMK negs on VC vs graded
paper. So after reading barry thornton's "edge of darkness" I compared
prints on Ilford VC FB and Galerie (graded) using a FP4 PMK negative.
in his book he shows a print on each paper at grade 2 and the VC print
is lower in overall contrast, but his point is the improved quality on
graded paper (highlight contrast and local contrast). So I wanted a
more "apples to apples" comparison. To do so I printed my test
negative (a white building with black trim) on grade 2 oriental and
grade 3 VC. The overall contrast was very comparable and I feel I
achieved a good set for comparison. The graded print was exceptional
by comparison: deeper black, great highlight and local contrast! The
VC print seemed soft and lifeless and the highlight contrast was
horrible. Goodbye VC papers for my PMK negatives!
-
check this link for a convenient depth of field calculator:
<html>
<a href="http://www.tangentsoft.net/fcalc/">fcalc</a>
</body>
</html>
-
I haven't read those sorry.
FP4 Plus at EI400
in Black & White Practice
Posted