skip_a

Well, I tried it. I used the technique that Ed described in his Less is More article. (Thanks Ed!) My results were mixed. This Kodak 2556 ortho type 3 film has quite a thin support, and it seems like it has a thinner emulsion than any regular panchromatic film as well. No code notches, and the film looks shiny on both sides, so it's kind of hard to tell which side the emulsion is on. I decided the lighter side was the emulsion side, and the slightly darker side was the base side. I'm still pretty sure this is right, but even looking at the fully processed and dried film, it's hard to tell. It looks more like transparency film than negative film, although the final result is a negative image on the film and not a positive one.

 

I haven't printed from any of my finished enlarged negatives yet, and I don't have a densitometer, but just judging from the appearance of the enlarged negatives, I think the 8x10 enlargement that I made from a 35mm negative came out about like I hoped. It appears sharp, a little denser than my original 35mm negative, and with greater contrast. I suspect it will print well.

 

I also made 8x10 enlargements from three different 4x5 negatives. The 4x5 negs were just slightly to the thin side of normal. One has normal contrast, the other two were a bit flat. The one that was closest to normal contrast produced an enlarged negative that appears to have more contrast than the original, but looks a little thinner than the original. In other words, the contrast looks better, but there is less density. The other two were pretty flat in the original 4x5, and try as I might, I couldn't seem to improve their contrast on the enlargement. I got what looks like approximately equivalent density or maybe a little greater, but even less contrast than in the originals.

 

I know I'll have to print these to really evaluate them. I'll print on Azo first, then on Pt/Pd if I can get a good Azo print. But if anyone has any idea why two of my 4x5 to 8x10 enlargements have less contrast than the original, and what I might do to change it, I'd like to hear it. Maybe intensify the originals in selenium first? And then, I'm not sure I'm clear on the effect of shorter or longer flash exposure after the base exposure. Less is more in terms of density in the final enlarged negative? But does it affect contrast too in some way?

"At this point you only know what a print processed in a contaminated tray will look like."

 

Hmmmm. Good point, Joe. I'm mainly trying to save storage space more than equipment costs. My little 9 foot by 10 foot darkroom is already crammed to overflowing with equipment and supplies, but your point is well taken. I should probably go ahead and buy dedicated trays and utensils just to be safe, but it would be nice to know if there were any objective evidence to support the recommendation.

 

Platinum and Palladium and Silver are all metals, and Pt and Pd are routinely combined without regard. Why not silver? There must be some chemists out there who can explain how silver contamination might affect pt/pd prints (and vice versa, since I'll continue to use these same trays for silver processing). Will it cause fogging of the paper, or spots or streaking or staining, or perhaps affect the archival characteristics of the print?

 

In the absence of authoritative information, I'll probably buy new trays. I just wonder if it's really necessary.

I've got an expired but unopened and continuously refrigerated box of

8x10 Kodak Graphic Arts Film. It's number 2556, ortho type 3. I

know that this is a high contrast film when processed in Kodalith or

a similar high contrast developer.

 

Does anyone know if this film can be used to produce enlarged,

continuous tone negatives of normal or slightly higher than normal

contrast for pt/pd printing? If so, what type of developer would you

suggest? For normal panchromatic film I typically tray develop by

inspection in ABC Pyro. Since this is orthochromatic film, I think

DBI with a red safelight instead of a green one should be possible.

Is it worth a try? Would Pyro be a good choice, or something else?

Last Sunday I made my first platinum/palladium prints using the pt/pd

kit that I purchased from Bostick and Sullivan. It was fun and quite

rewarding. The prints came out pretty good, I think, for a first

effort. Not as good as the Azo contact prints I made from the same

negatives, but I think I'll get there eventually.

 

I used the same 12x16 trays that I use for processing 11x14 silver

gelatin prints and 8x10 pyro negatives. I don't see any evidence of

contamination on my pt/pd prints, no streaks or spots or plating or

other unanticipated artifacts. The only real problem I see is softer

contrast than I'd like, and insufficient density in a print from

a "bullet proof" negative that took 43 minutes of UV exposure to

achieve what takes 30 seconds of 150 watt tungsten exposure for Azo.

 

Both Richard Sullivan and Carl Weese in "The New Platinum Print" and

Dick Arentz in "Platinum & Palladium Printing" recommend using trays

and utensils dedicated to pt/pd only, never used for silver. Neither

book really explains what specific types of problems might result

from sharing trays and utensils for both processes.

 

So I'd like to know what kind of contamination problems I risk by

doing this, and how will they manifest? Will thorough cleaning

between uses for different processes mitigate the risk? Is there a

reverse risk to my silver processing from pt/pd processing?

I don't know about the Fuji, but the Nikkor-M 450mm lens is a Tessar type that covers 57 degrees at f/22 with a claimed image circle of 440mm. However, I'd say the usable image circle is actually somewhat bigger than that. It covers my 8x20 (diagonal 547mm) and is very sharp out to the edges when stopped down. I haven't had to use movements other than a little front rise. 12x20 has a diagonal of 592mm. Might be pushing it.

A good book that explains movements is "Using the View Camera" by Steve Simmons. Kodak's "Book of Large Format Photography" is pretty good too.

 

One clear and simple explanation of camera movements that I found particularly useful was posted by David Goldfarb in the following thread on this forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0042lK

I did exactly what Chad said on my sticky 8x10 boards, and they now fit in all weather conditions with no problem. A light hand sanding on all four sides and corners did the trick for me. I then stained the bare wood edges to more-or-less match the color of my boards and then rubbed some tung oil on them. The lack of lacquer (or whatever the original shiny finish was) on the edges is unnoticeable, especially when the board is installed on the camera :-)

A bellows of only 24 inches seems a little short for an 11x14 camera, unless your taste in focal lengths runs from wide angle to very slightly longer than normal. My Deardorff 8x10 and my Korona 8x20 both have roughly 33 inches of bellows. Somewhere between 34 to 44 inches is a more common bellows length for 11x14 cameras (modern ones, anyway).

 

Your 24 inch bellows would allow you to focus a 24 inch lens (610mm) at infinity, but with no leeway to accommodate tilts or swings, and most likely with only limited rise.

 

The normal focal length for a given format is generally considered to be approximately the length of the film diagonal, or a bit longer. The 11x14 diagonal measures about 450mm, so a focal length anywhere from 16.5 inches (420mm) to 19 inches (480mm) could be considered normal for an 11x14 camera. I believe there are very few readily available lenses that fill the gap between the very common sizes of 19 and 24 inches. Unless you happen to find one, you'll be limited for practical purposes to approximately normal focal length as your longest lens.

Looking for paper envelopes? Try one of these:

 

http://www.superiorarchivalmats.com/

or

http://www.archivalmethods.com/

There was a thread about six or seven months ago that dealt with this subject. It might be useful to you. It was called "How to shoot 350 people in the middle of the day?"

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003Wrx

Tracy, what kind of camera are you going to use to shoot landscapes? Will you be walking far from your car?

 

I don't know anything about the Schneider APO-Symmar, but I own a Rodenstock APO-Sironar N, and it is one huge monster piece of glass in Copal 3 shutter. It sits 5.75 inches tall, and the front element is about 4.5 inches in diameter.

 

I bought it for use with a Cambo Legend 8x10, a big, heavy studio monorail, and it works very well in that application. It will easily cover 11x14 with a 500mm image circle at f22, but I can't imagine using it on any field camera, and I wouldn't want to carry it with me in the field. I'd be worried that the front standard on any field camera could securely hold it. I don't have a scale to weigh it on, but I'm sure it must weigh between 4 and 5 pounds.

 

Fair market value is difficult to ascertain, I think, in part because the 480mm Rodenstock APO-Sironar N is not a commonly traded item compared to the several readily available barrel process lenses in this focal length. I've seen prices for the Rodenstock 480mm run from $800(a steal) to $2400 (a bit much). I paid $1200 for mine in 1999. You can get a 19 inch APO Artar or a 480mm APO Nikkor generally for under $300, often under $200 on Ebay. Those are pretty big and heavy lenses too, but maybe half the size and weight of the 480mm Sironar N, and imminently better suited to field photography, IMO. Even if you have Steve Grimes mount your process lens in a new shutter, it'll likely cost under $700.

 

On the other hand, if you're going to use it in the studio, I don't imagine you could go wrong with either the Rodenstock or the Schneider lens that you asked about.

I always load wet when using a 3010 or 3005 drum. Loading wet cuts down on the fuss between each processing run. You don't have to dry out the drum each time.

 

I set the drum in my sink, fill it with water, and place a water-filled tray next to it. Turn off the lights, unload holders, place film one by one into the presoak tray. Shuffle through the stack a couple of times, wait two or three minutes, then transfer each film into a water-filled tube on the drum. Put the lid on, then turn on the lights.

 

Dump the water from the drum. Because the drum contains much more fluid than you'd ever put in it for processing, and is quite heavy, you need to take care when dumping so the lid doesn't pop off. I've never had this happen, but I always hold the lid on firmly and dump slowly. Pop the drum on your processor and start your development cycle.

 

I find it very easy to load the film into the tubes in the drum when they are filled with water, and I feel like I'm less likely to scratch them on the base side by sliding them into the water filled tube.

How about Cooke Optics http://www.cookeoptics.com/

 

They recently introduced a modern version of a Pinkham & Smith soft focus lens. The Cooke Portrait PS945. They also continue to produce new cine lenses. Is lens design for LF really all that different than for any other format?

 

Ron Wisner had Schneider Kreuznach create a new Convertible Plasmat set a few years ago.

 

What sort of new lens did you have in mind?

I doubt you'll be able to find any commercially available step-up rings to go from 36mm to 52mm. The best thing to do would be to check with Steve Grimes. He may be able to make one for you. His website is http://www.skgrimes.com

An alternative to Polyguard sleeves that you might consider are paper negative folders or envelopes from Superior Archival Materials, Inc. http://www.superiorarchivalmats.com/

 

I guess Polyguard sleeves are plastic? I'm not sure about that, but one advantage to paper folders over clear plastic sleeves is that you can easily write all your processing notes for each negative on the paper folder, or draw a picture showing your dodge and burn areas, etc.

 

Superior Archival Materials doesn't have a complete price list online and I don't see any price information for 7x17 or 12x20, but you could give them a call. They also sell boxes, with or without a drop front, in various sizes for storing your negative folders in. They're nice for storing mounted prints in, too.

 

I just ordered some negative folders and boxes for 8x10 that haven't arrived yet, but I've seen them and they look like a very sturdy and practical way to store negatives.

You can also get The Book of Pyro from ArtCraft Chemicals at http://www.artcraftchemicals.com/

 

and from Bostick & Sullivan at http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/

 

Be sure to ask which edition. The first edition is from 1992. The second edition came out a year or so ago, I believe.

Paul, check out MovieStuff at http://www.moviestuff.tv/

There's enough information on that website to get you started on the concepts and state of the technology.

 

There are many businesses that do film to video transfer. Just do a Google search and you'll find them. But MovieStuff is top notch. You can send your film in to MovieStuff and let them transfer it for about $18.00 per 50 foot roll, or you can buy a CineMate or WorkPrinter and do it yourself. The results may not be quite as good as those obtained via Rank Cintel transfer, but they won't cost you $250 per hour, either. See the equipment section of the site.

 

I ordered a WorkPrinter just before Christmas that should be arriving soon. I have a couple hundred 8mm reels from 1953 through 1972 that I'm going to transfer myself. Sorry, I don't have any practical experience yet as I've just recently started researching it myself.

 

The topic of 8mm film to digital transfer is an extremely common one on some forums. Try doing a search on either of these two:

 

The Shooting 8MM site here:

 

http://www.8mm.filmshooting.com/scripts/forum/viewforum.php?f=1

 

and

 

Mike Brantley's Super-8 Filmmaking forum here:

 

http://www.hostboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=409

This new thread in the photo.net Large Format forum is about PMK development of 8x10 Tri-X in Jobo, not quite your question, but you might want to follow it anyway since it may turn up relevant general PMK and JOBO considerations.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004QIO

I used to process 8x10 in a 3005 expert drum and 4x5 in a 3010 expert drum on my CPP-2 with PMK, but I was never really satisfied with the results. Too much stain and an overall flat look to the negatives, perhaps from excessive oxidation of the pyro. To try to counter the oxidation, I generally split my developer in half, processed for half the time, then dumped it, and completed processing with the remainder. Gordon Hutchings addresses the rotary processing issues in his Book of Pyro, definitely a recommended read.

 

Some people prefer to use Rollo Pyro, which is chemically more similar to ABC than to PMK, for rotary processing in a Jobo. If you search the photo.net archives for Rollo Pyro or Jobo and pyro or PMK using the search function, you'll probably find a lot of discussion about it, but I don't recall whether anyone mentioned TMAX film or other tabular grain film development in PMK, specifically.

 

Also check out some of the pyro threads in the Azo forum at http://www.michaelandpaula.com including this one that discusses rollo pyro and the Jobo:

 

http://www.michaelandpaula.com/AzoForum/one.asp?ID=820&PgNo=&GID=820&CID=2

 

Personally, I find it easier to process by inpection in open trays with ABC pyro.

Hey Joe. You're right, the Flicker sites do have a number of good links to small gauge filmmaking sites. I've perused a lot of the 8mm and Super 8mm web sites, and I've found quite a lot of advice for home movie film processing. Aside from one person who has used a Jobo rotary processor to process loose film that was just dumped into a drum, I haven't found anyone who has reported using a Jobo in a more controlled fashion. The results of processing loose film in a Jobo is said to be "interesting", but that's not really what I'm after :).

 

The Morse G3 rewind processor is discussed frequently, the Russian Lomo reel and inversion tank, the 11x14 rack for tray development, loose film in buckets or trays (or Jobo drums), or in garden hoses, etc., all well described. I'm just hoping I can take advantage of my CPP-2 to achieve better results than what can be obtained by those other methods.

 

The roller and tray device you describe sounds like some of those on this site here:

 

http://www.siltec.co.uk/amovies/prom/prom304.htm

 

It seems like a way to obtain good quality, but I think it might take about as much chemistry as the open tray or bucket methods, plus it would have to be done in the dark. Light's on operation and lower chemical costs are what I'm after.

You might consider discussing your book plans with Lodima Press, Michael A. Smith's and Paula Chamlee's publishing company. They produce books of extremely high quality.

 

http://www.lodimapress.com/

 

I believe they're on a shoot in Baja right now, so you might not get a response until they get back.

Thank you, both. Donald, Small Parts Inc. looks like a great resource for all kinds of specialized materials.

 

I got the impression that nylon was not especially suited to acidic environments from the Chemical Resistance document on the Honeywell web site here, in case you're interested:

 

http://www.honeywell-plastics.com/literature/pdf/GEN006.pdf

 

Reinhold, the lathe idea might be the simplest approach. I'll check that out. It occurs to me the weight of my PVC pipe may put strain on the Jobo motor, so I'll test that first.

I'm trying to construct a film holder for processing 50 foot lengths

of 8mm motion picture film in my Jobo CPP-2. I checked with Jobo,

and they don't make a holder or reel for processing 8mm film in their

rotary processors. So I decided to try to make one.

 

I cut a 21.5 inch long piece of 4 inch diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe

(4.5 inch outside diameter) to fit snugly into my 2850 drum. With a

circumference of just over 14 inches for the PVC pipe, this length

will easily accommodate 50 feet of 8mm film wrapped around it.

 

The outside of the pipe is about 1/4 inch from the ridges that run

the length of the inside walls of the drum, so there's plenty of room

for chemicals to flow around the pipe inside the drum. The idea is

to wrap the 50 feet of movie film around the outside of the pipe, put

the pipe in the drum, and develop using a B&W reversal process. The

fluids get dumped into the inside of the PVC pipe. To allow for

fluids to reach the film on the outside of the pipe, I cut 50 or so

three inch long slits all over the pipe, and bored a bunch of round

holes near each end.

 

To ensure that the film doesn't shift and overlap the next turn, thus

preventing development, I thought I might glue a spiral of some thin

material around the tube from one end to the other separated by an

8mm film channel gap. I can tolerate a maximum width of 4mm for the

film channel material and still be able to fit 50 feet of film on my

PVC tube. At The Home Depot, I found some 14 inch long nylon cable

ties that are 4mm wide. Seemingly perfect. Only, I haven't been

able to find an adhesive that will bond the nylon ties to the PVC

pipe. I've tried PVC cement, Super Glue, and a quick set epoxy.

Super glue worked the best, but that's not saying much. I was still

able to pull the fully cured super-glued nylon ties off the PVC pipe

with very little effort.

 

I'd like some help, if any of you have any ideas. Is there an

adhesive that will bond nylon to PVC? Is nylon even a good choice

for use in film processing? I believe nylon fares poorly when

subjected to strong acids, like the sulfuric acid in the Kodak R-9

bleach, and the acetic acid in the fixer. Is there something else

that might work for the film guide strip? Should I scrap the idea of

using PVC and go with something else? If so, what other material

would be as easy to work with, and reasonably inert to photo

chemicals?

 

I've tried open tray development with the film wrapped around an

11x14 plexiglass frame, but the results weren't satisfactory. It's

almost impossible to prevent some film overlap here and there, the

film can be broken fairly easily, large quantities of chemicals and

lots of space are needed, and most of the process must be carried out

in the dark. I also have a Morse G3 processor that I haven't tried

yet, but if I'm going to use a processor, I'd much prefer to use my

Jobo than a manual rewind processor. Any ideas welcome, including

ideas involving entirely different approaches, but I'm most

interested in ideas that will let me use my Jobo.

About Michael's plate #6. It's one of my favorites, along with #45 but for an entirely different reason. I was immediately drawn to #6 when I scanned down the page. I'll tell you what I see, and of course, I'm speaking only for myself. This is how I see #6:

 

The tree in the middle is the strongest part of the image. It isn't really a tree, at least not in a pictorial sense. If you're looking at this image as a straight landscape shot you might think it's a tree and find it disturbing (for the wrong reason), but it's really a strong graphic element of treelike character. It immediately identifies the most obvious part of the compositional theme that is comprised of undulating vertical rythyms that present themselves across the entire space. From left to right, the telephone poles, the fence posts, the vineyards in the background, the tree-thing in the middle, then the small background trees just to the right of it, more vine rows, the foreground fence to the right. Notice how it becomes a pivot point around which these more subtle vertical elements are balanced? It's also the centerpiece of a triplet of vaguely similar shapes embodied in the telephone poles to the left and the cross that is centered between the gate posts on the right.

 

At the same time, the tree-thing functions as an abstract bifurcator that splits the image into two roughly equal halves, a predominately rounded and organic left side, and a predominately angular and inorganic right side. Yin and yang.

 

The shape of the upper part of the tree-crown also roughly mirrors the topography of each side of the image. On the left side, the shape of the tree top is more varied, reflecting the shape of the hill and the road. On the right, it is smoothly curved like the smoother lines of the right side mid-horizon. The notch near the top right of the tree crown mirrors the notch of the gate. The white hole through the tree branches on the upper left of the crown is counterpoint to the light colored road and pasture on the left.

 

I think the tree is meant to be disturbing, but not because it is a tree that is cut off. Only if you try to understand the picture as a straight landscape composition would the central element of the picture be perceived as a cut off tree.

 

Most of my perceptions have to do with geometry and gross tonal variation. There are doubtless other things going on in this picture that relate to subtle tonality, but I can't really see the gradations of tone well enough on my monitor to discover or understand them all.

 

Ok, like I said, that's what I get out of this image. I'm not saying that I know what Michael intended, only that plate #6 strikes me as one of my favorites because of the way that I see it. Could be no one else will see it that way, and that's OK.

The wmv extension is the "windows media audio/video" file type. It can be played with the Windows Media Player. If you have a PC, then you probably have it. I don't know if Mac supports it.