jose_angel

Very nice art on glass. Yes, it is translucent in some parts (check the stems, especially on the grapes), others look opaque. As James points out, maybe it doesn't quite show his true character. I would try to highlight the translucency and its fragile nature... but please, don't ask me how! 🤔

Exactly. My babied and almost unused for years 70-200 VR2 that I keep just in case, stopped working in the closet. Annoying. Sent it in for repair, AFS motor replacement, took a long time, big expense. 😫

I did a second shot, with little changes. Same spot metering over the darker brush sticks (III) and over the highlighted brush hair (VIII) All the other areas were in between. I gave a normal development and the print got perfect with a grade ·2 filter. I was so lucky. (Again, straight print scan. No dodging or burning in both images): Development time should be specific for a given scene contrast in order to get an easy to print negative. If not, too much work under the enlarger is deserved.

Backlit scenes are somewhat difficult to control. A few weeks ago I printed a couple images, I was just testing an updated box of 320TXP that I exposed at 200ISO. I was relatively lucky. Basically, I spot metered the darker areas in the brushes and the surrounding white area of the blind. The separation between them were 5 stop readings so it was a normal contrast scene. I wanted the blind to be almost white with little texture so I developed the negative a bit more to get it brighter (N+1). On the print I found the highlights were right, but the shadows a bit soft, so I had to print it with a grade 3 filter. This is how it looks (straight unedited scan):

As BeBu says, why do you think it`s incorrect? Anyway... think that it doesn`t matter at all, as soon as you can achieve different contrast grades with it. Think that with a split printing technique, you only need two filters to expose the sensitised parts of the emulsion; yellow and magenta (something like 200Y and 200M, although it will depend on the enlarger). Midway filter settings just give you intermediate contrast levels, but here you need to have a bit of control to achieve perfectly linear results. So don`t worry so much. Just print your negatives and check results!

Well, the Mamiya 6 is almost the same bulk as the F6. It do away with the dilemma image quality vs load to carry, The rangefinder makes it possible... even the smallest 6x6 reflex (Rollei,Hasselblad) are not as "handholdable" as the 6. After a while, you get used to rangefinders and appreciate their advantages...unless there is a need of checking the image on the screen (DoF, plane of focus, precise framing). In this case, RF cameras are not the right choice. I'm stuck to Mamiya, and depending on the task I take the 6 or a RZ. So the perfect option is... to have both, RF and SLR 😉

Good one... ! Frightening!

Personally, I love Technikas. It is my favourite camera for field work, compact, practical and faster to setup. The F1 is also a good one, but as a monorail, more bulky and awkward to carry, although maybe easier to work with once on the tripod and with many affordable accessories. For the kind of work you mention, indoor, low paced work, focusing on composition, the F1 could be maybe more suited. But folding field/press/technical cameras are (IMHO) way more practical and versatile cameras, being the Technika a piece of art by itself. Whatever the camera you use, a fresnel add a lot of comfort, and the right angle viewer will make it luxurious... 😉

The fresnel lens just help to avoid the hot spot at the center of the image. You can use a right angle viewer with or without fresnel... obviously for better image viewing (that`s the purpose of the viewer, isn`t it?) a fresnel will be more confortable for framing, composing the image, checking corners, etc. In the same way you see the hot spot without the fresnel the right angle viewer will show the image. Is it useless? The only difference is that the image is not upside down. Cheap or good fresnel? It all depend on how tricky with the gear you are. I try to remember Tecknika Vs use over-the-GG fresnels (my IV use the fresnel shimmed between the lens and the GG). You can put a plastic cheap toy fresnel, cutted to size, to simply gather more light over the GG. Or buy the right fresnel and have it permanently attached to the camera... it depends on how much you use the camera. I personally use the right fresnels, or simply won`t use them. What I never use is the right angle viewer! 😄 (Disclaimer: I don`t have a Linhof right angle viewer but a Sinar one that I rarely use with my Sinar monorail. BTW, Sinars use an easy to remove fresnel that I keep permanently attached).

Multigrade filters makes traditional printing way more convenient IMHO. Over or under the lens, it doesn`t matter at all if the filters are clean and in good shape. The split printing technique is also a very useful approach. The way of working is first to get the right printing time for a desired highlight texture and brightness. Once after that you decide how dark you want the shadow areas; if darker increase contrast, if softer use a lower filter grade. Experience will tell if the starting point (filter #2) can be superseded in favour of a different contrast setting.

I have experienced Dektol of the 2020 batch, mixed before the expiring date (2023, cannot remember the month). It came out dark chocolate, making it unusable. The excuse "This has no impact on product performance" is simply ridiculous, just because 1. the solution is such dark that you cannot evaluate the print submerged in the tray and 2. the paper result stained with the developer. So for this quality reason, and given the crazy pricing policy Kodak branded products have around here, I have had to change to another brand.

Nice piece Shun. I have enjoyed it. What someone said, video can kill the still image (at least sometimes... ) 😉

Thank you very much Shun. Actually, your work and Matt's are way more worthy of recognition! I am always happy to browse around here and read many old acquaintances (and also new interesting ones), which I do almost every week. Unfortunately my photographic work has been very limited for some time now. It's funny... I've never met other photonetters in person but I have the feeling that they are lifelong friends. I even miss some that are not around here for a while 🙂

Ilkka i Are you focusing at the working aperture? Field curvature is a tricky characteristic, so I wonder if your plane of focus can vary when shooting at the working aperture. There is also focus shift, where the plane of focus change with the aperture. I have some very good lenses that show this annoying issues. When I just received the AFS 24-70 G back at the release time I checked focus as usual, and compared it to the lens I used to use before (AFS DX 17-35). The 24-70 was quite odd in comparison, so I remember to spend a lot of time trying to set the fine focus feature. At the end I left the lens at the factory settings, the most useful one. As Shun says, is not a lens for that task, or at least in the way you are using it. Despite of this I consider it an amazing lens for indoor people photography and portraiture. For copy work I use the old 55/2.8 and 105/4 Ai-S Micro-Nikkors (size depending), with good results even on my D850. Another practical option (faster to use) is the AFS105VR.

(A bit out of topic but it's interesting to see that almost six years after the releasing of the D850 it is still on top... just a thought... )

As far as I know original Beseler 23CII bulbs are PH140 or PH111 (115v). Never heard of BA15S. After reading Glen's post I wonder if yours is a color head; usually, dichro heads don't use bayonet type lamps (at least the ones I'm aware of). Again, think about switching to LED. If size lets, you can use different outputs to suit your timing needs.

Mine is a 23CIII. I don`t have the enlarger with me here but I wonder how difficult to replace the original socket is. This way you could use any E27 LED bulb on yours. As far as I remember the issue with Beselers is that the bulb should be not too big, But nowadays there are many bulb shapes available. For sure there will be one that fits.

To be honest, I have to admit that my most used zoom lens for my "single lens pro trips" is the 24-120/4 VR (5x). It's certainly heavy and somewhat cumbersome, but it's still a bit more comfortable than the holy trinity or a bunch of primes. The quality at 120mm isn't impressive, but it gets the job done. It's not my favorite lens but I find it really practical. I still keep a 28-105 screw-on lens as a second option, which is much more compact and lighter, but I always take the 24-120. Same thing with a 24-85AFS, which I rarely use. I also have some other nice Nikon zooms that I don't use for various reasons. Some thoughts: I think the higher the zoom ratio, the worse the image quality will be at some extreme (... how could perform an 8-10x -or higher- lens???). I assume (I don't have any of them) that the latest lens arrivals are specially designed for higher resolution cameras, so better results should be achieved. I never found a really practical zoom lens for both DX and FX, so I used to have dedicated lenses for each format (I stopped using DX long ago).

"There is always time to spend money". Not sure if it is the right english... I wanted to mean that -there will always be an opportunity to spend money-.

I had the same dilema as you. My AFS lens collection is huge and first class, in perfect working shape. So I bought the best available DSLR (D850) for the future to come and I keep shooting without looking to the sides... very likely the Z system is better overall (really... ?) but actually the improvement is clearly not worth the huge expense of getting the equivalent gear I already have (at least to me). I bet nobody cannot tell if my images are taken with my DSLR camera or with the latest&best&most expensive Nikon (Z or no Z). Pro AFS lenses retain a big quality value but with a descending monetary value. Yes, some of the latest DSLR Nikons are not capable of Z camera features... and viceversa. Live with it. Who cares. Why not a MF digital camera? Why not another much better, or much bigger or whatever? NAS is a bad thing... There is always time to spend money. I prefer to spend it when I really need. My D850 is still as best as it was five years ago; and still is amongst the highest scores today. When Z quality really doubles D850 quality, I'll think it again. Just IMHO.

I bet F6 owners can't help but smirk when they read articles comparing the F100 to the F6... And also to the F5... the only F camera with a battery grip that cannot be detached. Wrong design... 😜

Thank you Rodeo!

Thanks Rodeo. Yes, I know that restoring old prints is a risky undertaking. I have an archive that gets bigger every day with very old images, some seem to be in rapid degradation. My intent is to keep the originals in the best shape possible, so I'd like to know how to (at least partially) stop this degradation. Many of them have already been digitized and edited, especially the most interesting or the worst preserved. I'm pretty sure galleries, museums and archives have professional procedures in place to repair some issues with prints before archiving them in "archival" conditions... Unfortunately, I'm not willing to pay for this professional work (sure to be incredibly expensive! ). Print restoration seems to be a well-kept secret... to the benefit of restorers (which, of course, I respect) 🙂

Maybe in the wrong forum but I want to ask for some advice about print restoration (film restoration as well); I’m not interested on digital restoration but on a book or guide to repair papers and films like it was before the digital era… how to flatten materials, to save a badly washed or unfixed paper, to delaminate emusions from damaged cardboards, to clean spots, increase contrast, etc. etc. Again, I’m not interested on digital image restoration (which I perform regularly with editing software) but on photographic materials restoration. Is there any “old procedures” kind of book or bible about it? Maybe a general art restoration guide? Thank you in advance.

Too risky for me. I have way more recent paper that is already yellowed or fogged. Photography is not cheap. I want to be sure that I'm successfully spending my money and time.