jose_angel

Agree, higher film formats are better because they simply offer shallower DoF, smoother gradation and higher resolution. Obviously they have theirs drawbacks (size, weight, expense....) but from a creative point of view, I also think bigger is *usually* better. Another thought; I like to consider all roll film based formats (120/220) the *same*, quality wise. I work with 6x6 and 6x7 (sometimes 6x9). All are the *same* format (56mm height) but with different widths suited to the task. It may sound stupid but once on the printing stage, all the benefits mentioned above are very close (6x7 vs 6x9) or identical (6x4,5 -portrait- and 6x6 or 6x6 and 6x7) when printed on a say, 8x10" sheet of paper.

Rodeo`s guessing makes sense. Could you still check the backing paper? Maybe other rolls of the same batch show the same problem. I think it is not an optical issue, nor a developing failure. The manufacturing idea could be right, too. Never seen this before.

I assume the lines are certainly on the negative, not produced at the scanning process. Isn't it? How do you developed the film? Small tank? Rotary processor?

Well, I don't know who is Kilbee but I agree with most of his words at the video above. I understand that everyone has their own way of understanding their photography. Live and let live. I'm pretty sure there are lots of Vivian Maiers out there. At the end, Vivien Maier has been known, I meet a couple photographers with loads of great images that has rarely been printed, so nobody know their photography. One of them died years ago, very likely his archive is somewhere inside a basement room, if it still exist! I wonder if I`m the only one who care about it. For some people photography is just an emotional database, made to rely themselves or to feed their nostalgia. It could be good or bad, let the good feelings came by just looking at an image. Or to check themselves living in a world they can't see in any other way. I bet these people doesn't care about others, they made the images for themselves. Pro photographers or anyone who want to make money need to spread their images, obviously. And there is the social media stuff, with other motivations (very likely not related to photography, btw).

I use this kind of bottles in several sizes for different purposes. For better life of developers I use 250ml units that I fill completely up to the cap (no air inside), so it actually holds a bit less than 270ml of developer. This way I open bottles as I need them, and I never loose more than a fraction of a bottle if it gets out of date once opened. If you use smaller bottles, you'll have an opened bottle with less solution exposed to the air. Buy the size thinking on the amount of solution you'll use; concentrated, highly diluted, etc. If you use 5ml each time, you'll need a very small bottle. If you need e.g. 100-150ml each time, 250ml are fine. If you buy 1 gallon powder bags, 1000ml bottles are better.

I use the one from Digitaltruth for film processing. Clean work and light-proof tanks so that contamination is not a problem. This app has two "safety light" screen modes, green or red. They are not real security lights, but they might work, it should be tested with your materials. At first, I set up the app with the films I used to use, it was kind of tedious because I have too many processing variations and too many film types and formats. I then simplified to the most used ones, and I modify them on the fly if needed for more specific purposes. The application lost data several times (don't ask me why), so now I use a couple of standard stored routines that I modify on the fly for the film I'm developing. The app is good so my advice is to go this route, although as mentioned I find it a bit of pain to set them up. I try to remember that there were two options, the basic and the premium, I have the basic one. I would like to have the option of a computer connection to set the data and then to save or download it to the phone. Another thing I miss is having better advice tones, the "before" is too soft for my taste and the "end" is too loud. In the end, it is the timer that I have used the most. For tray sheet development, as Rodeo says, I use the voice recording app on my phone (previously a mini cassette recorder), but just as a basic time reminder (30 seconds....one minute...two and a half minutes... etc.), mainly to avoid the endless boredom of the task. But I rarely use this method because I usually develop sheets in tanks (rotary or not) where I use the timer app.

I think the expense on film is not worth it unless you develop it and print yourself in a b/w home darkroom at a reasonably good quality levels. Professional equipment, edition and printing of digital images is even more expensive. Shooting film (b&w or color) to get digital archives is the worst choice IMHO. Shooting digital to have loads of images stored without printing them is the way amateur photography works right now, I guess... Well, maybe just a few prints from time to time. I find much easier (and cheaper!) to get a quality traditional b&w print at home that sending a digital archive out for printing. And much faster, too. But I'm quite pessimistic. My guess is that film (chemicals and papers too) are in the deadline. Price raising will kill them.

JDMvW archives are impressive... JDM, your archives are awesome! Congratulations 😄 Love that glass with the spotting solution (... or maybe a glass of sherry?). Also, the artist`s darkened nails, maybe due to the finger immersion into the pyro developer or whatever extremely poisonous they used in that age... Many times I read the "print varnish" thing, but never used one. I suspect yellowing could be the big issue after a while. Does anybody know what kind of varnish they used to use?

There are many "most important" things to consider... To say just one, the place where the image has to be seen is important. Light conditions, distance, etc. The very same image looks different if seen at different light levels or even at different color temperatures. So I have to check the test prints under similar if not the same conditions.

I would get a rangefinder, in the format of your choice. The narrower the format, the smaller the camera (usually!). I think the best camera is the one that is least lazy to use it, other considerations are *secondary*. Although I settled on the Mamiya 6 decades ago, I lately looked for something even more portable with a big negative and tried the much smaller and more compact Ikontas in 6x9 and 6x6. At first I thought it was the wise choice, but found the focusing to be a nightmare. Framing is also unfriendly. So I`m getting back to the *perfect* results of my 6. A Mamiya 7 might be an even better and bigger but very expensive option. Fuji rangefinders have always tempted me... although the lenses are not interchangeable. Hasselblad has always been there, but I'm fine with Mamiya, so I don't want to look anywhere else. As Gary says, time inevitably passes, and it's noticeable on 2nd hand gear. Bellows are delicate parts (repairable in most cases).

BeBu, your question has made me realize that although I have AA trays for almost all the cameras I had, they were all "short body" ones... cameras with built-in battery grips use to be too small to fit AA trays on them! (except the F5). Never owned a D1X, but I assume it applies. Wrong advice on my part. My idea was to keep all cameras I buy for a lifetime; I use to buy all accessories I think I`ll need in a future, so I always buy AA battery trays. My oldest one with "problematic" batteries is the F6 that I keep using with the tray (lithium batteries are expensive!). Reality is that sooner or later I sold all digitals with a couple exceptions. I learned that they don't last as long as I expected. I try to remember that I sold the D3 right after the D700 release.

What Bill says... I don't have my shooting policy restricted to those levels of accuracy. As usual with "calibrated methods", they work under strictly controlled scenarios and procedures, but they are just a dream in (my) real life. So I keep my exposure and development charts as close to optimal as I can, but also tend to "intuitively" tweak them in the field to work faster or avoid too much hassle. This way I get the right densities on the main areas (or I want to believe I`m getting them!) but the whole balance is far from perfect. So once on the printing table, I usually apply all kinds of tricks to get what I'm looking for. There is no direct "easy" printing, usually.

Dave, if I understand you correctly, it's about to lengthen the battery life. I actually don't know how; not an issue for me just because I prefer to use the AA battery adapter with good NiMh batteries. I still use very old cameras this way, no worries about dedicated batteries. I used to use a D3 for a time, and a great D700 up to its end (some buttons stopped working so I had to buy a new camera). If it wasn't for that, I'd still be using it these days.

Funny, Paterson tanks are always suspicious of light leaking. Thanks to the new pnet interface, I found another "Paterson leaking" thread. Here someone said that they leak without the lid in place and some ways to check it. (At the end, it was not a leaking but a wrong processing procedure). Maybe worth reading. 😄

... and once the work of the fixer has been carried out, it is necessary to remove the remains of said fixer that could remain on the film, since they will become harmful contaminants against the optimal conservation of the image and in the long term. That is why after using the fixer, the film is thoroughly washed.

Please excuse me... just kidding. Clogged reels, debris, gloves, leaks, stickiness, hair dryers... of course you guys are right, but honestly, I don't often experience those issues... just the little stuck bearings, not a problem at all -I use to move them around before loading with the tip of a pencil-. I use to keep the reels clean (just a brief rinse after use), let them dry, etc. It has never seemed like a problematic part of the darkroom to me. That is my (humble) experience; I've used various sets of Paterson tanks over the decades (I'm currently running two System 4 units with MOD54 inserts and reels) with no issues. I actually love this system and think it's the best I've ever used. I also have a complete set of Jobo tanks and the rotary machine as a second option, but I prefer manual processing with the Paterson.

I had never considered using a good developer tank to be so troublesome!... 🤣

Yes, the little balls on the spirals need to be loosened -just before- loading the film...they tend to get stuck. With the tip of a pencil I move them to the widest side of the casing to make it work. No problem.

Never. Paterson tanks user since... eighties? I think in the seventies-early eighties I used to use baquelite ones. Always with room lights and without the lid but with the spin driver or a thermometer in place. I think you are right in your insights; there is also some play in the funnel 3 point locking that I use as indicative that it is correctly attached. But as said above, I think Paterson tanks are as light tight as they need to be. But it is true that with all the tanks I use I try to avoid direct light over the filler... just like some kind of fear that photons could enter on the tank. Same with Jobo tanks. Or just develop a cut of unexposed film. Do not place the tank directly under the light. BTW... Could it be a camera light leak? Is the filler tube Paterson original? (I have a filler tube that is Paterson style but not identical!) Personally, the Paterson is great for spin agitation. For hand invertion I prefer the Jobo.

There are many factors to consider when working on the sharpest prints. Leaving aside the taking and the type of film and the developement (it's not only the size of the grain but also the shape of the developed grain), the main problem I see is on the enlargement process. All planes (film, lens, paper) must be absolutely parallel, so a perfect fit must be achieved. The Beseler C series are not easy to adjust, so set the enlarger to the desired height and adjust it as carefully as you can (and your adjustment tools permit). As said, stability is crucial. I would check the optimum working aperture of the lens. Some lenses are sharp but show curvature of field up to some extent, among other factors. I have never used EL Nikons, but have had surprises with other top notch lenses (supposedly very flat field). A 80 vs. 105? Coverage (light fall off) and peripheral sharpness should be checked. It will depend on the lens. After all this, the print should be as sharp as the system can produce with that film (image). Anyway, sharpness is somewhat subjective. An image may or may not appear sharp depending on the viewer (but this is another topic 😄 ). My advice is that you consider all this without going crazy and start printing. After all, it must be (it really is!) an enjoyable experience.

Thanks Marc. I build some machines long ago, I think it was at the 386 era, and then a 486dx?. This is all I remember, the cooling grills, and to have loads of compatibility problems, jumpers, etc. but it was fun and at the end they worked. After that, always ready to use items. Since then my brain has dried a bit 😄 This thread has made me want to tinker on my own computer. My son will be pleased. I'll see if I can catch up a bit with Lenovo and Dell towers. Thanks a lot.

(I guess it's related to my original question.) As it is an i9 full of threads and RAM and everything, my wish is to repair it. BUT, in the same way that the screen has been a complete failure (too many users with the same problem, and there seems to be no clear Apple diagnosis), I fear for the durability of the replacement. I don't remember when the first symptom appeared, but it became quite evident by the third year. Now it is unbearable. Maybe it happened during the second year and under warranty, I did not assume it at the time.

I also used to have an iMac for photos and small MacBooks for work. The reality is that I mixed everything computable and discovered that a computer for everything was better for me. My latest experience dictates that I'm out of luck, the last two (expensive!) items I bought didn't last long beyond the warranty. This makes me rethink the question. I'm happy to buy premium if things work out. If I have to buy often, I am not willing to buy expensive. I never know if something is going to last or not; that's where trust comes in.

I`m currently using Affinity Photo. Runs very fast on my computer. I used to use Photoshop and others. Not willing to pay the fee. Affinity is good.

Looks like it is a known issue; a poorly designed screen or so. No fix other that display replacement. The replacement screen very likely will show the same failure, sooner or later. Years ago I used to use a separate screen and keyboard to work more comfortably with a 13" MBP. I wanted to avoid it, but I see is the best option. Thanks for the help. I have now an idea of how to manage my computer policy in the future... 😄