jose_angel

I tend to think it is a scanning issue. It is not motion blur, and I don`t think it`s camera shake. Looks like it only happens vertically and only in the darkest black areas. At the first sight I though it is some kind of odd reflection, in the scanner or maybe on the camera... BTW, which camera have you used? Tripod? I don`t have a Nikon scanner, cannot help here. Have you scanned the same images but placed on the tray in different orientation? I`d check if the effect appear horizontally instead of vertically.

Good point, romans used an additive system. So there is no number 0. Never thought about it...

What... ?!?! You were right, Adams Zone System is based in 11 zones. Zone 0 is pure black, against Zone X which is pure white. Zone V is in the middle...

Right. Well, these are different systems, don't know if perfectly comparable... Personally I like to think on the "base image" (that is, the developed negative or the in-camera digital file), and then darkroom or edition (that is wet printing or digital edition, where you get the "real" image either on paper -you cannot get it other way-, or in the computer`s screen, respectively).

In my experience with film, it is relatively easy to blow highlights or to get no detail in the shadows. E.g., think on a contrasty beach scene. We need to deviate the reading of a meter and modify the standard development time to keep both extremes under control. And we cannot check success until we have the film fully processed at hand. This is the reason I say here that under the "film exposure" title the photographer needs to consider the exposure as a whole process. A digital camera of course help to understand value distribution, but not a lot more. Wider aperture, longer time or higher ISO equal brighter image, or viceversa. That's all. What you see on the screen, histogram or highlight warning is what you get. I now wonder if this Black&White forum (I believe part of the formerly Film&Processing forum) is extrictly related to B&W film, or just to any kind of B&W photography. I see the title don`t specify it, although most threads here are referred to traditional "film" photography. If so, it could be a good idea to specify it on the forum`s title. Although maybe the OP is thinking on other effects (say, "high key" or "low key", pushing or pulling film, etc.), the answer is the same, if we talk about under or overexposure, most times we must take processing into account.

Hope Brizzybunny don't get overwhelmed with this thread! :D -- "Film exposure" is not "digital exposure". Of course the topic is the same, but obviously procedures are quite different. IMHO, the term "exposure" on film necessarily implies film development as a part of it, as soon as any variation during processing affect the output, let's call it, "base image". So a concerned student cannot avoid this negative/positive, development-time/density processing knowledge. On digital it is performed differently, since that instant feedback allows you to know the output (or "base image") in the very same moment of the take.

Thanks Ilkka.

Oops... something failed, "The highlighted areas on your image too much dense (dark) the film, maybe too weak or bright on the image... ". I wanted to mean: "The highlighted areas on your image will be too much dense (dark) on the film, so maybe too much weak or bright on the print... "

Please excuse my ignorance but, does it mean we can use CFE instead of XQD in the D850 (and others) from then on? XQD prices are insane, as are CFExpress too. Any advantage on using one instead of the other?

Exactly. Many times. Let's say one of most common: Think on any image, say a farmhouse this type under strong, direct sunlight and deep shadows. The automatic meter in your camera choose a "correct" exposure. But you know the shadow will be too dark in the print (too thin, almost no detail in the film), and you want a little more detail in the shadowed wall. So you may want to overexpose a bit (to get more densities on the film). Shadow detail and clarity will be higher on the print. You have then overexposed your photo, but the shadowed areas are perfectly exposed for you. The highlighted areas on your image too much dense (dark) the film, maybe too weak or bright on the image. They are overexposed. So you know your photo has been overexposed. -- (To have the right image on film, you should then underdevelop the film (to keep it less time than "normal" in the developer, in order to avoid too much density on the highlights, but this is another topic... -although closely and inevitably related with film exposure-).

Less heat AND the ability to have different brightness, quality options... think that depending on the film`s image and the enlargement required you may need more or less power to get the right printing time (shorter or longer at your choice, regardless of the lens aperture)...

Please do it. From the first day LED bulbs hit stores, I started using them, looking for a cooler and softer output... former ones had a weak brightness but current ones are much better. So I have been printing with LEDs for several years now. You can check out a few samples in my portfolio. As soon as I found the new bulbs suited my needs, I stopped testing and started working; I remember that I preferred warm ones, but I have no scientific proof; I only suspected that the cooler temp ones gave a closer contrast separation, but I repeat, I have not tested it in depth. In those days, bulbs were available warm (around 3000K) or cold (around 5700K). I try to remember that the cool ones were not that bright. Right now the offer is vastly wider. Warm up time was also an issue, some were unusable, so I had to use premium ones (Osram, Philips). I see some points here: -Printing times do not follow a precise rule (for example, a #4 or #5 filter requires twice as long as #3 or below filter). Who cares? Reality is that the images are not mathematical formulas, in a given image you may want it to be deeper if it has more contrast or softer if it is flatter ... and I find that good prints are usually split printed, with several dodges and burns. So, in the end, the printing times are individual and non-transferable if contrast changes are made. -You may not get a true # 5 or higher contrast, or maybe a #4 is actually a #3 + 2/3 ... not a problem at all. Same as above. And if your negatives are reasonably good, they will be in the # 2- # 3 range, maybe # 2 to # 4, split printing method aside. -If you are learning the MG process, or just want to have "fast easy prints", you may want the contrast separation rules to be perfect for better initial control. For example, for an "easy" image, where you find that contrast #3 is not enough, you may want #4 without doing a new test print, by just doubling the printing time as the rule says. With a little experience you will soon notice that it does not apply to 100%, LED, tungsten or whatever bulb or head you are using (for sure it applies with the bulbs used by the manufacturer to build those graphics, but not with mine).

Don`t mind. Like sex, GAS fades with age. Or maybe not... o_O

Why? Have you experienced any problem? In my experience, a filter under the lens does not affect the image in any noticeable way. I think it is more of a theoretical dilemma than a real issue.

Absolutely not, I'd just buy multigrade. Some papers are made graded-only, but with any multigrade paper you will be perfectly fine. Look for an available&affordable paper brand, that's all. I don't use Ilford Multigrade, but for sure you can use it with graded paper. In the same way you can use Neutol (I still use it) with multigrade paper.

In my experience, you can perfectly use under-the-lens filtering instead of an above-the-lens filter drawer, with identical results. Obviously the filters should be in good working condition, they don't need to be new but reasonably clean and without huge scratches... I think I have never cleaned mine, some are thirty years old (or more). In fact, below the lens filtering is a better approach to my taste, because a revolving type holder is much easier to use for split printing. You can buy the classical Ilford one, or a DIY with larger filters (I have both, some lenses are big so the Ilford holders doesn't fit). You can also made a dual filter revolving holder specially designed for that split printing. I know a filter drawer is a more elegant solution, but a filter holder are way easier&faster to operate. BTW, Opemus enlargers are made in both versions, with and without drawer, an they are dirty cheap. If you want the drawer, maybe you can buy another one or just that head part.

True... editing the files of a D850 (same as the Z7) require an updated computer. If you want to run them quickly, a good one is needed. It adds to the choice.

Oops, I wanted to mean that a FTZ adapter -on a FX lens- is not a long term option. My excuses.

If you already had a -complete- set of FX lenses, I'd say buy FX. You'll save a lot of money. But you have two FX lenses (maybe the cheapest ones) so you'll not save much money. The Z system is different; to me, the FTZ on a FX camera is not a long term option. So if thinking on a new system, just buy looking to the future. If not, you'll be continuously thinking about updating your gear. IMHO, I'd think on image quality, not in gear acquisition; jumping to a Z6 may be a big expense but not a big jump IQ wise, but to a Z7 it may be. A Z7 or a D850 system will involve a similar big expense (wide, normal, tele zooms, a couple primes). If you're not in a hurry, I'd follow Mary`s advice... wait a little and think on starting a new system.

In the last, say, twenty years, I have yet to see an european airport that honors a manual inspection. I have flown with film many times, and I always ask for a manual inspection before X-ray machines. The answer is always the same, put the bag or whatever you have in the inspection machine, that's all. They once said that the machine does not fog the film, but they usually do not answer. Security personnel are not noted for their loving or patronizing treatment... obviously, damage to your film is their last concern. I remember I have seen the film friendly icon sometime. I must also say that I have never received fogged films, at least completely and remarkably on all rolls.

Mmm... who cares about quality... ? :p Film is beautiful and film cameras a pleasure to use... But I agree, IMO shooting film for scanning limit the experience to camera use, losing the soul of the medium.

For many times I have been in the very same circumstance... wanted to have it all, everywhere. Now, I just take one camera and one lens, either film or digital. Personally, to carry with both systems and several lenses is simply unpractical. Just my experience. I use to take primes for film, wide for street/indoors, standard for mountains. Just a few rolls (I cannot take dozens) and shooting very carefully. Limitation is part of the fun, a challenge. If mirrorless digital, a standard lens, and -maybe-, a proper converter (wide if indoors, tele if I take the opportunity to get some portraits). Aperture priority, JPEG images, shooting without limits. DSLRs for speed and/or edition, here zooms are the key. If I were planning to take a DSLR for a trip, for sure I'd take a 24-120, two batteries and four cards. That's all. Loads of images, great for unexpected scenarios. This way I can concentrate on the trip and the images I'm taking. If not, it's all about changing lenses, loading gear and worrying about equipment.

Right now I have a 45P on my D850. I like it, despite what "pro" site gurus say about it. It is the lens I used to prefer for mountaneering trips with film cameras (I haven't used DSLRs at the mountains for a long time). Some thoughts: -The D850`s screen is not the best for manual focusing. Yes, you also have the electronic rangefinder, but it doesn't work as good as I'd like. (Of course it confirm perfect focus, but is not as easy to get the center dot but a right or left arrow, at least in my unit. Of course you can get the focus confirmation center dot, but it takes extra care, so a little more time to assure perfect focus). -The 45P is one of my favorites, sharp (enough to me, despite what "pro" sites say about its sharpness), simply the smallest, with a great hood design, good barrel feeling and electronic communications... but it's f2.8 and manual focus. -The 50/1.8E (or any other 50/1.8 manual focus lens, all I have used are almost identical performers) is also quite small, better focus feel, and it's faster than the P. You have the E in two versions, "classic" (with the chrome ring) and what I call "EM" (all black with squares). I bought it because it's faster than the P, but I find it to be (image quality wise) clearly behind the P. Classic hood. I also used this lens a lot, but the only advantage is that is one stop faster. -The 50/1.8AFD is amongst the sharpest 50mm lenses, light, auto focus, very cheap. Sadly it's not pancake design, with the same ugly manual focus feel than other AF lenses (but it's AF, so I rarely focus it manually). Not so great bokeh but huge sharpness in return. Classic hood, but use it without it, if the lens breaks you don't lose much.. -The AFS versions (1.4 & 1.8)are great, fast, sharp, light, with much better hood but also much bigger (also light). -"Normal" Ai manual focus lenses are smaller, not AF, but heavier and with classic hood. --- There is no perfect lens (sharpest+pancake+AF), so you need to trade some features in benefit of others. "Normal" lenses are bigger, maybe faster and also light, but definitely not minimalistically sized. Never used third party lenses.

This mount is quite common (e.g. Shanel shutters). The flange is attached to the lens board, here with nuts and bolts, or directly screwed to an aluminum board, without nuts. You need to move the flange to your lens board. I don't know the size of the hole in your Ansco lens board, the flange should fit. If it doesn't fit (remove the flange and measure it), you need either to get the right sized lens board, or to remove excess of material in the one you already have. It can be done grinding with a file (very likely you'll destroy the lens board) or machining it with proper tools (the right way). Then, once after the work is properly done, you can 1. Attach the flange in the same way (nuts and longer bolts), or 2. Attach the flange to the board with screws (I assume the board is a wooden one, so wooden screws and hardener are needed), or 3. Glue the flange to the board (with epoxy, it may seem the easiest way, but it can end up being the most sloppy, too). Another option (most recommended) is to send it to a professional machinist, S. K. Grimes use to be a classic reference.

I think there are differences, I found some AF screens better than others. Despite of its brightness, some AF ones are good, some are ugly for manual focusing. Cannot say about the F8008s.