fw1

This is worse than I had thought...if Astia doesn't sell, then I can

understand if it is withdrawn (even if in my opinion it is one of the

best slide films around), but it looks as if Quickload in general is

being scaled back - I certainly hope that this is not the case.

<i>Ineluctable modality of the visible: at least that if no more,

thought through my eyes. Signatures of all things I am here to read,

seaspawn and seawrack, the nearing tide, that rusty boot. Snotgreen,

bluesilver, rust: coloured signs. Limits of the diaphane. But he

adds: in bodies. Then he was aware of them bodies before of them

coloured. How? By knocking his sconce against them, sure. Go easy.

Bald he was and a millionaire, maestro di color che sanno. Limit of

the diaphane in. Why in? Diaphane, adiaphane. If you can put your

five fingers through it, it is a gate, if not a door. Shut your eyes

and see.</i>

David ; if you're using Photoshop, try <i>Curves, Auto</i> as a means

of getting an acceptable first base tonal curve from the raw scan.

Then cropping, and possibly unsharp mask, should put you in a

position to get a good proof print.

I have been using a digital platform to print from 4x5 black and

white negatives for about nine months now.<p>

Most of the negatives are TMax 100 / Delta 100 / Fuji emulsions

developed in either Rodinal or Pyro, or occasionally DiXactol.<p>

The main digital expenses were Photoshop (£550), an Agfa Duoscan HiD

(ebay, £500), and an Epson 1160 (£200).<p>

I tried piezography, and found it a poor quality, poor value, waste

of time - its claims appear to suffer from over-inflated marketing

hype and a lack of technical support. Don't go down this road.<p>

The Agfa scanner produces a 290mb file from a 4x5 negative, and to my

eye this is sufficient for very high quality output, although I would

like to see some comparisons with a much higher quality scanner.<p>

I particularly like the Lyson quadblack cool inkset, and also their

soft fine art paper, which is a heavy matte white textured paper.

Other papers from Hahnemuhle and Somerset are also really excellent,

and there is no direct comparison with conventional photographic

print paper. I'm sitting in my office surrounded by about 12 large

prints, which is absolutely great! I can now think seriously about

producing a monograph in book form, on paper of my choice. I haven't

been able to make comparisons with conventional fibre prints - and I

would like to - but I am more than happy with what I am able to

produce at present. There is a learning curve which can be quite

frustrating at times, but I think that this also applies to a wet

darkroom. <p>

I also use a Combi tank - looking at your questions ;<p>

1. You do need to practice loading film to avoid such problems. Doing

this in daylight with a few spare sheets will help you get it right

in the dark.<p>

2. First, you should probably be wearing gloves, especially if you

are using a developer such as DiXactol, which uses similar chemistry

to pyrogallol, and which can be absorbed through the skin with

potentially harmful results. The stiff valve may just need a bit of

time to loosen up, but as this on a large thread you may have a

poorly made part which you may be able to return to the manufacturer

for a replacement.<p>

3. Breath pressure - !!! Please see above comments on safety using

photographic chemicals. <b>By doing this kind of thing, you run the

risk of burning the sensitive skin in your mouth, poisoning yourself,

and increasing the chances of splashing chemicals into your

eyes.</b><p>

In order to get the tank to drain efficiently, you need to loosen the

top valve to allow air to replace the draining liquid. The tank

should drain in 20 - 30 seconds.<p>

4. You can remove the lid about halfway through the fix process, and

keep it off thereafter. The post fix staining process can be done in

daylight, as can the film wash.

Quite simply, I think black and white LF photography offers the

prospect of both (i) abstraction and (ii) epic, (particularly

landscape), whereas colour LF photography offers the prospect of

intensity.

I was in Hokkaido (north Japan) with my family, where there are a

number of bear attacks each year, and I had warned my family to be

careful. It was one of the first times that I had gone on an extended

trip with my 4x5, and my family was getting more and more annoyed

with the amount of time each shot was taking. Anyway, I had been

composing a shot for about 20 minutes under the darkcloth when there

was this enormous roar behind me and I was grabbed from behind - I

was absolutely terrified, thinking that I had disturbed a bear, when

in fact it was my daughter venting her frustration at another long

wait. I think that she is still laughing at the look on my face.

You can use DiXactol as either a single bath or a two bath developer.

I would not recommend its use as a two bath developer, as I would

regularly get uneven development, and in a discussion on the B&W film

and developing Lusenet forum a few months ago, Barry Thornton seemed

to be backing off two bath usage. As a single bath staining

developer, it is OK, but there is a high base fog level. I personally

think that either Delta 100 / PMK Pyro <i>or</i> TMax100 / Rodinal

offer a better and more consistent result, and also more N+/N-

flexibility.

Only after I gave up my Nikon and went to 4x5 did I feel that I was

actually part of a creative process.

<p>

Eidetic - that's stuffed with duck feathers, yes?

4x5 and 6x17 ; <p>

Black and white ; mainly TMX, Delta 100 and Pan F+, developed in PMK

Pyro or Rodinal, scanned using an Agfa Duoscan HiD, and printed on an

Epson 1160 with Lyson inks on Lyson soft fine art paper. Still

working on getting decent 6x17 scans.<p>

Colour ; mainly Astia and sometimes Velvia, normally sent to a lab

for enlargements.

If you have a 210, a 300 may be too close. The Fuji 400T is a pretty

good lense which I have used a lot with good results. You do need to

focus very carefully - a loupe is recommended - and make sure that

the camera is rigid. I have not used the Wisner, but I think that its

bellows are long, so you may also be able to look at the Nikkor

360/500/720T.

I second the vote for the area near Grindelwald ; earlier this year

we stayed in the Jungfrau region in a village called Wengen, in the

shadow of the Eiger, Moench and Jungfrau ; by local train from here

you can go almost to the top of the Jungfrau to the Jungfraujoch, a

spectacular glacier area, and you stop off twice in the middle of the

Eiger with views of its glaciers ; you can also go by cable car to

Schilthorn, with panoramic views of the Alps in virtually every

direction (absolutely breathtaking!) ; if you're lucky, the wild

flowers will be in bloom, and they are possibly the most sublime

sight of all. Went everywhere by train - no car required.

Thnaks for your replies. Bob ; is there a dedicated glassless 5x7

Agfa holder available for the duoscan scanners? If so, this could be

the answer.

Hello ; I have set up a digital printing platform, using an Agfa Duoscan HiD, and an Epson 1160 / Lyson quadtone inks, which works very well with 4x5 negatives, not least because there is a dedicated glassless film holder for the scanner which holds the negatives very flat. I have a problem, however, when I try to scan my 6x17 negatives and transparencies - there is no dedicated film holder, and I end up scanning film which is not fully flat on a glass bed, which also produces Newton's rings.<p>

My question ; has anyone found an elegant solution to scanning 6x17 film, ideally a glassless holder which is able to keep the film rigid and flat? Is it worth considering buying a 6x17 carrier from a 5x7 enlarger, which could then be inserted into the scanner?<p>

Happy New Year to everyone on this forum!

If you are really using extreme movements, also consider the Nikkor

SW120 f/8, which will offer you an enormous range of movement on 6x9

as it covers up to 8x10. It is also very sharp and contrasty - only

downsides are a 77mm filter size and the fact it is a relatively

large lense.

Thanks, Michael and Tim, for your comments.<p>

On the printer resolution, I have never been able to get the

piezography software to make its four passes, despite multiple

different configuration attempts, and I have never received a single

reply to my various queries to Cone technical support on their web

site. Eventually I gave up.<p>

Re metamerism ; Michael's comments on the effects on different papers

are interesting, although I do think that this is a very subjective

area, where people will have different tastes and preferences. I have

mainly been using a heavy matte white textured paper (Lyson soft fine

art), on which the piezography inks do come across as very brown and

warm.<p>

Over the last few months I have been using both the piezography

software and inks and other inks, printing a selection of my 4x5

black and white negatives, which I have scanned using an Agfa Duoscan

HiD.<p>

I'll get to the point ; I would actively dissuade anyone from the

expense and hassle of piezography. It is very poor value for money,

the inks regularly clog the printer nozzles, the technical support

which is touted on the web site is non-existent, the tone of the

prints is an unpleasant warm brown, very far removed from the

selenium toned effect many would wish to have for their prints, and

most importantly, it is not as good quality as other, much better

value options currently on the market. In my view, the claims that

they make are vastly overstated and little more than marketing hype.

I simply do not believe their claim that they can get the Epson

printers to print at greater than 1140 dpi - or if they can, their

technical service department has never bothered to answer any of my

queries on this. Much of the ink is wasted on cleaning clogs from the

printer nozzles - incredibly frustrating!<p>

I have found my best option to be to use the Lyson quadblack cool

inkset. It does not clog and produces results which are far superior

both technically and aesthetically to piezography, IMHO. I have

absolutely no affiliation to Lyson, by the way.<p>

Through much trial and error, I have found that the best approach is

to scan a 4x5 negative either at original size at 2000 lpi (maximum

resolution), or at 150% size at 1333 lpi. Both of these scans produce

a 290 mb file. After some limited work in Photoshop, I can either

print this size, or configure a print file for a larger size while

keeping the resolution the same (i.e. interpolation). An A3 sized

print will have a print file of between 650 - 850 mb in size, which

does take about 10 - 15 minutes cpu processing time, and about 10

minutes printing time, but the quality is really excellent - close to

exhibition quality. I do feel that I have at last found a viable high

quality printing technique that I can control myself from exposure

right through to final print.<p>

I regard the money I spent on the piezography software as an

expensive mistake. Having a high quality digital printing setup can

be better achieved through other options.

Jerry ; my approach is simple - try to keep everything within a 4 or

5 stop range, with highlights a maximum of 2 stops above the chosen

exposure, and preferably 1 - 1.5 stops above. I occasionally use a ND

grad 1 stop filter to manage the range of light. I've tried a number

of E6 films, and still consider Astia to be the best around, with

Velvia a close second. I really do not like the new Provia RDPIII,

nor the Kodak offerings.

I have both the analogue and digital Pentax spotmeters. I like the

digital because it is appreciably lighter and smaller than the

analogue. The only problem is that in very bright light (sunlight on

glaciers, for example), it can be extremely hard to read the led's.

It's also sometimes easier to grasp the range of light with the

analogue meter, simply because of the needle moving on the scale, and

hence to make your exposure choice. For LF work, I think either meter

is a good choice, and I have found them very reliable with E6.

I'm going to try that test with my Fuji 400T ; getting a loupe

noticeably improved the results with this lense, and maybe there is

something more to do with the camera stability. However I really do

not want to add any more items to my backpack - there's enough heavy

stuff in there already.