fw1

One other aspect of this image also appeals, and supports my interpretation. The slight asymmetry of the two beds resembles a scale, which is slowly tipping in favour of the smooth bed.

<p>

Glass of water, hmmmmm, age, hmmmmm, perhaps that's where she stores her false teeth? (Only kidding)

One more comment, pertinent or not I don't know ; I think that the clock visible by the wrinkled bed also adds to the feeling of time ticking away on that side, against the other side where time / age has not yet become an issue.

<p>

I used to spend much time looking for oppositions that provided structure - you know, raw/cooked, honey/ashes, etc. so forgive me if this is at a tangent.

It is quite important that the woman�s head is excluded. Awakened / aroused, she is making her choice, and to be sure, one of those beds is going to be disappointed. Thus her head or mind already informs the picture, and to have included it would be superfluous.

<p>

I like the way that one bed�s cover is slightly wrinkled, while the other is smooth. Not least as the woman has probably arisen from the wrinkled bed, and has turned her body towards the smooth bed, this strongly suggests someone (an older husband?) may be rejected soon in favour of a younger lover.

<p>

I must admit that the winter mentioned in the title does not come across to me ; the light in the picture is more associated with the bonking of late spring/early summer.

One of the unique features of the Trabant was that the petrol tank was also located in the engine compartment, and you would pass a dripping petrol pump over a hot engine (assuming the thing had started) in order to fill up. Truly terrifying!

Gandolfi, perhaps?

Trabant

I would recommend that you read Phil Davis' book "Beyond the Zone

System", which describes in great detail a process for testing both

film and paper, using step tablets exposed under an enlarger. He also

describes how a spotmeter can be used to measure negative density.

<p>

Overall, I am persuaded that his approach does enable you to

understand very clearly the response of film and paper under

different exposure and development conditions ; indeed, the most

interesting thing in the book, in my opinion, is that it demonstrates

how film speed changes as these conditions change. I am intending to

carry out my own rigorous tests with the film / developer

combinations I have decided feel right to me (based on subjective

"feel" only) ; (1)TMax100 & Rodinal 1:50 (2)Delta100 & PMK Pyro (3)

Fuji Neopan 400 & Microphen (4)Tri-X & HC110/D-76.

<p>

I am less persuaded by his recommendation to keep everything

important in a range between Zones III and VII. This certainly will

work in many circumstances, but you need to be able to be more

"fuzzy" in your approach if you're really going to be able to respond

aesthetically to the quality of light.

In your darkroom, just pull the metal clip away from the envelope,

and the film together with its plastic support at top and bottom will

just slide out of the bottom of the envelope. You will then have to

peel the plastic supports away from the film. It may be worth

sacrificing one film envelope in order to avoid unnecessary finger

marks etc. on your exposed film.

After using PMK Pyro now for several weeks, my preliminary

conclusions are that both Ilford Delta 100 and Pan F+ seem to respond

extremely well. TMax100 much less so ; I think that Rodinal 1:50 is a

better bet than PMK for this film. Delta 100 in PMK and TMax 100 in

Rodinal 1:50 seem to me to give very similar end results -

exceptionally sharp, quite dense negatives, with a long tonal scale.

 

<p>

 

I have given up using an acetic acid stop bath with PMK, and simply

rinse in water for about 1 minute, as I suspect that the stop bath

did cause some pinholes. I then fix in Ilford Hypam, and so far have

always reimmersed the film in the used developer. I might stop doing

this with Pan F+, as the normal development seems to induce a deep

stain anyway.

 

<p>

 

I would be interested in your results with Plus-X and Tri-X. Overall,

I have found Mr Hutching's times and film speeds to be about right

for "N" development, but some way off for +/-, particularly when

combined with long exposure times.

Just got 16 Astia Quickloads processed after managing to get away for

a long weekend. On one scene, the spotmeter was reading EV6 - EV12,

i.e. a 6 stop range, and the slide has retained excellent detail in

both the shadows and the highlights. If I recall, I placed the

exposure bang in the middle on EV9 ; I was expecting to lose some of

both the shadows and the highlights, but the light was fading fast in

the late afternoon so I crossed my fingers and I am now very

impressed with the final result. It may be because the camera was

well shielded from flare. I would normally try to keep within a 4.5 -

5 stop range with transparency film - do others work within similar

parameters?

I can just see myself on the sumit of Everest, looking around in awe,

getting the 4x5 setup, and saying to myself, well, the last time I

saw the spotmeter was at base camp, right?

Yes, Astia is a great film. Apart from its very accurate colour, Fuji

claims it needs neither reciprocity nor colour correction for

exposure times up to 32 seconds, which is pretty helpful in the

field. I also subjectively feel that it has about a stop more

"latitude" than Velvia - what do others think?

Oops - how on earth did that happen? The tables above should go in a

sequence as follows ;<p>

N+2<p>

N+1<p>

N<p>

N-1<p>

N-2<p>

 

Maybe the moderator could correct this, in order to avoid any

unnecesary confusion.

Sorry about the</i>italics. Bill, I've been poring through the

references I have available, and the only one of any help is on p.68

of Ansel Adams' "The Camera", where he writes ;

<p>

"For close subjects, the f-stop must be corrected to account for the

fall-off in illumination caused by the lense extension. This effect

becomes significant whenever the distance from lense to

<i>subject</i> is about 8 times the focal length of the lense, or

less."

<p>

Hence I would contend that you would probably not need to calculate

an exposure factor, unless your subject is 6.4 metres or closer with

the 800mm lense, and 9.6 metres or closer with the 1200mm lense.

<p>

In addition, in the appendix on p.194, after going through the

various formulae associated with focal length, subject distance and

magnification, he writes ;

<p>

"You should have no difficulty in using them (the formulae), except

where the lense is of retrofocus or telephoto design, in which case

the nodal plane must be located and used in measuring all distances."

<p>

I gave you the flange focal length of each lense earlier, so you can

fairly easily estimate where the nodal plane will lie, i.e. at a

distance in front of the lense of focal length less flange focal

length.

Can someone please correct me if I am wrong?

Shawn ; I think I understand what you want - a beautifully graduated

palette of grey mid-tones, with well defined blacks and glowing

highlights, underpinned by sharpness, but with a grainy "mask" that

appears integral with the sharpness. I think that achieving this is

entirely possible.

<p>

To simplify things, you basically have two choices in black and white

film & developer combinations ;

<p>

(i) a slow contrasty film with high resolution ; the best developer

is probably something like Rodinal 1:50, or D76 1:1, which will

enough compensating effect to control contrast, and whose emphasis on

sharpness at the expense of grain is more than offset by the high

resolution of the film, or

(ii) a higher speed film, which will have proportionately more

"latitude", but higher grain ; standard developers would be D76 full

strength, or indeed Microphen if you want to get the full emulsion

speed. Although these developers are called "fine-grain", they

contain a solvent which dissolves the sharp edges of the silver

grains, and hence they might be better described as diffuse grain

developers.

<p>

May I suggest to you that you are having difficulty achieving what

you want because you are using very high resolution films (TMax100 /

Technical Pan), where it is difficult to force the grain to appear,

and which can have a tendency to get very contrasty <i>at the expense

of</i> local contrast in the mid-tones.

<p>

Why not try to approach your problem from a different angle by using

a higher speed film, which you can actively manipulate for (a) the

range of local contrast in the mid-tones and (ii) perceived

sharpness. I think you are using 35mm / 120, so here are two film

developer combinations that might get you what you want (try to keep

the development temperature consistent, or you introduce an unknown

variable) ;

<p>

Tri-X, in D76 1:1, at 20oC ;<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 600 ; 16 minutes<p>

N+1 ; rate at EI 400 ; 12 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 200 ; 9 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 100 ; 7 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 50 ; 5.5 minutes<p>

<p>

Fuji Neopan 400, in full strength Microphen, at 20oC ;<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 1250 ; 11.5 minutes<p>

N+1 ; rate at EI 1000 ; 8 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 640 ; 6 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 320 ; 4.5 minutes<p>

N+2 ; rate at EI 160 ; 3.5 minutes<p>

<p>

Why don�t you try the N+1 shown above? As you are then pushing the

highlights out about 1 zone, you need to be careful with exposure

placement. For example, you might normally put white skin tones on

zone 6.5, or thereabouts. If you go for N+1, you will need to place

these on zone 5.5, and the extra development will push these out one

zone - and in doing so will expand the range of local contrast in the

mid-tones. The same sort of principle will apply to N+2, but I

wouldn�t place highlights at less than zone 5, and in any case, I

think you�ll get what you want with N+1. [NB ; this assumes that you

are happy with the shadows, which should really be determining your

exposure - I�m assuming here that they are 2-4 zones lower than the

skin-tones].

<p>

Now, sharpness. Agitation for the above times is constantly for the

first minute (to minimise the risk of any streaking), and then 5-10

seconds every 30 seconds thereafter. However, with the longer times

attached to N+, you have more ability to induce "edge effects", which

can dramatically affect the perceived sharpness of your final print,

even if the reality is that it is less sharp than it appears. Trust

me on this - I have Tri-X prints which you would swear are much

sharper than the same print rendered on Tmax100, even though

examining the negative tells a different story. You might try

reducing agitation to every two minutes after the first minute of

constant agitation, and lengthening the development time by about 10%

to compensate.

<p>

Personally, I would avoid unusual filters such as blue, as it will

simply introduce another variable into the above. I would stick a

yellow-green filter on the lense and leave it there until I got

consistent results, from which I could then judge the effect of more

deeply cutting filters. (Unless such a filter would affect the tonal

range in the image - e.g. if your subject is wearing yellow-green

clothes, or god forbid, is highly jaundiced (only kidding). Apply the

filter exposure factor after you�ve been through all the exposure

placement stuff, and determined your zone 5 exposure, or

alternatively take it out of the EI before you start.

<p>

Good luck ; let me know how you get on.

Bill ; I have a question for you. For each exposure, are you then

measuring the bellows draw, and if the draw > lense focal length, are

you then calculating an exposure factor? So far I have only applied

such exposure compensation when doing close up photographs.

Bill ; 1:1 is produced when the distance from the lense of

<i>both<i/> the subject <i>and</i> the groundglass are at a distance

that is twice the focal length of the lense. This won't apply when

the subject is at some distance from the lense, not least because

your subject would not then be in focus. For most distance work, I

think that Mr Zeichner's comments will apply.

 

<p>

 

I forget to add to my earlier post - the calculation example is

similar to what I use when I use my Fuji 400T for close up

photographs. I think that the calculation is correct, but if it is

technically wrong, I would like someone to point out to me where any

error may be. Cheers

Bill ; I am sure that Robert is correct, but your question interested

me in case you were going to use these lenses for macro work.

 

<p>

 

The basic principle with any lense used for macro work is that to get

1:1 magnification, both the subject and the groundglass need to be at

twice the focal length of the lense being used. Easy to apply with a

normally designed lense, but less obvious with a telephoto design

where the front nodal point is in front of the lense, thus permitting

a smaller flange focal length / bellows draw.

 

<p>

 

Looking at my Nikkor LF lense catalogue - the flange focal length of

the Nikkor 1200mm f/18 is 755.7mm. Hence, if you want to get 1:1, the

bellows draw would be 1511.4mm (2 x 755.7mm), and the subject would

be 3288.6mm from the lense (2 x (1200-755.7) + 2400).

 

<p>

 

I think that the exposure compensation would then be 2 stops,

following a normal calculation. Anyway, I hope this isn't a

digression from the intent of your original question.

To begin with, I would not consider a 7-8 stop range of brightness as

<i>flat lighting</i>. My guide is as follows ; most modern films can

actually handle a brightness range of 4 - 4.5 stops, i.e. from zone 3

to zone 7.5. <i>If</i> that is the range I am looking at, <i>and

if</i> the placement of a mid-tone value where I want it will allow

the shadows and highlights to fall appropriately within that range, I

will go for an <b>N</b> EI and development.

 

<p>

 

If neither of those two conditions hold, then either <b>N+</b> or

<b>N-</b> will apply.

 

<p>

 

For example, if the brightness range is, say, 3 stops, and I want to

emphasise texture by expanding the range of local contrast in the mid-

tones, I would go for an <b>N+</b> EI and development. This might

mean rating the film EI at 1/3rd - 1 stop higher, and lengthening

development by 30 - 40%.

 

<p>

 

Alternatively, if the brightness range is, say, 7 stops, of which,

say, 4 stops will fall as highlights because of where I place the mid-

tone that determines exposure, I would look to an <b>N-2</b> to

compress the highlights to a 2 - 2.5 stop range. If I placed my

midtone elsewhere, e.g. such that 3 stops fell as highlights, this

would probably mean an <b>N-1</b> contraction. <b>N-</b>, for me,

entails rating the film at a lower EI - 2/3rds - 1 2/3rds of a stop

lower, and reducing development by 20 - 40%.

 

<p>

 

At the end of the day, it depends what you want to do. <b>N+</b> can

be used to emphasise texture and expand the range of contrast in the

mid-tones, and the lengthened development time will produce rather

more grain, and enable you to manage edge effects - this is what I

described to you earlier in your recent question on Agfa APX100 - but

you have to be careful where the range of highlights will fall, as

you do not wnat these to go beyond zone 7.5.

 

<p>

 

Alternatively, <b>N-</b> can be used to reduce texture and contrast

in the mid-tones, allowing a sort of fuzzy glow in portraiture, for

example.

 

<p>

 

I hope I haven't confused you, and I am sure that some will disagree

with the above, not least with the starting premise that films can

only handle a meaningful range from zone 3 - zone 7.5, but it seems

to work in practice for me.

Drat ; <em><A HREF="http://www.bostick-

sullivan.com/fokos/fokos.htm">this</A></em> is the link to Mr Fokos'

work.

The last issue of View Camera has a profile of the work of David Fokos. Although it was the superb visualisation and images that initially attracted me, I am equally interested in the technical aspects of how his prints are produced. He produces an 8x10 negative through conventional means, which is then drum scanned and printed on a LightJet 5000 - see <A HREF="http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/fokos/fokos.html">this</A> for the results, although I�m not sure that my monitor does justice to the pictures.

 

<p>

 

This article made me think again about a <A HREF="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002LQZ ">question </A> I asked on this forum earlier this year. Unfortunately even contact printing 4x5 has turned out not to be a viable option for me, although I do control everything up the processed negative. In the absence of being able to set up a conventional darkroom for printing, is the best option to get a good quality scanner and printer to "proof" images (such as the Powerlook / Epson 3000 combination mentioned by a poster to the previous thread)? For outstanding images, I suppose I could then choose to get a conventional custom print prepared by a lab, or alternatively try something like the approach taken by Mr Fokos - is his approach viable for the average LF "serious amateur" photographer, such as myself? Or is the cost of his approach prohibitive?

 

<p>

 

I would really appreciate the advice of those who understand the practical realities, quality differences and costs of the various options. I don�t live in an English speaking country, and it is nigh impossible to chat through the options with a lab / bureau.

Bruce ; as I mentioned in a related thread, you might also consider

the 77mm centre filter Fuji makes for their 6x17 panoramic cameras.

Bruce ; alternatively, you could consider the centre filter Fuji

makes for the 90mm & 105mm lenses for the GX617. That's a 77mm

thread, and I just leave it in my G617 all the time. I also have a

Nikkor SW120, but on 4x5 I'd be surprised if you needed a centre

filter. On 8x10, maybe.

A great image of a child losing himself in his own world and straining against the rope, while also using the rope to hold himself back and keep a hold of reality.

Periodically I convince myself that one of these much larger formats

is the way to go, and I am sure that I will take the plunge soon - it

all depends on finding the right circumstances and the right bargain.

However, what modern lenses will cover a format such as 12x20? By my

reckoning, you would need an image circle of at least 595mm - the

Nikkor 360mm only covers 494, I think, but the Fuji 600C covers 620.

Is that the only choice among affordable modern lenses?