nigel_smith2

I'm going to have a go at this too, and it's got nothing to do with

money, I just want to try it!

Doh!, yep, I stuffed up that link...<P>trying again...<P><a

href=http://www.photocritique.net>www.photocritique.net</a>

to answer the 1st enquiry... seen a few of those little white boxes

with red X's in them before... ;) will see them a again...<P>I quite

like the pic actually... the juxtaposition (not sure if that's the

right word but I wanted to use it this year and I'm running out of

oppotunities) between the girl and the face in the distance with a

hat (part of the background I guess) that sort of looks upper

class/toffy give me the feeling she is dreaming how 'the other half'

lives.<P>And Michael, new to the net are you... :) everyone knows <a

href=www.photocritique.net>www.photocritique.net</a> However I don't

think it likes displaying specific pages (like Tom's posts) because

whenever I've bookmarked someones page to come back and have another

look at later, they never work and I have to navigate thru

the 'photographer list' page.

hehe! I went thru the mental gymnastics to work out if you could have

taken it like that.. and decided no, must have flipped it!

buzzzzzz... I was wrong!<P>What's he think of the shot?

what made you present it upside down? really strange perspective but

works well.

Thanks Volker, good info! Looks like a new filter is in order. I

did notice that Maco state the different effects that each filter

produces. Now I'm off to find your other posting regarding Maco

IR820c

The <a href=http://www.digitaltruth.com/>Massive Development

Chart</a> has a suggestion for it at 320asa

Ran my 1st roll of Maco IR820c last weekend and ended up with thin negatives (thin by my standards anyway) One negative was somewhat closer to my comfort zone (all other negs were consistant density) and that was one I'd put my camera on 1/2 sec exposure rather than the 2secs I intended, so I added an extra 2secs to that frame (camera was on tripod and I figured more exposure was better than less!) maybe I just metered this scene a whole lot better than the others! Always a possibility!<P>

The packaging of the film states 100asa so I figured that that was a good place to start. I only have an orange filter for my Mamiya 645 lenses so I used that and set my meter to 25asa. Mostly metered shadows and decreased exposure by two stops. Processed the film in Rodinal 1:100 for 20mins @ 20C. Looking at the negs, there is some detail in the shadow's of some frames but I can see frames where I have no shadow detail. The next roll I use I will do a bit of testing, rather than wandering around snapping things, however I'm going to add at least another stop of exposure. (this stuff is getting slow!)<P>

Other observations:<P>

I loaded it in the shade of a large tree during the middle of the day (bright sunny one at that). I can't see an sign of fogging other than some edge fog that I can get on any 120 roll film. The frame markings are somewhat fuzzy... is that normal?<P>

Orange filter not strong enough to get any IR effects. I haven't printed any frames, but the couple I've scanned didn't show much, some plants and skys look IR like but I'm not putting much faith in the scanned version cause I had to tweak the scanner so much to get any image from the very thin negs. A new filter will be under the Xmas tree I feel.. good guy that Santa! <P>

The Maco website only lists two developers (the Massive Development Chart has a couple more - I didn't check Ed's site to see if there's any suggestions there), pity they couldn't spend a little time offering a few other suggestions! What's everyone using?<P>

Anyone got anything to say about this stuff? Own experienses, suggestions...

I use that technique (as described by Gene) for 35mm. No good for

120 unfortunately! I also processed my 1st roll of Maco and since it

was a hot humid evening, I was worried I was going to have problems

getting on my plastic spool, but it went ever so smoothly :) Didn't

have any problems with it curling post development either.

I actually use this method to look at negatives when I want to see a

positive image for some reason. Hold the negs emulsion side up to a

strong light source with a dark background behind them and you get

the positive look. Works best with thin negs, which is why you

probably noticed it.<P>

I agree with Joe, check the edge markings 1st, that should point you

in the direction of underexposure or under development. I'm guessing

underexposed since you have the problem with both developers. Also,

don't jump to the conclusion that they're no good. I under exposed

some APX-25 one time by going the wrong way with my filter factor

corrections (2 stops the wrong way... so 4 stops underexposed!), and

the negs are so thin but still produce prints.<P>

For the record, what development dilution/time/temp did you with the

Ilford Plus? I use a fair bit of this combination and expose FP4+ at

100asa, then develop in Plus for 1:29 dilution for 6mins @ 20C with 3

inversions per minute.

I never use two reels in a two reel Paterson System 4 tank when

developing one film, which I do 99% (nearly always) of the time.

I've never had a problem with the spool moving on the central column,

it's a firm fit. I usually want the other spool dry so I can run

another film straight away.<P>As far as agitation is concerned, I

usually invert 3 times every minute, twisting the tank as I go. I

believe those 3 inversions take about 6-7secs, so if you're inverting

5 times every 30secs, that's a lot higher ratio of agitation to

sitting time. Not necessarily a bad thing, but maybe you need to

accomodate it with shorter development times. Some experimentation

might be in order. I think it's a good thing the System 4 tanks have

a lot of air space (in the funnel area) so the developer gets to mix

thoughly<P>This might be way of the mark, but is it a Kodak thing to

agitate every 30secs (I use Ilford/Agfa developers) cause whenever

anyone says they agitae every 30sec it's usually about a Kodak film

(bit of a generalisation).

interesting Ted. My Nikons (FE & FM2n) wind under but I always

thought that was a good thing to help straighten the film a bit. Who

know how long it's been sitting in a warehouse, although I use mostly

bulk rolled stuff (35mm). Last year I did a couple of rolls of film

that had been sitting around for 15+ years (already exposed) and the

severe curl of those cause a bit of trouble loading into a plastic

spool, because it kept tightly rolled up and I had to hold it out

straight (as opposed to letting it fall down a bit) to feed it into

the spool. I think it's flattened out in the neg sleeves.

Once desaturated, you'd be hard put to tell them apart ;)

I had to do this recently for some reason I can't remember, wasn't

insuffient fixing though. Must have been junk on them. I reloaded

the strips into my spiral (plastic) and rewashed, then encounted

the 'how to hang to dry' dilema. Since I'd already taken them out of

the spiral I ended up sitting them in a tray balanced on their side's

(with a bit of an arc, they'd sit there) What did happen was that

they fell over several times so if I have to do this again, I think

I'd leave them in the spiral and let the resultant curl come out in

the neg file. If you've got somewhere safe to hang them, you might

be able to use clothes pegs.

sad to hear... hopefully if photo.net takes us on (I always have

difficultly distinguishing here from there anyway!) they don't add us

to the unified forum as we'll be flooded by 'what best' questions ;)

agreed! good stuff!<P>On another note... Mike where do you find all

your models?

Not really Kent, as the printing process can accomodate a wide range

of negatives, it might show how good a printer someone was to recover

the situation. There's just to many variables involved. Wait till

you get hold of your negs and report back (IMO)

I came across my almost ideal development/fixer timer at an

electronics store. It can be set so that it beeps, flashes a red led

or both. I have it on 'flash only' mode as my son sleeps in the next

room. Once the time is up and you press the 'ok' button, it resets

back to whatever time you have in it. I do everything in multiples

of that time, so pressing the button starts the timer, pressing it

again stops it and resets and if I want more iterations it's just one

more press of the button. One thing it doesn't do which another

timer I use for timing prints in the wash does, is show you how much

time it's been since the time was up, which would be nice but I don't

find to much of a hinderance. The LCD display is a bit small

(probably 10mm digits) but I never really look at it anyway, just

wait for the LED to flash which means I'm not looking at a clock

always waiting for that 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1...

Maybe Melinda has only seen an inkjet print! Possible I guess

Konico IR 750 comes in 120 but you'll be hard pressed to find some.

Apparently it's made once a year and except for a recent msg in a

newsgroup from some in Konica claiming it will be produced this year,

everyone thinks they won't make it. I'm down to my last roll so have

bought some Maco 820 which is new and available. Haven't processed

any yet though. Kodak HIE doesn't come in 120 but I think I read

somewhere that you can get rolls created out of cut down 70mm stuff

(might be pricey!)

from the weird and wonderful (but not recommended by me) I recently

read somewhere about 1:400 and 1:800 dilutions with Rodinal.. so

thought I'd try it! I used 0.75ml (as acurately as I could measure

it in a 2 or 3ml suringe) in 300ml of water for a TEST roll of FP4+

which was exposed at 200asa (as indicated by my source) I developed

for 100mins (was meant to be 90mins but I forgot about it!) with

agitation at the 1,2,5,10,20,30,45 minute marks (no agitation in the

last half of development, as recommended by the source) To have

something to judge against, I also shot the same subjects on another

roll of FP4+ (bulk loading is good for somethings) and processed at

1:100. I haven't had a chance to make some prints, but the 1:400

negs look ok, a bit thin (which indicates 200asa wasn't suitable, the

1:100 ones were thin too) Scans using a flatbed with transparency

adaptor (1600dpi) didn't show much difference, and what differences I

thought I could pick might have been my imagination. What has this

proven.. probably not much! :) Going to try the 1:800 dilution one

night (yes that's the recommended development time.. overnight!) just

for the hell of it!

I forgot to add, pity I couldn't capture and add the noise he was

making.. serious sinus tunes!

<img src=http://unite.com.au/~u3819a/linked/film202-04.jpg> <P>A snap... how would you crop? Usually I'd crop this tight, just leaving the car door frame, but I'm here to learn! Thoughts?

yes, I've learnt a lot. Never really took many pics of people until

finding this forum. Still don't really, but slowly geting more

adventurous. Actually, it's probably a good thing the forum isn't

bombarded with pics!<P>BTW, James has been posting over at

usefilm.com Must be testing the waters before coming into the wolf's

den :)

I didn't want to flood the forum with my crappy pictures, but I have

one in my camera that I think will be worth posting!