john_hennessy

Ditto what Ted Kaufman said! Haven't found a lens I would replace mime

with. Don't even look any more.

Chris, thanks for your detailed write up.

 

<p>

 

Do you know if the the MIS Variable Mix "System" will work with an

Epson 1200? I have one which I am thinking of dedicating to B&W.

 

<p>

 

Thanks

I have detected dark stripes in some of my scans. Very likely the stripes are always present but only visible under certain circumstances. My scanner is a Microtek ScanMaker 5 used at 1000 samples per inch on 4x5 Velvia among other films. With this scanner the CCD's step across the short side of the film, (that is, the array is across the long side) and the stripes are parallel to the long side about every 120 pixels and are roughly five pixels wide. The stripes only show in the sky and where the sky very cloudy but bright. The scanner reports the numbers as 249, 255, 251 for R, G, and B respectively on a chrome I was working on today. Visually, this sort of chrome shows a totally dead white sky; PhotoShop can find some texture but it also finds these stripes. The only thing I can think of is that the stepping motor is stalling slightly every 120 pixels (or every 0.12 inches) and burning those pixels a bit darker. So far, Microtek has been no help. Does anyone have any ideas?

There seems to be no consensus. I too have used simple double film

holders for thirty years. The only disadvantages to them are the need

to clean and reload and the bulk of, say, 32 sheets of film. However,

serious backpackers prefer them in small numbers and just

unload/reload every night.

 

<p>

 

Quickloads are clean and simple and 32 sheets fits in a tupperware

easily. The disadvantages are cost and severely limited choice of

film.

 

<p>

 

Evidently the Quickchange has been available in Japan for quite a

while but only recently discovered (or imported by Robt White and

Badger Graphics.) My experience is limited so far but it seems like a

very useful way to carry and use film. Basically, it is eight sheets

of film in the space and weight of one and a half or two normal

holders. And, since it is spring loaded, the dark slide and the septum

that holds the sheet of film become a pressure plate. The film is

flatter (subjectively) than the usual holder.

 

<p>

 

The film pack is labeled for one-time use only but is easily reloaded

with the users' choice of film. To actually buy and not reload the

thing would be very expensive and an incredible waste. The film pack

is complicated. I am sure Fuji recycles the ones they get back in

Japan. The duty life of the film pack should be OK though it does not

seem to be as sturdy as the holder.

 

<p>

 

The flyer it comes with is in Japanese only and I had to ask Robt

White for some pointers (gladly e-mailed after I asked) on how to

unload and reload. It did require some practice with scrap film

naturally.

 

<p>

 

The disadvantages are initial cost (perhaps not an issue if you have

no film holders because one Quickchange holder and four film packs

probably cost about the same as 16 double holders), and a little more

tricky to load.

 

<p>

 

The total weight and bulk of 32 exposure of each system might be a

good but boring subject for an article in View Camera. My guess is

that in order by heaviest is double film holders, QuickChange, and

lightest, Quickload. In order by ease of use and least risk of dust,

I'd say Quickload, double holders, and QuickChange. A major advantage

to both of the Quicks is film flatness because they are both spring

loaded and you have only one film holder and thus reduce variability.

Anything new on this forum's future? I hope it stays as close to the way it is now as possible.

[accidently clicked submit too soon; here is my whole post]

 

<p>

 

For last few years, I have printed a label which includes my name,

City and State (but not my whole address), title, medium, (gelatin

silver, inkjet, silver dye bleach, etc. using the real terms for its

type not what you sometimes see like "B&W photo" which tells the buyer

nothing), the negative number and date, the print number (sometimes,)

and print date. Plus "Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved" All this

comes out of my photo database and is easy to print.

 

<p>

 

I only put such labels on mounted prints, never this or anything on

the back of the print itself. I sign on the front, either the border

of the print in ink or the mount board in pencil. I am not sure such

labels (Avery) are as archival as, say, a gelatin silver print. But if

the print is not dry mounted (only corner mounted) or is a silver dye

bleach anyway, I have no qualms about it.

For last few years, I have printed a label which includes my name,

City and State (but not my whole address), title, medium, (gelatin

silver, inkjet, silver dye bleach, etc. using the real terms for its

type not what you sometimes see like "B&W photo" which tells the buyer

nothing)

Josh, you're luckier than most if you can stroll into B&H and compare

side by side. Many of us have to buy LF gear sight unseen. And on that

subject, Robt White is much less expensive than B&H. I feel guilty

suggesting you buy from White after using B&H's gear to comparison

shop, but it is so much cheaper you won't feel guilty! Besides, in my

case at least, B&H has profitedly well over the years. Both have very

good service, if you don't already know.

The three section 1325 is analogous to a Morris Mini Minor at 100 k/h:

it's maxed out at any reasonable height. The 1348 on the other hand

has stability to spare. I am 6' tall and typically set up my 1349 with

the top two sections extended all but 6" and the smallest section

extended only 6". Stability decreases significantly if any section (of

any tripod) is extended all the way because nesting one section inside

the one above it creates more friction and decreases lateral play.

Extended all the way the sections are closer to merely being butted

end to end; it is more like the sections are balancing on top of each

other rather than tightly grabbing each other.

I'd venture that your estimates of what you need are correct except

the monitor. I finally went to a 21" and would not go back. I use it

at a medium resolution for everything but photoshop and high

resolution for PS. Some PS users use two monitors: one small cheap one

for the tool palettes etc and the big one for the image. One thing you

have not mentioned is monitor calibration hardware and software. You

need them but I can't offer much help on specifics.

 

<p>

 

You may find the 512 memory a little anoying with that size of file.

Dell sometimes has two for one memory sales on new computers.

 

<p>

 

Have you tried your question on:

 

<p>

 

http://www.adobeforums.com/

 

<p>

 

This whole set comes up often there.

Evidently the Quickchange has been available in Japan for quite a

while

but only recently discovered (or imported by Robt White and Badger

Graphics.) My experience is limited so far but it seems like a very

useful way to carry and use film. Basically, it is eight sheets of

film

in the space and weight of one and a half or two normal holders. And,

since it is spring loaded, the dark slide and the septum that holds

the

sheet of film become a pressure plate. The film is flatter

(subjectively) than the usual holder.

 

<p>

 

The film pack is labeled for one-time use only but is easily reloaded

with the users' choice of film. To actually buy and not reload the

thing

would be very expensive and an incredible waste. The film pack is

complicated. I am sure Fuji recycles the ones they get back in Japan.

The duty life of the film pack should be OK though it does not seem to

be as sturdy as the holder.

 

<p>

 

The flyer it comes with is in Japanese only and I had to ask Robt

White

for some pointers (gladly e-mailed after I asked) on how to reload.

Has anyone ever calculated how much it costs per sheet for home E6

processing of 4x5 in a Jobo? I can get film E6'd in a lab for about $2

per sheet or so. But it is extra for pushing and pulling.

 

<p>

 

How about the shelf life of the E6 chemistry? Sometimes I am forced to

forego photography for several months at a time.

 

<p>

 

Bottom line question: is it worth it to home E6 100 to 200 sheets per

year?

Steve,

 

<p>

 

How about an article about Jon Cone and a rundown on all the different

papers, inks, software, and printer combinations he sells?

Polaroid publishes two or more full-page size booklets on the subject.

I believe they are free; they're very helful. Suggest you try

Polaroid's web site or call them. If cost truly doesn't matter, then

OK but you could practice on the nominal 4x5 size first. There is a

certain amount of dexterity involved and 8x10 is trickier by nature.

15 degrees of tilt is plenty. The more you tilt, the closer the wedge

of sharpness comes to the lens' cone of view BUT the narrower it

becomes. Conversely, 1 to 3 degrees of tilt forms a wedge the point of

which is under you feet but by the time it reaches your subject it is

a mile wide.

 

<p>

 

I don't know how these cameras compare as regards front rise. But

sometimes landscape photographers need more (the more the better in

this case) than they anticipate. If the subject includes, say, tall

trees in the foreground you will need rise to keep them vertical.

Also, if you want to exclude things in the foreground like fences or

weeds, etc., rise will allow your camera to act like a periscope and

see over the top of the unwanted foreground.

 

<p>

 

Another point while I am pontificating: you did not mention your

favorite focal lengths. Will the 4x5 equivalent of your favorites draw

the bellows out further than it will stretch on these cameras? Often,

field camera don't do too well on that score.

Many think the best time of day to work in these canyons is midday; so

that won't change too much in the winter. But I have forgotten when it

rains most in that part of the country; maybe late summer. So check

with a ranger or some reliable source. You don't want to be in a slot

canyon if it is or has rained anywhere upstream in the prior 2 to 6

hours. Conversely, fresh wet mud is a facinating subject.

 

<p>

 

Page, Arizona is centrally located and a stone's throw from Antelope.

About ten years ago it wasn't much and I doubt that it has changed.

 

<p>

 

Used to be you could just walk into canyons on the Navajo Reservation

such as Antelope or Peach. You may need a guide these days. That might

be a good thing if the guide is familiar with what a photographer

would want to see.

 

<p>

 

Hopefully, such a guide is patient because the exposure times are very

long. Hours long sometimes. The canyons lend themselves to both color

and B&W. I remember exposing for the highlights and being unable to

read the shadows due to low light but the shadows took care of

themselves with a two-hour (or longer) exposure. I used HP5 and PMK.

Don't know what color film would be best for such conditions. People

use all formats; a view camera is not necessarily the only choice

because there is less oportunity to use tilts and swings than you

might think; the composition is all around you starting a few inches

in front of the lens. It is a good place to make several exposures:

one for near and one for far; one for highlight and one for shadow and

combine them in Photoshop.

 

<p>

 

Talking myself into going again!

To avoid clip marks completely you need to use a lab that uses roller

transport rather than dip & dunk. The dip & dunk advocates claim such

a process is cleaner and the roller transport method results in

scratches. I have never read an objective review of the relative

merits of either. My experience is that I have never seen a scratch

but the clip marks, bullet holes, etc. sometimes wipe out 1/4 to 1/2

inch along two sides leaving the adjacent area seriously dimpled as

the same time making scanning sharply a problem.

 

<p>

 

Ferrari Color in Sacramento uses roller transport at $1.40 a sheet but

has a $30 minimum order to keep amateurs in their place.

Try

 

<p>

 

http://www.calypsoinc.com/

 

<p>

 

Calypso can scan, make Lightjet prints and mount to your

specifications up to 48x96. I don't know about 48x168.

Here is the address of the Kodak site I could not find earlier. It is

not encouraging.

 

<p>

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/xray4.shtml

Traveling with film, camera and tripod presents three separate

problems.

 

<p>

 

First, film: there is a new Kodak site (the address of which I did not

bookmark) which says forget traveling with film post 9/11. Buy film

when you get to your destination and develop before returning. Kodak

evidently expects the carry-on x-ray machines to be more powerful than

pre 9/11. Kodak's site did not say this was gospel just that it is

likely to become true. But if it not true, then it appears to be OK to

put film in your carry-on luggage but not your checked luggage. If it

is true, then we have a problem because finding sheet film, loading

it, (or finding ready load) and finding a reliable place to develop it

in some strange place will be difficult and often impossible. In any

case, stuffing film into your pockets (less any foil bags) as always

worked for me. No inspection is ever done and the metal detector won't

harm film. Works best in the winter with the extra pockets and bulky

clothes. Just bought the Fuji QuickChange from Robt White but haven't

got it yet (see its discussion of a few weeks ago here.) That should

allow one to carry about 24-36 sheets easily. But the cartridge part

must have at least a metal spring, though it supposed to be plastic.

So I am not sure about that yet.

 

<p>

 

I have made a case for my tripod as opposed to buying one that says

"Gitzo---steal me" all over it. I made from 6" sewer pipe with a glued

fitting on one end and a screw fitting on the other. Lined with closed

cell foam (i.e., a back packing mattress), it has proven

indestructible as checked baggage. It has a shoulder strap attached to

two bolt eyes and drawer pull as a handle. It still has the sewer pipe

stencil on it for good measure. Perhaps it's too ugly to steal.

 

<p>

 

My camera I always carry on after stripping anything too heavy out of

the case. Otherwise it will be stolen or damaged by the baggage

gorillas. I have checked through the best camera cases but it is like

rolling dice; sometimes you get everything back intact other times

not. A wooden camera evokes fewer fears; I have been asked to turn on

my Technikardan.

 

<p>

 

All in all, it is becoming a big problem. But I am not ready throw in

the towel. Maybe we should use this forum to arrange equipment swaps

with like-minded photographers world wide and just carry on tooth

brushes like normal people!

I typed in a nice table from the one on my light meter but it was

rendered as a string of unintelligible numbers here.

 

<p>

 

If anyone wants my numbers, e-mail me and I'll send a text file.

This is what I use for HP5+ in PMK

 

<p>

 

Meter Adj -Dev %

1" 1.2" �

2" 3" �

3" 5" �

4" 7" �

6" 12" �

8" 19" 5

15" 50" 10

22.5" 1'30 12

30" 2'25" 14

45" 4'10" 16

1' 6'20" 18

1.5' 14' 20

2' 28' 24

3' 1°30' 27

4' 2°10' 30

 

<p>

 

The beauty of reciprocity "failure" is that often with such long

exposures, you also face low contrast. Thus, if you think that +3 is

all you can coax out your developer but this table calls for -20%

development, just ignore the -20% and you'll get maybe a +4

development.

My post is as clear as mud because the quote with which I disagreed

got cropped. I meant to disagree with

 

<p>

 

"Also perhaps a dying art"

<Also perhaps a dying art>

 

<p>

 

I would disagree with that! LF photographers are as thick as fleas

compared to a few years ago. Even if someday one does not need a 4x5

or 8x10 piece of film to capture enough data for a large print because

of a chip not yet invented, that chip will still need to be in a view

camera with all the usual movements. No digital device can replace

tilts and (usually) rise, etc.

How about

 

<p>

 

http://www.adobeforums.com/

 

<p>

 

and go to the photoshop area