PaulWhiting

I have two Rolleicords, a IV and a V (not Va or Vb, just V) and each has a Synchro-Compur. The shutter cock is very stiff on the V, and it was CLA'd several years ago - out of warranty by now. The V's shutter has a timer release and I'm wondering if that extra feature makes that version of the Synchro-Compur harder to cock. Both cameras have good shutter statistics, tested recently. I have serial numbers: IV: s/n 1386570 this would be from late 1952, and I believe its detailed model is MX V: s/n 1527276 these begin around 1956 and the detailed model is MXV Thanks all!

This thread is old but I must share something I learned over in the photoshop elements and more website. Go to: http://www.photoshopelementsandmore.com/thread/6396/options-levels-photoshop?page=3 Scroll down to a post by PeteB. It turns out my ink was ok, I didn't need to mix up a new batch. I was convinced my problem was in my ink mixture - well - I was wrong. I learned from PeteB that my problem after all was not tweaking my histogram carefully enough. Be sure and go to the Adobe link at the bottom of his post. Now my "camera scans" of a b/w negative result in a good print - no more flat prints.

Wait a minute... I haven't tried optimizing curves for the three colors yet... because that doesn't deal with flat prints from scans of b/w negatives. Keeping that in our discussion tells me I'd like to have one procedure for both scans 1) b/w negatives and 2) conversion from color digital (camera) files.

Ed, Actually I'm not converting color negatives to b/w (I've heard that can get real complicated), I mean converting color files from a camera to b/w. Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. (OT, and warning for thread drift): By the way, do you have a stand-alone Lightroom, or do you subscribe, or ... ? I really need to get with the program and learn that app. )

Andy, Your explanation of how to tweak the histogram is very clear... thanks. I think that's what I've been doing, yet "the proor is in the print" and my prints have still been flat. Maybe Ed's suggestion to optimize each color separately would help (thanks for jumping in, Ed!).

So, in other words, the histogram's author has already done our work. The histogram is complete, it doesn't need any tweaking. Maybe I don't need fresh ink.

I appreciate the work many of you have put in to try and help me, but I'm afraid parts of the discussion are "beyond my paygrade", as the saying goes. Here's another twist to consider: Briefly, my b/w prints result either from a converted color file, or from a scanned b/w negative. Whichever kind of b/w I start with, the prints are flat. But - I have two test pattern prints, one contains a variety of patterns ranging, in 51 steps, from pure black to white. The other test print is a "bullseye", half is also in 51 steps and the other half a smooth fade from black to white. The former is from Northlight Images, maybe the latter too - not sure. I'm considering mixing up a fresh batch of inks. How is that prints from the two sources are flat yet the prints of my test patterns are fine?

I should point out something... I'm using PS Elements, and Option is not an option :) It appears most postings of histograms in this thread use the full-blown version of PS. I do have Auto, however. Also, I've noticed that when I bring the triangle close to the base of the histogram, a small movement can cause quite a variation in the contrast. Ed sets his Option at .1% and that small percentage evidently makes quite a difference! This is the first time I've noticed a limitation in Elements that has affected my work. Does Lightroom (which I don't have) have the Levels feature, and if yes, does it have Option? My camera does shoot raw, Anything I can do in ACR? And - what are those thin vertical lines in the second histogram? Clearly a newbie question! I still think a large part of my problem is printer and ink related... no offense to these excellent tips on the histogram.

You've all been very helpful, but I won't try and thank each of you individually. Thanks so much to all! I've got a lot to draw on, in fact I'll print this out as a reference. I'm going to concentrate on improving my histogram technique. Plus, I'm going to mix up some fresh ink dilutions. And I'll order some fresh Eboni carbon ink, and make sure my dilutions are accurate. I have no reason to suspect this current batch has some dilution errors but you never know. I need to address my monitor setup. I did set it to factory settings. but I'll check that. It's a Dell S2240L/S2340L Paul

I didn't know that about art paper, Ed, thank you. But now that you point it out, I'm aware of it. The problem is that the physical print comes out flat, even though the on-screen rendering can look terrific. I'm going to sleep on this thread, let some of it sink in, and return to it tomorrow. Thanks everyone.

Here's a better match between histogram and the original negative - as you can see, I haven't moved the triangles in yet.

There, I've posted a histogram and a flat print. I don't think that photo comes from the same source as the histogram. But I assure you that's the kind of print I'm getting. Please accept these two items as representative! Sometimes the print is lighter. But light or dark, the print is always flat. (Whoops, Digital Dog go to his/her keyboard before I did. And thank you, I know about moving those triangles. Don't have time to watch the video right now.) One thing I don't understand is the term "soft proofing" I'm afraid I'm not doing well here, folks. I'm confused as I try to explain what my problem is, and my confusion makes it difficult for you all to help me. My apologies.

Ed, Was just getting set to do that! Here's the histogram, and I'll post the image next. Paul

Thanks Ed, Perhaps I should've phased my sentence clearer. I am using the whole histogram, but it doesn't occupy the whole space on the horizontal bar... there's unused real estate before and after the curve, and I clip those areas. I'll play with my Curves a bit and see what I can do. I'm using Photoshop Elements and I think its Curves feature has fewer options that the full-blown Photoshop.

Thanks for the quick feedback. To your first question, yes, the image looks great on the screen. with reasonable brightness. From your description of a print procedure, the process sounds very much like an app called QTRip. Could that be what you used? I'm using it now, I should've mentioned that. The support for that app is very good, Roy Harrington is the author of that program - there was a Yahoo user group he supported. I say "was" a user Yahoo user group, because it seems Yahoo is phasing out their support of groups feature. Roy supported a move to a new group: QuadToneRIP groups.io Group Maybe I should post my question over there as well, but I'll see what kind of response I get here. I came here first because I have a hunch the issue is more than than the QTRip app... it works very well when I convert to b/w conversions from color. Thanks again!

I hope this is the right forum... My setup is the Nikon ES-1 slide holder, a Nikon D90 camera, a Nikkor 55mm with M2 ring, and an LED light source. I'm scanning some selected b/w negatives in a six-frame holder, held in place by the ES-1, Negatives look very good, but my prints are much too flat. I'm using Photoshop Elements 13 to process the negative, most are shot at 1/30 sec f/8. The histogram is in the middle, with plenty of room at both ends for fine-tuning. The negative is in NEF (Nikon's version of RAW). The color balance is set for 5000 degrees, the temperature of the LED lamp. I also use Channel Mixer to remove the excessive blue of the LED light source. I'm printing with an Epson 1430, inkset is Paul Roark's Eb6. The inkset contains Eboni carbon for the black, the remaining carts contain varying dilutions of the black. Paper is Red River Aurora Art Natural. Let me know if I need to provide more information. Thanks all!

My time was up... I wanted to say that these cells are not always clearly marked and that I need to learn the polarities by shape. Thanks, Dave!

I don't know why or how I got confused... see attached. That's the data sheet for a Duracell 375. Note the minus sign at the top. I've added a couple of comments, in red. Do I have it right? I'm embarrassed to post this.

I looked back at a previous message and I saw a sentence that might be taken as a criticism... I meant it as a thank you! Other posters did, in fact, come along with some rear world analysis! Here's the phrase: "I was hoping someone would come along with a dose of real world analysis!"

All very helpful. dan_fromm: Re the use of b/w film - you point is well taken! I know some of my cameras have shutter speeds that are 1/3 stop off and the common wisdom is that this "error" is acceptable. Is that the meter ballpark you mean? I can certainly live with that. I was hoping someone would come along with a dose of real world analysis! M42dave: right now I have an alkaline cell in the camera, without an O-ring... the cell rattles around a bit. I suppose it does no great harm, but I might as well do it right and get an O-ring at the hdwe store tomorrow. julio Fernandez: very interesting. I hadn't thought of that, ie the difference in current drain between a hearing aid and a camera. Plus, I'm not real happy with the short life of a zinc-air cell. It's not the money, just the nuisance of frequent battery changing. the others: helpful as well!

Thanks to both of you... seems like there's no perfect solution, each approach has some pluses and minuses. I also ran across another approach, it permits the use of a silver oxide battery in a plain MR 9 without the expensive voltage reducing circuitry. This approach involves removing the camera's bottom plate and tweaking the sensitivity in the camera. I'm somewhat good at tweaking but this sounds a little dicey for me. I've got a little test going, going to take about 6 shots with the zinc-air battery in a plain MR 9, then the same shots but with the alkaline cell. I realize it's not a totally valid procedure because the alkaline series varies over its lifetime. Will be shooting with Tri-X, btw.

I have an Olympus RC which needs a battery. Actually I've had several cameras and light meters over the years that require a PX625, and as most people here know this cell has been discontinued for environmental reasons. There are several workarounds. Currently I'm looking at a L1560F (aka LR9), made by Vinnic. It's an alkaline cell but I've heard the alkaline voltage is not a straight line over its lifespan. Another type would be the MRB625 which uses a zinc cell - the drawback to this configuration is a rather short life, especially in a dry climate. Any comments on these two? Or perhaps there's another option I haven't run across? (I did conduct a search here but didn't find a discussion on this topic... very possible I missed it.) Thanks all.

Thanks, everyone!

1) Am cleaning out my used Dektol jugs (glass) in order to contain TD-16. Found a very effective and easy way of cleaning out the remaining crud in my re=purposed growler jugs that used to contain Dektol: This Ingenious Trick Is The Best Way To Clean Glass Bottles · Jillee Works like a charm! Rinsed the jugs several times... they look very clean. Should they now be safe to contain TD-16? 2) Acquired some Efke 100 in the 120 film size... the TD-16 instructions have no data on that film. Anyone have some suggestions? Thanks all.