steve_feldman

D.,

<p>

They are air bubbles. Soak for 1-2 min. in water w/ 1 drop (no more)

of Foto-Flo. Add 1 drop of Foto-flo to the developer also. You'll

never see a bubble again.

I checked a few years (decades) ago with the techs @ Kodak regarding

dumping home-use volumns of developers and fix into a "French well"

for disposal. They said the the chemical composition of d-76 (for

example) "was not toxic in small home-use quantities and was closer,

chemically, to plant food". So, they said, "it should have no effect

on gound water polution and the grass should love it." I doubt,

though, that the reverse would be true. But then I've never tried to

develop tri-X in Miracle=Grow plant food.

Martin,

<p>

The above answers are all correct. A CLA by Steve Grimes will get

your shutters in perfect shape.

<p>

Are we related? Two Feldmans in LF. Is the world ready for us!

<p>

Regards,

<p>

-Steve

Well, ALL of Arizona and New Mexico are LF heaven. Of unique beauty

is Upper (and Lower) Antelope Valley slot canyons. Also Northern

California (the redwood forests), Oregon and Washington coastlines.

<p>

Darn! Now you made me want to pack up and go now. Let's see, LF

camera, tripod, 25 holders, 4 lenses, cases, loupe, extra GG, 50

sheets of B & W film. A strong assistant to help carry would be good.

Oh yes!, money. OOPS! Have to stay home and shoot rocks.

Chris,

<p>

This sounds like a really interesting technique to control highlights

that get out of control. Not that I ever have a neg like that. Yea -

sure.

<p>

Seems to me since the highlight appears as a dark area on the

projected image on the paper, it might be tough to see the exact area

with a red filter (25?) over the bulb. Then again (add up the

following visual light diminishing factors) I'm using a cold light

head on my enlarger, 11 x 14 or larger, 135mm enlarger lens stopped

down to usually f11 and a VC filter. Heck, I can barely see the image

during exposure. (Dim and Dimmer).

<p>

All seriousness asside. I know of one darkroom artist that buys only

the highest contrast grade papers available and pre-flashes to reduce

contrast to fit the range of each image. Myself, I've started to use

split filtration on VC papers, Gekko, (i. e. a #1 followed by a #3)

with very acceptable results.

<p>

Now lets see, what did I do with those +4 reading glasses?

<p>

. . . . . ?

<p>

Good light,

<p>

-Steve

Opinions are what you'll get in response to your question. So here's

mine FWIW.

<p>

Freestyle probably can't really admit it, but Arista is (probably)

Ilford. My experience with Arista is that their blacks (Dmax) are

very dark flat grey. Not my personal cup of hemlock. Graded papers

are nice, but one box of VC will reduce your paper inventory by a

factor of four or more and be much more versatile.

<p>

My personal favorite is Mitsubishi Gekko VC RC matte (yes RC). Also

at Freestyle. Better, richer, darker, deeper blacks than I've seen

for a long time and a far whiter base paper than most. Really a

dramatic difference from the big yellow or big green fathers.

<p>

But opinions are what makes horse races.

Clark,

<p>

All of the above recommendations are very good.

<p>

BUT . . .

<p>

IMHO, Keep more of the control in your own hands. Learn to process B

& W film for yourself. It's not difficult and the expense (after

purchasing chemistry, trays, etc.)per sheet is minimal. You don't

even need a "darkroom". Sink top in a dark (night-time) bathroom will

do. T-Max 100 can be touchy if you're new to film development. Start

with something easier. Try Agfa 100 4x5 in a tray, 7 min. @ 68 deg.

in HC 110 dil. B.

<p>

You didn't say if you were printing for yourself. I highly recommend

printing for yourself for full control of your art. If you're using a

lab for your b & w printing, you'll need to develop (no pun) a good

relationship with them so they will know how you want to show your

work.

<p>

In short: You be in control. Of the taking process to show your

vision. Of the film development process to show your control of

technique. AND of the print process to show your art.

<p>

All of the above is just my opinion. Opinions are worth everything

you pay for them. I could be wrong.

<p>

Good luck and good light.

Tony,

<p>

Sounds like a product I can make good use of. Some . . . err MOST of

my holders could use this.

<p>

Do you know any retail locations that sell this? Maybe craft

suppliers?

<p>

Thanx.

I have 4 lenses for my 4x5 Pacemaker Crown Graphic. I've been able to screw in a threaded adapter to my 135mm Schneider and 10" Tele-Raptor and use step-up rings to use the 58mm threads on my black & white filters and rubber shades. (My filters do triple duty using them on 35mm, medium format and 4x5).

<p>

My other 2 lenses are a 90mm Graflex Optar f6.8 and a Kodak Ektar 203mm f7.7 . These lenses have no threads, so a push-on adapter is necessary. Anyone out there know the correct size for these two lenses. It would be great to be able to use filters and hoods on these also. (Camera shows don't have much in the way of "antique" gear).

<p>

Also, what are the correct sizes for front and rear caps for these lenses. They are bare at the moment.

<p>

Thanks for your help.

<p>

This is a fantastic forum. Great education.

Rob,

<p>

Here's a similar thought.

<p>

Try litho film. I've bought some from Freestyle (Hollywood, CA) 35mm

and 4x5 (and larger) sheets.

<p>

Slow as maple sap on a cold winter morning in Maine.

<p>

ASA 25! Bullit proof highlights and grain like cannon balls.

<p>

LOL

<p>

-S.

Anyone using a "EZ Focus" gear attachment on a Beseler 45MXT? Your opinions please. Mine works OK but the set screws are always coming loose.

<p>

Thanx

Ah . . . Bach . . .

<p>

Compelling. And maybe that other word.

<p>

"Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" is one of my favorites.

<p>

S.

Dear Domenico,

<p>

Criticism and opinions are worth exactly what you pay for them.

Accept then or reject as you like. It is of no consequence. However,

consider the source. Good source usually equalls constructive

criticism. Poor source equalls nothing.

<p>

You say your are "the exceptional photographer that I am now, before

being able to harness my incredible talent". I'd like to see that

talent. My photo teacher used to tell me, "Don't tell me how good you

are - - - SHOW ME." Do you have your work available to view on-line?

You show me yours and I'll show you mine. Let others critique. I've

seen cj's site. He's hard to beat. IMHO.

<p>

You further say, "When students show me their work, i don't tell them

that is artsy -wuzzy crappy thingy , .....i just........leave. You

are a teacher! Teach your students the basics first. Permit them the

knowledge to understand the craft, art and physical techniques.

Critique their efforts objectively at first and subjectively only

after they master the basics.

<p>

Don't..........just..........leave.

<p>

That's an insult to the student.

<p>

But, of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

<p>

-Steve

Yup, there are a few that can do just that.

<p>

Check out a photo supply store in you area or Freestyle in Hollywood,

CA.

<p>

Try "Luquidlight". Photos on a rock if you want.

Eck, Chris, Kevin:

<p>

If I may be so bold - - -

<p>

I agree with you. Technique for it's own sake tells me nothing about

the subject of the photo. However, Tech-pan used to show the extreme

detail in small nature objects is showing the art in nature. Infra-red

film used to show the glowing beauty in the forest shows the art that

is possible.

<p>

If I may paraphrase you, Technique is no substitute for substance.

<p>

Seen in a gallery in No. Calif. about 15 years ago was a well

composed, well lighted, well printed studio full length nude of a

yound lady covered in surgical clamps. This was (I'd say) a case of a

bad story, well told. Never figured out what the heck the maker was

trying to say.

<p>

My photo instructor, H. Warren King, would say (and still does),

"Keep it simple stupid". "KISS IT."

<p>

A simple image, simply stated, says more than any technique alone.

<p>

Thanks for letting me bend your ears.

I'VE ALWAYS BEEN LEERY OF THE RC PAPERS, BUT THE QUALITY OF THE MATTE

SURFACE IMAGE IS MY ONLY (CURRENT) CONCERN. I LIKE WHAT I SEE VERY

MUCH. LONGEVITY IS, OF COURSE, ANOTHER ISSUE. I'D SELENIUM TONE THESE

AS A NORMAL COURSE.

<p>

I'VE NOT SEEN A FB MADE BY GEKKO. I'D TRY IT ALSO, IF AVAILABLE.

<p>

ALL I'M SAYING IS, "TRY IT . . . YOU'LL LIKE IT."

<p>

REGARDS,

<p>

-STEVE

OOPS! OOPS! That's Freestyle in Hollywood.

<p>

Hey, Webmaster - how's about a spell checker.

I'm trying out a new (to me) B & W print paper. Named for a lizard. It's GEKKO (not GIECO) by Mitsubishi. Mitzchbitchie? Metsubitzie? Oh well, you get the idea. The blacks are blacker than anything I've used in the last 15 years. The white are more brilliant than any I've seen. I've always been dissapointed in papers that touted "cold blacks" and "bright whites" especially when the reality was dark flat greys and not so whites. Dodgeing a shadow area does not give you the typical flat grey mud that screems, "I've dodged the shdaows." Midtone contrast is dramatically (to my eye) improved. Sharper highlight details are very apparent. Shadows are deep black. It's not just a contrastier paper. Details show very well.

<p>

Here's the interesting part: It's a VC/RC matte (also in glossy). Dry down to a flatter contract level is minimal, if any. It looks the same wet or dry. Conventional wisdom be damned. If it looks good . . . use it.

<p>

And now the best part: it's the least expensive paper on the market. $35.99 (at Frestyle, Hollywood, CA). And no, I don't work there.

<p>

Anyone out there in darkroom-land have similar or opposing experiences? I'd like to hear all opinions, pro and con.

<p>

Good light to you all.

<p>

-Steve

OK Chris - here goes:

<p>

There was the wedding that I assisted on the hottest day of the year.

117 degrees in the San Fernando Valley, CA. Had 2 Hassy bodies break

down. Finished the day on a Yashicamat Twin and a Mamiya 645 (5x7

proofs trimmed to 5x5). No one could tell the difference.

<p>

Then there was the wedding where the proofs came back and the couple

were already separated.

<p>

Then there was the wedding where on arrival to the reception site I

found the cake in a beautiful garden setting. Made several creative

and straight shots of it. About 30 min. later a loud crash was heard.

Cake bumped by a busboy. The father of the bride wanted to know if I

had taken the shot earlier. Since I had, he was at least relieved.

The bride never saw her cake until she saw the proofs.

<p>

Then there was the wedding where when the bride saw the proofs about

3 weeks after the wedding, called and yelled at me that my pictures

were evil and had ghosts in them. She wouldn't buy a finished album

from me and refused to pay the balance on her contract. Found out the

next day from the bride's mother that the bride was very

superstitious. A few of my "make-up mirror" shots had two sets of

faint shadows behind her image. The result of using a two flash system

(main high on camera, fill slave held by assistant).

<p>

Then there was the wedding where . . . .

<p>

Any wonder why I shoot mountains, rivers, snow, trees and butterflies

now?

To: Kevin B.

<p>

Reminds me of the "Here's your sign" routine.

<p>

S.

Paul,

<p>

I develope 4x5 negs in the Unicolor print drum.

I figured that if the 4x5 / 8x10 print drum took paper of that size,

it could also accommodate 4x5 film. It does. And very well too.

No modifications necessary. Insert a sheet with the emulsion facing

the interior of the drum, one edge against the "v" on the inside edge

and the other against the plain stop. 2 sheets can be loaded side by

side on both sides of the "v" to equal 4 sheets. Overlaps during

processing have never been a problem.

I just fill the drum with as much as it will hold (about 16 oz.) or

until it dribbles out. Never a bad neg. . . . . . . . yet.

Note: I'm developing 4x5 b & w only . . . no color. For 35mm and 120

film I'm using the same motor base with Patterson tanks and reels.

Hope that helps.

-Steve Feldman

<p>

P.S. The daylite tank can makes great planters. - S.

that should be "quip"

<p>

not qip

OK, boys and girls. I can't wait to see/hear what this will bring.

Very enjoyable thread from Ellis. Chris' new inquiry is the perfect

follow-up.

<p>

Chris, may I assume that wedding photographers horror stories are

out? Most of mine were awful at the time but funny in retrospect.

<p>

____________

<p>

OK, here's mine.

<p>

As a wedding photog I always got the qip, "Got film in there?" My

answer, "Usually."

<p>

S.

Worst: "It's just like 35mm."

<p>

Best: (Trueism) "A large format neg of a crappy image is still a

crappy image . . . with a lot more information."

<p>

My own contribution: "Common knowledge is not common." (Same for

common sense.)