doug_broussard2

You may want to check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-

a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001869&topic_id=23&topic=photo%2enet">this

thread</a> in the photo.net forum for some reasons that ColorSync

make a mac worthwhile.

<p>

I would stick with a desktop system given the choice, but leaving the

Mac platform is out of the question for me; ColorSync simply saves me

too much money (by virtue of making fewer fine-tuning prints) when

used properly.

<p>

Anyone who tells you the mobile Pentiums at any speed are faster than

a 500MHz G3 hasn't actually used both machines. The mobile pentium

(ii, iii, whatever version) is a crippled and hobbled dog of a

processor, barely fit for running the latest version of Word.

Seriously - I've tried it - on a machine with 128MB of RAM! Just

think what it would be like in Photoshop.

I'd be extremely interested in both reading and contributing to

travel reports. I'm also very interested in the idea of objective

surveys and reviews.

<p>

Great ideas.

<i>

To me, the availability of Quick/Ready-load format isn't a reason in

itself to use a film. It's just a nice option for films I already

like to use. If you could have the B&W emulsion of your choice in

Quick/Ready-load format, what would it be? For me, it would be FP4.

</i>

<p>

I have better things to do with my time (like using my camera) than

to dust film holders or fool with any of the other nonsense that goes

with using traditional cut sheet film and holders. I keep my camera

and bellows fairly clean, and Readyloads allow me to spend much less

time spotting prints, making me more productive.

<p>

This is why I'm so upset about Kodak's silence. And, unlike the high-

tech company they wish they could be, Kodak's marketing and

accounting wonks never try to gauge customer reaction through any

means other than raw sales numbers. <p>

John Sexton uses readyload for the same reasons I do. He's also a big

T-Max booster, for reasons I found once I really started

experimenting with the film.<p>

Don't write, don't call. If past history is any indication, Kodak

won't care - but if Fuji is listening, they'll may be able to steal

another small part of Yellow Peril's market.

I've been using a lithium (Eveready, with the red end cap - sorry,

don'thave the exact model num,ber handy) for about a year with no ill

effects. My exposures seem acurate, even in subfreezing temperatures.

<p>

As far as silver to lithium comparisons, I can't provide any

scientific measurements, but the new lithium battery feels just as

light as the silver. I'd expect an alkaline to weigh fractionally

more. It is a pretty small battery, so even a large weight difference

between materials wouldn't really make that big of a difference when

the weight of the entire meter is taken into consideration.

Ross Said:<i>Has anyone experienced the following with a Pentax

Digital Spot : On some readings, not always the same, the LEDs begin

to flash periodically and rapidly, about 5-7 times per second. The

reading itself remains accurate however. It will happen on say 13++

and not on 13+ or 14, and some other readings as well. I see no

pattern to it. </i>

<p>I experienced this problem, and replacing the battery seemed to

solve it. Curiously, the 'old' and 'new' batteries had identical

voltages.

<p>

-D

I'm about to leave for a seven-day backpacking trip with a fairly new

Gregory Palisade backpack. My Wisner , light meter, anda couple of

lenses fit snugly in the bottom 'sleeping bag' pocket.<p>

I hope that I don't sound overly cavalier, but outgassing hasn't even

crossed my mind, and even though the backpack is new, I don't

normally store the lenses inside of it, so I'm not expecting big

problems.

<p>I think a good answer to your question would be: store your lenses

outside the pack if possible.

warning...blatant opinion to follow....

<p>Digital is simply another printing process. You can duplicate many

of the techniques used in the color darkroom using digital

techniques, and there are somethings which can be acomplished more

easily with digital than in a 'conventional' color darkroom. <p>

Just as platinum and palladium printing are 'alternative' processes

for pinting black and white negatives, so is digital output for my

chromes. <p>the advice posted to contact WCi is a good starting

point. Rich Seiling and other employees there are real (good)

photographers, and the company isn't just a service bureau with a

Tango. If you'd like to try printing some of your chromes or

negatives digitally, pick one and let them run with it. <p>If you'd

like to try printing digitally yourself from 4X5, Darron's advice is

spot-on. You can get started with as little as a $2500.00 investment,

but as with most things, more money buys you more refined, faster,

and more accurate tools.

I've got a similar question/dilemma coming up. doing a 50+ mile hike

over a week at Evolution basin and I'm trying to decide how to split

my Velvia/Tmax budget. <p>Along with my Tech. expedition and (ugh)

Bogen 3021, I've budgeted 5 pounds for photo stuff. That's gonna be

hard to do.

Hmmmm...back to the vision thing.

<p>

I'd never thought of this before...perhaps it was a bit myopic of

me (ha ha).<p>

I can 'close focus' my eyes to about two-and-a-half inches in

stereo. Luckily for the purposes of this test, I cut myself pretty

badly last night and have a gauze bandage on my finger with

loose white individual threads perfect for an informal test.<p>I

can pick out an individual thread standing off from the gauze at

three inches with stereo vision. With monocular right eye, I can

focus at three inches, and monocular left, two and three quarters

inches. I'm thinking the differential at least points to the need for

an optometrist's opinion.<p>

My tests still suggest that some degree of enlargement beyond

4x might be more peasing to the critical viewer, but I'll get

checked up anyway.<p>To contributors: thanks to everyone for

the advice and ideas. Next time you're in Santa Cruz, e-mail me a

couple of days ahead of time, and I'll gift you with a tomatoes,

basil and and fresh zucchini from my garden!

I'm 28, and don't have corrected vision. I make sharp

photographs without focussing aids like loupes regularly. I

haven't had my vision tested in the past ten years, but I have

been known to freak people out by reading eye charts at long

distances.<p>In college and when I first came to California, I

partied and drank a lot; that affected my vision, so I cut back quite

a bit. I have one-two drinks a week at most now, and I've noticed

that my visual acuity and visual purple has improved markedly; I

can't recall it being deficient at any time.

O.K., just got out of the darkroom, where I tried a couple of

things. FYI, my enlarging lens is a 150mm Schneider

Componon-S.<p><ol>

<li>Printed at �16, same neg, same paper (Zone VI Brilliant

grade2, my baseline test print paper). It does seem like

diffraction may have had something to do with the unsharpness I

saw last night. However...

<li>I then raised the enlarger head so that the illuminated area

was about 16X20 inches in size. I left the 8X10 easel in the

same place and printed the negative on an 8X10 swatch, roughly

centered. I tested this at �22. </ol><p>

Lo, and behold: the results seemed much sharper than even the

8X10 at �16. I did it again to make sure.<p>

Personally, I'm inclined to think that this effect directly correlates

to enlargement size. I believe the eye has difficulty perceiving the

inherent sharpness of the negative at smaller enlargement

factors. When the enlargement factor is increased to 16X, the

inherent sharpness is much more apparent; there is more paper

area for the eye to discern subtle diferences that are lost in a

small print.<p> For what it's worth, the Alan Ross contact print of

Ansel's Clearing Winter Storm on my wall is frighteningly sharp,

but details like the trees on top of El Capitan would reveal more

detail printed at larger sizes, simply because extremely fine

detail in the negative, imperceptable at it's native (8X10) size,

becomes apparent as it is printed on a larger area.<p>I still can't

see the grain at 16X20. Damn Tmax. ;-)<p>I may have just

re-invented the wheel, but thanks to everyone for the various

comments and insight.<i>An explanation of my lightjet

comment:</i> over at photo.net, some of the more enlightened

regulars have been discussing the relative merits of small digital

prints. To whit: Many argue that an 8X10 printed from a 6X7 neg

optically would be sharper than a scan and lightjet print of the

same negative. Experience seems to bear this out; because of

it's relatively low resolution (30x.x dpi in my prints) but extremely

high acutance and accuracy the lightjet really starts to shine

where optical enlargements begin to dissapoint.

<a href="http://www.best.com/~vought/photos/lf.html">Here.</a> I've

quite a few new things that aren't up there, as I don't own a scanner.

This might seem like a dumb question, but I'm honestly a bit stymied.<p>

I've been shooting large format for just under three years now, first with a Crown Graphic and now with a Wisner Traditional Field. A phenomenon that has constantly amazed me is that when printing my large format negatives (TMax 100, typically) I percieve an increase in sharpness as print size increases beyond 8X10, up to 16X20 (the largest I've printed so far).

<p>Am I just inventing this perception in my head, or is this a repeatable and measurable effect similar to the 'better for large prints, not so hot for 8X10s' behavior one sees with digital lightjet/lambda prints from medium and large-format scans? Is it possible that my diffusion head has something to do with this effect? Prints I made last fall with a condensor head on a similar (Beseler 45MX) enlarger and the same lens seem slightly sharper. I normally test with 8X10 prints to judge if a negative is worth spending more money (read big paper).

<p>

My other theory is that my focussing is less precise with 8X10 from 4X5 because I can't see the darn grain at f22!

<p>

-Doug

<i>HOW DOES PHOTOGRAPHY WORK?</i>

<p>

It doesn't. At least, not when you need it to.

You might want to try talking to Contax. They seem like the best

authority on this.

Kodak emulsions/enveloped will not work in the Fuji holder. Fuji

quickload envelopes can be used carefully and sucessfully with the

Kodak holder. My experience and rationale for my choice of holder

(Readyload) follows:

<p>

I have used Fuji Quickloads in the Kodak holder, as well as Kodak

Readyloads. I got the holder used, and once I dissasembled it and

pulled a stuck envelope clip out of the pressure plate well, I have

had zero bad exposures--no fogging, nothing.

<p>

I don't believe that the majority of people who malign the Kodak

holder are using it properly. Calumet Photographic has a good on-line

tutorial to help new users that far surpasses Kodak's included

documentation. I don't have the URL handy, but it can easily be found

using the search engine at www.calumetphoto.com.

<p>

I'm not trying to twist your arm or start an online p*ssing match

about which system works best, simply providing my experience with the

Readyload system. I believe that if you approach it properly and

thoughtfully, you'll have good results.

<p>

When I add my experience to the greater number of useful emulsions

available for Readyload (and since I use Quickload as well, I get to

keep Velvia) and the fact hat you can't go the other way (Kodak

emulsions in Quickload holder), the choice was very easy for me.

<p>

-Doug

Try keeping it in the same pocket you had the money in before you got

it

Kevin:

<p>

First of all, pros shooting for Nat'l Geo shoot 35mm, and those

canisters are easier to hand-inspect at the carry-on baggage station.

You are shoting large format. Put yourself in the position of a person

who has:

-Never seen a large format film box or holder

-gets paid US $8.00/hr to return keys and sunglasses to passengers in

a little basket

-Is being told "You can't look inside this box, nor can you put it

through the Xray machine."

<p>

By now my point should be fairly clear...you have to plan before doing

this. Good forethought on your part.

<p>

You have some options with Large-format film, some of which have been

explained in this forum before. (did you search?) Unfortunately, it

has been my experience with many airports (even when travelling

domestic) that the low-paid personnel at the carry-on check station

simply do not give a damn and will refuse to present any options to

you.

<p>

First option: Ship your film to a trusted agent at your destination

ahead of time, and back to another trusted agent who will return it to

you when you come home.

Minuses to this approach: Shipping company loses film, trusted agent

isn't, FedEx leavs film on doorstep in rain, or Xrays the package

themselves.

<p>

Second option: Shoot readyload/quickload. This allows you to actually

-open- the film box for inspection at the carry-on luggage inspection

station.

-Minuses to this approach: Additional investment and learning curve in

new film loading system, usual readyload/quickload foibles.

<p>

Third option: Shoot and process at your destination. You'll be in the

ay area, and among others, Calypso imaging in San Jose offers Kodak

QLab E6 processing with a standard 4-hour turnaround 60 minutes from

SFO airport. (www.calypsoinc.com) They have never failed me. As far as

I know, the only problem you'll have transporting _processed_ film in

checked luggage is losing it.

-Minuses to this approach: Time and technicality.

<p>

These three are the most obvious options for me, and others may have

additional thoughts. Entrusting your film to the airport/airline

security crush or trying to bring an unopenable box of exposed film

back home are both bad ideas.

<p>

Congrats on the Wisner. Beautiful camera. Sexy red bellows!

<p>

(If I may offer a bit of advice as well, the wine country light is

actually rather blah this time of year, unless you get up _very_ early

in the morning. You may also want to experience the pacific coast at

Bodega Bay, about an hour's

While I haven't had considerable experience with ReadyLoads yet, I've

done some testing, and I find that many of the complaints out there

regarding the system may be traced back to unclear documentation on

Kodak's part.

<p>

I recently began shooting readyload again after watching a

demonstration by Richard Newman from Calumet at a workshop. He

emphasized a couple of key points, illustrated on Calumet's website at:

<a href="http://www.calumetphoto.com/calumet/ShowParent.taf?function=

detail&tblCopyParent_uid1=KODAKREADYLOADHOWTO&_UserReference=

9CFB62B0332377353742DE0E"> this URL</a>.

<p>

As far as a field-tested experience, I've had much better results

shooting black and white with Readyloads. I cannot emphasize how much

time and aggrivation I have saved because...hey, no dust. (I usually

throw away negs if they would require heavy spotting in the print.)

<p>

So, while there may be no consensus here, the two pros I met on my last

workshop (Richard Newman and Seiling) have had good experiences, and

that, plus testing on my part has led me to believe that Readyload will

do the job if you load and unload the holder correctly (see the URL

above).

<p>

-Doug

While this question deals with darkroom procedures, it is unique to large format, hence my posting here.

While the archives have many helpful posts and answers on Tech Pan development in roll form, I'm looking for anyone who may have experience developing Tech Pan sheet film (4X5 in a Jobo CPE2/with lift.) in technidol. Kodak does not specifically discourage this, but provides no information regarding development times or techniques for this dev/film combo other than 8 min in a tray.

<p>

Using Kodak's standard Technidol dilution for 4X5 (which is 1/2 of the dilution for roll film), I tested six sheets--two at 8 min, two at 7 min, and two at 6 min--and at the tray development time, contrast was markedly higher at 8 min. At six minutes, contrast was a fairly low, and at seven, looks to be spot on.

<p>

While you may be thinking "he's answered his own question" I am wondering if anyone else out there is using a Jobo to process Teh Pan in technidol and if their results approach mine. I don't have a densitometer, but just from eyeballing contact sheets made on grade two paper, I think I may have nailed down about the right time. I'm hesitant to test much further because of cost reasons, hence my query.

<p>

Thanks,

<p>

Doug