clayh

Send me a print and I will be able to tell you. Otherwise, anything posted on the internet is by

necessity digital, whether direct digital capture or scanning a negative or print. Sort of a

nonsensical challenge, IMO.

I have an idea. Tom Abrahamsson can make a Rapidwinder that fits on the bottom of the M8,

only the lever turns a small dynamo inside the Rapidwinder that recharges the battery. While

you are nervously awaiting The Decisive Moment, you can absent-mindedly crank the

Rapidwinder and ensure that the M8 will be ready when The Moment appears.

I called Dwayne's in Kansas, and they said they will be honoring old Kodak mailers for those who need Kodachrome processed. They are now the only place in the US that will process Kodachrome. I bought some K64 the other day just so I could go ahead and use up some mailers I found at the bottom of an old camera bag. This is the mailing address and contact info as posted by Kodak on their website:

 

Dwayne's Photo Service

 

415 S. 32nd Street

Parsons, KS 67357

US

 

(620) 421-3940

Toll Free: 1-800-522-3940

Fax: (620) 421-3174

Sounds like you should definitely not buy one.

I checked one out and compared it to the .72 finder MP. It appeared to show the same

coverage as the MP framelines, just without the dual framelines for each position on the

selection lever. As mentioned above, the three framelines it shows are the 35/50/90. But

they appear to me to show the same coverage as the stock MP.

Question : What is the sound of one hand slapping?

I almost never cruise this forum, but I can't resist making this remark about Eggleston. Go to any 'indie' or art-y movie. Look at the lighting, scene composition and the filming style. For a good current example, say, check out many of the scenes in "Little Miss Sunshine".

 

It is warmed-over Eggleston. Even if most Americans have never heard of the guy, they have probably been exposed to cinemaphotographers who imitate his style. Some of the cinemaphotographers probably don't know who he is either. They are just copying the style of someone who does. Some are better imitators than others, as you would expect.

This sort of approach was recently done and documented in book form by Alan Greene.

Check out the book "Primitive Photography", where he tells you how to make everything from

the lens to the camera to the negative and print. Just realize that going back to the

technology level of Talbot's time will impose some restrictions on the sort of images you can

reasonably capture.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240804619/102-2706895-7302560?

v=glance&n=283155

The Schneider coverage numbers are very conservative. I have a 12x20 camera, and the 355

is used on it most of the time. Like I was saying, i get just over an inch of rise with the thing,

which would mean that it covers just over 600mm, or ~24". It is sharp right to the edges

when stopped down below f/32. I have never really noticed horrendous fall-off with the lens,

but there undoubtedly has to have a little just from the geometry involved..

I have found that the T-grain films are particularly susceptible to airport Xray machines,

probably because of their excellent reciprocity characteristics. I mark boxes of any Tmax film

when I take a trip, and I try not to let them go through a scanner more than once. I learned

this the hard way about 4 years ago when I went on two consecutive trips with some 5x7

Tmax 400 and had some pretty pronounced fogging.

355 G-claron. Sharp, lots of coverage. Will cover 12x20 with an inch or so of rise.

I mark the film canisters with a black sharpie every time they go through an X-ray machine.

400 speed film and four trips through a scanner, and then no more trips for that roll. I'll let

100 speed or below go up to 6-8 trips through a machine. I have a densitometer and an

analytical nature, and I have had no measureable fogging. As a bonus, I now avoid the pre-

trip tension that comes from creating an impatient, toe-tapping spouse at the end of security

as an unmotivated TSA employee laboriously swabs each canister.

Peter,

 

Congratulations! Having seen some of these in the flesh, I am sure the show will be stunning.

Still keeping that Noctilux working hard?

 

Clay

De Santos Gallery on Richmond has an exhibit by Carlos Saura titled "Flamenco" that opens

tonight.

http://www.ut.blm.gov/leasesalemay2006/maps.htm

Sharpening is also an excellent way for someone to make the output from a nice Leica lens

look like the results from a cheap digital point and shoot. Nothing screams digital like

agressive sharpening.

 

Seriously, though, a little (very little IMO) sharpening is useful to recover the inevitable loss of

resolution that occurs with scanning. Much more than a little, and it looks like another

picture of the week candidate.

This is an interesting comparison. But I concur with others in that it is very hard to draw

conclusions from pictures on the web. I find that when I go all the way to the print stage -

e.g. make the same 7x10 print from a negative and a digital capture file, the differences

become quite noticeable, particularly if the film version is a wet darkroom silver print. Both

types of prints can be quite nice in their own way, but they still look like very different beasts

when you put them side by side. My 2 cents.

I asked this question on www.rangefinderforum.com and was pointed toward Pete Smith. He did an excellent and speedy job on a Nikon S4 for me.

 

FOTOCAMERA REPAIR in Florida

NIKONSMITH@AOL.COM

PHONE (561)433-8434

FDA pronounced most of these I.U.D.'s dangerous almost twenty years ago and took them off the market. Too big for a cat, unfortunately.

Ron,

 

Also, I forgot to mention that he said he was using the B&S starter kit - and I know that they don't even stock the EDTA-disodium. Another possibility to let him use what he has to make some homebrew hypoclear : 1 tablespoon sodium sulfite, 1/2 teaspoon sodium metabisulfite 1 tablespoon EDTA-tetra per liter of water. This will be slightly acidic and will clear most papers. As will citric acid @ 1-2% or phosphoric @ 1-2%, or even 1% HCl (although it is nasty stuff that should not be used if you plan on using any sodium sulfite in later baths, since any residual acid can liberate sulfur dioxide gas, and make you a very unpopular person around the house)

Ron,

 

I apologize for my chemical slang/imprecision. What I mean is that EDTA tetra is slightly alkaline - i.e. a value larger than a neutral pH of 7.0. The alkalinity will make the residual ferric oxalate in the paper fibers insoluble. EDTA disodium is acidic, i.e. pH less than 7.0 , and is actually what I use for my first clearing bath. EDTA-disodium is not what is normally given to people in the platinum palladium kits.

Straight EDTA-tetrasodium is pH positive. Used alone, it will mostly just lock in the unused ferric oxalate into your paper fibers permanently. I would suggest you to two things: 1) leave your print in the developer for 5 minutes and agitate gently. This will clear a lot of the ferric out of your paper, and 2) go buy some Kodak Hypoclear, and mix it up. It is normally diluted 1:4 for use, but I would recommend 1:3 and add 1 tablespoon of the EDTA per liter and mix it up. Use this for 5 minutes in three separate clearing baths. When the last bath starts to pick up a faint yellowish tinge, toss bath #1, make #2 the new #1, make #3 the new #2 and mix up a fresh #3. This is very effective on most papers. Keep an eye on the time in each bath, because it can actually begin to bleach prints if they are left in too long. Rinse thoroughly, and you should be fine.

I have experience with CRR-Luton.. All good. Peter is one of the best in the business in my

opinion. He'll send you back a fine camera.

I use an MP, and the Noctilux does not cause this behavior between f/1 and f/1.4 on my rig.

The exposure meter's reading changes by 1 stop as it should. FWIW

This sounds totally normal for TMX. Ansel's statements in his books were based on films

being made 30 years ago or more. Many modern films have tremedously low fb+f numbers,

TMX and TMY in particular. The only gotcha with TMX is the 'secret' UV absorbtion layer in

the film that makes it close to useless for any alternative process printing. If you have a UV

setting on your densitometer, check out the UV transmission densities. you will be shocked.

They usually are around 1.0 for the clear film base!