cesar_barreto

George,

All the papers on photo chemistry state that sodium sulfite at low

concentration will just act as preservative or anti-oxidant. It means

2,0% or so. D-76, for instance, asks for 10%. That's why it's known

as a fine-grain developer, but as you may easily find looking around,

it will not "eat" your ISO ratings a bit! So, there seems to be some

ways to overcome it's solvent action.

The suggestion of trying fine-grained films really seems to be the

best, since reducing grain size by chemical means may compromise

resolution and some other structural habilities of any emulsion.

Get a tripod and go ahead.

<p>

Cesar B.

Mark,

Maybe, it should be remembered that J. Sexton usually works with a

rotary processor and that it speeds up things a bit. And of course,

by this time, he has a very solid experience on where to make light

measuring with T-max at ISO 80. Are you sure your films showed under-

development and not under-exposure? Check the shadows and the answer

will be clear.

<p>

Cesar B.

Greg,

With this 135mm lens you'll barelly cover 4x5' on small prints. For

bigger ones, the 150mm will do a easier job. As posted above, 210mm

is the best bet for 5x7'. Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Sergey,

Films, usually, don't show fixed qualities, rather what we make them

to look like. It's much easier to destroy potential habilities than

taking the most of any emulsion. So, both films will work fine on

capable hands or, in the other side, be grainy, contrasty, etc. It

takes some time to master a film, to predict it's responses to

different exposition and development variables. It seems wise to

forget this "better" film condition and try to be a better

photographer.

Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Paul,

There are some points to be positive about and one more question to

add. Of course, a 450mm lens will show better DOF. And lenses design

can make some indirect influence over perceived DOF, as the

comparision within sharp and unsharpness can be confusing if the

sharpness limits also varies. A bad lens may probably show great

apparent DOF, as nowhere you'll find a sharp image to compare.

Now, if telephoto design can change anything, I'd suggest (avoiding

all the math involved) it may only deals with depth of focus. I guess

Mr. Merklinger would be rather welcome here!

<p>

Cesar B.

Sandy,

Being quite a feminist myself, I welcome you with red carpet and

flowers. Maybe, if more women were playing around, these pages

wouldn't be so full of techniques and "how-to".

As about equipment and the weight issue, I found a good solution:

humiliating myself. I've just started using a Kodak 2-D 5x7, similar

and smaller than Berenice Abott's favorite 8x10. I just can't say the

camera is heavy as hell! To make things easier I'm following Adams

advice, who said that the more lenses you have the more are the

chances you pick the wrong one. So, as the camera grows, the more

objective one should be.

By the way: I also have a 6x9 Arca, old model, and it works a lot for

me. But I still feel more confortable taking a flat-bed 4x5 out for

walking and trekking. The big negative deserves and provides some

solemnity that translates better my feelings for nature. And I don't

think that's a male question!

Anyway, welcome again, and I hope you enjoy this "macho" way of

shooting.

<p>

Cesar B.

After some twenty and so years breathing B&W chemistry, I've made a

decision: never drink Coke any longer. Changed for beer and wine. I'm

also willing to live just seventy or eighty years.

<p>

Cesar B.

Bruce,

<p>

Any meter, Minolta, Gossen, Sekonic, once calibrated can do a good

job. The matter is where to point it! Get a system, incident or

reflected light, make some tests on exposure range and reciprocity,

try to keep a routine on metering methods. When dealing with long

exposure range, commom trouble with mixed lights, it may be a good

idea to let each one goes for a differente exposure time. This way

you can even change corrective filter for each light source. Of

course, an assistance is welcome, otherwise you'll be running a lot.

Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Kevin,

Printing thin areas of a negative is the most difficult part of the

job. You usually have to cope with heavier filtration, which

translates into small exposure latitude. And, of course, these areas

always ask for the shortest exposure. Any mistake leads to gray

shadows or featureless blacks. So, finding the perfect grade/exposure

combo for shadows can well be the first step. Probably, this short

and contrasty exposure will print very little of medium and high-

lights, so it can be very easy to add exposure (sometimes many stops

above shadows) using low contrast filters. The clear advantage of low

contrast burning is that your movements easily blends without much

notice, while greater latitude also permits a confortable margin for

exposure unprecision. If you make some tests with gray-scales you'll

find out that most VC papers show similar responses on light values

whatever the filter in use. So, once you find the right exposure for

printing high values, it might works for any filters, except 4 and

above. This approach can turn to be quite predictable and time-saving.

I hope it can be useful.

<p>

Cesar B.

Denise,

The advantages of push or pull is to adapt yourself and your film to

subject qualities. It doesn't matter if the day is sunny or not if

you'll be looking at small pieces of plants. In this case, pushing

can be wise, for it will increase constrast of texture and pattern

details. But if the sun comes into play, when you open up or angle of

view, contrast can turn to be excessive, now asking for some pulling

on development. So, there's no formula good for all situations.

It's a good advice to use the whole film within the same subject and

develop accordingly. Short films are great for that. Have fun!

<p>

Cesar B.

Henry,

The last thing I'd say is that any of the Westons lacked technique.

Maybe, they wouldn't care to much about small numbers on beautiful

graphics, but for sure one doesn't need any of these to make great

photography. And they had thousands of negatives to prove that.

<p>

Cesar B.

Janine,

Exposure won't be correct no matter how you develop your film. The

best some pushing can do is raising the contrast from shadows,

probably very weak due to under-exposure, to medium and higher

values. As a beginner, you may not be quite sure about your metering

thecniques, so I'd suggest you a 50% increase on development time and

light a candle for some "superior help".

Don't be sad anyway, for these accidents sometimes bring real good

pictures.

Good luck!

<p>

Cesar B.

Mike,

Sinar, Toyo, Linhof, etc, all of them sell binocular viewers, some

with loupes, that can be home adapted to fit regular bellows or home-

made either. Velcro, rubber bands, cardboard ... and some imagination

can do it. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Richard,

Some sort of retinal desease made my right eye useless for focusing

anything, in darkroom or under the dark cloth. If you're doing fine

with grain magnifier there are great chances focusing the view camera

will come to be so fun and troubleful as for the rest of us. Welcome

to LF photography!

<p>

Cesar B.

Jim,

No motive for panic. Not untill first film is developed....

T-Max is a good chemistry in ever sense, just possibly beeing

dangerous for over-development. And Tri-X stands any sort of ill-

treatment. Try to relax.

Cesar B.

Andrew,

For sure, you'll get some really "artistic" pictures and, as side

effect, will drive this 1hour lab nuts.

Cesar B.

John,

Could you explain more clearly what kind of focus drop you've found?

It's on the borders or merely short depth-of-field?

<p>

Cesar B.

Chris,

It's hard to believe your trouble is related to development, at least

if you're processing one sheet at a time. Light uneveness on

enlarging seems more probable. Check your light output without

(negative on film stage), printing for a medium gray and develop

normally as you've been doing. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Hi, Nick.

Are you sure you need all that resolution on 8x10 portraiture?

Probably, the most interesting aspect to look after is the quality of

out-of-focus planes, as they will sure come around with those lenses.

Unfortunatly, testing both may be the only way to be certain about

the aesthetically look you care for. About objective qualities,

Sironars sure can stand the proof. Regards.

<p>

Cesar B.

Kevin (and Josh),

Bleaching and reducer shouldn't be misunderstood. Farmer reducer, the

ferricyanide formula (not ferro...), and iodine will both wash out

developed silver from paper and film. The same ferricyanide, when

added to potassium bromide or similar, will actually transform

metallic silver into silver halide again, making it possible

redevelopment or toning processes. Farmer reducer isn't the best

option for radical moves, but can do wonders if you don't try to

speed things too much. Iodine works faster and deeper, and can do a

clean job if followed by refixing. Play safe and don't change names!

Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.

Patric,

Metabisulfite and acetic acid can both smell too much within the

walls of darkroom, mainly on trays. Citric acid can also be used, at

10/20%, making your life somewhat more comfortable in the dark.

All those chemicals are inexpensive and not so necessary with films,

as they usually don't carry over much developer. Fiber paper, in the

opposite side, can spoil fixer much faster if a stop bath doesn't

come for help. Wich acid soap does the trick, usually doesn't make

much difference.

Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Hi Dan,

If you have ever used those films, can you tell who they really are?

Thanks.

<p>

Cesar B.

Doug,

Versalab is great and, probably, also Zig-Align. If you can afford

one, don't think twice 'cause they might be much more precise than

anything we can fashion with home tools. Meanwhile, you can try to

lay a large flat glass or anything alike on negative stage and, using

a ruler, check four sides distance from baseboard. That's easy and

can be precise enough for enlargements with one or two stops closed.

Aligning lens is quite a different business, for the small DOF and

distances involved. But if you get a metal ruler and, while standing

it up on the lensboard, use the focus knob till the ruler hits the

under side of negative stage, you can easily see if it's not

parallel. If it's Ok just check other sides same way. Precision may

not be the best, but it works untill some 21th century gadget comes

on your way. Good work.

<p>

Cesar B.

Eric,

Polaroids can really help to keep people awake, but only focus and

perspective controls can be shown this way. Large views,in turn, when

photographed the same way, can be quite convincing, mainly if you

show details from both formats enlarged or projected some times

bigger than normal. A nice and simple way to show the possibilities

of LF cameras is projecting some strong light through the ground

glass and make all shifts and tilts visible in the wall. If you have

lines, drawing or any transparent midia on GG, it will show selective

focus, distortion, perspective, or anything you want. And if

possible, I would prefer to show a wood View. Just to state that

technology isn't so imperative on creation of beautiful pictures.

Good luck with your kids.

Cesar B.

Matthew,

There is also a half-way solution to minimize light loss and still

get some diffusion: use both, diffuser and condenser. Test and choose

position one up or the other. Things work fine, light distribution is

OK and when you need some extra contrast, just slip out the diffuser.

Give it a chance and maybe it works for you. Good luck.

<p>

Cesar B.