chuck_k

On the other hand.... you can develop XP2 with B+W chemistry. At

least I have and it works well. I rate XP2 at EI 200 and develop in

Ilfosol S for 8.5 minutes. The negs have a very odd pink cast to

them, and they appear NOT to be fully cleared by the hypo. But all

that goes away when they are dry. Well, there is a slight pinkish

cast, but this does not affect printing.

<p>

I got into this by getting some out of date XP2 on eBay for a great

price, and then decided that I was too cheap to spring for lab

processing. In truth there is no advantage to using XP2 over any of

the B+W film on the market. The grain is really good and with some

work you can control the shadow details just fine.

<p>

This is probably a pointless post on my part, but I thought it might

be interesting to someone.

<p>

later,

<p>

chuck k

I agree with Bill. However you can develop the Ilford XP films in

standard B+W chemistry. I have several hundred sheets of XP-1 I

bought cheap on eBay. I rate the film EI 160 and go from there.

Personally I use Ilfosol S, but I'm sure that any developer would

do. You'll have to experiment. Also, the film has a bit of

a 'pinkish' tint to it coming out of the wash. That goes away almost

completely when it dries.

<p>

good luck,

<p>

chuck k

I just got a Verito "Defused Focus" lens. I very much want to use this lens for some Retro type portrait work. But this lens is very used. In fact a former user removed (!) the blades from the diaphram. Ah well. I notice there is a slot in the lens barrel and I think I recall reading that this was used to insert screens for different defusion effects. I also recall reading that the Verito lens defusion effect was lessened by stopping down the lens.

<p>

So with all this is mind.... Would I be better off fashioning some "Waterhouse" type stops to be put in the slot, or.. is it a better idea to control the exposure by using the slot for negative density filters? If I used ND filters, then I would have the lens at full diameter, and (I suppose) have full effect of the defusion.

<p>

Or am I way off base on this? Are there any old salt photogs out there who can lend a hand? The focal length of this lens is 8.75 inches, if that makes a difference.

<p>

thanks for your help.

<p>

chuck k

I see the B+H is selling Orthochromatic film in several different formats. The film is apparently manufactured by Macrophot.

<p>

Does anyone have any experience with Ortho film? I've used some Ortho Lith film, but I'm guessing that the Macrophot is the old standard Orthochromatic.

<p>

What is the general affect of this film? I know that it is very blue sensitive, almost to the exclusion of the red end of the spectrum. I know this will lighten the sky to nearly white, and reds will appear nearly black. What is the effect of portraits with this? What about development? Is standard time in D-76 usable, or is there a special type of developer? I know that Weston would have used Pyro, or Metol.

<p>

It has always amazed me the sharpness of landscape pictures from the mid to late 1800's. I know what the lenses were like at that time (I have a few). I'm wondering if the sharpness comes from the limited light spectrum sensitivity of the film(thereby eliminating chromatic problems the older lens might have had) or is it just the tripod/contact print combination?

<p>

thanks for your time.

<p>

chuck k

I've recently purchased a Unicolor drum and motor base and have done some 4x5 and 8x10 film in it. I had been using Ilfosol-S and doing one agitation every 30 seconds in a tray. The first films that come out of the drum were overdeveloped. I took that to be a factor of the drums constant agitation. So I knocked off about 20% of the time. This seems to be doing the trick.. but the contrast is very high. If I take more time off the developing, I lose some to the shadow detail.

<p>

so... Is there a something else I should be doing? I'm thinking my next move is dilute the developer more. Whats the deal with the time then? Am I into a bunch of experiments? What are the storys of people who have gone down this same path.

<p>

Thanks for your help,

<p>

chuck k

I just got 2 pounds of this stuff and I'm getting into the world of bleaching. (thanks to Tim Rudman's book) What is the best way to storage ferri, in dry form? I assume that keeping it in an airtight container is best. Do I need to keep it from the light?

<p>

thanks,

<p>

chuck k

I use Grafmatics all the time. I love them. I know what you mean

about the obvious answer to the question of dust spots. There is

quite a bit of light trap material in the Grafmatic... are you sure

you cleaned that?

Is is also possible that the movements of the Grafmatic create some

static electricity that you don't have in the single holders? That

might attract the dust to the film. I'm not sure about that.

Please don't give up on these holders. If you can get the to work to

your satisfaction, they will make traveling with 4x5 a lot more fun.

<p>

Good luck.

<p>

chuck k

I mostly use metal reels (nikor) for 220. It just takes a bit of

practice to get the film in the groove and not have it buckle. The

best suggestion is to use a developed roll or just waste an unexposed

roll for practice.

<p>

With the plastic reels it is very important that they be dry and

clean. If you wash your films while on the reel, take them off the

reel to use Photoflow. They'll clen pretty well with an old

toothbrush and if you have to use them twice in one session, get a

hairdryer and get them completely dry. Again, practice is necessary.

<p>

One other note. I've had NO luck using the newer white plastic

reels, like the Paterson reels. The old Yankee reels work very well.

<p>

Good luck,

<p>

chuck k

Diego,

<p>

Go to:

<p>

www.photoformulary.com

<p>

They are a wonderful company with helpful people and an incredible

catalog of hard to get chems and supplies. Every serious photog

should know about them.

<p>

chuck k

You might consider another film. I teach school and do a lot of

photography in class without flash. I use HP5+ and rate it at EI

650. If HP5+ is not your cup 'o tea, Tri-X will work well too.

<p>

Personally I wouldn't mess with the 3200 films unless the lighting is

very, very low. ISO 400 films are really able to do a lot with

available light, and I've found that pushing them is better than

dealing with the added grain of faster films.

<p>

good luck,

<p>

chuck k

I use HP5+ in 220 with my Mamiya 645 all the time and have never had

any problems with fogging. I can't imagine why the type of film

would make any difference. 220 works fine.

<p>

As a side note, I sometimes feel that 220 with the Mamiya 645 and C-

220 is sharper than 120. Maybe its just me, but I think the paper

backing might have something to do with it.

<p>

have fun on your trip.

<p>

chuck k

I love the SS tanks for 120 and 220. They work great and are much

faster to load than plastic. For some reason I haven't had any luck

with 35mm SS, so I use a old Yankee tank for that. The Paterson

tanks are better built than the Yankee tanks.... but the reels are

harder to work with IMHO.

<p>

later,

<p>

chuck k

Arnie,

<p>

I'm not sure I can be a total help here. I use Delta 100 for studio

portraits and develop in Ifosol S 1:8 @ 68F for 8 minutes. I use

nikkor tanks and a one time inversion every 30 seconds. I enlarge

from 6X4.5 negs to 8x10 prints and everything is clear and smooth.

Skin tone is excellent and contrast is good enough for the commercial

head shots.

<p>

good luck.

<p>

chuck k

Oh yea... I have tried PMK pyro. It works very well with the large

format and medium format. I couldn't come up with satisfactory

results with 35mm. Its a bit of a pain to use, but it does deal with

the high values very well. To anyone thinking of giving it a try, I

think the Gordon Hutchins book is invaluable. Also, get the liquid

form of the stuff from Photographers Formulary. Its just so much

easier.

<p>

chuck k

For fast films I prefer HP5+. I find that I can push it better than

I can Tri-X without getting the grain. HP5+ seems to have a very

wide latitude for exposure. I use it in 4x5 and medium format. For

a finer grain I like Delta 100 in medium format. This works well for

me with portrait work. I use FP4+ in 35mm... for some reason I've

had the best luck with it.

<p>

I use Ilfosol-S 1:8 dilution. I've tried Rodinal, but the grain was

just a bit more than I like. D-76 is good, but I prefer using a "one-

shot" developer. If I were developing 15 rolls or more a day, I

probably would use D-76. Anyway, I know what to expect with the

Ilfosol and in the end, I feel that consistancy is better than never

ending experimentation.

<p>

Discussions like this are good... and every now and then it is a

helpful and healthful thing to re-think our everyday motions.

Obsession over these details, however, will serve more as a

distraction to creative thinking.

<p>

cheers,

<p>

chuck k

I have what is probably a permanent lust for one of these cameras.

I'd like to replace the Kodak 2-D that I use. However, the price is

a bit high.

<p>

There was one on eBay today (5/5) that was at $500, the reserve had

NOT been met and it was in only OK repair. I've seen good ones go

for slightly over $1000.

<p>

good luck

I did a play opening with the Speed Graphic. The play "State Fair"

is set in the 40's so I did the gig as sort of a "Weegee" kind of

guy. Lots of fun. Graphmatics are a major plus. I used a Vivtar

283 flash (so what). I'd do it again.

I've been using the Kodak Ektar f7.7 203mm lens on 8x10 and it works

very well. I was told that it would not cover 8x10, but it does, and

makes a nice longer lens for the 4x5.