scott_walton2

Vlad, There are 2 ways of looking at this essentially. Finer grain is one thing but higher resolution is different. I used to think that I wanted ultra fine grain. When I was in the mode of testing heavily, I found that using a developer like Divided D76, gave me extremely fine grain... 50% more than regular D76 1:1! I thought I was in heaven until I started testing a different class of developers know as "solvent type developers" or high acutace developers! When doing a side by side comparison of 11x14 prints, the results were astounding. A simple test for you is to do a "clip" type test. I know that I get finer grain with Divided D76 and Divided D23 but put the shot's next to each other (you would put your D76 developed negs next to the same scene, shot on the same film) with film developed in say, Diafine or Crawley's (which is even higher acutance), you will be astounded.

I felt, in my opinion, that the "finer grain" turned out soft and mushy albeit sharp (which may not make sense at all now.... but it will) but the Diafine and Crawley's FX were very sharp with wonderful edge sharpness to the fine grain that really made a print sign.

I typically shoot 4x5 with preferences to the silver rich films like Ektapan, TXP, Agfapan 100 & 400 and Ilford HP5+ (but not as often because of the difference in Ilfords grain pattern). You will be hard pressed to see the differences I'm talking about with pictures on the web but here is a link to a gallery of mine. The one image was taken with TXP and souped in Diafine...

http://unblinkingeye.com/Photographs/Gallery/SWalton/SWalton5/swalton5.html

The previous image was taken with a med format APX 100 (as I recall) with Diafine also.

Barb, I think your prof was a bit off about the "specific to Beseler" processing. It is more accurate to say that the developing would be tuned for condenser vs diffusion printing. Developing for condenser's, your best bet is to "under develop" or "pull" your film by about 10% whereas you would want a little denser/contrastier negative for diffusion printing (push or develop 5%+ more). This is all providing you have a "standard" time for your film already established.

My question to you is...when you have printed with the condenser enlargers, do you find yourself burning your highlights alot? If you do, cut back on your developing time 10 - 15%. This will make your highlights thinner and more easier to print. Take that same negative you already have and print on a diffusion head (or best yet, a cold light head) and the tones will sing with very little work at all!

My best recommendation is to do what is called a "clip test". Take your camera and shoot a short roll or 6 sheets of film, of the same subject making sure you have deep shadows to good highlights. Shoot your film of this subject and get ready to do at least 3 runs of developing.

Develop the first clip/sheet for the "manufacturers time" and evaluate. If the highlights cannot be read through (place your negative on a newspaper to judge it) take your second clip of film and develop it for 10% LESS time than the first clip and then process the 3rd clip for 15% LESS and maybe do one more @ 20%.

Go into the darkroom and take these clips and make a print of each. You will notice that the less developed clips will print easier and you will get detail in your highlights and shadows but you won't have to do much or any burning.

You want to be aware though... if you pull your film to much, your highlights will start to be dull and grey. This is the start of perfecting your film to your shooting/printing system.

Take the best negative/print from your clip test and make a note that this will be YOUR new developing time. Use that time to process your film from now on instead of the manufacturer's "recommended" time.

I do have to say Barb... this is only the tip of the iceberg but it on the way to perfecting and knowing that your on the way to getting perfect negatives that make prints that will "glow" with luminosity!

The Ultrafine is good, and with my testing I found it to be adequate... but be aware... it is like D76 and HC110 as far as the grain goes. IOW, it is only the name that implies "Ultra fine". If your looking for ultra fine grain developers, there are many other better choices.

10-15'...I'd be careful with the distortion you will get using a 90mm on people. Having people out on the edges of the frame will do funny things to body parts. Yes, I know using swings and tilts will (for the most part) correct but you will get distortion. I would use, at least a 150mm but ever since I got my 350mm 5.5 Linhof lens, I use that the most whenever it I can. Portraits... it is a great focal length because the compression and lower DOF. It really seperates the chaff!

My first lens was a 210mm and I did so much with that lens... people, tabletop, pretty pictures, ect. I used it for years and still go back to it regularly. The one question I have for you to think about is... what focal length did you prefer the most when you shot your other formats?

I shoot with a lens shade and also use the darkslide if the sun is close. You will notice a drop off is degradation using a lens shade all the time because your also getting slight flaring from reflections from below the lens (i.e. sun hitting the ground just below the camera...) and it is noticeable once you see it!

Here's one I did in the studio with one softbox and a grid spot for the background. Linhof Tec III with my beloved 250mm Imagon @ f8.<div></div>

The longest lens I have is the Xenar 360mm in a compound shutter. It works fine with my Tec III and with the extension ring that it came with (about 20mm extension), the bellows draw isn't bad at all... even when doing close ups. The only real downfall to the Xenar's is that they aren't multi coated so you will have to be aware of flare but I always shoot with a longer than usual shade.

Starting out a long time ago I went with Photoflex. Never needed to try anything else because they work very well and do exactly what I need/expect. If using Elinchrom makes you a better visionary/technician of our craft... spend the money. I'm not saying this trying to be arrogant or mean or anything else. A softbox from Elinchrom may be "matched" to their system but a softbox is a softbox is a tool. Truth in advertising on the other hand... well, isn't that more visible in our field (know where I'm going with that?). Now, the difference between a Mola and a 4' softbox... that is another story.

You have to consider what your needs are. I shoot digital and film at work, both in the studio and on locations. Whenever I get the chance (fewer times than I care/need), I shoot film with my Linhof, for enjoyment. After awhile Seth, when shooting with LF, your pace will change and after you get to know what all the movements do and feel confident, your other format shooting will improve also, greatly. I still prefer the enjoyment of shooting LF (nothing like seeing the world through an 8x10 ground glass!!) and have told my wife that she will have to pry my 4x5 out of my dead rigamorticed hands... One thing I do want you to be aware of though (keep this in the back of your head!!!) after shooting LF for awhile, yes your going to see a change in your abilities but be aware that your striving for perfection... composition, exposure, post production and you'll be happy and all that but... your next camera choice maybe a wise choice of getting a Holga and shoot from the hip... literally! This will get the "fun and spontaneity" back. I was taking creative seminars/darkroom work (years ago) when the professor asked to see our work. Long story shortened... this was his recommedation because my images "..were to perfect..." as he said and I have grown further from using that plastic piece of fun in ways I never imagined! Personally, LF shooting is my breath of life and I will always choice it for my personal enjoyment!

As stated, a good learning tool but do beware of the differences in prices of materials... the 500 takes less expensive packs but they are not 4x5 full frame. The pack will crop your image and I think they are somewhere in the 3.5" x 4.5" area. The 4x5 singles (Type 55, 54, 52, 59 ect.) are, for the most part, full frame but a bit more costly. They are also more conducive if you have any ideas of doing transfers either emulsion or image, because you can take an image and remove it from the holder without spreading the gel pack also. Just a thought to consider.

You can easily makes some large reflectors and shoot through panels with pvc pipe. 4 90 degree elbows, whatever length you want them and then put a "T" connector in the top center. Take a single piece of tubing out of the "T" connector down to the ground so you get a positionable brace. You can cover it with a white sheet, silver/gold lame that you can purchase in a fabric store and if you put an elastic cord through it... it is a piece of cake to assemble! I used 2-4 of these for fashion and portraits for years. I used tent pegs to secure them in the ground both on the bottom bar and the cross bar also to keep them from blowing over outside.<div></div>

Weighing the background down will help but to me, doing portraits with some folds in the background adds to the depth of the image. With the portrait you posted, take 1/2 stop off the back ground light and that will take most of the emphasis off the background. Rule of thumb... your eye will always go to the brightest part of the picture... make the subject the brightest. Also, we are our worst enemy when it comes to critiquing ourselves.

I don't think they are light leaks because you would see the effect in the edges also... more than you do. Surge marks or your reels still had chemicals on them from the previous session. A little hypo clear will do that.

You could easily suspend the trousers about 5' from your white background and do a multi exposure... one for the background, one for the trousers. By keeping the trousers away from the background, you won't have the problem of spillage or edge bleed and you can even add extra highlights by using strip lights on the edge of the trouser. With you just shooting them digitally anyway, shoot the trousers on a background that gives you seperation but not color cast (slate grey Savage paper) and then in PS use your magnetic lasso with a decent edge contrast setting to select the product, copy and paste to a white background.

Hp5+ and Divided D76 is stunning! I can give you the recipe and details. Ultra fine grain and truely compensating with no speed change. Other than that you can do Microdol-X 1:3 (I loved it but I didn't like the added time [16-20 minutes] in the soup). If you want grain free stuff, you could shoot Kodalith and soup in POTA. STUNNING gradations and grain that is almost non existent which made it hard to focus but works great for enlarged negative!

Put a 90mm on and get really close. Your bellows draw will be pretty good and the wide angle lens will emphasize the closeness. Works really well!

Al, The 2475 was beautiful stuff and I agree, grain as we have enjoyed in the past is slowly being rendered by the way side. What about controlled reticulation? I have done this and have gone from large grain (seperate kernels) to large clumps of grain in extreme temperature differences. TXP works well as does APX100/400. Don't waste your time with t-grained films! Testing (clip tests worked for me) will have to be done to get the look your after starting with a 5 degree temp difference... just a thought.

Consistency is the key thing here... SP's aren't know for this. In Photography, you totally get what you pay for. Look into a Novatron kit, either an 800w/s kit is a good start and you can grow with them. I used to (a very long time ago) work as an assistant to a shooter who was extremely busy doing table top stuff. I loved working for him because I really respect him and like his style...anyway, he used Novatrons... 4 packs, a couple of Quadheads, ect, ect. The thing about it is, he used to drop the heads almost on a regular basis. The only thing that usually broke was the modeling light. We had them at were I work also and I hated the dim modeling lights so I ended up putting 150watt halogen bulbs in the soft boxes, that worked out great for a few years.

I would go down to 1:200 due to it's naturally high dilution becoming a developer with compensating properties. The times would have to be worked out with testing and with all the variables considered...it would be prudent if you shoot another roll, the same way, in your back yard (or where ever), with the light approximately the same, and use that roll as a testing roll. Also, mixing up a high dilution developer like Rodinal @ 1:200, mix up 2000ml for yourself to have easier amounts to measure out... this way also, after you do your clip tests, you will have the exact proportions/dilutions to replicate your tests! My question to you is, how did you come about the 20 minutes? Clip tests or scientific guesstimations? If it is extra work that renders excellent work... then it is worth it.

Tech Pan, with the right developer/times was an absolutely beautiful, full scale film! Shooting the stuff for years, you need to take about 25% off the "recommended" times thereby keeping the contrast lower. Technidol and POTA rendered wonderful results that were very full scale shooting at 25asa. Divided D76 and Divided D23 were also excellent choices as they are compensating in nature and in the class of lower contrast developers which was needed to get pictorial results with the natural high contrast of TP! With the above developers, you can even get beautiful, full scale negatives with Kodalith! Using D76 1:1 you can get acceptable results, shooting at 100asa but do a clip test for development. You might find that between 25-30% off the recommended times will be around where you will end up for decent results!

That's one of the differences with strobe manufacturers... My modeling lights are 250 watts and are plenty bright. See if you can get a brighter bulb from the manufacturer...

Hello K,

About my flower shot... if you look at it, the background isn't completely black... the lower right was lit with a small snoot to give slightly more dimension. As per how I hang something or prop it up... you do it ANY way you can make it stable. I have put things in the air with mono so thin that you cannot even see it. This particular shot was in a glass held in with a stone in the bottom of the glass. I positioned my 4x5 so that the glass and edge of the table top is just out of the frame. The rose was lit with a small softbox and positioned above and behind the rose, feathering the light towards the camera. The background is just black seamless paper. For the softness, I used my Imagon soft focus lens with the f8 disk.

Why don't you do something with flowers. I love doing this type stuff

in my spare time. Soft light, soft focus and B/W and you have this...<div></div>

I bought one made by Hoya, a 4X and overall it has the best edge to edge sharpness! Even the optics people at work agree. As I recall it was $65. 4X is really all you need and any higher your looking at the rin gs or grain in your ground glass. I bought it at WB Hunt's about 10 years ago so I don't know if they are available anymore but if you find one... they're great!

There are many tools for you to use... for every situation! A small softbox IS effective and you will see it in the softness of the "specular hilights" especially. You will also see the difference in the soft, gradually feathered tones your shadows will have. I'm not saying use a 20x30 softbox for on camera weddings... I have used the bounce cards (they work great when you have a low ceiling!), straight flash (when a bride gets nervous, her skin will get shiny and a straight flash will emphasize this) sure it lights the situation and if you like hard edged shadows... that's wonderful. I personally don't. Anna, I was giving you something to think about, yes. It has been my experience, having (tested first) tried and used many different light altering devices, I have come to love using my 12x16" softbox, on camera with stunning results and wonderfully soft light that gradually feathers off creating very soft shadows and highlights that have the same delicate look. For those of you who are talking diagonals and sizes larger than the subject... you all may want to test equipment again, in and out of a controlled studio...

Anna, I wouldn't recommend going out and buying a new piece of equipment for this wedding! Use and do what your already comfortable with. A wedding isn't the place to test new equipment. You will not find a "softbox" to fit your on camera flash (except the Stofens which will help a tiny bit...), softboxes, along with the equipment that they fit on are in a bit higher category, strobes that have changeable flash tubes and are a bit more powerful. In the previous postings, I was mearly giving you some ideas and I still say that walking around with a boom holding a large reflector would be a bit unweildy. Hoping that the driver would want to help is also a nice thought but personally I don't count on those things. Shooting weddings you'll find that your going to be going with soem "gut feelings" about being at the right place and shooting what feels good to your eye. As I said earlier... try to KISS (aka keep it simple) and good luck.