michael_oneill2

I knew the Diana made 4x4 images, but I didn't realize they were around in the 60s. According to Wikipedia, they were often given away as novelties. I wonder . . .

While "organizing" the chaos known as my photographs, I came across some peculiar negatives from the mid 1960s. The film itself is 120 or 620, but the frame size is 4.25 x 4.5 cm. I've searched extensively and the only camera from that era that I can find that took 4x4 was the Agfa Isoly, and I'm certain we did not have such a camera. To deepen the mystery, I was the person who took the photos, but none of the cameras that I had at my disposal could have taken these pictures. I'm all but certain that the only camera I was using at the time was a Yashica TLR, probably a Yashica-A. I know that Yashica made a 4x4 TLR but that was clearly not the camera that I had, as attested to by the numerous 120 6x6 negatives that I have from that time.

 

Any ideas?

Hopefully you've got this sorted out, but if not, one thing you could try is stand development. If you still have the problem, it's not an agitation issue.

Will this film expired 4-2008 always refrigerated produce acceptable results?

The answer is yes. 13 years is a blink of the eye for refrigerated BW film.

Well, isn't this interesting.

 

The article I read does not say whether the women were on public or private land. It would make some difference under general privacy principles, but in this case Nguyen was charged under a law that makes it a crime to take pictures of any person, anywhere, "without the person's consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." If that is indeed the text of the statute, it has nothing to do with privacy as such, but it is part of the trend among some communities in the U.S. to punish all things sexual. The law is also clearly unconstitutional.

 

That being said, challenging a law's constitutionality is not for the faint of heart. The local judge is sure not going to let "the little pervert" go free, constitution be damned. He may or may not get relief at the first appellate level, and he might have to go through two or three appeals to make his point.

When the film is loaded it is not positioned correctly -- the first "exposure" is actually 3/4 on the paper

leader and about 1/4 on film. As a result, I am only getting 14 exposures per roll.

 

I have this problem with three different backs. I am loading the film in accordance with the instructions in the

manual and there are no apparent problems in the process. I'm guessing there is a problem with the camera body,

but I'm wondering if I'm just missing something.

 

Thanks

 

Mike

Dennis, others have answered your questions about the lens. I just want to say nice work on getting that old shutter to freeze up and justifying a well deserved purchase of a new lens. If you could share with us how you did it, it would be greatly appreciated. One question -- will the shutter problem resolve itself shortly after you purchase the new lens?

Bleach, wine, soda pop, coffee?? I've used glass wine bottles in a pinch, but glass is non-reactive and easy to

clean. But plastic? How can you be sure there's no residue of its former contents?

The Cloisters and Fort Tyrone Park are a nice outing, and off the beaten path somewhat.

 

I always enjoy browsing exploring the dazzling variety of ethnic cultures represented in New York.

 

Best time to visit Wall Street would be like 6 am on Sunday. If you're interested in a "sea of humanity" shot, position yourself at Vesey and Church Street at 8:30 am. It's right next to ground zero, so you can do that at the same time.

 

The Irish Famine Memorial is down to the end of Vesey Street (toward the river), and you're likely to have the place all to yourself. From there it's a skip and a hop to Tribeca, -- watch out for the Tribeca nannies pushing toddlers in their hummer sized strollers. Next wander up West Broadway to SoHo and gawk at the beautiful people. Head east and find the vestiges of Little Italy, which has pretty much been overtaken by Chinatown.

 

Well, that's just for starters. What sort of stuff are you interested in anyway?

My mona lisa, taken with a really old large format camera, 18 x 24 cm.<div></div>

Enjoy your Iskra camera. I've been using mine for years, they're great cameras.

I'm still trying to figure out what the question means.

 

Clearly, the digital footprint is much larger than the film's, because there is just so much more of it. If the question is whether the footprint of an all digital photographic world would be greater than the footprint of an all film photographic world, then I don't think there is an answer, because I don't think that these are interchangeable things. Digital and film cameras do a lot of the same stuff, and for many people the former has simply replaced the latter, but that's like comparing autos and horses. Digital cameras have not just replaced film cameras, but they have radically changed the nature of photography, just as cars radically changed the nature of personal transportation.

 

I use both digital and film, but for different things. When I take a family vacation, I either leave the film at home or use it very sparingly. In the past, on a typical vacation, if I shot 15 rolls of 35mm film, that would be a lot. Today, I can take 2,000 pictures in a week with my digital. In the past, those 15 rolls ended up mainly as 3x4 prints. Today, I might have Adoramapix print 150 8x10s or larger.

 

On the other hand, when I drive 200 miles to shoot some pictures with my Swiss Arca, is the gasoline part of the film footprint? (By the way, I'm still trying to figure out where to put the batteries in the Arca.)

 

I suppose it's possible to observe some difference in the nature of the environmental impact as between the two, but since the tools change the nature of the work being done, it's really a pointless exercise.

To the original poster: as you can see, some like plastic, some like steel. The only way for you to know which you prefer is to try both. I hope you have the patience to get the knack of loading the steel rolls, because once you do, they are (in my opinion) far easier to use.

Hello Charles,

 

I used to print color in my home darkroom. I used a drum, which in my view is way better than trying to set up trays. The cost of the drum is probably less than the cost of the trays, you don't need very much space, you can do your work in the light, it's far less messy and it's much easier to control the temperature of your chemicals. To get started all you would need is a drum, chemicals and paper.

 

Having said that, II will admit that my experiences were probably closer to those of Tim Ho than Charles Wilson. It's a lot of drudgery and the results were often less than satisfactory. I did manage to make some fine prints, but at times it was exceedingly difficult to get the color filtration right. I never got the knack of viewing prints through filters, I suppose I just don't have the eye for it.

 

On the other hand, if you're anywhere close to a large city, you ought to see if you can rent a professional darkroom with an automatic processor. What a difference that equipment makes! The processor eliminates the drudgery. What's more, you can easily print 16 x 20 or larger if you're so inclined, which is out of reach for any but the most elaborate home darkroom. Once you've seen your pictures in big sizes, you'll never be quite satisfied with an 8 x 10.

 

I disagree with Tim Ho about using an inkjet printer. A low cost printer is fine for snapshots, so to speak, but they really won't give you prints to frame and display. I have had great success with Adoramapix, however. Their prices and quality is hard to beat (especially when they run sales, which is often), and I would not hesitate to use their services.

 

Finally, I disagree with you and others about processing your film. I process almost all of my own color film these days. I shoot 35mm, 120 and 4x5. To get the larger sizes processed is expensive and time consuming. Every lab I know of processes 35mm in a machine, and the rollers invariably leave marks on the film. These marks are typically not visible for prints up to 8x10, but they often show up when you scan the film. I do it myself. It's quick and easy once you get the hang of the process.

My guess is that it was not just one thing but a combination of two or more mistakes. The even spacing of the bands leads me to think it was something mechanical. The negative also shows signs of light getting in when it wasn't supposed to, but that wouldn't, by itself, show up in such a regular pattern, IMHO. You haven't told us what type of camera or what kind of reel you used.

I switched to steel and never looked back. I know some prefer the plastic. Some people eat tripe too.

I'm partial to XM radio, Deep Tracks, myself.

"Isn't 620 the same film as 120 just on a different spool?"

 

Yes

I've been using HP5+ in DD-X with good results in NYC lately. Obviously, there's a lot more to shoot in NYC than tall buildings against bright skies. You didn't say when you're coming, but overcast Autumn days provide some very good lighting, and with DST ending soon, early light moves up an hour, which is a good thing because it makes it easier to get in some shots before things get too crowded.

Some guy on e-**y is selling 10 roll lots of 120 ORWO for $100.00 USD. Seems awfully expensive for repackaged and probably outdated Ilford film. I guess he's trying to pass it off as some kind of rare or vintage item.

I just bought off evil bay a zone system calculator wheel. It's identical to

that described in an article written years ago in Darkroom Techniques and

available online. www.largeformatphotography.info/articles/ZoneDial.pdf

 

On one band of the wheel are exposure values, which can be adjusted to

correspond to zones, and on another band are f/stops and shutter speeds.

 

Now here's my stupid question. Let's say the reading of part of my scene that I

want to put in zone 5 is an EV of 12. According to my wheel, that's an exposure

of f16 at 1/15 second. But how is that calculated independently of the film speed?

 

Obviously I'm missing something here.

Here is the Iskra shot

I was out shooting a building yesterday with my Bronica ETRSi and the

aforementioned zoom lens. I happened to have an old Iskra folder with me, and I

decided to take a few shots before I left.

 

 

<br><br>

 

I processed the Iskra roll first, and I was really pleased with the sharpness of

the images. I thought to myself "can't wait to see the bronica shots." When I

processed the Bronica roll, however, I was disappointed. The Iskra images were

much sharper, to my eye, not even close. And I used a tripod with the Bronica

and the Iskra was handheld!

<br>

<br>

See for yourself. The Iskra images were shot with HP5 developed in DD-X. The

Bronica Fomapan 100 developed in Rodinal.

 

<br>

<br>

 

larger images are in the "misc" folder in my gallery.

Well, I guess the title of this thread can now officially be changed to "I am a dope." I "developed" the film in photo-flo, not developer. But we learned something, that photo-flo is absolutely worthless as a developer. Thanks for all the good and quick answers.

<i>"Photo-Flo is just detergent; it seems unlikely that you'd get completely clear negatives if the developer were contaminated with "residual" from your measuring cup. Completely clear negatives, without even the frame markings, indicates that no development whatsoever took place. This means either 100% exhausted developer, or no developer at all, prior to fixing."</i><br><br>

 

I'm beginning to wonder if I mixed photo-flow instead of developer. They're both Kodak bottles and I could have grabbed it quickly without paying too much attention. That would explain all the sudsy bubbles and the complete lack of development. I'll have to check this out when I get back home...