grain

Draw a square, take the left vertical side and using the bottom corner as the focus of a

compass, draw an arc down and to the right until the arcs end is on the level of the squares'

bottom side. Now extend the rectangle out to this long dimention and you have what's

called a golden rectangle or 'the golden mean'. It measures 24X38.9. It is often illustrated

with a spiral through the concentric rectangles as a device to inspire awe in numerologists.

But really it was just an industry standard for renaissance composition. I don't actuall y see

one as better than the other though. It depends greatly on the subject.

Great idea. I thought of doing it in a pinch but it seems like you have it worked out. The last

detail is the color balance, which is tough. to mimic a 5000k/5200k lightsource you might

have to push the cyan up some (or reduce the yellow and magenta channels). Give it a try. If

it works well post the numbers you used and the model notebook so others can do it too!

I've seen in various searches in e-bay holders for glass plates that are the right width, but

are usually in rough shape. they're wooden, and crack easily + are prone to leaks. I have slid

an average RC paper into standard film holders, but in order to use sheet metal you'd

deform it trying to slip it past the guides. Basically I'd suggest if you're hardcore enough to

want to make your own "tintypes" (ambro/ferro-type) you may want to build your own

holder. I use black through dyed matt board and/or foam board when projects like this are

needed. Good luck, a.

I don't print from digital (have two Omega D2 4X5's) so the most the scanner will be asked

to do is store stock images for on line or desktop publishing. Any larger prints from color

chromes I will take to a a local pro lab. Got the aforementioned HP scanner for much less

than I had thought possible. Thanks again.

Hello again,

I'm in the market for my first scanner, moving some of my thousands of analog images into the digital

world. A flatbed scanner with film capability. I've looked at Epson Perfection models, and at an HP 4890,

which a fellow photographer has and enjoys, but I don't find the kind of information I can rely on from

reviews on Amazon or Circuit City. Mostly whining about how this or that model doesn't like to work with

Mac OS, which is a user issue: I use Mac myself and I'll figure out the bugs. But I'm looking to spend

about $200, and be able to scan from chromes/negs in any size up to 4X5, but would settle for a model

that would do 120 in various aspect ratios.

To keep things fairly simple, please list a model you like, the main reason why, and/or one that you hate,

and the main reason why.

I really appreciate it folks, thanks.

Alexander.

I have had issues in past with rodinal that has gone brown in the bottle, and was really hard

to control. I think it's a PQ formula so gets unstable after a while. If it's brown, flush it down

and use fresh. Also, 68 degrees, yes? Agitation two/three gentle turns per 30+ sec.? Good

luck.

...case in point:

I have been unimpressed by Ms. L's work since her expensive and badly done book on

Olympic swimmers. So it slants my view a bit, but trying to be objective I'll say I would

never

have used a wide angle to portray a woman of stature, it makes her look small and

overcome by the surroundings, as does the decision to place her in the lower right

quadrant of the image. The posture and body language in the moment is resigned

and passive, rather than noble and forceful, or in any way 'in charge'. The detachment is

reenforced by the direction HRH is looking, out the window at the grey sky and dead trees.

I remain unimpressed.

Found out too late? Have Crown Graphic, i.r. flashbulbs and the opaque filter. I've always

wanted to try pulling off a movei theater interior shot.

Let me know, A.

The superest of super gloss is ferrotyping a fiber based print, could A&I be talking about

this? It would be pricey, but the depth is like looking into water, really striking.

Sorry I couldn't resist. Whenever I hear the tortures that windows folks go through just to do

simple things I have to at least suggest they join me in happiness and get a used mac and

dedicate it to all photo things.

Or not, but I am a convert.

http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html

click on Tech Support II, incredibly funny even if your a liberal.

It seems you folks thought of what I thought of. I'm inclined to measure a new plate and use

the 75mm Cassar I have. It should allow the body to close...maybe. Will post result

eventually. Regards, A.

I have a Certotrop 6X9 plate camera with a 120 roll back, which has two lenses. They're interchangeable

by twisting a cam above the lens front and then firmly pushing up then out. I have a xenar 120mm and a

tessar 105mm.

The front has quite a lot of rise and shift. These two cover without vignetting. Does anyone know of any

wider lenses made for this camera? I can adapt any Compur shutter to fit using a milled plate myself, but

if there's one designed for it that will cover I'd rather have it.

Thanks, Alexander.

I once found an autographic at a flea market. The last owner had somehow managed to

put the front cartridge into the case backwards, thus jamming it tightly shut. There was a

roll of film inside, which had been there since that fateful day. When I put the curly film

gently through rodinal, see-saw style in a tray, it yeilded photo's of a new england farm

house, and a proud old man standing at the porch. The image was wierdly changed due to

silver migration, but not badly fogged. I used sodium benzoate to supress the age fog.

The age of the camera, and the film, put it sometime in the 1915 to 1920 area. the man in

the photo was at least eighty. It made me wish I could ask him about his days in the union

army, back in '62.

Well whatever's been said, Ilfosol is awful, as much as I like ilford. D-76 would be best, even

at stock strength.

I have several packets that are at least four years old, last time I used one was over a year

ago and it was okay.

As you mix chemistry from distilled water into amber glass bottles, label them clearly and

use a sharpie to mark off each roll put through it. Then top off the bottles when done with

more distilled water and follow the mfg's. reccommendations for # of rolls until exhaustion.

Once the # is reached make a new batch, the amount of water diluting the chemistry when

topping won't appreciably change the development time. Consistant habits make good

results. I haven't botched a roll in ten years due to bad chemistry. When in doubt, throw it

out. That goes for paper too.

...a couple drops in the developer will supress fog and help contrast. Solutions avail at

compound phamacies. I think it's about a 20%. solution.

...In the shoes of the lab person who had three rolls with two different times of

development, if they were all put in at once the slower film would be okay, but not the

faster film. Sounds like they cut corners. In the good old days we could use a uranium

intensifier and be just fine, but that's now banned so we poor photog's won't hurt

ourselves.

I'm tired of places calling themselves 'professional'. Did they grad from NESOP or RISD?

It's usually a MUCH better idea to teach yourself to develop your own film the way YOU like

it to look. Invest maybe $70 in a tank and spiral reel, thermometer, 500ml Graduate, and

some distilled H2O for mixing the developer/fixer with. Use vinegar as a stop and some

photo flow to rinse and you're there. Better results and better experience.

My $.02