daniel_gregory

<p>Before I went out and got a different program, i would try out the HDR Toning in CS5. While I have used Photomatix for years, Adobe did a good job with the HDR Toning feature. The noise and edge artifacts are IMHO better that the current version of photomatix. You might be able to save yourself the cost of the plugin/stand alone app and be able to use the software you have to get the images you want. I beta tested CS5 and was very surprised at the quality, tonal range and lack of noise in the CS5 feature.<br>

That all being said, I have tried several of the programs mentioned and I settled on Photomatix because I thought the interface was the easiest for me to understand and I thought that it did a great job with building a tonal structure that worked with the images I was creating. Like you most of my HDR is for more traditional looking images, but when I wanted to create something more vivid and grungy I felt that the ease of use in Photomatix won out. I have the pro version. </p>

<p>Somewhere else to look is cabela's or orvis. They both have fly fishing bags that are padded the might work. I don't know if they have your exact size but I was able to find a case that works for my 8x10 lenses. They ones I looked at all came with shoulder straps as well.</p>

I haven't taken a workshop with Jack but he did let me interview him for about an hour for a

class assignment. He was a great resource and I found the experience to be one of the best

interviews I've had a chance to do. He was very upfront about his experience and I found the

information he provided me to really help me get some better direction and focus in my own

work. He conveyed a real sense of integrity about his work. Based on the interview I would

have no hesitation in taking a workshop from him.

One other option is a set of 4x or 5x reading glasses from a drugstore. I have a set that I use for both my 8x10 and 4x5 and I found them handy when I was making adjustments under the cloth.

I shoot my Efke at 12 for normal. Regardless of developer (I've tried Xtol (1:1, stock and 1:3),

D76, HC110, but not rodinal) I always found the shadow density to be a little low for my

taste. Once I added the stop it made enought of a difference that I could live with.

Here is a link to someone who is selling some hangers on ebay that have have holes on the

hangers.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodak-Film-processing-hangers-8-for-4x5-sheet-

film_W0QQitemZ260044926511QQihZ016QQcategoryZ29993QQcmdZViewItem

I had a similar issue. Where I first developed my film the hangers, some had holes on the face

of the hangers and others had the holes on the side/ends of the hangers. What i found was

tha the hangers with the holes on the face of the hangers would give odd agitation issues.

When I switched to the side only holes the issues went away. The hangers with the side holes

were made by Kodak, but I am sure their are others.

The 120 size doesn't have to do with mm. When kodak was first introducing cameras and

film, different cameras had different film sizes. Kodak developed a system of daylight spool

films with sequential numbers based on when they were introduced into production starting

with 101 and continued up through 130. The 120 film was originally for the No 2 Brownie

camera, which was the first camera to sell millions.

Where do they appear flat? Is it all over, hightlight, mid-tones?

 

You could try a split filter print and see if that helps. Also if you are on a condenser

enlarger you will see some compression in the tones in the 0-1.5 filters and a contrast

expansion in the upper filters. Maybe try printing on a higher grade than you normally

print. The highlights should remain protected and print well even with the higher contrast.

 

Gorden Hutchings also recommends buring with a 0 or 5 filter on VC paper to get the

good pyro effect in the print by creating more contrast in the areas of the negative that

tend towards flat.

If you are working with film those are not obsolete by any means. There are a variety of

film and developer combinations today that allow us to work from N+3 to N-7 in the zone

system. From what I seen of Ken's work much is in color. I would agree that for color the

most advanced meters are in the new digital cameras since with the exception of the F6

there has not been a lot of development in the film camera arena. However, for your film

work on 4x5 it will be hard to not get value from The Negative.

 

I think that if you don't know what really makes a good exposure much of your work is left

to chance. A digital image or Polaroid are great tools but not necessarily the best or only

good tools to help create an image. A digital camera does provide a ton of information,

but more information isnﾒt always good information. There are times when meters (digital

or analog) are wrong (backlighting, fog etc.) and knowing when to override the meter is an

important skill, if you are processing your own black and white film, you need to

compensate for changes in develop times and exposure based on the plus and minus

development times. I exposure and develop differently if it is N+3 or N-5. The processes

outlined in The Negative are far from obselete if you are developing black and white film.

Without them, we don't have any reliable way to deal with low and high contrast scenes.

 

I would argue that the High Dynamic Range features of digital in CS2 and in the D200 are

in response to photographers not understanding exposure or for people who understand

exposure and need to way to deal with digitals lack of ability to capture as many zones of

data in a single frame on film (speaking mostly of black and white here). The HDR process

gives black and white digital photographers a tool that opens the full zone system again.

But, this doesn't remove any of the knowledge or skills that Adams refers to in The

Negative. A good exposure is a good exposure.

 

Seeing light and knowing what you need to adjust exposure/development of film or

generate multiple digital shots to get the end image you want is really the end goal. I have

spent a long time with and the concepts in The Negative and they have been valuable in all

my photography (B/W, E6, Digital). I encourage any one to learn those concepts and if in

the end the digital camera is what works as a meter great, but you will have a foundation

for why that the right tool and how to maximize that tool.

 

Ansel's Moonrise was taken without a meter, it was based on his knowledge of expsoure,

EV ratings, development and the candle/foot power of the moon. He would have missed

the shot getting out two cameras for the metering and shooting.

I don't always prewash it depends on the film and developer. I pre-wash all my 8x10 stuff,

but in smaller formats, I only prewash if I am doing a pyro development or shooting Forte

film. The pryro exhaust to fast on the film, the prewash softens the emulsion to ensure even

development. My Forte film always requires a prewash or it seems to develop mineral stars

and other various issues, but Trix and Acros all seem fine without the prewash.

Mark, there is a good book that can help you get started and not walk in circles. Steve and

Bill break down the films and provide a good explanation of what each type of film does

and what it is primarily used for as well as its shortcomings.

 

The Film Developing Cookbook (Darkroom Cookbook) by Steve Anchell, Bill Troop

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0240802772/qid=1133886991/sr=8-2/

ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-2788482-6096164?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

 

There are two basic types of film: conventional and Tabular. TMax and Delta are examples

of tabular films. They have a different grain structure than conventional. The grains are

flatter and have a different response to light. They are not better or worse, but rather have

different applications. A lot of people don't like TMax, but I agree that it is knowing what

to do with with as a film is what matters. Don Kriby has shot a lot in TMax and I would say

that people who don't like TMax would be amazed at his work.

 

More than just film is developer choice (which is why I recommend the book). Each film

will respond differently in a developer and developer dilution combo. D76 stock and D76

1:3 produce different results on the same film.

 

As for my favorite films right now.

 

1. Efke 25 shoot at 12. It has on the straightest lines very little toe or shoulder. As a Zone

system shooter it just gives me more room to play.

 

2. TriX 320 shoot normally at 160. It is a classic that I like to shoot with good response to

lighting conditions and works well in a variety of developers.

 

3. Acros 100 shoot at 64 and do my N+3/3.5 work in it with Xtol straight at 75 degrees

for 7.5 mins. Does great when their is not a lot of difference in light or tonal range.

I have an RZ67 and I used the mamiya one until it broke about 2 months after I got it. Now I

just have two short cable releases that I picked up for a few dollars and just put the mirror

up on the body first and then fire the lens (on the RZ the lens wont depress until the Mirror is

up). It will be cheaper than the two cable mamiya

I dropped my RZ67 on a trip and took it to CameraTechs in Ballard on Market, next to the

movie theater. They will do a free estimate and test on the system. They had to repair the

lens camera release connection. The work was done fast and top quality work.

I work just like John mentioned and add a wrist roll to the very end with a slight tilt to the

tank and that also helps remove the last of the chemistry. When I first switched to stainless, I

often time noticed that the lid would catch some chemistry if I didn't drain with the tilt.

Maybe not exactly what you want, but www.dr5.com will process your black and white film as

a postive slide. You need to follow there steps and film types, but you get a postive on the

image. They will scan well, but you loose the printing in the darkroom.

I would second the Efke 25. It is a beautiful film. I rate it between 6-12 depending on +/-

development. My normal development is Xtol 1:3 for 8 mins at 20.0C.

I have done a bunch of film speed testing on Trix 120 rolls. At the 320 ASA speed, most of

my density testing put the film speed in the 100-200 range for N, N+, and N-

development times. The more exposure you can get on the film the more options you will

have in the darkroom to print the image. My speeds are what my developer, camera, lens

require to get the correct zone densities on the lower end of the scale. There is a lot of

testing that you can do to find the correct EI for your film (which can come from a film

speed test, experience etc.). My guess is that over time the german poster has found that

in his setup, 80 EI give him the correct shadow density to get the necessary data onto the

negative. Normally a zone III placement will render full details (actual required density is

different from 120/35 and sheet film and also affected by enlarger type), any less and that

area of the image lacks sufficent detail to render the shadow detail.

 

I would take a look at www.zonesystem.com they have a lot of good examples on film

speed etc as it relates to getting shawdow detail on the film. the value and importance of

film density which is what we are really taking about here is at http://

www.zonesystem.com/chapter5/a.html

 

Finally a true EI or film speed is almost never that of the MR ASA, this goes for color and b

and w. Shooting the MR ASA will normally underexpose your shots.