tim_curry

Jon,

I've been using a different pryo developer (PMK), but from what I've read, HP5 has a tendency to "pile up on the shoulder" more than some films which are a bit slower (or is it Tri-x). I have the same problem with landscapes in flat light. I've found about an extra stop in development works well for me in these conditions, as it tends to give more life to the image and reduces the need for higher contrast papers.

 

My direction has been in slower films, mainly Efke 25 this last year while I'm learning some B&W basics. While shooting at asa 12 does present limits on wind and light, this film can be developed for better highlights by simply extending times without problems. Try a slower film with better latitude in development (J&C 200, Efke 100, etc.) and see if you have better luck. The older style thick emulsion films have a little bit more leeway in these conditions.

 

Sajjad,

You may find getting the bulk chemicals and mixing your own solutions is the way to go. Find the formula on a web site to begin. If you have access to a highschool or junior college lab, a scale, some beakers and dry chemicals, it is pretty easy to mix what you need. It is certainly cheaper in the long run to do it yourself. If not, Artcraft or Photographer's Formulary can usually mix anything you may need.

Chris,

 

I've used Fuji's NPS 160 in 4x5. I ran it at 160, hand held, for a parade on St. Patrick's day and was very pleased with the results. Very smooth and decent colors considering I'm used to transparency film. It is available in 8x10 as well. I was able to get good prints without a tripod, so setting up would certainly give good prints for enlargement in 8x10 format.

 

Haven't used Great Yellow Father's 400vc, but you might try it with the larger format and compare it to the 160 to see if there's enough there for a decent print.

 

Just how big are you planning on going? tim

It sounds like you are headed into the world of B&W now, so why wait? Processing film is so simple, you would have a good selection of film & developer combinations for your work with a minimum of time and money. There is nothing like looking at your first processing of a roll of film to realize that a lab will never be able to meet your needs. Take a look at http://www.unblinkingeye.com/ and see what you are missing! A list of films and developers is there for your inspection, along with times and lots of information.

 

Try Tri-x or HP5 for street photography and see how the labs do with it. They have seen it for a while, so results should be good. You can do much better at home than most labs.

This may work well for your needs, but I would be concerned with only 3/8" of travel on the darkslide. You may have light bouncing between the slide and film plane. It might be better to use a larger increment, say 3/4" or 1", to make sure you don't get too much light bleeding from the edge.

You can buy regular washing machine hoses at appliance stores, hardware stores, etc. They are capable of holding hot and cold water under pressure. If you set your darkroom sink above normal counter heighth (36"0 a gravity flow from this sink into the other will work well.

I have yet to see a pyro developer reach a film manufacturer's rated speed. With Efke 25 I'm at asa 12, FP4+ at asa 64, J&C 200 at 100. I don't know of anyone who is regularly getting more with Pyrogallic acid based developers, be it PMK, ABC or another formula.

 

Anyone else running at the film's rated speed, and if so, which formula are you using?

The only thing you may notice in the Shen Hao is that the "0" mark on the front standard (rise/fall scale) will not index the same for the three different lens boards. This shouldn't be too much of an issue, unles you have a lens with marginal coverage and don't check the corners of the ground glass after composing. As long as you are aware of the difference, you can certainly compensate before exposure. There is plenty of rise & fall for most lenses on the Shen Hao.

If you are going to buy a light meter, it would be helpful if you know what type of photography you plan on doing. Color or black & white? Landscapes or people? Studio or architecture? The reason I ask is that there are many types available, but a less expensive one will work well if you use it with a gray card. Almost all of them meter from an 18% gray scale value (or zone 5), even if you are shooting color. If you buy a simple reflective meter, the Gossen Scout meter and a gray card will work well and give good results in most cases. B&H sells a Scout 3 model for $67, but there are less expensive ones available.

 

If you need to use a 35mm camera, it will be fine until you can get the meter you want. As was stated before, set the film speed, meter from a gray card or the scene, set your shutter speed and aperture and take the shot. If you have done this correctly, you will have a good picture. Remember, not that many years ago there weren't any light meters to use. Photographers had to learn from experience what worked and just do what they found to be good.

In the southwestern U.S. we have very hard water (Tucson is reputed to be the kidney stone capitol of the U.S.). At a local "water store" here distilled water is going for $0.30 per gallon if you bring your own container. I use distilled for mixing chemistry and final rinse. For stop bath, washing, etc. I just use tap water, especially since the tap water is now finally below 94f.

 

The biggest problem you could have from tap water is a variation in development times when using OTHER PEOPLE'S TIMES from tables you find. Once you have done film tests with your own darkroom, the main concern is just to use the same chemistry, thermometer, stop, fix, etc. Consistency of technique is more of a concern at that point than water.

Check the basics. It sounds like you have the front or rear standard rotated slightly out of the "0" position. If there were a vibration from the road, it would be apparent in a "soft" image across the film, not in one small area of the shot. Another problem could be an inproperly loaded film holder into the back of the camera. If it isn't seated properly, there wouldn't necessarily be a light leak at dusk or later in the evening.

 

In any event, take two shots and are both out of focus the same and in the same area? Only at night or at dusk sounds like a focusing issue.

I saw a fascinating video of Beaumont Newhall this past week here at the Center for Creative Photography in honor of the current Weston / Mather exhibit. This video was from 1990, three years prior to Newhall's death, and was a fairly comprehensive look at Weston's work over his lifetime. It was a lecture, with slides taken by Newhall and prints from the 1990 Weston exhibit at the CCP.

 

For those interested, the CCP here in Tucson has a series of videos of Weston's work, Newhall, Adams and a few more. They were filmed in the auditorium and other places (one was of Newhall's 75th birthday with Adams in attendance at Point Lobos) but are not high quality video. They retain a sense of the work done by some of the recent great photographers and their lives. Admission is free and the library has thousands of negatives by Weston, Adams, etc. It is worth a visit if anyone ever comes to Tucson and has a little time to look around. Located on the University of Arizona campus.

 

P.S. Winter is the best time to visit, summer gets hot.

I have a friend who is shooting from his "old stock" of Velvia 4x5 from the early 90's. He has kept it refrigerated in storage and there is no perceptible color shift or problems. I'm using some 8x10 transarency from 1995, no problem but cold stored as well. Best guess is that film kept in cold storage is good unless there have been other considerations which affect fogging (x-rays, hot storage for a period of time and then back in the fridge, etc.)

 

I found a box of 8x10 Tri-x from 1968 which was so fogged I couldn't get enough contrast with it earlier this year. Trouble is, it was stored here in Tucson on a shelf in the heat for a number (?) of years. B&W film keeps better than color, but not in the heat.

 

I think the main trouble with fogged film is excessive heat (and maybe humidity) due to improper storage. Just store your film in the fridge and don't worry about it.

Kyle,

 

I use an old Yankee Agitank with PMK pyro and have had good results with it. The only trouble I ever had was when trying to pour in the developer with film in place and lights on. I found that I would sometimes get some wavy lines of uneven development because this pouring through the fill opening takes a bit of time. I have since started filling the tank, then dropping in film and turning on the lights to finish the cycles.

 

Even with PMK, which can be a problem with uneven stain or development, this tank works extremely well. For those who say you can't do different times for plus and minus development, just plan on running batches of varying times. 12 sheets of film will be done with the volume available in this tank. If you need plus development, just have a batch of film that you mark at time of exposure with post-it notes on the holders (as you would any way) and run the time you need.

Knowing what I do about Michael & Paula, I find it hard to believe that they need to resort to hawking small items on this forum to turn a profit. Anyone who has had a CNC part made will recognize the amount of time and money which is spent to develop a part. To see the sniping which is rampant on this thread is laughable. Michael and Paula have selflessly given of their time, experience, formulas, printing techniques and information and asked nothing in return. Their commitment to large format photography, Azo printing and the photographic community at large has been monumental.

 

I would like to offer my apologies for those who, by virtue of their limited growth and pettiness, have sought to (unsuccesfully) sully and belittle a class act. Fooey on you, I bite my thumb at thee.

 

P.S. Please flame me off list, as I gird my loins with nomex.

A good rule of thumb is to use a slightly larger focal length than is "normal" for a given format, if possible. For example, I use a 75mm lens for enlarging 35mm film, although a 50mm is considered normal in this application. I use a 135mm Rodenstock lens as a "normal" lens for 4x5 enlargements, but I use a 190mm lens for bigger enlargements.

 

With that 8x10 beast, there will be a point at which you run out of bellows draw which will limit your lens focal length. I would start by looking at your maximum bellows draw and then work backwards from that point. A 600mm lens might be just dandy, but not if you run out of bellows before focusing is possible.

After recently starting in on 8X10, I would have to second the business about hyperfocal distances. At this point, the only 8X10 lens I have is a 300mm Symmar-S. Unless you have very long legs or an extremely short focal length lens, the 8X10 format does take a bit of getting used to. Depth of field will be more of an issue than you might first expect.

 

I've taken to looking for lofty perches that are solid. Trees are just too difficult to set up in with a tripod. No wonder Adams had a platform on his car. No other way to get decent focus with shots requiring verticality and depth of field.

Hi Marc,

 

You can have both, sharp and no grain! In 35mm try Efke 25 @ asa 12 (from JandC Photo). Develop in PMK pyro for 7:00 at 70f. Use distilled water, agitate every 15 seconds, water stop, TF4 fix for 5:00.

 

I have used this combination for a portrait with good results. Although it was a cropped 35mm shot, at 8X10 it was still smooth and showed no sign of grain. It should work especially well with a white subject and studio lighting. Hopefully you can use a dark background to show off the crisp edges. The Efke 25 is a very contrasty film. PMK will hold detail, even in the whites. The edges will be clearly delineated.

 

You may not have enough time to try this combination for your project, but at some point it may be worth the effort.

The round lens shade is the reason you have corners showing up as they do. Certainly the lens is round, but the film format is rectangular. This is why I used a stiff length of wire at the front edge on the cardboard shade I made. It allows for square corners to match the film format. I'm sure there are simple lens shades out there, anyone have a quick and dirty lens shade that works out there?

Hi Eliseo,

 

I'm still looking for a lens shade for my 8X10, but so far they are very expensive. I use a 300mm Symmar-S and it too has the 105mm front element. What I have done for now is to use a strip of corrugated cardboard, the kind they use for shipping parts that are round, because it can be rolled into a tube of any size. It does not cost anything at a shipping store because they have large rolls of the stuff.

 

I cut a strip about 8cm X 35cm and rolled it into a tube that just fits over the lens, but not too tight. Next took a scrap of black cloth from the dark cloth I made, wide enough and long enough to cover the inside and fold around the front and back edge of the cardboard, fastened with gaffer's tape. I made sure this tube would still fit on the lens and slide back and forth with the extra thickness of cloth. Finally, a strip of stiff wire was bent into a rectangle (like the 4x5 or 8x10 format) which would just fit inside the front edge of the shade. I used gaffer's tape (5cm wide black tape) to hold the wire frame in place. If the tube is round, the corners will be cut off of the picture, so the front must be a rectangle to work best.

 

It does not look like a "normal" shade, but for now I have one that works until I can find one I can afford. It is very light, can be turned, slid in and out and blocks the light when I need it to. This is not the best solution, but if you need something temporary that works, this can do the job without costing anything but a little time after work one night.

 

Canham makes an excellent lens hood, very nice.

Not to muddy the waters, but there are other options to start out for less money. The drum base is not always necessary for even development. A tray with one sheet of film is still a good way to get a "perfectly developed" negative. I use an old Yankee Agitank (about $35 new still, I think) with PMK pyro developer and have had no problems. PMK is known to be rather difficult due to uneven staining of the film, streaking or just plain a P.I.T.A. by some. The tank works very well for me, but I have to be consistent with all variables to get good results.

 

I was told by a "pro" that it was not possible to get even results with a tank, but I'm glad I didn't listen. The drum is fast, efficient, consistent and works very well. It also costs more than some other methods.

Look at michael smith & paula chamlee's web site. There is a very good amount of information on contact printing using Azo paper and Amidol developer. This is an old process from the turn of the (last) century which is still a good way to get prints. It is much cheaper than platinum and has a long tonal scale.

The higher values are where the stain is most pronounced, as well as the "thickest" part of the film with respect to silver deposits anyway. PMK acts like another layer masking the grain, it is there, just hard to see.

 

At the lower values, grain is almost gone on a "normal" thin negative. I have one with lots of shadow detail which I almost didn't print because there just isn't anything to see on the film. It prints well at grade 3 and there is an amazing amount of detail in the shadows, it just doesn't seem possible until it is printed.

 

In the middle, there is less stain and full values for grain. If you are going to see grain at all, it is in the mid tones. Try some of the Efke 25 and try to find some grain in the mid tones, sorry, just not there without extreme enlargement.

Depends on who takes the shot and then who looks at it. To be art, it must make a large leap ahead of most others works and then stand the test of time. tim

Ted,

 

I can only speak about the rather narrow use of Efke 25 and PMK pyro developer. I am using the data from the Book Of Pyro and have found for my film & developer combination that a 4% change in time is accurate from 70f to 80f for each degree of temperature change.

 

Adams in one of his books (maybe the negative?) gives 30% as a starting point for increased / decreased time when doing zone system expansion & contraction, but testing is necessary.

 

Write me off line if you have any specific questions about my use of this film / developer combination.

Hi Annie,

 

I just did the numbers and I think you will have 2.25 times the light fall-off with a 110 lens from the center to the corner, or just slightly over one stop (1 1/8 stops) as was already mentioned. If you use some movement, there will be more in one direction due to the distance (offset) of the axis of the lens. A center filter will work, but will result in slower shutter speeds when taking the shot.

 

I guess you should decide between a center filter or some extra time in printing for every image you would make if you decide to use the 110 lens. If money is no object, the 110 with a center filter would certainly be the way to go for super wide in 7x11. I'm not so sure I would want to spend that kind of time in printing without the filter if it were me.