bj_bignell

Disclaimer: I'm not a mathematician.

First off, his calculation is stated incorrectly: It should read D=sqrt(F/750), the inversive being F=D*D*750. This is based on emperical measurements by Chris Patton to determine an "optimum" pinhole size and focal length pair. See his page here: http://www.stanford.edu/~cpatton/pinholemath.htm

Take a good read of that page. It appears that Mr Vilva is mis-stating the information presented there.

He states in his page about the Zeiss folder that "In theory, the resolution is only about 0.58 times the resolution of a Zero 2000.", but where does he get this value from? The Zero 2000, with F=25mm and a film format of 6x6, is also not at the 'optimum' focal length for the format (42mm). The relative apertures of the two cameras produce this ratio (138/240=0.58, or 58%), but that seems hokey. This ratio should probably not be used to indicate the expected relative quality of the camera, but if his ideal aperture is 138 on 6x6 (based on his statements regarding the Z2000), it may be useful to himself. Your mileage may vary.

Finally, his statement about "lines/negative width" is a little bit cryptic, and perhaps misleading. By increasing the negative size to 95mm, you would decrease the *effective* focal length, but you don't decrease the *physical* focal length, so you don't change the aperture (aperture=F/D). You get a wider angle of view, and therefore more information on the negative, from the same pinhole, but it's still an aperture of 240, with all of the diffraction that goes with it.

Despite all of this, his pictures are good, and it's very interesting to see in the detailed scans that there are details on the negatives that are actually smaller than the aperture, which AFAIK shouldn't actually happen.

Thanks for the link, and a chance to exercise my brain a little bit! If anyone finds that I'm incorrect in any way, please let me know. I welcome the opportunity to learn.

For Type 85 on the road: Carry ziploc baggies and a small bottle (200mL would probably go a long way) of solution in your bag. When you pull out the shot, let the print develop, strip it off, and drop the neg in the baggie. Pour a little solution in, zip it closed, and swish around. Toss it when finished. Less than ideal, but it's the only option if you want to (a) use Type 85 while out-and-about, and (b) preserve the negative.

BJ

I would recommend it. I've done a few shots with Type 85 in my pinhole camera, and the few properly exposed positives I got were very nice. This film is sharp, and the tones in the positives are wonderful. I haven't tried printing any of the negatives yet.

I uploaded one sample of a p/n pair at the end of this other thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C5iT

Not an ideal presentation from the flatbed scanner, but it works. The burned out sky in the print contains tons of delicate detail in the negative.

Make sure to read the PDF from Polaroid about using this film. You can't make a good positive and a good negative at the same time, the prints need to be coated (if you're keeping them), and the film needs to be cleared in a sodium sulfite solution.

Have fun!

Bake it.

Set the oven to broil, make sure the lens is pointing up, and put it in there for 30-second bursts, until it's "just right".

You're going to get the standard answer (Tri-X), and a lot of opinions on this. Really, there aren't that many common 400 films out there: Tri-X, HP5+, Delta 400, APX, and the chromogenics.

Why not just grab one, use it, and if you don't like the look of it, try the next? Or, shoot all of the different films in one shot, and see which one looks best dev'ed by your lab?

Very nice work. I like the colour picture of the church in Dalum. Nice picture, interesting building.

This work reminds me of an unstarted photo project... Time to get out there and get shooting!

Sam,

Whatcha got against the Yashica A? Anything particular that you don't like, or is it just a "feel"? Mine has been excellent, although I must admit I haven't run any colour throught it yet...

BJ

You can find a lot of good stuff in "antique malls", as opposed to actual antique stores. I don't know if Calgary has any, but in Edmonton we have two. The mall staff manages the entire place, but the stalls are independently stocked and priced; usually no haggling is accepted.

I bought a beautiful, like-new Zorki 4 and Jupiter 8 for $12 once. It lasted me about two months, and then I broke the shutter... :(

The brand or type of stop bath and fixer don't matter nearly much as the developer does, as long as they are used correctly. Almost all dev/stop/fixer combinations work well together; there may be exceptions. Also, plain water can be used in place of a stop bath (some people may disagree).

For developing the Ilford films, an excellent overall developer is DD-X.

Can I be your assistant? I'll work for free, and I'll handle all the bad stuff like lap dances and getting fed by cute bridsemaids.

At least you can look back and laugh. You're probably the best pitcher man they've ever met!

David Talmage: I believe you're the guy who's supposed to get Hal right before me! A-ha, it all falls into place...

If Hal's already left for Texas, let's make sure that David gets the camera next, and then please send Hal up to Edmonton; it's getting real nice around here these days. I'll bet Hal would like to go shopping in the world's largest indoor shopping center: http://www.wem.ca/about/default.asp

CE,

I had sent a message to Andrea a while back, and received an email from a David who was supposed to be in the chain, but we weren't keeping a strict list anywhere and everything seems to have fallen apart.

If no-one claims Hal after Andrew, I'll take him/her/it.

BJ

Andrew,

Your pictures are all technically excellent, and the girls are all very pretty. You've done a good job of grabbing some nice pictures of people out and about, doing what people do.

However, from your introduction, I was also expecting to see more about the festival itself, and from those pictures I couldn't infer much meaning of what the festival was actually about. I find myself asking: Was there a main stage? What are we celebrating? What brought all of these people together?

If you have some more shots showing the crowds, pictures that help to define the 'why', it would really help tell the story.

BJ

It is listed here as having radioactive elements:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/cameralens.htm

One thing you haven't mentioned: Why don't you want to trust these to a lab? If you're afraid they'll lose part of it, take the film in groups of 5, 10, or 20, and when they return them successfully, take the next batch. If you're concerned about the chemistry they use, talk to them. For a large order, they may be able to accomodate you. Any competent pro lab would be thrilled to get a 150 roll order, they'd want to make sure it was done right, and would probably offer a good discount, too.

If you still want to do it yourself (and since it sounds like you've never done this before) my advice would be to get another 20 rolls of Tri-X, shoot them off under varying conditions, and then practice on these. Get comfortable with the process first. You don't want to be learning on any negatives that:

a) you can't ever reproduce, or

b) you can't afford to go reproduce.

I've never used a Jobo, but I've heard that there may be differences in the results due to the consistent agitation (I don't know how much difference, or if it's even noticeable). I would do it by hand, in a five- or eight-roll tank.

At five rolls at a time, you're looking at 30 sets, each set taking ~15m plus rinsing, drying, hanging, cataloging, scanning/printing, and storage. This gets worse if you've got different development times, too... I'm not trying to discourage you from doing it yourself, but I do hope you have a bit of spare time on your hands!

Good luck,

BJ

My record is about 1-3-1. I've successfully disassembled and cleaned a LTM 13.5cm lens, but destroyed a small P&S with a stiff lens assembly. I've had bad luck with some little Oly rangefinders, too, but they were already completely broken.

I'm currently at a draw with my ZI Contessa LKE; she's got the upper hand right now, but not for long... not for long.

I have a 100% spring/screw/tiny part recovery rate so far, on carpet, throw rugs, linoleum, and even concrete (OK, it was motorcycle parts on the concrete, but those little brass springs disappear quickly on a ~4000 sq ft floor). Sometimes dinner gets cold while I'm down on the floor looking for those damned grub screws, or tiny springs, but I refuse to lose them!

10:38 is awesome.

10:35 & :36 are great, too. Looks like the guy is using a Kodak disposable camera...

Whoa! On that last picture, you've got a bit of that "swirly bokeh", or "vertigo bokeh" (see here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C8W8). I LOVE that effect. One day, I'll own a camera/lens (like a Noctilux or one of those Bolsey B3 units) that does that, and I'll never use another camera again...

Craig, please keep shooting and inspiring us all.

I finally got around to doing these negs, and I chickened out on trying the 1+9 dilution. I did 1+4 for 18m, with very gentle agitation. Everything turned out fine (see attached picture).

If I have time some day I'll do a test roll with 1+9.

Nice pics, CE. Looks like a nice sharp lens on the Lynx. You're lucky to have a willing model, too. My boss-lady rarely lets me take her picture...

If you think it's tough scanning slides on your 3170, I'll send you my 1260 and you can give it a try. There isn't a curse word that I haven't thrown at that piece of crap! The scans are always tinted red, and anything at the darker end is covered in red noise. I swear this scanner has a DMax of about 1.0 at best.

On the plus side, I did find a free downloadable Vuescan profile for Provia (which is my go-to colour film for everything), which has helped some.

BJ