bj_bignell

They look pretty good, even if they are just web scans!

 

Where's that statue at?

Your website is a good start, simple and attractive. Feels casual and friendly. I liked the Portrait Ideas section, showing alternatives.

 

I don't like that the links for the Children and Families galleries are dead; very discouraging and has an unprofessional appearance. No link is better than a dead link. Also, it'd be nice to have each thumbnail for each Gallery clickable, as well as having the text link below.

 

And a simple correction: It should be "FAQ", not "FAQ's". FAQ is an abbreviation for Frequently Asked Questions, which already contains the plural. Even it it was plural, it'd be "FAQs" without the apostrophe. The apostrophe is possesive, or used in abbreviations, but never plural.

 

The Grammar Police strike again! :D Save this link for future reference: http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

They're talking about CE's boss-lady: http://www.photo.net/photo/3206953

 

CE: Ifn I was you, I'd a done sure she couldn't a run-oft in the first place! ;)

Using standard air parcel service from the US, mean time for delivery to Canada seems to be about five weeks. The last package I received took over six weeks. That was the straw that broke the camel's back; from now on, it's express delivery with guaranteed delivery times for me. I can't stand the waiting!

3m @ 20C? Stout indeed! Needs a water pre-soak first, I guess...

Arthur,<br><br>

I would try using a Brita jug, or a faucet-mount filter, before starting to buy water. They can be had for relatively low prices, although the UK Brita site doesn't list the faucet-mount systems. Something like <a target=_blank href=http://www.brita.com/products/faucets.shtml>this device</a> or <a target=_blank href=http://www.brita.co.uk/action/products/jugs/product?which=Optimax>this jug</a>.

Also, have you tried using Kodak Photo-Flo? It's very economical (I'm using it at about 1:600), and it was the end of drying marks for me.<br><br>BJ

I love that swirly, Noctilux-style bokeh... I need to find a Bosley, or a similar old beater, to get me some of that.

<div></div>

Good stuff, Sam! About a year ago I modified an old Polaroid Land Camera II by cutting the front off (shutter, batter holder, etc) with a knife. I then closed the front with thin cardboard, and used the thin aluminum from a tea candle as my pinhole plate.

 

I used to use a lot of Type 88 color film, but it tended to shift cyan over long exposures. I recently started using Type 85 (ISO 80) positive/negative B&W film. I have attached a scan of one p/n pair here; the print is burned out, but in the negative there is still excellent highlight detail.

 

I don't have any self portraits yet... It's early here, and cloudy, so if I tried I'd be really late for work by time the exposure was done. :)<div></div>

It's pretty good, but I would suggest that it's not blue enough. I remember watching a Clint Eastwood movie (probably "For a Few Dollars More"), and there were some 'moonlight' scenes that really looked just like underexposed film with a blue filter. Maybe try adding some very light blue filtration, or adjusting this after scanning.

 

Now I'm tempted to try... Fun stuff!

One of my dream shooting venues will be coming true this year: All of Europe! I'll be taking a loooooooooooong vacation, and will hopefully cover the following places: British Isles, Ireland, France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Rep, Baltic nations, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland, and then maybe Hungary, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Portugal. I've probably missed some...

 

My other dream location would be south-east Asia (China, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan, Taiwan, etc).

Using the f/Calc program (http://www.tangentsoft.net), a subject distance of 4m and an aperture of 22 would get you ~3.5 - 4.6m as your DoF range. This will probably force you to use a tripod, or an ISO400 film.

Beautiful pictures. I love #8 and #9. #1 would be greatly improved (in my humble opinion) by cropping out all of the background people at the top. #6 is fun, too. I'll have to remember to do "a picture of me taking a picture" when Hal gets here.

Bueh: Who'd you send it to? I know I'm expecting it from a guy named David, and CE has to be in there somewhere... AFAIK, I'm at the end of the list. If that's true, I'll put out a call to anyone here in Canada who'd like to have a go with Hal.

Monkey,

 

Not only do they bite, but the sows will sometimes clamp down on you and not let go. They have incredibly strong jaws, and it's a good way to get a broken wrist or hand.

 

You're lucky you only got a bruise!

 

BJ

J&C (www.jandcphoto.com) has 35mm 36-exp rolls in stock, but no 120. According to their website, it's being produced by Maco.

Canmore is short drive from Banff; I think it's just outside the park boundary. There are many nice places to stay for much less. Also, it's less "touristy", and more "local". Friends tell me that the Drake in Canmore is a good place to party.

Rising above expectations: My Agfa Ventura 66 & 69 folders (zone focus, Agnar lenses). The first time I used a tripod and really took care in making photographs with those cameras, I was very, very impressed. I realised that they could be more than just clunky "guess-and-shoot" cameras.

Go kick some ass, Roman! We need to make sure that Hal eventually gets here to Edmonton, so he can go for a motorcycle ride with me. Hal likes motorbikes, right? ;)

Wait, maybe not! I have two Agfa Venturas: the 66 and the 69 model. These were made in the fifties, right?

Dang it! All of my cameras (except one from the 30s) are 60s forward. At least I'll have justification for going out and buying something "new"...

R Hofland: Thanks for the info. That's a lot of reading! However, is it true that reducing agitation when using 'well diluted developers' will have a positive effect on grain size? Wouldn't the increased development time due to higher dilution offset any savings due to decreased development? Or are you talking about stand (and partial stand) development, where there is little or no agitation?

 

James Fardon: 'Strong agitation' may increase grain due to increased developer activity on the film. When you agitate, you move depleted developer away from the surface of the film, and allow fresher developer to take its place. This is probably also why pushing film will increase grain: longer developement is (somewhat) equivalent to more developer activity, and more developer activity equals bigger grain.

 

BJ

Has anyone tried pushing D3200 (35mm) to about 12500 using DD-X @ 1+9?

I know there are published times for 1+4, but want to try to get

lower contrast. There's not much to be done about the grain at this

speed, so I'm not going to worry about that.

 

Is it possible, or not worth trying? And, are there any problems that

I need to be aware of using the higher dilution (exhaustion, etc)?

What about stand development? I'd like to stick to DD-X, because

that's what I have on hand.

 

Any tips or comments are appreciated. Thanks,

 

BJ

Try developing at 30C and using a water stop somewhere around 10C, and then back into a nice hot fixer... As for the mottled, chemical stain look, or other damage to the negative, check out the work that Emil Schildt does (http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=526277). I dunno if that's what you're interested in, but he makes a beautful mess sometimes.

 

I like Lex's idea of nose grease... I might just roll myself a 12-shot of Delta 100 and give that a try!

 

BJ

I stopped using FP4+ because the grain was disappointingly larger than I expected from a medium speed film. I switched to Delta 100, but realised later that it was my development technique, not the film.

 

Try it at 125, dev'ed in Ilfosol-S for the recommended time, but agitate the bejeesus out of it for 30s at the beginning, and for 10s at the top of every minute thereafter. It's not gonna have huge grain, but it's gonna be noticeable. You're gonna get a contrast boost too, because of the heavy agitation.

 

Or you can try it at ISO 400, dev'ed in Ilfosol-S for 9m (or so), using a similar agitation technique. You can see some examples here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=377927