wieslaw1

<p><br />Thanks everybody for your input.<br /><br />Yes, the recommended printer Epson 3880 is a high quality product and „cheap“, only 250$. The catch is that it would not work. Why? because you need extra 450$ for the ink cartridges. So the real cost is 700$. I noticed that Ilford is making special papers for ink printers but they cost same as traditional photo sensitive papers. But the account of JJ shows us that the costs of individual prints are perhaps reasonable.<br /><br /> There is, however, another major drawback of the digital hoopla than the cost. - The mindless pressing of the shutter. It does not cost anything to capture one picture or one thousand pictures. You do not even need to engage your brain in any kind of selection process. Why not to take a picture?<br /><br />Selection process, „previsualization“ process, choosing a point of view, composing the picture, changing perspective, or any other creative (and time consuming) approach to photography became obsolete, as the milions of photographers around the globe prove it every day. Just press the shutter several times. The more times you press it, the better, (its free) and somewhere, at the end of the day, you will surely end up with a good photo!<br /><br />However, for some of us, high resolving powers of such cameras like digital Leicas, offer new opportunity. If you can enlarge a picture to a 1m in size without loosing definition, you will discover that it is a mosaic composed of many, smaller images, full of details, some worth of separating into individulal photos. A wide angle lens will eliminate the need for a telephoto. (The limitation of a tele is the shallow depth of focus, here, with a wide, or normal f lens, everything will be in focus.)<br /><br />In other words let us experience the reversal of Henri Cartier Bresson approach to framing and composing.<br /><br />For the time being, the digital photography for me remains limited to distributing pictures to magazines and friends via internet or CD.<br>

WAZ<br>

PS By the way, I just got Leica M6 so I stick to the old canons.</p>

<p><strong>Is the electronic projector a feasible substitue for a traditional condenser photo enlarger?</strong><br /><br /><br />Fililm has been my life’s medium, basically B&W, (35mm to 5x7) but occasionaly I shoot in color as well. <br />I also have cheap, digital, waterproff Canon (250$) which I sometimes use as suplementary camera.<br /><br />Recently I decided to purchase electronic Leica ME (5 500$+lens). The question is do you have enough money to pay for high quality prints on a sustainable basis? <br /><br />The answer is no!<br /><br />So when I reflected upon the idea and started wondering what I shall do with all those magnificent pictures on my hardrive, the digital Leica was not so hot any longer.<br />Watching the images on a screen? You do not see the Leica quality on a computer monitor, or should I print the digital files on a home, letter size, printer? C’mon!<br /><br />True, there are labs making high quality prints but the prices start at 100$ per print.<br /><br />But the color films are not cheap either. For example high quality scans on drum scanner + printing on a traditional photosensitive paper using the laser Durst Lambda technique, are in 150 - 200$ price range for 60x70 cm print.<br /><br />But first, a commercial lab has to develop your film. Last year I paid 20$ for a 120 (6x6cm) roll of a slide film.<br /><br />The B&W film, on the other hand, I can develop myself for 10 cents per roll. Then I select and print the negatives myself, certainly at a fraction of what the commercial labs are charging and better than they can do.<br /><br />Although I have made some 40 color, exhibition quality prints by the Lambda technique (you can see them here: http://peterphoto.com/waz/patagonia/ and http://peterphoto.com/waz/patagonia_2/ ), it was quite an investement. For these reasons, in the future, I decided to stick to B&W photography and do the job the old fashion way, i.e. myself.<br /><br />So what about the magnificent digital Leica M E?<br /><br />If there were enlargers on the market which would allow photographer to print from digital files onto the traditional photo papers, then this would be a solution. Yes, Durst Lambda is such a machine, but this is for a factory, not for home use.<br /><br />My question therefore is: Could I use electronic projector as an enlarger? Instead of directing the image on a wall, I would expose the photographic paper. Does this make sense?<br />I have no idea what resolution the electronic projectors offer.<br /><br />Anybody has a suggestion?<br />Thanks.<br /><br />WAZ<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Yes, I was wondering whether I should start a new thread, since this discussions diverged from the original FP4 dvelopment. I do not think I have time now, before my nearby trip to SA.<br>

Thanks Lex</p>

<p>Yes, digital cameras as well as slides projected on a screen.<br /> But lets consider a photograph which you can hold in your hand (the most traditional photos around), i.e. a photograph made on a paper. When is it a reproduction? - is it when it is made by an offset method and not by Epson printer?<br /> And the digital files merely control the laser LIGHT hiting the photosensitive paper, so that the "digital" part beetween is irrelevant in the process.</p>

<p>One more question - what is the difference between a "photograph" made on the Epson printer, and the same image or a "photograph" printed in a photo magazine? Or there is no difference and both are the real photographs?<br>

I am putting this in quotation marks, because to me a photograph is made by light on light sensitive materials.</p>

<p>I do not do digital photography as such. I shoot exclusively on light sensitive films which I copy on silver sensitive papers myself, except colors.<br>

But I use the scanner for "dry developing" positives, so I can evaluate the images on screen and choose for printing. I also use the digital files for distribution to the press for example. So the scanner is a useful tool for me.<br>

For colors I use analog to digital to analog method. This I do only for the high quality, exhibition prints. I shoot 4x5 negatives, drum scann to 200 -300 Mb and then print large format on Durst Lambda as C prints.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Peter C. - "I would be hard pressed to see how any silver print could be better than my digital" -</p>

</blockquote>

<p>- I can challange you any time, in either B&W or in color!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Any and all books by Andreas Feininger. If you can find them</p>

<p>The box with the negatives was damp due to condensation after was taken out of freezer.<br>

X-rays? who knows.</p>

<p>Based on my experience Se does not improve contrast of negatives developed in pyros, at least not in the pyro I am using and Kodak Se. The stain constitutes a surface coating on the negative and blocks diffusion of Se solution so you do not see any difference caused by toning.</p>

<p>WT - I just took a View Camera (2006 issue) from a shelf and found ad for the book Way Beyond the Monochrome, but before I managed to run to the Strand Bookstore on Broadway, I inspected the link you provided. Indeed similar methods have been discussed on this forum, with holes being drilled, etc. Very good!<br>

Another question is identification of geographical location where the picture was taken. In Poland/Slovakia, in the Tatras I know the name of every valley and summit but not in Patagonia for example. At the recent photo show at Javis Center in NY I was advised about a small GPS-sensitive device (M-241) for about 60$ which displays the coordinates at the spot. I could write down the coordinates on paper and link to a particular negative. Has anybody used it?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Joe, it happens from time to time when it is impossible to put the slide back to the holder. But we don't develope those negatives do we?</p>

<p>But there is some kind of coating, the lens appears blue. What kind of filter would you recommend for color and for b&w photography. I would need at least a polarizer for both and although at present I might not need the optimal resolution of 250 lines/mm, sometimes in the future i might.</p>

<p>Thank you. First of all some explanation. I scanned the negative without removing the plastic envelope so the overall sharpness of the image should not be assessed from this picture. I seldom use color films so I did not recognize light leak.<br>

I used Linhof which was tested regarding light leaks a week before and all were eliminated.<br /> Regarding the holders, I mark them A1, A2, B1, etc. and I make notes on paper as to every exposure so I know which negative comes from which holder. In this case I don't because the negatives were taken from Europe to NY, but all the holders I used were OK - no trace of light leaks on any other negative. I may add that I keep each holder in a black plastic bag and avoid exposure to direct sunlight. I also put the bag around the back of camera once the holder is in place for shooting, then quickly put it back to my backpack.<br /> The other several bad negatives I mentioned were incorrectly exposed/developed but were uniform.<br /> However, these were remnants of films I used a year or two before and it is possible that I loaded and unloaded<br /> the negative several times, as it was not exposed until this summer. Somewhere along it cought light.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Below is a negative which I am not able to explain. I never seen anything like that. I shot 4 negative (Fuji 160) at that time, all were bad, but this one is exceptional. Pictures were taken after sunset. All right, the negatives were some 2 years past the date, but were kept in a refrigerator. Otherwise everything seemed to be normal. Were developed by Duggal in NY.</p><div></div>

<p>Loading in the darkroom is not a problem, but when I stay overnight in the mountains it has to be done in the open air.<br />If there is a tree or some kind of a cave between large rocks for example, then such places are sufficiently dark at night to just open the cassette, take out the film and put it into a box. <br />If a sleep in a sleeping bag under open sky, then I reload the film inside the sleeping bag.<br />The problem is with identification of each negative. My holders are marked A, B, C, etc. each with no 1 and 2. I make notes on paper when I shoot so I know from which holder the negative comes with other relevant data.<br />Now the negs. have to be stacked in a box in such a fashion that I can later determine proper developing conditions for every negative.<br />So I very carefully arrange the holders, write down the sequence (negs numbers) on a piece of paper and empty them consecutively into a box, one by one without ever putting any of this upside down! The cardboard where the negatives are put into has trimmed the upper right corner for identification.<br /><br />This works with B&W which I develop myself and on short 1-2 days trips when I take 20 to 30 pictures.<br />It does not work with a larger number of accumulated color negatives processed by a lab. So I know nothing about photographs I took for example in Patagonia. Sometimes I even have a hard time to exactly pinpoint the area where the pictures were taken.<br /><br />I remember, on this forum, there has been a discussion about means to mark the negatives directly, for example by drilling tiny holes into the holders, but I cannot find it.</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

Indeed, I focus rutinely on the ground glass of my Linhof, but with a hand held cameras I often go for the calibrated scale.<br>

It is intriguing how the T change (and focus shift) translates into the barrel extension.<br>

Lens rotation from infinity mark to the end, some 1.2cm, extends the lens by about 4 mm. A quite large extension.<br>

Another question:<br>

In addition to the shutter speed scale engraved in white on the lens ring there is also a mirror speed scale in green (from B up to 1/125) which is not accessible. What is this for?</p>

<p>Does anybody know how to focus the Zeiss Sonnar Superachromat at infinity.<br>

This is a special lens and the infinity mark on the lens barrel can be overdriven. How to set it correctly?</p>

 

<p>Ben,<br>

all you need to do is to open the lens (by a fine mechanic) and clean the blades with ether.<br>

If you were in Poland it would cost you 15$.</p>

<p>Do not worry Gus. I read your resume and might send you a camera of repair if a need arise.<br>

It is now for Martin to resolve whether his back or procedure were faulty.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6197393">Martin McGagh</a> Pretty sure i loaded correctly Frank. Lined up the red arrow on the feed side with the staggered start arrows on the roll of Portra 400. (I didn't line up with any particular point, I just stopped spooling when i saw the black arrows appear. Sound right?)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No! It sounds wrong. Your statement is contradictory. Either you lined up the RED arrow or you did not line up with any particular point. When you saw the BLACK arrows appearing on the paper you were too far. Hence the segment of the uexposed film. The rest as in my previous comment.<br>

Why don't you simply put another roll of film into your camera, follow the procedure, and try? You do not know if you put the film correctly even if you say to the contrary. You are asking "have I crancked too much with too much force?" Nobody in this forum can answer this questioin except yourself, yet you are convinced (with the help of the others) that the magazine is faulty.<br>

C'mon, if you have too much money, send it for repair, but I want be surprised that it might not work either.</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with your Hasselblad magazine Martin and the obove opinions are irrelevant. You simply aplied the back to the camera which was not cocked. Once you roll the film in to the first stop, the black color of a tiny window on a side of magazine changes to white. The corresponding window on the camera body must also be white indicating cocked. If one window is red the other white you will have missalignement of the film which demonstrates like you observed.</p>

<p>In my color EXHIBITION work, and only in color, I use the analog to digital to analog procedure. Since I am unable to make any decent negative color scan on my Agfa Studioscan (unable to get rid of the film's color mask) I turned to professionals. A 4x5 negative is scanned on a drum scanner to 150-200 MB, retouched in a photoshop and printed using Durst Lambda on a photosensitive paper.<br>

I emphasize EXHIBITION prints, enlarged to some 80 cm wide. That means relatively few works I make that way.<br>

In the US they want 1$ per megabyte and, at a final discount, you may pay about half of this for scanning, i.e. ~70-100$. Cheap? Then comes the cost of Lambda job.<br>

This summer I looked for opportunities in Poland. First we tried to obtain a high quality scanns at friends studio on some pro Agfa scanner (flatbed). We got perfect file ~150 Mgb but it took us at least 1.5 hour to make one.<br>

Then I turned to a scanning specialist around the corner. He charged me 50 zl for each 200 Mgb scan on Tango drum scanner (a 4x5 negative). 50 zl is equivalent of 15 US$!<br>

Next I found the photolab with a Durst Lambda machine and they charged 160 zl per 1 square meter of final color print on Kodak paper. So here you are.<br>

I got the prints as good as those made by the top US labs (my first series of prints were made by NancyScan, but those bastards lost my negatives and never took any reponsibility for that, so I kissed them good bye forever). My costs in Poland were 1/5 of those 300$ per print I paid in the US.<br>

There is a link to the preview of these photographs on my bio page.<br>

Cheers!</p>

<p>Anybody knows where to get this film in 120 sizes, and the Technidol developer. I would need several rolls. Thanks.</p>

No more Maco on the market!

I did not have any agreement with the lab, and it was my first order. I was surprised to learn that the Fedex did not ask

for my signature upon delivery, but apparently this was not specified by the sender. The lab then promised to request

signature in the future. So there seem to be 2 possibilities when shiping via Fedex; either you request a signature of the addressee or not. Makes no sense to me - why should'nt be a routine requirement to obtain signature? Overnight

deliveries are not the 3rd class mail! Do I need a separate contract with every person I correspond to and for every possible service, US mail, Fedex, UPS, etc.? Makes no sens either. Regarding the 300$ or 500$ suggested above, if anybody can make a round trip from US to Patagonia, let me know and I will follow you.