ed_pierce2

Another vote for Jim at Midwest Camera, I highly recommend him.

 

Nobody's mentioned tripods...you'll need a good one, and that generally means a heavy one. All the effort and expense of using 8x10 is wasted if the camera won't stay still. The old 'heavy duty' Zone VI units are very good but quite heavy. They show up on the auction site pretty often.

 

I started using 8x10 last year, and spent about 2K for a used Zone VI camera and tripod; had to find a heavier Bogen head, a new Nikon 450 lens, and several film holders. I already had everything else from doing 4x5. Save up your cash and good luck, and have fun...it's great.

I insert a signature into the image to discourage copyright infringement, and use Hurricane Electric for my web hosting, 9.95 a month. Works for me, check it out: www.edpiercephoto.com

You should have the camera cleaned by a professional. How often depends on the conditions it endures. If you try it yourself, be very careful.

What you've really done is underexposed the film by one stop. Tell the lab to push it (increase development) one stop. If you don't, your prints may not have enough contrast.

 

Try a roll before the wedding!

You can also drive right up to the top of Mt. Mansfield on the Toll Road. It's a really great place for photography. Dress warmly however, it's usually a lot colder and windier at the top.

Ed Pierce

www.edpiercephoto.com

I'd say don't sweat the small stuff. The only way you'll know for sure is to try it. Make a shot with the filter and without, take notes, and compare the proofs.

With the new tri-x (4x5) I fix for the normal time. I then rinse them in a bath of plain water until the water is clear; you can see the purple stuff if you use a white tray. Then into the hypo clear, then a final wash. There is still a tiny hint of purple as compared to the old tri-x, but I haven't had any problems printing.

I'm a digital newbie trying to scan my 4x5 b&w negatives. After quite

a bit of research and experimentation I've found the following

procedure to work ok, but I suspect they could look better. I'd

appreciate any input from people who know about ways to make this

work better.

 

Main purpose is publication on the web. Secondary purpose is to have

scans useable for newspapers, magazines, small posters etc. I am not

anticipating making fine prints with these scans.

 

 

Materials: 4x5 b&w negatives.

 

 

Equipment: Epson 2450 scanner, 256mb memory, Photoshop 7.

 

 

Here's how I'm doing it now:

 

 

1 Using Silverfast SE, set up as a color positive transparency. Using

the histogram, push the black and white points all the way out. Set

48>24 bit RGB mode. Scan at 1200dpi, results in a file of about 70mb,

which is about as big as my system seems to want to handle.

 

 

2 Save a master copy as raw.psd and move to a CD.

 

 

3 Save a working copy as working.psd, crop.

 

 

4 Convert to lab mode, delete b channel and alpha 2 channel.

 

 

5 Convert to greyscale

 

 

6 Invert

 

 

7 Unsharp Mask

 

 

8 Create a new adjustment layer for Curves; adjust curves.

 

 

9 Burn/dodge as needed.

 

 

10 Save working file.

 

 

11 Save as web.psd.

 

 

12 Change image size to 500 pixels wide for large web image.

 

 

13 Save as large_web.jpg.

 

 

14 Open web.psd, change image size to 125 pixels wide and save as

small_web.jpg.

 

 

Any comments or suggestions? Thanks very much.

All else being held constant, a higher dilution will produce less contrast.

For me it boils down to making the choice; how do I want to use my very limited time; a)testing films/ developers/ papers or b) making photographs.

The ABS sink is a little flexible; you might just be able to push it in without any cutting. I'd be wary of cutting the sink because of the support issue. How about cutting a strip of wallboard out of the wall?

I understand the frustration. With a full time day job and a family, it seems I never have as much photo time as I'd like.

 

I find it helpful, first, to remind myself what's truly important in life, and attend to that.

 

I've become pretty good at maximizing my available time for photography. The hard part is finding large blocks of time for shooting or printing. Everything else can be done within small slices of available time. So I try and do a little every day of those tasks which can be done quickly; developing film, filing negatives, mixing chemistry, mounting, matting, framing, cleaning, etc. I try to have everything ready so that when a big block of time comes along, I don't waste any of it doing things I could have done last night.

If you're really into this kind of thing, check out 'The Film Developing Cookbook' by Steve Anchell. There's a wealth of information about many of the developers offered by the Formulary. My experiences with the company have been excellent.

I'm not familiar with that camera, but most meters are pretty much the same. Your guess to set plus one is a good one. You might find that plus 2 or 3 would be even better. Depends on how much of the frame includes snow. Give it a whirl and see what happens.

I did the walls around my enlarger flat black and there's only one problem; it's difficult to clean. If I ever get around to it I'm going to try a semi-gloss black. A white ceiling works great with my Thomas Duplex, but I do have to close it almost completely when using VC stuff. Get the biggest sink you can. Eight feet is not too big! I have a six and can't keep my print washer in it. My exhaust fan is right behind the sink; this seems to help pull the fumes out of the room. Put in at least two switches for the white light; one near the enlarger and one easily reached from the fixer tray; plus one by the door. Have fun!

I've marked a cloth tape with marks on it for each 1/2 stop of exposure adjustment required. To make one, the formula is:

exposure factor=extension squared divided by focal length squared.

A factor of 2 means 1 stop. A factor of 4 means 2 stops.

With the sheet film in my darkroom, I've found that Kodak's recommended developing time for HC110B is way off base; my N time is over twice the new recommendation. The speed is the same as the old with my equipment.

I've used the non-USA Tri-X, no problems.

I agree with Stuart; the developer isn't the problem. D76 is a fine developer, and HC110 is great stuff. Sounds like you are underexposing and overdeveloping. Run your speed test and dev time test, I bet you'll see a big improvement. A little more exposure will improve shadow detail, and reducing development will reduce contrast and grain. When you get to 4x5 the grain won't matter.

Thin polypro gloves fit under regular gloves, and give your fingers some protection while working with the camera.

I agree it's best to use distilled water for film developer; I'd like to add that the final rinse with photo-flo should also be distilled water.

I'd recommend a development time test in fresh developer.

It all depends on who is running the printer. If it's automatic, good luck! If it's a person with skill and experience, and the time to run a test, it can be done with ok results. Nowhere near the quality of a real b&w print, but not unusuable for some applications.

Your fingers won't freeze onto a wooden camera (though the metal knobs are a problem). Wood also gathers honorable scars and looks cool. I recently had a 20-something hiker ask of my wood 4x5 "is that old school?".

 

Not sure what that means but it made me feel good anyway.

Dittos on praise for B&H. And about that imported Tri-X; great stuff. I can't tell the prints apart from those made with 'USA' Tri-X.