alan_rockwood

<p>Robert. I wonder why I am getting an exposure index in the range of only 40-64. LMAX developer is a TMAX developer clone, and TMAX developer is known as a speed enhancing developer. At another discussion site one person suggested that using a zone system testing strategy results in about 2/3 stop speed loss, which could account for part of the discrepancy.</p>

<p>Additional info.: at 1+5 dilution and 3:00 development the Gbar was 0.65 and the calculated exposure index was 64.<br> <br />Based on an interpolation of the information in my several posts, a dilution of 1+5.5 should give a Gbar of about 0.60 and an exposure index of about 50.</p> <p>As I mentioned in my first post, this seems an unexpectedly low exposure index. I had expected something closer to 100 for Fomapan 200.</p> <p>On the other hand is it possible that most people are using an exposure index that would put base plus fog at three f-stops below neutral gray rather than four? That could account for my calculated exposure index of ~50 whereas most people seem to recommend ~100 for Fomapan 200.</p>

<p>John, thanks for the suggestions, but based on my measurements at 1+6 dilution and 3 minutes, which gave a Gbar contrast of 0.54, going to a dilution of 1+4 and 5 or 6 minutes development would be very high, probably way over 0.75.</p>

<p>Brooks,</p> <p>I contacted Mr. Hamrick again and he replied, so for the time being I am working through him to try to resolve the issue. I am uploading some files as we speak.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>I got some Fomapan 200, or actually, the Arista Edu Ultra equivalent. I have been testing it using a densitometer and I'm consistently getting a speed point equivalent to an exposure index of about 50. I expected a speed loss compared to 200, but 50 seems a little too much loss of speed to me.</p> <p>I have run quite a few rolls of film under various processing conditions, but here is a typical condition: LMAX developer (T-MAX clone) at a dilution of 1+6 processed for 3:00 minutes in a Phototherm rotary processor at a temperature of 75 F. The Gbar contrast was 0.54, and the exposure index worked out to be 40 (rounded off). This was done in two replicate runs.</p> <p>For some other runs under more rigorous development conditions the Gbar was higher (~0.65) and the speed points worked out to give exposure indexes of 50 or 64 (rounded off).</p> <p>I am using a criterion that the speed point is four f-stop units way from the neutral gray exposure.</p> <p>For those who have done instrument-based testing, how do these results compare.</p> <p>By the way, when I did some similar testing on Plus-X a few years ago (using T-Max developer) the exposure index worked out to be 125, i.e. box speed, so I think my testing technique is probably not too far from wrong.</p>

<p>I think I know what might have happened with the VueScan version. I recently had the computer repaired, and they installed a new hard disk and moved all of my files and and programs to the new disk. Possibly the recent VueScan version did not get moved, though I am not sure if this was the cause of the VueScan version not being current.</p> <p>Anyway, I installed the current 32 bit version, tested the infrared clean, and still does the same thing.</p> <p>Mendel, good comment about saving the old VueScan install files.</p>

<p>Paul,</p> <p>Thanks for the comment. I thought I had updated VueScan several times recently, but possibly the updating I did was on my other computer. I will try running the update.</p>

<p>Les, I have had the V750 and vuescan for several years, but I haven't used the V750 very much, and I haven't tried infrared clean on the V750 until very recently. However, infrared clean does work on my FS4000US running under vuescan.</p> <p>I am using the Windows 32 bit version 9.0.58 of vuescan, which is a very recent version.</p>

<p>Brooks, good idea. Thanks.</p>

<p>Peter,</p> <p>Thanks for the suggestion. I did contact support@hamrick.com and got an initial reply asking for more information. I replied with more information six days ago but did not get a response back, so I thought I would see if anyone here might know what is going on.</p>

<p>When I use infrared clean on C41 film on a Epson V750 running under Vuescan I get an apparent offset between the dust objects at the patch of photo to which infrared clean is being applied. In the final result I see both the healed spot and the dust object, with an offset between the two.</p> <p>My guess is that the registration between the visible scan and the infrared scan is off.</p> <p>I would appreciate any insight that can be offered.</p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I am not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV. However, a lawyer once told me that if there is an ambiguity in an agreement the general doctrine under the law is that the benefit of the doubt goes against the one who drafted the contract or offered the contract. That would probably be you.<br> In the absence of a signed document things become very murky. I wouldn't be surprised, for example, if a court (in the extremely unlikely event that it would go to court) might find a presumption that she did not agree to the no-refund terms and therefore did not send the signed contract. On the other hand, they might find just the opposite.<br> Also, there might be case law in your state that governs how verbal or implied agreements are treated. This is likely to be a little different in every state.</p> <p>However, your main choice is whether keeping the money is worth the loss of reputation you are suffering, regardless of whether it's fair or unfair and regardless of the legal details of the case.</p>

<p>Sorry for not replying Pitt. I haven't checked this thread for a few years. I haven't learned anything more about Rodinal in the Phototherm.</p>

<p>"3. Which lens should I predominantly use? (I've heard wide-angle lenses are bad for portraiture)"</p> <p>Considering the camera and lenses you have, the best lens choice is 18-55mm for most of your work. That is equivalent to 37-82mm on a 35mm camera, which covers moderately wide (37mm equivalent) to slightly long (82mm equivalent.) In 35mm photography lenses in the range of 80-100mm are widely known as "portrait lenses" because they are long enough to produce a pleasing perspective for portraits of individuals. The other lens starts at 70mm for portraiture, which is an equivalent of 135mm in a 35mm camera. This is getting a little bit toward the long side, though not impossibly long, provided you have enough room to make the camera-to-subject distance long enough.</p> <p>For group shots you will zoom to a shorter focal length, depending on the size of the group. However, don't zoom way out and then try to get too close or the perspective in the photos will be "way out of whack" (to use the technical term) and unflattering.</p>

<p>What about contacting them and telling them that they are infringing your copyright by not providing you with the agreed upon consideration (credit for the photo) to use the photo.</p>

<p>There has been a lot of discussion about legal positioning, but one thing that has not been discussed enough is whether by winning in a legal sense you will lose in a business sense.</p> <p>Consider this from at least two perspectives. One is to ask yourself, If I negotiate some kind of accommodation with your client what will be the cost (dollars and possible bad publicity) vs. benefit (possible avoidance of bad publicity.</p> <p>The second is related to the first, but is worth considering separately. What will be the cost (in time an money) if you end up in a legal fight vs. what are the chances of winning, and what is the benefit of winning. Suppose, for example, it takes a day of your valuable time to fight this thing from a legal standpoint. I suspect that one day is a lowball estimate. Already it has probably cost you more in time than it is worth. If you hire a lawyer then you are talking about a lot more money. Depending on the lawyer, it could cost something in the neighborhood of $200/hour, and if the case goes very far you may end up with more than a few hours of lawyer costs, which would likely make the whole affair much too costly.</p> <p>I once engaged a lawyer. It was a much more complicated case that has few parallels with yours, but hear me out. The lawyer fees cost me an average of more than $200 per hour, and there were other expenses as well. I also spent untold hours of my own time of the case. By the time we reached a settlement with the other side I had spent tens of thousands of dollars in legal expenses, and in the end I received no benefit other than an agreement that if the other side was successful in their business (which is actually unlikely) then I will receive some fraction of their benefit under certain circumstances. I doubt if I will ever see a penny, even though I was nominally the victor in the case. If it would have gone to court it would have cost me a lot more, and there is always the chance that I could lose in court.</p> <p>The point of this anecdote is that going the legal route may end up costing you a lot more than it is worth. A good lawyer might tell you the same thing, if he has your interest at heart.</p>

<p>JDM, I scanned a few kodachrome slides with my canon FS4000US using Vuescan and infrared spot cleaning, and it worked.</p>

<p>This looks very promising. For several years I have been thinking about trying this approach, but it never got beyond the thinking stage. It's good to see someone actually do it, and that it works.</p>

<p>Thanks Kayla</p>

<p>Next month I am going to Haikou, Hainan Island, China. The trip is business-related, but I plan to stay a few extra days to see the sights. Do you have any suggestions?</p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Nice to see that this thread is still alive.</p>