stephen hazelton

To me, this will be a much more interesting comparison when the digital setup is substantially CHEAPER than the equivalent film gear. All he has shown is that more expensive equipment can perhaps produce better results, but does that surprise anyone? For those people who own the very finest film cameras that money can buy, and find them lacking, this article should be of interest. The rest of us can improve quality simply by upgrading to better film gear.

Yes, hopefully, this will kill all professional demand for medium format cameras, and the medium format camera prices will drop to nothing (like old slide projectors). Then I'll be able to buy some really neat medium format equipment that I couldn't afford before! : )

Mats, I suspect it has more to do with economics. On amateur grade, it is not considered critical to have 100%, and there are cost savings from using a smaller mirror or pentaprism. If the price was the same, I expect every camera would show 100%.

 

FYI, I looked up the Pentax LX, which I was thinking showed 100%- but it was like 95% in one direction, 98% in the other- close, but not quite there. It certainly wasn't intended for casual snapshooters, though.

 

I discovered some time back that the 1-hour machine at the local drugstore could not print 100% of a frame- they could shift the film one way or the other, and print either end (so I could get the locomotive, or the caboose, but not the whole train!). Considering that they were printing 4x6 prints that are EXACTLY the same shape as the negative, this was a rather irritating problem.

 

I have never read or seen information anywhere on the accuracy of the actual negative size in the camera- is it EXACTLY 24mm x36mm in every camera, or are there slight variations there as well?

The local Dallas Arboretum has a perpetual photo contest, open to amateurs and professionals (pro's defined as those who make 50% or more of income from photography). However, for the amateur contest, you must submit your negative with your entry, and it will NOT be returned! (In other words, take your best photo ever and throw it away!). This is true even if you don't win! I love taking photos there, but forget the contest!

A web search doesn't turn up much useful information on analine (or aniline?) dyes. However, I do find that the old Ansco Company became GAF, which was "General Aniline & Film", so there is obviously a longtime connection between the dye and film- have no idea if thats they dye used in color or chromogenic film, tho. Obviously, it wasn't some Russian secret.

Check your local library or bookstore. There are whole books on shooting with existing light, or low light.

 

If light is not too low, you may can use your meter. Some meters, and some cameras, are good for much lower light levels than others.

 

Check your film box or instructions- I recall seeing tables for "Brightly lit signs at night", etc. Some general photography books will have similar tables.

 

For a specific application, come back here or try a web search. I tried some moonlight shots the other night, and did a web search for "moonlight exposure" and found several different sites giving sample pictures, exposure times, etc.

 

The film speed depends on the application. For use on a tripod, you can use just about any speed and extend the exposure time accordingly (check up on reciprocity characteristics of the film first). For handheld, use the 3200 or 1600 films from Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji.

 

Unlike daytime shooting, there is not necessarily a "right" exposure. In most night-time shots, there are light sources that are way overexposed and shadows that are way underexposed. As you adjust exposure, the overexposed and underexposed areas get bigger and smaller, but it is a matter of judgment as to what looks best.

Ditto to Steve Levine's answer. Keep in mind, that one of the challenges of photographing by moonlight is that the photos tend to look like they were taken in broad daylight! With the actual steps, they no doubt seem VERY dark if you just walk in from the sunlight and look at them, but if you sit in the dark a while and go look, they may seem perfectly well lit.

 

An alternate suggestion: Rather than trying to show by photos how dark it was, show by photo the general arrangement of the steps, and MEASURE how dark it is. Then in the testimony, arrange to dim the lights (assuming that is possible) to the same level, and leave them for a few minutes.

 

Another problem that may come up: What subjectively appears to be "twice as dark" or "twice as bright", when measured is perhaps a 100 times as dark or light. Verbal descriptions of brightness tend to be misleading. Sunlight is maybe 500,000 x as bright as moonlight, but you can see steps just fine in moonlight.

 

Another problem: Our eyes aren't the same in regards to night vision. I used to have a friend that had fairly normal vision, but he just could not see to drive at night.

I will do some test shots and see what I get- the reason for posting the question was to see if anyone had any idea where to START on the exposure. I will post results in a couple of weeks after I run the tests.

 

In looking over some of the different information, I find that SFX peaks at 740 nm, and extends to 800 nm or so; the 87 filter starts transmission at 740 nm or. There should be some overlap on the curves, but not much.

 

I DID find one place that mentions using this filter with SFX:

http://www.photo.net/photo/edscott/ir000010.htm

Specifically, he lists it as the "maximum usable filter" for this film, but doesn't give any exposure information.

 

As I had mentioned in an earlier post, I DID manage to get a weak image on HP5+ through my #87 filter. Looking at the curves, it looks like nothing at all should get through. I have rerun that test also, and will post results in a couple of weeks. My first shot was with 5 minutes at f/4.

 

As for the exposure time being similar to moonlight, there are people that take pictures by moonlight...but I suspect it will work a little better than that.

 

Results later!

I suggest that prior to the big event, take your camera, flash, whatever, and go take some pictures just like you plan to do at the reception, and see how its all working. You didn't mention film, but I'm thinking a lot of this kind of work is done with films with lower contrast due to the black tux/ white gown combination. You might point out to your cousin that your pics probably won't match those of the pro- different format, paper, film, etc., and if all the pics go in the same album, the difference may be quite noticable.

The Ilford info- www.ilford.com, go to "Products", then "Film", then look for the link for "Processing Your First Black and White Film":

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Film%20Hobbyist.PDF

 

Ditto for "Paper" and "Making Your First Black and White Print":

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/paper%20hobbyist.pdf

 

From Kodak, Publication AJ-3:

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/aj3/aj3.pdf

 

One other tip I ran across somewhere- try printing professionally developed B&W negatives you already have before developing and printing your own. Less to learn at one time, less opportunity to mess anything up, and it doesn't leave you wondering "is it the developing or the printing?"

Not familiar with this model- but on mine, it has three switch positions for range- two are automatic sensing, using the ranges and f/stops listed- use whichever one matches your distance and/or desired f/stop. The other one is manual- adjust your f/stop to match the distance shown on the scale.

On both the camera and the lenses, it is largely personal preference. Try to find out what features you need and want, and compare models to find out what will satisfy your needs. Check out the photo magazines in your local library; they periodically review different types of cameras (especially new models) and their reviews are helpful.

 

The Quantary lenses are probably made for Ritz, not by Ritz, and may be made by Cosina, or Phoenix, or some other company. Buying the camera manufacturer's lenses will probably get you higher quality at a higher price. Lenses are also available from Tamron, Tokina, Sigma, Vivitar, etc., but normally Ritz does not stock any of those.

 

My experience with Ritz has been that they do not sell a very wide variety of merchandise, and the people selling may or may not know anything about their product. Try to get by some other camera stores and check out a variety of different models. Do you have friends that shoot with SLR's? Find out what they like and don't like about the different models.

When you first turn on your faucets, the water that is coming out is what has been in the piping in your house for a while. The hot water starts out cool, the cold water starts out room temperature. As you start getting hotter water from the hot water heater, it still takes a bit to warm up the pipes to reach a "steady" temperature. After you use the hot water a while, you start running out of the hot water stored in your hot water heater, and the temperature drops.

 

It will help a little bit to turn only the hot water on, run it till it is as hot as it will get, then cut back to a trickle and mix with cold. But temps will still vary some, as mentioned above.

Both Kodak and Ilford have articles on their websites about developing film and printing paper, specifically for beginners (which I found very handy). Of course, each recommends their own chemicals! However, you can use Ilford developer with Kodak film or paper, etc. Make up a list from each, and then see what is available at your local stores.

D-76 is probably the most film common developer, but it has to be mixed with water at 125 degrees F, which is probably why Kodak doesn't include it in the beginner instructions. Generally, film developers are different from paper developers.

Indicator Stop Bath- costs a few bucks, but a little goes a long ways. Use with both film and paper.

Kodak "Fixer". Use with both film and paper.

Also, get some Photo-flo, a wetting agent, to use in developing film. It costs several dollars but a little goes a long way.

For developing paper, use Dektol developer.

Check the quantities you are buying. For beginner, buy the quart sizes if available; use the bigger sizes as the quantity of your work increases.

Usually, adaptors like this are available so that people who already own a system of lenses can use them with the new body. Or, so that uncommon lenses (big telephotos or fisheyes) can be used with the new body, before an autofocus version of that lens is introduced. As the manufacturers go along, they tend to upgrade the autofocus line of lenses, and the older system won't be updated much. I'd suggest using the adaptor if you already have the MF lenses, or can find them used at a big bargain; otherwise, use the latest and best.

It seems like I recall reading somewhere once upon a time, that using oversized filters (or lens hoods) on the TLR's could cause the filter to intrude into the field of view of the viewing lens, which could get annoying. I suppose it depends on what size you're planning to use and how thick the adapter(s) is.

 

By the way, generally, bigger filters cost more, so the smaller ones for something like this could be fairly cheap, if you don't need a whole bunch of them.

Sorry, I was reading up on the system a little more- www.tamron.com- it seems that you CAN use any of the metering prisms on the SQ-B (ie, they physically fit), only the SQ-B body doesn't furnish power to the meter, so the meter would be inoperative...

I understand Ilford SFX sensitivity extends to about 740 nm. And an

87 filter starts transmitting at about 700 nm. Ergo, it should be

possible to take photos with this combination. Now, in looking for

more info, I find several places where people mention this is "not

recommended" and that exposure times become "long", etc. The

question is: How long do they become? Surely someone out there has

tried this? I just picked up a couple of rolls of this film, and

would like to try some shots with the 87 filter, and will bracket,

but would like to know a starting point.

It sure sounds like the batteries are dead- are you sure they are okay?

 

I've never used an ME, but on the K1000, the meter is on all the time- if you leave it setting on a shelf with lens cap off, it will run the batteries down (lens cap on, and in case, uses practically no current). Does the ME do this too?

Elaine, on the B&H website, they show one meter prism with auto-exposure for SQ-A cameras, then another meter prism, meter only, no auto-exposure, for "SQ series cameras". It sounds like you CAN get a meter prism, just not an auto-exposure prism. It is $1000 or so, though.

Check the January 2002 Shutterbug.

4B has number-in-red-window winder-knob type film advance, separate shutter cocking, with 3 element taking lens.

4A105 has rapid-wind crank film advance and 3- element taking lens.

4A107 has rapid-wind crank film advance and 4- element taking lens. ("Slightly higher contrast" per the article)

4A107G Limited Collector's Edition has gold-plated trim.

There is also a 4A-109- from the B&H website (www.bhphotovideo.com)- "The 4A-109 differs from the GC107 in two ways. First, the 4A-109 has an improved four element lens. Second, the 4A-109 aperture and shutter speed settings are set using two rotating dials - one on each side of the lens with the readings seen through a small window above the viewing lens. The GC107 uses two sliding levers - one on each side of the lens but does not have an available window for reading the chosen settings." Apparently, it also has 1/500 second top speed instead of 1/300.

 

There are some other differences. For more details, go to B&H website, type in "Seagull 105" or whatever in the search box, and look for the "features" tab on each model.

Well, being the curious type, I just had to try!

 

I already had Ilford HP5+ in the camera, so I tried a sequence there, starting at 5 minutes at f/4, and going down. On the 5 minute exposure there is a bit of picture, nothing worthwhile photographically, but a recognizable image. Ilford shows the sensitivity of this film extending to about 660 nm, and the 87 filter starts transmitting at about 700 nm. Nonetheless, there is apparently some overlap in the curves. By the way, the image I got DID show the "white foliage" effect. (Developed in D76 per Ilford's recommended time for 400 speed, by the way).

 

Next, I tried some Kodak T-max 3200. I started off with exposures of 6 minutes at f/8, and worked down, and then developed 15 min in D76, as shown on data sheets for 3200 speed. The sensitivity curve shows the response of this film going down to 700 nm, so I expected better results. The lens was stopped down 2 stops, but film speed was 3 stops higher, so I expected equal or better results there. What I got was Nothing. Zilch. Can't see a trace of a shadow anywhere on that portion of negatives. (Some later shots exposed 1-2 minutes at f/11 by moonlight came out pretty good, though). Either the sensitivy curve is off for one or the other film, or reciprocity is overwhelming the Tmax 3200.

 

I did have an unexpected event with the Ilford film, though. I got some fogging on the top part of the negative (which should have been dark sky). I suspect very teensy light leaks around or through the filter threads, or through the lens mount or focusing rings. Normally, this would never be noticeable, but with the camera setting in the sun for 5 minutes with the shutter open, it was there. With the second test, I shielded the camera, and didn't see that effect. (This was a Tokina 17 mm (non-ATX) on Pentax K1000).

IR film shouldn't be any more or less sensitive to x-rays than normal film. It might or might not get fogged, who knows? In the US, they always will hand inspect (based on past experience). Elsewhere, it quite likely varies.

 

For loading, refer to the instructions (Maco has a website with info on this film, if it doesn't come with instructions). With Kodak IR film, part of the "total darkness" requirement is apparently due to the fact that it doesn't have an anti-halation layer, but the Maco does. Part of the "total darkness" requirement is apparently due to the light trap on Kodak 35 mm cassettes not being entirely IR-proof. But this could vary depending on film sensitivity, and the IR films like Konica and Ilford, whose sensitivities do not extend as far into the IR range, don't require total-darkness handling. Once again, check if Maco has instructions.

 

Possibly consider buying the film after you get there and/ or developing it before you return?

 

Keeping it in your pocket might very well work- especially if it has plastic reels.

Lex, what's your overall opionion of the Pan F+? Worth trying?

Line them up with heads touching, as near as possible, with eyes on the same level. Take the shot, crop off everything above and below the eyes, and enlarge to suit, preferably to several times life size. One big panorama of eyes....