johndc

To be honest I haven't shot that many interiors with it -- usually I'm out there with my 4x5 and Speedos*. But that is impractical in this case, with cables, tripod, etc. all over the floor. I'm shooting a nightclub during business hours, and I need to be relatively portable and discreet (equipment-wise) so that people can still move around.

<P>

It's something of a challenge, but I have a feeling it's going to be a lot of fun too.

<P>

*by "speedo" I mean "Speedotron", not my sexy swim suit.

3 groups is not enough because I have three individual areas that need to be lit individually but photographed at the same time. It would be easiest (and quickest) to get three i-TTL setups going on separate channels and then trigger them all at the same time.

Yes I know how to use multiple lights, etc. and that is my second option. My goal was to make the workflow faster and easier.

Is there any way to fire more than one channel at the same time, from the same

camera, with CLS?

I am going to be doing some very tricky interiors and (believe it or not) 4

groups is not going to be enough. I'm thinking that if I could expand to another

channel, I would get another set of groups.

Is it possible to do this? I'm going to be using 3 SB-800's as the main lights,

and a bunch of SB-600's as accents.

Plus I'll be using FV-lock so the delay would not be a problem.

Thanks.

Anyone have any experience as to the best way to condition these batteries? I

will be using the Impact 30-minute charger to break them in. Thanks!

I figured out it was the felt inside the darkslide slot. I opened it up, gave it a thorough brush-up and it's as good as new. Shot all weekend with it and no leaks. I just checked the felt again and it's okay. From now on I'll include checking the darkslide slot as a part of my monthly equipment cleaning routine.

Thanks to those who provided assistance!

"I haven't noticed anything like this with my 6x12 horseman back with a 90mm, but i paid extra for the engineering and QC when I bought the horseman over the chinese."

That must be nice. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough foodstamps to buy the horseman.

Brett- Your assumption is correct. The problem occurs on just about every frame on every roll, in different conditions, and regardless of the orientation of the back.

To answer your second question: when I get a chance I'll snap a shot of the part of the back that I'm referring to, as well as the roller, to show you what I mean.

Allen, you've given me a few ideas about how to test. I think tomorrow I'll go out and put them into action. Particularly the idea about making an exposure with the dark-cloth over the back. I will try that first.

Thanks!

I am having a flare problem with my DaYi 6x12 back. More accurately, it would

described as a fog problem. But whatever you call it, it's a PITA. When using

the back without a mask (i.e. the full 6x12 opening), I get fog clouds on the

short edges of the image.

<P>For the most part, this fogging only extends about 1/4 in from the edge of

the frame, but with brighter subjects and more generous exposures it can creep

in quite a bit. There is also fogging in the empty area between the exposures,

though it appears to be from the same source/location as the in-frame stuff.

Here's a typical example (scanned on a 4990). Please ignore the atrocious color

balance.

<P>

<img src="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/img011.jpg"></img>

<P>

My best guess: when using a wide-angle lens, or with certain movements, light

passes through the 6x12 aperture of the back and strikes the stainless steel

roller, which reflects light back onto the film and causes the fog cloud at the

edge of the image.

<P>

Has anyone else experienced this, and if so, how did you solve the problem?

Anyone have any suggestions? I would really appreciate some help, because right

now, I'm just wasting film shooting 6x12 if the image edges are going to be

ruined every time. Thanks!

Yeah, I know how it works.

But given that moving the mirror takes up a considerable part of the exposure cycle, I'm guessing that the delay is shortened when you pre-flip the mirror and press the button the second time to actually fire the shutter.

Guess I'll just have to measure it myself to find out.

Does anyone know what the latency time is on the D200 from when the camera is

fired (via electronic cable remote), to when the shutter actually begins

exposing ? What is the time when using M_up vs. in normal mode?

Please note, this is for a camera on a tripod, metered and pre-focused manually,

so AE/AF delay is not an issue.

Thanks.

"Guys, you missed the point altogether"

We got the point: Kodachrome has great resolving detail and lasts a long time. Whoa! Stop the presses!

Seriously, what did you expect people to say about it except "I knew that."

You should be happy this thread evolved into anything at all, since the original topic gives it nowhere to go (except a bunch of people patting themselves on the back for using Kodachrome all these years).

Sanford-

I was only being sarcastic. I meter most of the time manually myself. If you check my portfolio, you'll see four shots of a '57 Chevy, all exposed by instinct on Velvia in a IIIc. Guess you're not so old after all. ;)

"Don't any of you guys ever consider using manual exposure?"

I've heard of that. I think I read about it in a history book once.

Seriously, you have to wonder how some people ever survived before auto-metering came in to existence. Both the D80 and D200 are capable of capturing an impressive range if you know what you're doing.

I find it hilarious that someone would buy a camera and then take it back because it doesn't behave exactly like another (current) camera, in a higher price bracket, and designed for a more experienced user.

Did you expect it to be weather-sealed too?

I suppose maybe this is a digital darkroom question, but since the end product

I'm looking for is silver film, and because I'm more familiar with the people

who use this forum, I'll ask it here. I hope this doesn't ruffle any feathers.

I'm looking for a lab that offers film recording onto B&W film. The reason? I

have about 20 images shot with my DSLR that I would like to print onto FB paper

(specifically Forte Polywarmtone in Selectol Soft).

Anyone have any recommendations?

Thanks.

Back when I used alot of flash with Pan F+, I used Diafine all the time for it's compensating properties. After about a year I decided to filter the stuff and my paper-towel filter ended up pitch black from all the suspended silver in the solution. Try folding the paper in half and making your own Rorschach test.

Anyway, to answer the original question -- Diafine will last pretty much forever when the parts are stored separately, though once mixed it has a relatively short life.

I like the look of HP5+ pushed to 3200 in XTOL. Yes it's grainy and contrasty, and there is very little shadow detail, but it has a look to it that I've never been able to replicate with any other film/dev combo.

<P>

here's an <A HREF="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/speedcrazy02_final.jpg">example</A> (HP5+ @ 3200)

<P>

I've also pushed Tri-X to 3200, and gotten beautiful results, though not as contrasty. Unfortunately, I don't have an example of that to show you, however I do have an example of Tri-X @ 1600, which I think shows off what it can do at high speed.

<P>

<A HREF="http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/kathy_001c_web.jpg">clicky</A> (Tri-X @ 1600)

<P>

I heard that same rumour.

<P>

Now let me just think about where I heard it...

<P>

Oh yeah. <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JjMo&tag=">Here</A> it is.

"Only way to get shadow detail is adeuquate exposure, so pushing is not compatible with that goal."

Some developers are better at developing low-exposure areas than others, regardless of whether you push or pull. Naturally what qualifies as "shadow detail" when you push to 12500, is going to be different than when you pull to 400 -- when I say "shadow detail" with regards to pushed film, I'm not talking about Zone I. I wouldn't say they were incompatible, just different.

"Personally, I prefer shoot with no film in camera because my seeing-eye dog not know how loading leica in proper manner."

Your gallery images support that statement.

Jerk.

I'm shooting 120, so grain is not a huge issue.

I shoot at everything from 1600 to 12500, depending on the conditions. I'll have to get a bottle of DD-X and try that, as I've heard good things about it.

I'm currently developing this film in XTOL, and I'm pretty happy with the

results, particularly in the shadow detail. I'm wondering if there is a

different developer I might try that yields the same shadow detail and ability

to push, but with higher acutance. Yes, I know increased acutance will result in

more pronounced grain, but I don't mind that. Or, at least, I don't know if I

would mind it yet and don't mind going through a few bucks and a few rolls to

find out.

Any suggestions?

"so, when I am in a big warehouse and want everything I can get in focus, I could set the distance to 30 feet and stop the aperture down and everything should be in focus from like 8 feet to inifinity??"

Theoretically, yes. But don't forget that if you stop down too far, diffraction will come into play, and you will lose some overall sharpness.

Zone focusing is basically just what you described -- focusing by distance. You try to adjust the camera so that the subject is within the "zone of sharp focus". Some people are able to gauge this by experience, but many use the depth of field scale on the camera. This scale basically tells you that, at a given f-stop, everything from distance A to distance B will be sharp, and anything outside that range will not.

This scale is by no means standardized though. Each lens manufacturer has their own standards of what constitutes sharp and unsharp, and your opinion may not concur with theirs, so while they tell you that, based on distance, something may be sharp, you may not find that to be case.

I try to avoid zone focusing with anything but very wide angle lenses.

What sort of focusing problems are you having with the rangefinder, and how big are you enlarging? If you're scanning and pixel-peeping for sharpness you may never be satisfied.