dealy663

Yes these lenses use leaf shutters. I've not noticed anything strange when viewing the shutter operation though. I'll look more closely tonite.

Derek

Well I'm a little closer to figuring out what is going wrong. I just went back and reviewed one of my rolls from May and sure enough the same sort of light leak occurs on 3 of the frames. At the time I just discounted the problem because I was hand holding a filter in front of the lens and just assumed I didn't have things lined up.

Well after checking my log I see that I used the same lens on the roll in May as I used on this roll I shot last saturday. On the May roll the other frames look fine, and they were shot with my 58mm and 90mm lenses. The problem frames were shot with my 135mm lens.

On the roll that I shot last saturday all but one frame were shot with the 135mm lens. However there is one frame on that roll that was shot with the 135mm that is just fine (the first frame on the roll).

I'm quite perplexed about why this particular lens could becausing such a problem. I just put the lens on the camera and removed the film back looking for some sort of light leak but don't see anything.

Any ideas?

Derek

Sorry about the link, I spazzed when I copied it from somewhere else, doh!

No there are no light leaks in my film loading area. This is my wife's closet, and I only do it at night when its dark. I've loaded all of my film in this same place and none have exhibited any marks like this. Dropped off a roll of Provia 100F shot in the same camera on the same day, so when I get it back on wednesday I'll have a better idea if there is a light leak in the magazine.

Derek

Hello Everybody!

<p>

I'm sorta new to developing but have processed about 10 rolls of 120

and 35mm B/W film myself in the past few months. The roll I just

developed last night turned out to have some major problems, based on

the look, my guess is light contamination. On this roll of 120 it

looks like about 6 of the exposures suffer from this problem.

According to my log all of the problem exposures were shot with the

same lens. But some of the frames shot with this lens don't appear to

exhibit the problem.

<p>

<a href="http://www.grandprixsw.com/photogra...0105/index.html

">Here is a link</a> to a page showing two of the frames that I've

scanned. I made no attempt at nailing the white and black points of

this scan so ignore how flat the image is.

<p>

These were shot on my old Koni Omega Rapid 200. The last time I used

this camera with this lens everything seemed to be ok.

<p>

So my question is: Does this look like a camera problem, or more like

I somehow let some light in while loading the film into the magazine?

<p>

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

<p><p>

Derek

I've found that you can get some really nice scans from Tri-X, or Tmax-100 or Delta 100 provided that you take the time to scan the negative properly. Below is a link to a folder of images I just scanned. They were all shot on a Nikon F100 using Tri-X at 400, and developed in D-76 1:1. I used an Epson 4990 flatbed to scan them.

<p>

When I scan I make sure that I'm not clipping the highlights. Occasionally I will allow for minor clipping of shadows to get better black density. But as you can see in the two photos of my daughter, I have really held back the amount of black clipping I was willing to do.

<p>

Generally B/W neg scans should come out of the scanner a little flat. So far I find it much more convenient to make the mid-tone adjustments afterwards in PS. As others have mentioned it can be helpful to scan as color positive and then invert in PS later. This causes the scanning software to apply a different algorithm to its interpretation of the hi and low values, and will occasionally get you closer to your desired final goal for the image than a normal negative scan.

<p>

I don't think I've managed to scan any film at all yet (color or B/W) that hasn't required post scanning work in PS. You should also remember that if you really prefer those hi-contrast kinds of images, that you will be making less work for yourself if you originally expose your film with that in mind (shoot in hi-contrast lighting).

<p>

<a href="http://www2.grandprixsw.com:8000/photography/pub/June%202005/061605/index.html">My latest Tri-X folder</a>

<p>

Derek

I saw the marks as soon as I pulled the film off of the reel. Someone on APUG suggested it might have been the tape at the end getting stuck on the film while I was loading the reel.

Sounds plausible to me. Those big marks are definitely not from the squeegee.

Derek

Hi,

I processed my 4th roll of film at home a couple of days ago and got

some strange marks on the negative. I was wondering if any of you

might recognize what I did wrong that would have caused them. These

marks appeared on 3 or 4 frames in the middle of the roll. I loaded

this roll of 120 Tri-X on to a plastic Jobo 1510 (I think) reel and

processed it by hand in a Jobo plastic tank. I don't remember doing

anything wrong like mishandling the film as I wound it on to the reel.

This is my 3rd roll of 120 using these tools, and the first time I've

seen these kinds of marks. I developed in D-76 for the standard 6:45

min, using normal agitation once every 30 seconds.

This first link is to a scan of the whole frame:

<a

href="http://pangloss.grandprixsw.com:8000/photography/pub/April%202005/042305/ProblemWhole.jpg">Whole

Problem</a>

This next link is to a 100% crop of the problem area:

<a

href="http://pangloss.grandprixsw.com:8000/photography/pub/April%202005/042305/Problem100.jpg">100%

crop</a>

I don't really see how I could be getting grain reticulation because of temperature variations. All of my chemicals sat in the same water jacket for about 2 hours before I began the development process. Everything remained a constant 68F for development. My final rinse was done via the tap water for 5 or 6 minutes, and that measured out to be 70F but I would assume reticulation wouldn't occur at that late a stage.

Am I wrong about this?

Ok, I've uploaded a new batch of pix. Some are rescans of the originals that I was complaining about, and others are new pix from the same roll. The album shows the pictures by date, so the newest pictures are starting on page 3. Now that I understand the Epson software a little better I'm much happier with the scans, and how the Tri-X turned out via my own development.

Now if any of you have suggestions on what I can do about those hideous Newton's rings I'm getting with the 35mm film holder I'd really appreciate it.

When my film was hanging to dry it developed a longitudinal curve that runs down the center of the film for its whole length. So the middle of my film is bowed down in the holder and touching the glass of the flatbed generating the Newton's rings.... blech!

D

I just rescanned a few of the frames, but this time at 16-bit and without doing any adjustments in the Epson scan software. In the original images I think I messed up the scans by trying to get some reasonable contrast in the image, via the small preview frame that Epson Scan provides.

I'll be adding the new scans to my website tonight on pages 3 and 4 after I make a few adjustments and remove the dust.

I don't know what reticulation is, but I'll look it up shortly.

D

Hi,<p>

I've processed my first roll of film at home this weekend (Back 28

years ago I processed my own film as a kid). It came out looking like

recognizable photographs. I have some questions about how things

turned out, and what I may have done wrong. <p>

I processed a roll of Tri-X 400 shot in a Nikon F100, mostly outdoors

in daylight. I used D-76 full strength and followed the instructions

for normal processing at 68F (which I think is 6.75 min). I agitated

every 30 seconds for about 5 seconds. I used Kodak Fixer and Hypo

clearing agent followed by a normal wash of 5 min or so.<p>

Here is a link to the pics: <a

href="http://pangloss.grandprixsw.com:8000/photography/pub/April%202005/040605/index2.html">Tri-X

400</a><p>

All the B/W pics on pages 2 and 3 are from this roll. My questions are:

<ul>

<li>Is this amount of grain normal for normal development of 35mm

Tri-X?</li>

<li>It appears that the midtones are somewhat compressed. That most of

the data is in the shadows and highlights. Is this likely the result

of the way that I developed the film?</li>

<li>If you look at the image BuildingClouds.jpg at the bottom of the

frame you can see that it is quite faded there. The first 5 or so

frames on this roll all had this problem. Any idea what I did wrong

there?</li></ul><p>

All images were shot with either a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 or a Nikkor 85mm

f/1.8. They were processed in a Jobo tank that can hold 2 reels of

35mm. The images were all scanned with an Epson 4990 flatbed at 2400

dpi with no grain reduction enabled.<p>

Thanks in advance, for any suggestions.<p>

Derek

Hi,

I have a lens which takes Series 7 filters. I have been unable to find

any adapters that will allow me to mount up my normal filters to it.

If such a thing exists where could I find an adapter that would allow

me to mount my 77mm filters to this lens?

If there is no adapter, does anyone have any suggestions on how to

locate the standard color filters for B/W photography in the Series 7

size?

Thanks, Derek

Hi,

I'm going to start developing my 35mm and 120 B/W film here at home.

I've been searching around trying to find a good web resource that

describes the process, which developers for certain effects, film

choices, and necessary materials (bags, reels, tanks etc.). But I

haven't found anything very helpful yet.

Could someone point me in the right direction?

I don't have a darkroom at home, and plan on doing this in the

bathroom, and then using my scanner (4870 or 4990 Epson) for importing

the pictures into Photoshop. I've been using Tri-X 400 and liking what

I get out of it, but I need to be able to process the film myself.

Everything comes back from the labs with dust and scratches.

I'd appreciate any tips on which films and techniques are easiest for

guys just starting out with home development.

Thanks, Derek

I use the IJC/OPM RIP from Bowhaus.com. It is half the price of IP and allows me greater control of the inks that are used to generate the type of B/W images that I'm after. IJC/OPM does require more effort to learn, but it is worth it in my opinion.

The cost and licensing restrictions on IP are prohibitive in my opinion.

Derek

Look,

Just because you hear a bunch of people on the internet squealing about the RC papers with the 2100/2200 doesn't mean that you shouldn't try them and see if it works for you.

An RC paper, whether premium glossy or a textured semi-gloss or luster will almost certainly have a wider color gamut than a matte paper. If you have something that requires an RC paper to represent what you want to show, then use it. There are certainly many others that do.

Get over the bronzing issue. When an inkjet photo on RC paper is framed behind glass then you can't really see any bronzing. Also you can apply a spray finish such as PremierArt Print Shield to your photos. I've found that this almost completely eliminates bronzing visible on the "oh so horrible" Epson Premium Glossy paper. Not only that but spraying your prints with something like Print Shield or Lascaux Fixative (for matte papers) in all likelihood increases their durability, resistance to scuffing, and also very likely their lifetime before fading.

Just because you read a bunch of people complaining on the internet doesn't mean that what they're saying should be taken at face value.

No one made you buy the Epson 4000 printer. YOU bought it yourself, and have no one else to blame but your own impatience. I'm sure that the Conetech people are doing the best they can but they are hardly the first or last company to overestimate their software delivery times.

From everything I've read the 4000 is an excellent printer with the Ultrachrome inks alone. Not to mention the fact that there are several RIPs already available for it, and other companies offering their own ink formulations.

You should have been spending the time learning how to use the reportedly wonderful tool you have with the Epson inks. Maybe you'd find out that the system is actually capable of giving you what you need without 3rd party conversions. But you honestly don't sound like the kind of person that can figure things out for himself. Those of us who are actually creative when using tools spend large amounts of time testing, tinkering, experimenting trying to figure out how to get the best out of what we have.

I've had a D100 for about 6 weeks now and just love the thing to death!

I recently sold me 17-35 f/2.8 so I could get the 12-24 f/4 DX lens. There is no question that the 17-35 is an awsome lens, but it just wasn't wide enough on the D100. I felt that since I haven't touched my F100 since going digital that it the money was best spent on a lens really built for the digital sensor. I am very happy with the 12-24, and have taken some really nice shots with it.

I wish I could afford to get the 17-55 2.8 when it comes out, but I will not likely be able to. So I may wind up getting the 18-70 at some point. The 12-24 does work on my F100 but only down to about 18mm w/out vignetting.

The 17-35 is heavy and large compared to the 12-24, but it is a more robust lens made of metal. Not to mention that it costs several hundred dollars more. I have to admit that I was really worried about selling the 17-35 since it was so awsome on my film camera, but like I said I haven't shot one frame on the F100 since going digital.

Derek

I don't remember the magazine, sorry. Can't say that I'd be too interested in going back to find out. It really ruined my day. I was at Borders, I think it was a large format (magazine wise, not film wise) and had a light cover.

For whatever reason war photagraphy seems totally different to me. It is more like a documentary on the horrors of life and death than art. Not that I sit around reading articles with people killed in war actions in my spare time though.

I guess it was somewhat difficult for me because I so often view the photography magazines and feel in awe of so much beauty. Again, for whatever reason I can see both the beauty and troubled life in the migrant woman's face on the cover of Lens Work.

Today while browsing through a photography magazine at the bookstore,

I came across some very disturbing images someone had photographed of

cadavers, and another of a primate monkey (chimp or ape) on a

vivisectionist table. This has totally ruined my day and I'm wondering

how do some people consider this type of thing Art?

I am so totally disturbed now.... :-(

Hi,

I have an Epson Stylus Photo 870. While printing some B&W images today

I noticed that the color inks were apparently being used. The color

levels were descending in the status monitor.

This was happening even though I selected Black ink in the print setup

dialog. Is this normal? Is the color ink actually being used? Is there

anyway I can get the printer to only use the black ink for these

photos, or does that not make sense??

TIA, Derek