roy_pace

<p>Is "contrasty" the word you're thinking of?</p>

<p>I have not yet used the latest incarnation of Arista Ortho; still working through my stash of APHS. I expose mine at EI 3 or 1.5, then develop by inspection in Rodinal 1+200 @ 70F. Developing time tends to land somewhere around 8 minutes, so that might be a starting point. If you choose to develop by inspection, pre-soak the negative in 70F water using several changes of water. Otherwise, the antihalation layer will cloud the developer and make the negative hard to see under the safelight.</p>

<p>If you have access to Benzotriazole and Potassium Iodide, then you should consider the formula on Jim Gali's <a href="http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/FreestyleAPHS/DevelopingAPHSwRodinal.html">website</a>. It is reported to be effective in controlling the highlights a little better than Rodinal 1+200.</p>

<p>At EI 6, I was unable get sufficient shadow detail with Rodinal. I did find that Diafine 4min + 4min gives a dense, contrasty negative with adequate shadow detail. Works great for cyanotypes. I liked this process for ease of use, but found that I was unable to avoid air bubbles in several instances. User error in each case, but I found it aggravating enough that I don't use Diafine for this process anymore.</p>

<p>Was the sky overcast? If so, then the #29 will not have much effect. Otherwise, the #29 will produce a very dramatic sky, sometimes too much so.</p>

<p>Freestyle carries a warm-tone paper developer under their house brand, Arista. The product is called "Arista Premium Warmtone HQ Paper Developer." Freestyle claims that it is a replacement for the Zonal Pro HQ, although I have not used either. You can do a search for the product on their website, or click <a href="http://freestylephoto.biz/35164-Arista-Premium-Warmtone-HQ-Paper-Developer-1-quart?cat_id=301">here</a>. Good luck!</p>

<p>Sun is troublesome at times, true. My darkroom is in a bathroom and I have to make it light tight every time I want to use it. Not too big a deal, though, I just need to toss a black blanket at the bottom. Got foam seals around the rest. No window to deal with, thank goodness.</p>

<p>My photo work leans more heavily towards film, so most of my cyanotype printing in the past has used large format negatives from my 8x10 pinhole camera. I have tried creating negatives from 35mm using litho film, and never could get the hang of it. When I tried printing on acetate using ink jet or laser, I get horrible banding. Probably attributable to my cheap computer printer. Printing on ordinary copy paper and waxing the back has shown great promise, however, so I plan on incorporating that into my work flow. I probably loose a stop worth of light vs acetate. This summer is too busy at the moment, I probably won't really get started again until autumn. </p>

<p>Ha, your description of Ireland made me laugh! My family through my mother's side is from there and I would love to visit someday. Weather-wise, my situation is much like your's; unpredictable and rapid-changing. Plus I print when the mood strikes me and getting mood and good weather at the same time is a real challenge. Sometimes I wish I lived someplace the sun was more consistent, but Alaska is my home...</p>

<p>For the tubes, I think that they'll work, as long as you do not try to print too large. Looks like earlier you mentioned a 12" image, that's probably the largest I would attempt for now. It's going to take some trial and error to figure out the best height above the paper, so maybe build a box out of cardboard first? You might try 8-12 inches above the paper and use a light spacing of: box edge|2inches|lamp 1|4inches|lamp 2|4inches|lamp 3|2inches|box edge.</p>

<p>While I only want to be encouraging, you should remember this adage from the darkroom: "a photographer's best friend is a garbage can." It wasn't until cyanotype #6 that I had a print worth keeping. Still experimenting with gum, haven't gotten a satisfactory print yet. Created some tissue in preparation for carbon printing, I have high hopes!</p>

<p>One last thing before I go to bed, this site has a lot of good how-to articles on historical printing: <a href="http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes">click</a>. No two people print exactly the same, so a variety of sources may give you some inspiration. I also have a few articles in pdf format, PM me your email address if you are interested.</p>

<p>Chris, I completely understand your reluctance to go the metal halide route. I got mine used at a bargain, and am lucky enough to have a degree in electrical engineering...</p>

<p>I wanted to second John's suggestion about using the sun. Cyanotypes are quick and cheap to make, especially compared print-out-paper and Van Dykes. Pricing the chemicals for platinum just about gave me heart failure, so I have never tried that process. The point I am attempting to make is, use the sun (or cloudy sky!) for 20 or so prints and see if you still like the process. If you still like it, then consider purchasing lights. </p>

<p>One other thing out cyanotypes: they are probably the most light-hungry of all the historical printing processes. Consider that as bright as the sun is, it can still take 20 minutes to achieve the correct density. Cyanotypes under artificial lighting takes a while.</p>

<p>I took a look at the UV lamp site you linked, those will probably work. You might have some problems with uneven illumination, though. That is one reason why you often see large banks of fluorescents. Also fluorescents are slow, at least individually. The face tanners you mentioned earlier would probably serve you well. You'll probably be limited on your final print size.</p>

<p>I also looked at your personal website, nice work! Some of your images will work well with the cyanotype process. Once you get your feet wet, gum bichromate is also fun. Some of your abstracts in tri-color gum would be stunning I bet!</p>

<p>One type of source to consider is metal halide. This type of lamp is basically a newer version of the mercury vapour lamps mentioned by Chris Waller. You don't need a special type of metal halide, just a simple 400W or 1000W lamp will do. A bank of fluorescent tubes with the same output is likely to cost the same as a single metal halide lamp. If you can find someone who is putting in new lighting, then you can often buy the used ones at a bargain. You will want to replace the bulb, though.</p>

<p>One word of caution: the outer envelope of the metal halide bulb cannot be touched without gloves. That will cause early failure. There is also a warm-up time of 3-5 minutes before it comes to full brightness.</p>

 

<p>If you need more sky darkening than a yellow can provide, consider stacking a yellow and polarizer. The foliage will not darken as much as with a red, but the sky will be somewhat more dramatic than yellow alone. For some wild effects, pair the polarizer with a red filter.<br>

Don't forget that if you try stacking filters, you'll increase the chances of flare and image degradation. Also, don't forget that a polarizer works best when positioned 90 deg from the sun.</p>

<p>Thanks Dave! There is a camera repair place close to where I work, so I will take it there and see how much it is to fix.</p>

<p>Here is a closer look at some of the problem frames:</p><div></div>

<p>Good day!<br>

I am having trouble with exposure on a Nikon FE. At slow speeds (1/60s and slower) it seems to function correctly. At higher speeds, however, there is a band of no underexposure on the lower portion of the frame.<br>

I have tried a variety of lenses, so I am sure that is not the problem. I am suspecting that either the mirror is moving too slow or that the shutter itself is the problem.<br>

Is this a simple matter of the camera needing a CLA, or do I have a bigger problem?</p>

<div></div>

<p>Andrew,<br>

You might consider trying to purchase powdered ammonium thiosulfate. In the US, Photographers' Formulary carries it for $9.00/500g. 60g of powdered ammonium thiosulfate in 100ml of water would give you a 60% solution. From what I have heard, though, it does not have a long shelf life in the powder form.</p>

<p>For prints, I went a purchased a string of red LED Christmas lights when they went on sale. No fogging yet, but I have not yet tried lith or ortho film. Next time I put in an order for supplies I plan on getting some.<br>

It is interesting that you were able to get red light out of a white LED. LEDs tend to be narrow spectrum. Learn something new every day.</p>

<p>Regarding the shipping costs: I live in Anchorage AK and the chemistry, paper and film choices are very limited. Only one local store. To get Rodinal, I had to mail order and noticed that different companies have different shipping policies. Some will ship via post, while most others only by private carriers. If you are not in a hury, Rodinal shows up on the 'bay and often ships post (expecting to get struck by lightning any minute).That is where I got mine, and it works great.</p>

<p>I do try to buy local whenever possible, but after that it is simply a money game for me. I would much rather spend money on materials rather than shipping.</p>

Here are two projects that might not be pretty but should get the job done:<p><p>

<a href="http://www.jyoseph.com/blog/detail.cfm/post/19" >DIY ringlight</a><p>

<a href="http://blog.dennisonbertram.com/hackmaster/2005/02/build-your-own-ring-flash.htm" >DIY ringflash</a>

Michael,<p>Try this pdf from <a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Film%20Hobbyist.PDF" >Ilford</a>. It lists the materials needed to start out and has an overview of Ilford film and chemicals. It also details how to develop your first roll of film.<p>Roy

Sorry, the page provides a PDF that details the story.<p>Roy

Try <a href="http://www.p-p-p-powerbook.com/" >here</a>. It is a 28 page PDF, so it takes a bit to read it all.<p>Roy

Paul,<p>I used to own one of those lenses before it fell out of my partially zipped backpack and broke on the pavement. Too bad. It was a nice lens. One downside though; it is heavy compared to the newer zooms. I agree with John, don't let the deal slip away.<P>Roy

Joe, several techniques and films are listed at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000IVj. I have tried the preflashing technique described 3/4 the way down the post. It worked pretty well. Good luck! Roy

Missy, my first recommendation would be to read some of the photo.net tutorials. They tend to be pretty good. For beginners, read the tutorial at this URL:

 

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/

 

It will go a long ways towards educating you on the basics of photography. As you grasp the basics and move on to more advanced techniques, you'll see a gradual improvement of your photos.

 

As for this photo, I will try my best: the lighting is too harsh, probably due to the flash. ie, your daughter's face is washed out. Also try placing your daughter in one of the thirds, rather than the center. I'll post an example of what I mean. Welcome to photo.net!

Roy<div></div>

Kyle, I would highly recommend reading Bob Atkins' article on UV filters. The URL is atttached at the end. It gives a pretty good overview of UV filters and how various filters compare. After reading this article, I would disagree with Macman that all UV filters are the same. He is correct, however, in that the lens glass itself provides some UV filtering.

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/filters/

First, thank you all for your responses...I emailed KEH to see what their staff had to say. They said that the bleed does become worse, but can take years. They also said that it was not economical to replace the LCD as no spare parts are available. No surprise, but I saw nothing lost in asking. Seems like everyone here has had a positive experience with the bleed not progressing much, so I'll probably go ahead and purchase one.

Roy

I have to replace my 7000 and am looking into the 9000s. Problem is

I see quite a few with bleeding LCDs. So my question is, does the

LCD simply bleed a little bit and stop or does it bleed continuously

until the information is unreadable? http://www.9000.org/index.php

seems to say not, but I would like some confirmation on that. Thank

you!

Roy