paul_klingaman

I have a two-fold question concerning delivery of wedding proofs:

 

First, the entire job was shot on film (most C41, some B&W, 35mm and

120), but the bride wants the proofs delivered as digital files on

CD-ROM.

 

Does anyone know a *good* (but not $$$) lab in the Boston metro area

that can pull the C41 1/3, pull the B&W a full stop and soup in

either x-tol or D-76, and scan all the frames as low-res proofs

complete with reference numbers? A tall order, maybe, but the B&W

development is crucial to the way I print, and I need reference #'s

for the frames, b/c I don't want to go crazy printing and/or

ordering re-prints. I guess I'd entertain mailing the film, but

would feel a WHOLE lot better hand-delivering to the lab.

 

2nd Question: Anyone know how I can deliver the CD-ROM(s) in a

professional-looking package? I'd love to have one of the images

printed on the outside of the sleeves (not a cheesy jewel case) with

my logo on the back or lower front, and/or a really classy linen box

(or both).

 

Thanks, very much, in advance for your advice.

 

-Paul

Thank you all for your suggestions.

 

Developing my B&W negs differently is not an option. I'm processing the film in my own darkroom, and have spent a great deal of time and effort tweaking the process to get really great prints. Going digital was a color-only venture for me, but I need to scan and prepare some of my black and white work for a web site.

 

I think the main culprit in this is my scanner...I see some grain enhancement in the color 35mm film I've been scanning too. At any rate, I tried applying a gaussian blur and voila...much better. Still not 100% there, but it's a dramatic improvement without use of 3rd party software, or the other workarounds. Not sure what I'll do when I get to my portraits though :)

 

Thanks again for your thoughtful advice!

I'm scanning 35mm HP5+ with a dedicated minolta film scanner. I'm

using vuescan, scanning max resolution with auto exposure, white

balance, etc.

 

I'm getting ok scans, but it seems there is enhanced film grain, and

artifacts in my skies. Is these any way to smooth this out? When I

open the .tif in PS7, the image is huge at 100% and posterized. It

looks better downsampled to say 25%, but I see the troublesome

artifacts in skies. Is this due to the quality of the scanner, the

film grain (which isn't as apparent when printing in a 'wet'

darkroom), or can I overcome this problem via my scanning methods?

 

I don't have the same problem scanning 120 film with my epson 3200.

I'm about to embark upon a project of shooting mostly fruit, or

similar sized objects in studio environment (table top).

 

Which tube(s) would you recommend for this type of work? I'd like

the objects to take up probably 1/4 to 1/8 of the frame. I'd like to

do this without having to buy additional lenses or macro bellows.

I've already got the 55mm tube, but it's waaay too long for this kind

of work. The lenses I've got available are 80 and 150.

 

I realize the right tool for this job is a 4x5 camera, but as I said

I'd like to use what's available to me (501c, 80, 50).

 

Thanks for your suggestions in advance.

I searched through the archives and can't believe this has never been

talked about here...what's the deal with the M6 battery cover?

 

That sucker is really on there. Each time I replace the battery, I

make sure to not overtighten...it doesn't seem to matter. This is a

wonderful camera, but what a poor design in this area...I can never

get a grip on the cover enough to untighten it.

 

Any suggestions? A minor grievence, I know, but replacements are in

the double-digits now, and I'm getting tired of wrestling with the

little guy.

Just one more thing...

 

The 503cx has TTL/OTF flash metering. Meaning you can get flashes that are designed to automatically generate the amount of light you wish to expose your film at. Very powerful, especially with the leaf shutter...you can flash synch and fill at any speed, and adjust the ASA dial on the side of the camera for differing level of fill(ambient light:flash).

 

If you are unfamiliar with fill flash or TTL flash, learn the basics and make sure your in-camera flash metering is working properly. To do this, simply borrow or rent (or buy, with all of the money you saved) a D-flash 40, or other supported flash, and make some test exposures at fill -1, -1 1/3, -1 2/3, -2, etc. A polaroid back may also help you do this, and is invaluable for proofing (if I were you, I'd buy the pola back next). At this point, you may not wish to concentrate heavily on artificial lighting and instead focus on the nuances of your new camera, but you should at least verify the functionality is there while the purchase is fresh and you may be able to do something about it if the TTL flash metering isn't working.

I'm wondering about the various flash brackets available for this, or

a similar setup, and would appreciate your personal experiences...

 

Currently I'm using a stroboframe flip-type bracket that doesn't cut

it. The camera twists off axis every so often, and it's

annoying...plus, with the 6x6 format, I've got no use for the flip.

Also the setup feels a little top-heavy. I tried mounting the flash

directly on top of my prism finder, but the base of the flash gets in

the way when I put my eye up to the finder...and this setup is top-

heavy too.

 

One thing the stroboframe does, though, is put the flash directly

above the lens, which I've heard is optimal placement. Why do the

hasselblad brackets hold the flash off to the side if this is the

case? Incidentally, I've done some polaroid tests with the placement

above and off to the side, and haven't noticed any difference.

Should I?

 

The brackets I'm considering now are the QR-66 (Denis Reggie model),

and the older hasselblad brackets. My main concerns are eliminating

the twisting of the camera, and setup feel/balance (this setup will

be used almost exclusively for event photography...long days). Seems

like with the hasselblad brackets, you're firing the shutter with the

bracket hand, and not the right hand too? I highly appreciate any

personal experience you're willing to share.

 

Setup: 503cx + pme45 + D-flash 40

 

Thanks,

Paul

Jim/Peter,

 

Which battery packs are you using with the D-40? I'm interested in a lightweight, affordable, durable, rechargeable pack for wedding/event work. Does such a pack exist that would have enough umph to power the D-40 for a full day's coverage? Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Paul

Wrong tool for the job, IMO, but certainly possible. If you need the bigger neg., as suggested above, try a mamiya 6/7 with something wide-ish attached to the front of it, and something with extremely high exposure lattitude inside it (especially if you try the holga).

 

You'd be better served with something smaller and less intimidating, though...an old nikon (e.g. FM, etc.) or better yet a leica of any 'M' flavor (anything that looks like your grandparents' camera).

 

I love my Hasselblad, but not for this work. Shooting 'street' stuff with a leica m and a 35mm summicron is tops.

 

That said, try whatever you like...it's you that makes the image, not the camera. You may wind up with a style of shooting completely innovative and unique, and that rocks.

Of course choosing a developer will depend largly on your desired effect. It sounds like with the wide variety of films you are using, you need to do a little experimentation to find what you like. That said, I'd recommend D-76. I use it accross the board, but only shoot a few different emulsions (mainly HP5+ and Tri-X, sometimes Acros and Delta 3200). Your mileage will vary depending on how you expose your film, how you scan your negs., etc. Your film choice seems to be largely Ilford...if memory serves, Ilford's web site has a great table with their suggestion of developer/film combo for the desired effect. You might find a good starting point there too.

 

I realize this advice might make for more brain boil, but I hope it helps. Have fun and experiment. Mainly run many, many tests. When you're happy with something, stick to it and tweak it. It's a very rewarding process.

I'm currently building a darkroom in my basement, and considering

water temperature control/filtration panels. I plan on doing

processing of B&W films and prints only in this darkroom, max print

sizes 16x20, max film size 4x5. In terms of volume, I plan on doing

my personal work in this darkroom, and my B&W professional work

(mostly weddings and portraiture). So volume will not be at the

level of a professional lab, but a bit more work will be pushed

through this space than normal...probably an average of 5-10 rolls of

film, and maybe 25-50 prints weekly.

 

The units I'm considering purchasing are the Leedal wcp 15 economix,

and the Delta model 15. I don't think I need much more than either

of these two models seeing that a) I'll be using a jobo for film

processing temp regulation, b) I'll be using an archival print washer

to wash prints and c) this will be a B&W-only darkroom.

 

So in looking at the two units in question, I see converse likes and

dislikes amounst them...

 

With the Delta panel, I like the filter size and the overall

reputation of their products, but dislike the hot and cold valves

used below the mixing chamber. Of course, the model 25 mixing

chamber is great, but that's far above what I'd like to spend on this

unit.

 

With the Leedal panel, all of the valves used seem better than on the

delta, but the filter is smaller. A few concerns here...filtration

is a bit more important to me than temp. regulation in my situation;

will this filter do the job? Are replacement filter cartridges

readily available for the filter?

 

If the filter is adequate in the Leedal, given the price difference

(about 50 dollars) and the fact that the valves are nicer...I'd go

with it. If the filter is inferior to the Delta filter, I may be

swayed to add a couple upgraded valves to the unit and spend the

extra cash. Or, if the Delta product is simply of a better build

quality (I'm a sucker for longevity), I'd probably go with the Delta.

 

Does anyone have experience with these two units? If you could pass

along your experiences and opinions, I'd highly appreciate your 2

cents.

 

Thanks,

Paul

Art, your Excellency. Gee thanks for your constructive comments...the CAPS are really necessary.

 

Last I looked, this message board was the Medium Format Digest, not Pros Opportunities for Hazing.

Yesterday on shoot, I did the unthinkable...loaded 2 of my a12s the

wrong way. I have no idea how this happened...I can't even blame an

assistant b/c I wasn't using one! So now I have 2 questions:

 

1. Should I even bother processing the film? It's a roll each of tri-

x and hp5. I have never unrolled tri-x in 120 or done this before,

but I suspect the leader will have blocked the light completely on

the film plate. Please say it isn't so.

 

2. Is there any way you have found to avoid this problem? I suspect

I did it b/c I loaded a Holga just before loading the 2 a12s.

 

Luckily the relationship with the client is of an informal nature

(he's a close friend, so I'm giving a huge discounting to begin

with), and I shot a few rolls of 135 also, which should have some

usable images, but I still feel about 1 inch tall. Any advice

leading to my growth is greatly appreciated.

Sorry...I should also mention I'm using a 1:1 dilution.

Could constant agitation possibly be the cause of the increased grain I'm seeing with HP5+ in D76? I'm processing the stuff at the recommended 20 degrees in a Jobo processor. I've finally controlled the contrast to an acceptable level by reducing development time, but the grain is still slightly more apparent than I prefer. Before the purchase of the Jobo, I've been developing Tri-X in Xtol and D76...both with very nice tone and grain. A friend turned me onto this HP5+ stuff, so I thought I'd give it a try. I really like the tone, and the stuff is extremely cheap and versitile. However, is the grain normally this much a factor with this film, or is the constant agitation of the Jobo to blame? My understanding is that agitation influences contrast, not grain. Incidentally, I'm over-exposing the stuff 2/3 stops more than the recommended 400. Thanks in advance for your info.

I recently bought a 501c kit with 80mm and a12 back. I'm loving the

system so far, with the exception of the back. It's got a chipped

corner. I did some tests when I first bought the camera and could

find no light leaks. However, I just got back a roll of color film

that showed evidence of a leak in the first 3 frames. Also, the top

portion of frames 9 and 10 are not crisp lines, as though the film

was not snug against the back at time of exposure. Is there a

possiblity of this being a processing error (It just so happens this

was the first time I tried a new lab)? I'd say that around 10 rolls

have gone through the back since my initial tests.

 

I should mention that I took the camera back to the dealer upon

discovery of the chip. Since there was no problem back then, I

accepted a polaroid back in exchange for the defect and kept the

a12. The chip is hanging on by the covering of the back. I'm

wondering if there's any hope for glueing the chip, or sending it

away for repairs. Can just the top part of the insert be replaced,

or does the whole insert need to be replaced? Thanks in advance for

your advice and/or information given.

Daniel,

 

<p>

 

I had the same problem with Tri-x. Though I didn't process Tmax and

Tri-x in the same tank, I have developed both films in the same

session, using the same developer(both Tmax and Xtol)and fix, at the

same temperature, in the exact same patterson model 2 reel tank. No

problems whatsoever with the Tmax, the Tri-x was less forgiving. In

addition to slimy emulsion, I also experienced spotting and grain

reticulation. Tempering my water, and putting a sign on the toilet

that says, "do not flush- washing film" went a long way. Check your

processing temperatures, and if you live in an apartment with

antiquated plumbing like I do, double filter your water and make sure

no one flushes or showers during your rinse. In a controlled

environment, you will love Tri-x and XTol. I use this combonation 90

percent of the time, and couldn't be happier with the results.