lotuseaters

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>You might want to try using a little Potassium Bromide (KBr) as your film's faster than 100 ISO. 0.7g to the litre will do. I think iodine salt will do the trick too, but I have never tried it myself. That said, a lot depends on your developing time. 15mins would be a good starting point for 200 ISO film.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Caffenol-CM is for medium speed films, which explains why your Retro came out fine (provided it was a Rollei Retro 100) and your HP5 didn't, as latter is a 400 ISO speed film. You'll need to add a gram of potassium bromide to your recipe in order to develop 400 ISO and above.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Judging by the brownish colour your paper looks pretty much pre-exposed to me. Did you you coat under darkroom conditions (red light)? The first coat will have gone green (the bits where there has been no second coat applied) because during the exposure it will collect a lot more light than the bits that were double-coated. Green is a good indicator for proper exposure. I guess the brownish areas did not get enough light. A 5 minute exposure using a UV light source doesn't sound like much - not for a photogram anyway. I normally expose negatives for a minimum of 10 minutes in bright sunlight (I do make my own solutions though). A UV light will need a great deal more time than that.</p>

<p>According to your EXIF data you exposed the first shot at half a second. You need to account for Earth's rotation. Our planet takes 24 hours for a full spin, so your shutter speed should be no slower than 1/24 sec - meaning any shutter speed less than 1/30 sec (which is the one closest) will result in motion blur, causing the choppy edges. Unless, of course, that's intended and the moon is not meant to be the main subject of your picture. That said, the wobble is due to atmosphere.</p>

<div></div>

<p>As displays lose brightness with age, I wouldn't automatically assume the younger camera should have the brighter viewfinder display, unless you know how many rolls of film have been put through either camera. The camera might have seen a lot more film or its previous owner was into long exposure times. I wouldn't worry about it as long as the display shows the information you want/need.</p>

<div></div>

<p>1/20 sec at ISO200 and F2.8 seems odd indeed. Have you tried cleaning the mount and lens contacts with a Q-tip and some alcohol? Could well be a case of the lens not passing on the correct information (aperture setting) to the body's electronics. What lens did you use?</p>

<p>Difficult to say without knowing aperture and film speed. 1/20 sec could be about right if you're using slow film and a small aperture. Why not take a few test frames to find out if the meter reading is off? I'd be more concerned about why the camera started whirring. Try a different lens and if that doesn't work have the camera serviced.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Contax G2 with a GD-2 data back</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>As was mentioned here before, there's no need to transfer the copyright. If your client has not signed a model release then you're pretty much limited in using those images anyway. If she refuses to sign the form, then for you this means no public display, no electronic or print publication, no submission to image libraries. Her concern is not unusual, but I think what she means is that she has no intention on giving up her personal rights. Those are basically covered by the model release form and are to be viewed independently from copyright.</p>

<p>Copyright can be transferred, but never entirely. Well, at least that's the case in Germany. Switzerland may be different. Over here, the personal rights of an author will always remain with him as the creator of an image - during his lifetime plus 70 after his death. All other rights concerning commercial use may be signed over to a client. The commercial right to sell them, print them or make whatever use of them can be licensed to a client completely - effectively making the client the owner of your image. Once you have licensed an image this way, the only thing that remains with you is your right to have the client always credit you as the author. You would have no say in how the image is used and any money made goes to the owner - which indeed makes copyright useless in terms of profit for you as the creator.</p>

<p>You could forget about the model release and retain the copyright or you can SELL the copyright to her, if she insists on having it.</p>

<div></div>