paul_brenner1

May 4, 2013

I've been shooting a lot of Arista II Ortho Litho film, trying to nail down exposure and development times. In this process, I've read many posts advocating different approaches. Things began to fall into place when I read a post suggesting using highly-diluted HC-110 (1:200 from syrup).

That made sense:

<ul>

<li>Film developers, all else being equal, are lower contrast than paper developers</li>

<li>I shoot a lot of paper negs, and use dilute HC-110</li>

<li>Even dilute paper developer I tried resulted in excessive contrast</li>

</ul>

The suggested development time for 1:200 HC-110 was so long (20 minutes or so) that I figured I could use less dilution. So I started with 1:150 from syrup. I've gotten long-scale, normal looking negatives. Details:

<ul>

<li>Highlights placed on Zone VIII (I usually shoot in soft light and use the Picker "Modified Zone System")</li>

<li>HC-110 diluted 1:150 from syrup (1/3 oz. to 50 oz of water)</li>

<li>72 degrees</li>

<li>Tray process, 7 minutes</li>

<li>Agitation gentle and continuous for 30 seconds, then ten seconds once a minute</li>

</ul>

Note: the recent article in "Photo Techniques" said to use a water stop bath. I find that if I use a very dilute stop bath ( 1/8 oz to 40 oz of water) there are no harmful effects on the negative.

As always, "your mileage may vary especially if you are shooting in more contrasty situations, but I offer the above as a place to start that should get you close.

Paul

April 20, 2013

Thanks.

I had been trying dilute paper developer.

I read a post about treating Ortho like paper negs, which I do a lot of. I realized I use HC-110 diluted 1:62 from syrup for paper negs, so tried it. Much better, but will probably try 1:100.

Paul

April 19, 2013

I'm trying out Arista Ortho 4x5: I like the idea that it matches the sensitivity of 19th century materials and that it can be processed with a safelight. (I'm into classic processes.) (Plus the price is right!) But I'm having trouble calibrating to tame the contrast:

I've been using standard paper developer with extra dilution. Have tried "stand" development and water bath development.The problem seems to be that while the extra dilution somewhat tames the highlights, it causes such a loss of effective film speed, there is little detail at all in the lower values. That's even with "pre-flashing".

I've read many posts from various years past, but am wondering what the latest "thinking" or revelations are on this. Has anyone found a exposure/development/processing combination that yields lower value detail with controlled highlights?

Maybe the answer is giving at least one or two stops more exposure (say ISO 3 or 1.5 rather than 6) with way higher dilution and longer stand development.

Thanks,

Paul

January 23, 2013

Never mind. I looked more closely at the color prints, and they have a cast also, which not surprisingly is less noticeable than on a print of a straight b&w image.

Assume I simply need a new cartridge, even though the utility shows plenty of ink...

January 22, 2013

Mike,

Thanks for this. I have the same printer, and was flummoxed because there are NO screws on the bottom.

Question: Does the front smoky black cover unsnap from the bottom edge on the front, or the back edge on top?

Paul

January 21, 2013

I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on this, but I hope so...

I do very little printing. My old HP home/office 6122 does what I need, which is primarily printing digital negs. The printer has always been accurate color-wise.

Everything was fine up until recently. Now, color pics print out very accurately, but b&w images have a reddish-brown cast, even if the image is totally desaturated and neutral. I'm not talking about a minor color cast: I'm talking about a significant reddish-brown.

- As I said, color still prints out accurately, including the printer test prints

- This problem occurs with multiple photo programs (including Photoshop CS4)

There is apparently something the printer is not "reading" with respect to b&w images, but I can't figure out what. I've made no changes.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Paul

December 3, 2012

Apologies for my delay here, and thanks to all for the informative answers! This is the best forum on the web, as folks are both knowledgeable and willing to share their expertise!

Paul

November 28, 2012

I'm a "traditional" photographer who has also used digital compacts for many years (most recent previous camera - G9).

Now that I have a T4i, I'm really applying myself to shooting RAW. But I'm feeling kind of stupid:

I have CS4, but assume I can't convert T4i RAW files - right? No update to add the T4i?

In that case, I guess I have to use a separate RAW editor/converter? So far I've been using the Canon software, which is easy, but not necessarily the best software...

I believe ACR a plug in to Photoshop? If so, is it compatible with CS4? (I believe not.)

I'm considering getting Lightroom. Does it have a built-in RAW editor/converter?

If I have to buy a RAW editor/converter, DxO Optics Pro seems like a good one, but I don't want to have to lay out for that if there are similar alternatives that don't cost anything, or at least as much...

Finally, any overall thoughts on the best solution, given my situation that I've described?

Sorry for all the questions. Hope someone can help me here.

Thanks much,

Paul

October 25, 2012

I recently bought a T4i and the 18-135 STM lens, and am happy with it. But it is a bit heavy, and after to'ing and fro'ing, I also bought the 40mm (at a local big box store where I have up to 30 days to return no questions asked).

Like for others, what held me back was the effective 64mm focal length on APS, which is a little "weird". However, after using it for a couple of weeks, I'm pretty sure I will keep it:

1. Obviously, makes for a very light carrying-around camera.

2. More importantly, I've found that for many situations where I need to be a bit wider, it is very practical simply to back up several steps, and voila, the framing is right. (Amazing!) Even 64mm (effective) is short enough to do this in many situations. (And sometimes I need to move forward!) I realized how much I (and I'll bet others) tend to get a bit "lazy" with a zoom. And more broadly, living with a "limitation" can help make you a better photographer. You need to be a bit more deliberate.

3. Even without IS, it is a reasonably good very low-light lens (compared to a zoom) with f/2.8 and its super light weight.

4. It should make a good camera for "street" photography given that it's pretty unobtrusive. (I need to do more with this and with other people photography, as I can foresee leaving the zoom at home if I'm going somewhere where I'm doing people shots only.)

Not a review, just some early thoughts/reactions.

Paul

October 22, 2012

P.S. In post above I meant f/1.2, not 1.2mm:

"For a compact, the widest focal length is usually around 6mm. That suggests a smallest optimal f/stop (from a diffraction standpoint!) would be 1.2mm!"

Paul

October 22, 2012

There is a classic old generalization which, like all generalizations, must be taken with a grain of salt, but which does have some validity: The smallest f/stop before diffraction becomes a big issue is the focal length divided by 5. (It actually broadly summarizes a lot of quantitative optical formula stuff).

Think about the old f/64 group: They were generally using 8x10 cameras, and the "normal" lens for 8x10 is about 300mm. So no big diffraction issue. (Plus they were often contact printing.) They were able to use an f/stop giving them the dof they needed, without diffraction problems, especially with contact prints.

For 35mm, normal lenses are broadly 40-60mm. That says roughly f/8 to f/11.

Sound familiar?

The problem with digital (beyond no shallow DOF especially with compact digital cams), diffraction sets in very early. The key number isn't effective focal length, but actual. For a compact, the widest focal length is usually around 6mm. That suggests a smallest optimal f/stop (from a diffraction standpoint!) would be 1.2mm! Even wide open you are past that, but wide open apertures bring other problems. Not surprising that it has often been determined that the optimal f/stops for a compact digital cam are 2.8 - 4. Obviously, DSLRs have correspondingly longer lenses, but you still have to watch it.

All this merely confirms what many others have pointed out, that f/22 is way too stopped down especially at 28mm focal length, but hopefully provides some interesting additional context.

One final point on which I think I'm correct, but hope to be corrected if I'm not right: If you are looking at your image on the screen as it pops up, 100% is pointless. The default view is typically 72-96 ppi, to match monitors. At that ppi, the image dimension is usually around 20-something inches in each direction (or more). So when you are looking at "100%", you are looking at a 20 inch, low-res image.

Looking at 100% on the screen probably is not a great exercise, but if you do it, change the ppi to 300-360 keeping the file size the same; the image size will drop significantly. (I think that would work sort of.)

Sorry for the length of this, hope it helps...

Paul

October 18, 2012

I recently bought my first DSLR, the T4i. There has been much "buzz" around its slow focusing and hunting in live view (used if chosen for stills and mandatory for video).

In testing the camera, I found the same thing. Through investigation I found that the default AF out of the box is face detection. When I switched to multiflex single, AF sped up to almost as fast as through the viewfinder.

So at least for the T4i (and maybe other Canons?) be sure you aren't on face detection if using the live view!

Paul

October 16, 2012

I've tried a few freeware conversion programs, but none will convert at 1920 horizontal.

Does anyone have any suggestions as to a good conversion program? I'm obviously willing to pay for it!

Thanks,

Paul

October 14, 2012

Thanks Frank.

FYI, the 1080 in the Canon Zoombrowser was the horizontal.

Since my email I found comments on the web that the Canon MOV files need particular programs to convert the codecs, that Canon MOV is only a "container", whatever that means...

I've had experience converting various video files, and have never had this problem. It should not be this difficult to convert one video format to one that can be played on a dvd player...

Paul

October 13, 2012

I've never shot much video, but look forward to more with my new T4i. But I'm flummoxed regarding converting and viewing the video file.

1. I tried converting the mov file to avi in "Smartsoft DVD Creator Pro" and it didn't recognize the file. Is there a better program? Should I use the Canon utilities? Which one?

2. I learned that I could convert it with "Zoombrowser EX, and did so, but two problems:

a. It would only convert at a max of 1080, not 1920.

b. When I burned it to a DVD, I couldn't get it to play. It showed a weird "menu" which seemed to suggest that it was looking for a still file.

Is there a better Canon utility to use with the T4i?

Maybe my problem is I'm burning the DVD as a "data file", simply copying the mov file. Maybe I need to create it differently?

BTW, should I be shooting at 30 fps or 24 fps?

All I want to do is convert to a format that I can play in a DVD. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong...

Obviously I need help...!

Thanks much,

Paul

October 8, 2012

Thanks Bob. Interesting extra info.

Everyone may recall the "unique" quality of infared film (aside from the typical tonal effect). Fairly grainy.

I always used a tripod with my G9 to keep the ISO low. Overall, the effect seems very similar to infared film.

Again, infared is not a real biggie for me, but it's nice to get the look when it seems called for, without much hassle...

Paul

October 8, 2012

Good comments. I suspect the answer is "near infared". My filter is a $40 Hoya (not a $100 filter) which definitely is not as broad a cutoff as the more expensive filters, so I know that it DOES let in some near infared, as opposed to the more expensive filters.

Anyway, I'm a happy camper...

Paul

October 7, 2012

I had been waiting for the t4i to buy my first digital SLR, and have not been disappointed, but discovered a minor but pleasant surprise:

My understanding was that at least many SLRs had filters to block out infrared. Although I'm not a big infared person, I had enjoyed dabbling with it with my G9.

Anyway, in rummaging around some lenses and filters, I found an old Canon film camera autofocus lens and an old Hoya infared filer of the same diameter. I had to try it! And the t4i apparently doesn't block out infared!

Not a real biggie, but nice...

Paul

October 3, 2012

I shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. The latter two are Deardorffs which are nice, but pretty pricy (I got lucky on each about 15 years ago). My favorite is 5x7. But I like small prints.

My first 8x10 was an Agfa Ansco. They are cheaper than Deardorffs, though a bit heavier.

If you decide to shoot film, anything larger than 4x5 requires tray processing (which I never could get right) or tubes.

I also like paper negs. Effective speed is about ISO 6 (give or take) but no reciprocity adjustment necessary. Does take a while to calibrate/tame contrast.

With your health problems (though I don't know what they are obviously) 5x7 would be a nice compromise. Even the Deardorff is pretty light, and if wind and/or uneven terrain are not a problem the tripod doesn't need to be too heavy.

Paul

September 25, 2012

I bought the camera and am very happy with it. It will take me a long time to learn all it can do.

A lot written about slow focusing in live view/video. I experienced it initially, then found the default factory setting is face detection! Hard to find a face in a tree...changing AF method to Flexizone with continuous AF means pretty fast focusing. Not as instant as through viewfinder, but good enough for me.

After compacts, I love the ability to lock in exposure without pressing shutter half-way, meaning can lock exposure where I want and focus wherever I want.

Paul

September 12, 2012

Frank,

Just saw your latest. I also understand (according to consensus reviews) that the 18-135 STM improves on the older 18-135 in terms of build quality, quietness of focusing, and optical quality. While the same weight and filter size, it's a tad shorter, which I noticed holding the camera yesterday. (I've held a t2i or t3i with the older lens and while the difference is slight, it was noticeable.)

Paul

September 12, 2012

Thanks to all! I've said before and will say again that this is the best forum on the Web. Many knowledgeable folks who most importantly are willing to step up and share their knowledge.

Paul

September 12, 2012

Thanks Frank.

For me, 18-135 is not bad. Would like a bit more width, but I'm not a tele person; was happy with my G9 and even my S100 (120mm effective max). So 135 X 1.6 = 216mm effective is as much or more than I'd almost ever need. But 55 is not quite enough.

Why am I not going for the 15-85 (or whatever lens)? My thought is that I should get the STM lens as long as I'm going for the t4i, and I've read good things about build quality, focusing, and optics on the new 18-135 STM.

My thought is that my second lens then would be a real wide angle zoom (say 10-22?)

I guess I'm looking for specific observations or issues people have with the camera.

Thanks again,

Paul

September 12, 2012

Excellent point.

I'm a "serious" traditional b&w photographer (had shows, used to write mag articles freelance particularly for "View Camera") but also love digital and have shot with compacts for many years. (Most recently a G9 and an S100.) So pretty experienced. Website is paulbrenner.zenfolio.com

Primarily do landscapes so live view is important for precise framing and seeing effect of metering on biasing the exposure. (Part of that also was horrible parallax with Canon compact viewfinders!)

I of course do people snaps at "events" (though may still use the S100 a lot on those occasions, as it is easier to carry.)

Hope that helps

Paul

September 12, 2012

I'm on the verge of buying the t4i with the 18-135mm STM lens as my first DSLR.

I've read a number of reviews, and rather than list a number of specific questions, I'd like simply to solicit thoughts from folks who have bought this combination. Any comments would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Paul

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by paul_brenner1