paul_brenner1

I've shot medium as well as large format for over twenty years, and second a lot of the good info here.

 

I use the Paterson tank; it's about the easiest of all. One tip: Long ago I would find that a roll just wouldn't want to advance on the roll as I twisted the reel. One day I tried snipping off the corners of the leading edge; it was the sharp corners that were hanging up. Also works for 35mm.

Not a question, just a comment. Just bought a Holga medium format pinhole. I've

been a pinhole fan for many years - have made some, bought some, and wrote a

couple of articles for "View Camera" mag on pinhole.

 

I am NOT a fan of light leaks. Maybe I'm lucky - created a "shade" for the film

counter out of black construction paper (keep it taped down except when

advancing the film). With that, no light leaks.

 

Really a fun camera. I like the view finder. A good compromise - still some

surprise as to exact composition, but at least a decent idea ahead of time.

 

Paul<div></div>

Just came across this. Beautiful image! I've been a pinhole fan for a number of years (wrote a couple of articles for "View Camera" on pinhole). Just bought a Holga pinhole camera. Enjoying it greatly. But one needs to spend the extra $13 to get the "bulb" shutter accessory.

Dora,

 

A lot of good comments here. Importantly, as Robert points out, with pinhole times it is hard to overexpose, and there is a lot of leeway in exposure with these times.

 

I have a Holga pinhole, about 50mm, with a pinhole of f/192. It's about the optimal size for that focal length. With a focal length of 75mm, f/192, f/200, f/180 as suggested by Robert, f/225 - any would be ok.

 

Nice thing about f/180 for cameras with these sorts of focal lengths and presumably proximate f/stops: Most meters go to f/90, and you just multiply time by four (before applying reciprocity). I just do that with my Holga. So I'm actually using f/180. No meaningful difference between that and f/192.

Another vote for Combi Plan tank. Have used it for twenty years, since I got into 4x5.

 

Leaking comments most likely due to not carefully putting top on (unless someone really is not closing down the spout after filling). You have to put the top on sort of like a Tupperware top. I do it "diagonally", "burping" the final corner.

 

Some say development is uneven. I never noticed it, but did a test: Shot a blank wall at Zone VI. Even that was incredibly even. And I fill using the spout, not in the dark with the top off. I do tip the tank as I fill so the developer is running down the side.

I agree with the above comments. Over time, I've used both HC-110 and D-76. I tend to use HC-110 (when I'm not using Pyro) for the reasons mentioned: Easy to mix, keeps forever, consistent.

One note: The published time of 7.5 minutes at 68 degrees for the "old" Tri-X was too long. The "new" Tri-X has shorter published times. (I don't know if they are "realistic" or not, as I don't use the new Tri-X because it doesn't work well with Pyro.) The point being, that Dilution B may have uncomfortably short development times with the new Tri-X, especially if the new published times are also too long. This suggests a longer dilution time. Not a big issue, but something to keep in mind.

All,

 

Thanks! A lot of good info. My original question was pretty basic; I just didn't realize that the file from the camera COULD be uncompressed. I thought it was the maximum size going forward, and could only be compressed (not expanded) from there.

 

Paul

Please forgive a perhaps dumb question:

 

I've noticed that if I have downloaded say a 5 megapixel image from my camera,

open it up, do some tweaking, and save it (at minimum compression/max

quality), it is a much larger file size (up to two times larger). I realize

that tweaking adds some size, so I tried an experiment:

 

I opened a file, saved it with NO changes at minimum compression, and it was

still significantly larger.

 

I had assumed that the file size from the camera was the maximum size,

and "minimum compression" would merely (with no other changes) maintain the

size. But apparently, the file is being uncompressed when opened, and when it

is saved with minimum compression, it is retaining this much larger file size.

 

Am I understanding and have I stated this correctly, or is something else

going on?

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

Thanks very much! I hadn't thought of that.

 

I recently took a Photoshop class. PS has a number of features that PSP doesn't have, and I may just have to pop for it.

Hopefully someone is familiar with Paint Shop Pro and can answer this:

 

One shortcoming of the "Adustment Layer" is that Highlight/Midtone/Shadow (HMS)

adjustments are not included. When I open an adjustment layer, then go to the

menu to choose HMS, it says I must convert it to a Raster Layer. But when I

do, I still can't use HMS. I know very little about Raster Layers, but it

seems to me that they work only with various selection tools. Is that right?

 

Is there any way to use HMS with layers? I realize that "curves" can do much

the same thing, but I'd still like to use HMS.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

P.S. After reading your posts, I took a key and slipped it under the bar that pulls the pin down. Very little force levered it open. I worked the knob a bit and now it works fine. When I get home I'll use a touch of silicone spray in a couple of places.

 

Thanks again to all!

 

P.P.S. The shutter APPEARS to be light-tight, but I'll need to do a better job of checking at home, in a dark room with a flashlight.

 

Paul

Thanks to all for your useful comments! I should add that I took a very strong pair of plyers, with a cloth around the knob, and pulled for all I was worth, and couldn't unlatch it. I suspect that something IS slightly bent. Assuming I or the repairman can get it open again, we need to address what is causing it to hang up.

 

Thanks for your comments on the shutter. I will be sure to check that out.

 

(P.S. As I said, I haven't bought the camera yet. They let me, As a very long-time, knowledgeable customer, borrow used equipment to check out the shutter speeds etc., especially if it is store-owned as opposed to consigned.)

I'm considering purchasing an Exacta VX from a local, pro-oriented camera

dealer I've dealt with for decades. It is in good shape, and I've tested the

shutter; it's about as accurate as could be expected.

 

When I first looked at it, I couldn't open the back. When the repairman came

in, he opened it, and when I stopped back in, he told me it was simply "stuck".

 

After testing it, I closed the back and then couldn't open it again.

 

I'm very familiar with cameras, and my impression is that it is not "stuck",

but it feels "locked". Is there some sort of shutter setting or similar

setting that needs to be "just so" in order to be able to pull down the bottom

knob to release the back?

 

I'm obviously going to check back with the store, but before I do I thought I'd

throw the question out here.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

Anthony,

 

Thanks. One problem is that when I open a layer as a "raster layer", it shows as a black and white checkerboard, in the dialogue boxes and in the palette, and when I select it to show on the screen, no adjustment seems to have any effect on the layer image. I'm clearly not doing something right.

 

Paul

I've seen many posts on layers, including using them with PSP. However, most

inquirers are basically knowledgeable about layers and are asking some specific

question. I'm just trying to figure out how they work at all.

 

I created an adjustment layer to do a channel mixer adjustment to monochrome.

So far so good. Then I tried to do another layer to do some blurring, and it

said I had to convert it to a raster layer. I did that; but the raster layer

shows the unblurred, monochrome image of the adjustment layer, even with the

opacity of the raster layer at 100%.

 

I'm totally lost. I'd be interested in a simple explanation/tutorial of how to

use layers. Obviously there is something that I'm really not getting. I'm

sure that if I tried anything else, I'd also run into issues I don't know how

to solve.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

I have used PMK Pyro since 1992, since I bought the first addition of "The Book of Pyro". For years I used the spent developer after bath. A couple of years ago (more or less), I read Gordon's comments somewhere that he no longer recommends the bath. I use an acid rapid fix (after a water stop), but tried omitting the the afterbath. With films such as the "original" 400 ASA Tri-X (rest in peace), and HP5+, which stain strongly, I like the slightly less staining. With FP4+, I really notice no difference at all.

 

Paul

I have nothing to add to the many good thoughts above (though I find FP4+ to be sharp and fine grained, though admittedly I'm using it in medium format and making relatively small prints.

 

The bridge image certainly appears to be underexposed and overdeveloped, and may well be; but it might be the scan. I remember reading, years ago, that scanning B&W silver-based films works better if you scan it as a positive, so the scan comes out as a negative. For some reason, the result is lower contrast and lower grain.

Like Jeff, I use the Combi Plan tank and have done so, for the twenty years I've done large format.

 

I get such good results, I was curious about all the reports of "uneven" development several years ago. So I did the most demanding test you can do: I exposed a blank wall to about Zone VI. There was a virtually unnoticeable uneveness, the amount I would think you would get in any process. Even with something such as sky, you wouldn't see anything (and I don't.)

 

And this is with doing a Combi Plan "no-no" - filling with the lid on, since I can't be sure that my darkroom is dark enough for film. I tip the tank toward the outer edge by the funnel. Rather than drain from the bottom, I turn the tank upside down and drain from the top. (Bottom fills first, empties first. Probably only superstition that it makes any difference, but...)

 

I don't know any other way to develop up to six sheets so easily and economically.

 

BTW, for the past fifteen years, I've used PMK Pyro. It works fine in the Combi Plan. I use forty oz., to leave as little room for air (and oxidation) as possible. I agitate by inversion every fifteen seconds.

 

Paul

Great! I'm a frequent customer of Freestyle; just hadn't looked for it there.

I used to use Rodinal some before Pyro became my standard. I used it with T-Max 100. Unbelievable! I don't like T-Max 100 with some other developers, as it is so fine-grained that the results looked "soft". The Rodinal gave it an acutance I couldn't believe. I also learned that Rodinal lasted essentially forever.

 

As to the comment that Rodinal is now "back for good": Where can it be had?

 

Paul

Thanks to all for their comments, especially to Stephen, with his referral to that great Covington HC-110 site, and its info about the new Tri-X.

 

Actually, the school has D-76. However, I'm encouraging the use of HC-110 for several reasons, including my concern that D-76 will not always be fresh, with the accompanying increase in alkalinity, increasing contrast. HC-110 is "foolproof" - the syrup lasts essentially forever with no apparent change in results, is easy to mix with a 2 oz. graduate, has a shorter development time, etc.

 

I mentioned developing an Eastern European ASA 400 film recently at 1:48 (essentially Dil E) for 6 minutes. Given the info on the Covington website, I think I'll try the same for the new Tri-X and see what it looks like.

 

Paul

This just confirms what others have said, but I've had HC-110 for years (my primary developer is Pyro), and I've never seen any difference.

There have been a number of posts regarding the new Tri-X over the past couple

of years. I've reviewed them, but can't find an answer to my specific

question:

 

I've started mentoring a high school photography club. They've been doing

things like paper negs, and ard starting to shoot film. Their film supply is

Tri-X.

 

I don't typically use Tri-X, as I use mostly PMK Pyro and the new Tri-X stains

weirdly. When I did use HC-110 with the old Tri-X, I developed it for 6

minutes, 68 degrees, and got smooth, easy-to-print negs. (That was 120; I'd

probably have gone even shorter for 35mm.)

 

My question: What are starting point recommendations for HC-110 for the new

Tri-X? Kodak recommendations are much shorter times; but I've read early

posts here that the times aren't really that different.

 

As this is not my film/developer combo, I'm not going to spend a lot of time

working on this; I just need some thoughts as starting points, then I'll run a

roll through.

 

Note: I recently shot an Eastern European "old Tri-X equivalent" roll, and

developed it in HC-110, diluted 1:48, for 6 minutes, and the negs look great.

But again, I don't know whether the new Tri-X truly requires a shorter

development time, all else being equal.

 

I really appreciate any suggestions.

 

Paul

Only a guess, but I would interpret "hot" as being one stop over-exposed. You'd better ask. As to developing time, I'm about to post a question on that: I don't use the new 400 Tri-X as I use Pyro and the new Tri-X stains weirdly; but I'm starting to mentor a high school photography club; they're about to start shooting film; (they've been doing paper negs); and they use Tri-X 400.

 

Paul

John,

 

Thanks, but nothing like that is on the camera. It is barely possible that some sort of soft release or such could be worked out.

 

I also posted on the "classic" board, not knowing which was more appropriate, and several respondents confirmed that there is no cable release capability, no way, no how.

 

Paul