stephen_allan

<p>HI Bill.</p>

<p>If you are really looking for the most economical developer to use (without homebrewing) I would not use DD-X, especially at high dilutions. It has been designed by Ilford/Harman to be used in a particular way, though I have seen some interesting reports of using it at a dilution of 1+9. (BTW I am not knocking DD-X, I love it as a developer, and still use it despite mixing some developers from scratch.)</p>

<p>I take it you are using it one-shot to get the most repeatable, and best quality negatives. At high dilutions though, the accelerator/buffer may be producing a different pH to that at which the developer is designed to work. And, if you are using 300 ml of working solution per film, though there will probably be sufficient developing agent to fully develop a film, as bromide is released from the emulsion during development, the relative concentration of bromide to developing agent may cause disproportionate restraint of the developer as development proceeds (the negatives you thought were underexposed, may actually be under-developed).</p>

<p>Much better to use a developer designed for high dilution one-shot use, such as HC-110 or Ilfotech HC.</p>

<p>As Frank says, Delta 3200 is a grainy film (like all high speed films), and using highly dilute DD-X you may find it does little to reduce the grain, and may not even provide full development.</p>

<p>Hi Marios, That is why you cannot copyright a concept, or an idea. If I wander up and take a photograph of the landscape even while you are taking one, I can have no idea what your concept for the photograph may be, therefore I cannot copy it.</p>

<p>Copyright comes into being when a physical manifestation occurs; i.e you make a sketch of your concept, draw a plan, or make the photograph. But then, the copyright applies to the sketch, plan or photograph, and not to the concept itself.</p>

<p>Where there have been issues that have ended up in court, it has been in cases where one party (say a designer) has shown another party (say a company or ad agency) a sketch or storyboard for an advert; the second party says "No thanks", and said designer then finds out a few months down the line, that the second party has hired a photographer, or designer, to produce an advert virtually identical to the original concept. Even so, I think it can be very sticky to prove that the second party has actually ripped off the original concept (they may say they had already been working on the concept, and did not need the independent input). In such cases the outcome hinges on intent. A judge has to determine whether the offending party were aware of the original party's work, and intended to rip it off without attribution or remuneration.</p>

<p>Check out <a href="http://www.thelightfarm.com/">The Light Farm</a> for photographers producing their own emulsions.</p>

<p>Ever since our local pro shop closed a couple of years ago, Jessops had kept a small, but useful selection of B&W materials and chemicals. The chemicals at reasonably competitive prices as well, so I would pop in when I was in town to pick up dev or fix.</p>

<p>I called in at the weekend, and what did I find. The shop is now what I suppose you would call a digital printing "booteek", selling a few digital cameras on the side. I asked if they had any DD-X in stock, and the assistant said he would get the keys, and we could see what they have.</p>

<p>He then leads me over to an under-bench cupboard that has all of their film, paper, and chemicals piled up in it! No DD-X, but one bottle of XTOL, lying on it's side on top of a pile of paper!</p>

<p>I got this warm, fuzzy feeling that they really cared!</p>

<p>Link to the <a href="http://www.jobo.com/jobo_service_analog/us_analog/instructions/instructions_manual_cpa-2_cpp-2_00.htm">CPA2 manual</a></p>

<p>Theoretically yes. Considerations of space, and how to zero the positions would affect how practical it would be to implement, not to mention how easy it would be to see the effect in the viewfinder.<br>

T&S lenses give front tilt, which has a strong effect on perspective, whereas moving the sensor is a back tilt, which is primarily a technique for manipulating the plane of focus. Whether that would be of use is debateable, as even with full frame sensors, it is usually possible to get more than enough depth-of-field simply by stopping down the aperture.</p>

<p>Hi Geoff, just caught this question.<br>

I have a manual for the 507 at home, so if you are not in too much of a hurry, I could scan the relevant stuff and mail it to you over the weekend.<br>

Cheers<br>

Steve</p>

<p>According to info on their help pages, they are using Ilford B&W paper.<br />See <a href="http://assets.kodakgallery.com/A/help.html">Item 10</a>, which reads -<br /><strong>Professional Prints</strong></p>

<ol>

<li>Printed with Professional Color Management </li>

<li>Select from the following paper choices: KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Paper, KODAK PROFESSIONAL ENDURA Metallic Paper and ILFORD Professional True Black and White Paper </li>

<li>Shipped via expedited shipping methods</li>

</ol>

<p>Steve</p>

<p>Switch, no. I just have cameras from a variety of manufacturers.<br>

In no particular order - Canon, Bronica, Nikon, Practika, Franka, Linhof, Zeiss.<br>

The oldest are around 60 year old, the newest around 5.</p>

 

<p>I have always read thi photograph as having caught the woman on the right in the act of striking the other woman, grimacing with the exertion of the blow.</p>

 

If you have the 2840 print drums, the base section (which is actually a 2820 drum) is the right size to take the 2509n spiral, which is used for 4x5 sheet film.

 

The expert drums put quite a load on the drive of the Jobo processors, so Jobo recommend that you utilise one of the later processors when using them (serial number greater than 22000, or fit the latest upgrade motor drive), they also do not fit on the CPE-2 or ATL-1000/1500 processors. Whereas the 2500 & 2800 series drums can be used with any model Jobo processors.

 

I have used the 2840 print drums for processing paper, and 5x7 sheet film, by rolling by hand. The 2820/2521 drums with the 2509n spirals could be used for inversion processing of 4x5 sheet film, though you would need to use 1 litre of solutions.

 

It may be possible to use the expert drums for hand processing, but you would need to plug the hole in the lid, as they only come with the cog lids. In the UK, expert drums are pretty expensive, even second-hand.

>> I would love to see some modern examples of daguerreotypes that people have created.

 

<p>There is this site on <a href="http://www.newdags.com/index.html">Contemporary Daguerrotypes</a>.

C41 120 - around 30-40 annually

 

<p>E6 120 - 1-2 a month

<br>E6 Sheet film - approx 20 annually (4x5 & 5x7)

 

<p>B&W 120 - around 70-80 annually

<br>B&W Sheet film - 15-20 sheets a month (4x5 & 5x7)

 

<p>Speciality films

<br>IR - One a month

<br>Ortho sheet film 80-100 annually

 

<p>I occassionally use 35mm film, mainly C41 & E6, and do all of my own processing.

However I concur with Lex about the reasons for using separate solutions of fixer for film and paper.

If economy is not a major consideration, the <a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/faqentries.asp?n=11&t=Paper">Ilford archival washing scheme</a> designed to reduce water consumption, uses film-strength rapid fixer on paper, fixing for one minute. Followed by a five minute wash, ten minutes in a hypo clearing solution, and a final five minute wash.

Gold toner will have little or no discernable effect on the colour of the negative image, and has little effect on the contrast (like selenium, a little increase in dMax). It will however (on full toning) protect the image, just like sepia or selenium toning, but is rather expensive for routine archival treatment of film.

Hi Nick

<p>

The current distributor for Jobo in the UK is <a href="http://www.firstcall-photographic.co.uk/">Firstcall Photographic</a>. I don't often see those parts turning up on ebay or the like, so it might be worth giving Firstcall a call.

<p>

Steve

Were the books actually ordered from Amazon itself, or from one of the marketplace vendors who advertise through the Amazon system?

 

<p>If you have bought them through the marketplace, the best thing to do would be to approach the seller directly. <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=3150441">Info here on getting contact details for marketplace sellers.</a>

Colin's suggestions are good. The problem with Cornwall now, is it has fallen victim to it's own beauty!

 

One of my favourite places to go and chill out was Sennen Cove. It was a beautiful, peaceful little village. The last time I was there though, it was like Blackpool at the height of summer! (BTW I have nothing against Blackpool, it is just that, that sort of tourist nightmare doesn't float my boat! :^)

I think what Edward means, is that it is not possible to tell whether you have reached the point of sharpest focus on the focussing screen, until you go beyond it, and can then back up to the point of sharpest focus.

 

In other words. As you approach focus, the image will be getting clearer, and sharper as you get closer. But. If you stop focussing because you think it is the sharpest image, you may still be short of sharpest focus, and it is only when the subject starts getting fuzzy that you know you have achieved, and passed the point of best focus, and can back up to it.

Hi Renata,

 

For the working solutions, Ilford gives lifetimes of six months in full tightly capped bottles, one month in a half full tightly capped bottle, and seven days in an open tray or container.

Does this need to be a particularly formal shot, or can it be a little casual?

 

If you can be casual with this shot. How about, rather than gathering them all together in one large group, finding an area in the park where they can spread out a little in twos, threes, and other small groups; perhaps have some sitting, on seats, or on the grass.

 

I agree with Hansen, if you can get a bit of height can make composing for large groups easier.

>this image is 1/8000 f 2.8 iso 400 and it doesn't look good to me

 

It looks pretty good to me. The problem with flames is, that they do not have a "sharp" boundary. A flame is a plume of gas, burning in a zone around the periphery, where mixture with air provides a high enough oxygen content to support the combustion.

 

If you had the research budget to get, or build equipment that could image in the nanosecond timeframe, you might get a photo of a flame with a sharp boundary, with a normal camera it is unlikely.

Hi Ron, don't beat yourself up about bracketing. Work to get your main exposure right, but if you feel there might be something you are missing, bracket exposures for your own comfort. Then when you get comfortable that your main exposures are always right, you know you are safe.

 

I don't bracket exposures myself, but, like Ansel when he was interviewed, I have been doing this for 30+ years.

 

BTW, I like the waterfall shot, a beautiful subject, and I would say spot on with the exposure.

So. This bride booked you for the 10th May, and paid the booking fee for you to hold that date. This you have done, passing up the potential business from two other couples. You have fulfilled your contractual obligations from that point of view.

 

Now the bride has informed you, after the fact, that the wedding date has been changed, and has been changed to a date on which you have another booking.

 

Unfortunately, the bride is, IMO, out of luck. This is the reason for a non-refundable booking fee, to ensure fair behaviour on both sides of the contract. You have also tried to find a replacement photographer for the bride, which is very fair on your part, as the lack of a photographer for the wedding now is due to the brides actions, and not yours.

 

Unless there were extenuating circumstances for the sudden change without giving you prior warning (ie illness, or death in the families), I would not refund the booking fee.