macgregor_anderson

I think that is a great addition to the site. Thanks.

By here do you mean on the LF forum? I posted my first attempt a few months ago, but it's no wall hanger. I do post quite a few LF shots on photo.net. My B/W folder is full of them. However, I've only been using LF for a couple months as I said, so don't let the quality of my work put you off the format!

 

I will say that a maximum 100k file as shown on photo.net cannot show off one of the main benefits of LF photos. Detail and the fine tonal changes that go with it. I think I see it even in 8x10s, and I definitely see it in the 16x20s I print in my darkroom at home. You should be able to see the benefits of the movements capability here, the improved control over DOF, especially in any LF studio or architecture shots. Some landscapes as well. Not mine so much.

 

I've really enjoyed the first few months with my view camera and wish I had tried using one sooner.

there isn't much out there on it, is there? I found this

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Developers/Times_Rodinal/times_rodinal.html

 

A roll time exposed at 200. And a link to another chart with a couple other times and dilutions.

 

Sorry, tried to help. I'd be interested to know what you find.

Sorry, I didn't check first. I ran into that with another film, forget which one, and made a guess based on roll film times vs sheet film times for other developers, and then used the same differential on the roll film time. Worked ok.

 

I finally just spent a little time testing. If you want to just expose at 320 (though it's better to test of course), just shoot four sheets of a neutral thing like a grey wall in the shade at your meter reading. Develop them for times bracketed around your best guess based on the charts, and see which one prints a zone V neutral grey at standard contact printing time. It'll get you close without too much time invested. And a chart can't take into account your thermometer calibration, your light meter, your aggitation, etc.

 

Mac

I wouldn't do it even if $400k a year were a realistic income to expect. Every client is under incredible stress and most are under extreme financial pressure. Just the thought of working under those conditions makes my blood pressure soar. There are certainly other professions involving life and death that are even more stressful, but I figure those folks are underpaid.

 

I used to work on a trading floor for an investment bank. Now those traders are way overpaid! 50 hr weeks, 6 weeks paid vacation, and it's easy for someone with no advanced degree to earn a seven figure income after just five or so years.

 

My hat is off to the wedding photographers of the world (at least the good ones)!

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 

that's a good link and might have an answer. I assume you checked the Kodak site and also the manufacturers site for the manufacturer of the developer?

 

Those are starting points. I found testing to be very helpful. I find that I tend to expose a little more than suggested and develop a few minutes less for "normal" situations.

 

Mac

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but a two page search didn't bring it up and I figured I'd just bring it up since it is somewhat relevant here.

 

Have you considered removing the 1 and 2 ratings from the scale? I'm not sure they serve much purpose at this point since most active members don't use them. Rating a 1 or 2 is of course not abuse by definition. However, the ratings are so rarely used that when they are, it skews things. It's fair to say I think that the majority of 1s and 2s given out fall into the "retaliation" category or come from people disregarding your advice in the tutorial on subject matter. In theory it shouldn't work like that, but in fact it does.

 

A 1 or 2 vote is the equivalent to telling someone their photo is "bad" as a comment, and I don't think that adds anything constructive to the process at all. It can also have a substantial impact on the average, removing the photo from further rounds of critiques. So as an abusive tool it is quite functional.

 

Limiting the low rating to "below average" or something similar might make this a more pleasant environment (clearly important to some members) without realistically damaging the credibility of the ratings process.

 

Just another idea.

Why not make the rating system anonymous (except to moderators)? Probably lead to more abuse I guess of the former less severe kind but would eliminate that overwhelming problem of retaliation.

 

If that's not feasible, why not make the ratings system more transparent? Instead of just see this members top rated photos, how about see last 100 photos rated, or something like that. Help a member get an idea of what the rater is up to. Do they only like landscapes and hate photoshop composites? That sort of thing.

 

Finally, why not place the rating tutorial in a more prominent position on the site, and word it a bit more strongly? Especially the bit about photos of french poodles. Either take that bit out, or lay the rules down clearly. I think it could eliminate the root cause of lots of abuse.

 

By the way, I agree strongly with Ray that there should be a public area available for discussion, positive and negative, under each raters name. It would promote a more open dialog. That's assuming you don't just go anonymous instead, which has it's own merits. Any abusive dialog there could be moderated just as it is everywhere else on the site.

This chart may be helpful. It's best to test for yourself, but in a pinch...

 

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

 

It doesn't answer your more complex question regarding dilutions. I'd suggest checking the developer manufacturer's website along with the film manufacturer's website and comparing any info you can get. At some point, I'd just test for myself. This isn't so hard if you haven't done it.

 

As an aside, I change developer/etc. temps using a ziploc plastic bag filled with ice or hot water. You can move the temps a few degrees easily and in just a few minutes.

 

Mac

I've only just wet my feet in this zone system/large format stuff myself and have had the same issues. I found it helpful to print up a full zone scale of 4x5s from my testing. I stuffed them in my camera bag. At least then I had something at hand to visualize a little better with. Only did this a few times before it stuck in my head.

 

I think the tricky part is that there is no "right" zone. It's how you want the thing to look in the end. If you have trouble pre-visualising(word?) maybe bracket a few shots of a scene you really like and see how it turns out. Just be sure to pay attention to your zone III and VII/VIII areas to be sure you've got detail if you want it. I'm sure in no time you'll have a better feel for it. At least that's what I'm hoping for my stuff.

 

In the specific example above, with the weathered wood, I've found for me that zone III is pretty dark and I would generally aim closer to zone IV. Obviously that's very subjective and depends on me understanding the scene you describe. But I'm assuming even with a spot meter you are averaging the various tones somewhat.

 

I use those 1/3 increments on my lens now more than I did at first. Even if my technique isn't perfected to quite that level. That's just my experience over a few months...hope it helps.

I find that many people thank me for comments. If they don't, I still assume they appreciate the effort even if they don't agree or find the comment useful. If I don't hear back, I figure they are busy and hope they are using their time to add comments to other photos, helping someone else out.

 

Phil, I strongly object to your condescending characterisation of people who address low raters. A single low rating can easily drop a photo out of circulation in the critique request cycle. That matters. It's not the end of the world, but if you care about the process, you care about people who interfere with it unfairly.

 

A thoughtful low rating with a comment can be extremely helpful (I get those all the time), but there is undeniably an element within Photo.Net that we could all do without. They almost always have some sort of agenda that runs contrary to the ratings/comments process. They are on a mission to rid the world of boring old fashioned landscapes, heavily manipulated abstracts, images of naked people, etc. Most of us have our biases here but try to avoid expressing them through low ratings of a genre. That's because the tutorial on ratings suggest that if you don't like pictures of whatever, maybe it's best not to rate them.

 

There are certainly a lot more high raters than low raters out there. I can see how this frustrates a lot of Photo.Net users. But it is fundamentally different. While it also detracts some from the validity of the process, it is fundamentally NICE. The individual act makes someone feel a bit better and gets them more exposure. As a trend, it diminishes the integrity of the process. I'd like to see a distribution of ratings more in line with the guidelines. It would be ideal.

 

Since many of the raters out there that have the "courage" to run counter to trend don't post portfolios and since it really doesn't make sense to leave comments in their portfolios when they do have them, perhaps a rater dialog/feedback page could be created. That way, we could thank the raters in an appropraite place. It would also allow photo.net members who feel that they have been subject to some degree of abuse to address those people publicly, without bothering the overworked staff on the abuse team.

 

There is nothing whingy about wanting to address a wrong, however slight. There is something mildly sinister about attacking the victim. Strong words for such a relatively unimportant situation. But I have zero tollerance for the "quit complaining" police that seem to thrill to these debates. Bitter and unloved, they are.

 

Cheers,

 

Mac

Hope this isn't taking the discussion too off-topic, but the regular request email address function didn't work last night. Or at least I haven't received the address in my mail yet this morning. Didn't think it needed a fresh topic.

I'm afraid it's not my cup of tea

Thanks, I appreciate your insight.

 

I've got all my bases covered with 35mm film, a D100, a 645 designed for the new digital age, and a cheapo 4x5. I like my 4x5 best. I'm most worried about that MF "investment", but at least I didn't waste the money on fancy cars, furniture, clothes and ... The F100 is my light meter now and it's heavy but it works pretty well. The D100 is great for a lot of things, and the 645 is fantastic even if I can feel it melting away in my fingers.

so long as I can still get my Pentax binoculars...

 

But seriously, thanks for sharing. I assume they are staying (for now) in medium format because of digital backs. Would you consider this an indication that there is some future for the MF lines out there, or do you expect them to be next on the chopping block?

Jean-Baptiste,

 

Mirror slap is the least of my worries these days. Sure there is no mirror on a 4x5 field camera, but I did manage to get 8 very nice if out of focus shots of the rails today. Too much fall with too wide a lens and a total inability to look at the whole ground glass. I deserve to be slapped by a 4x5 mirror myself for that one.

 

I was thinking of my 645 MF. I had a lot of trouble getting sharp landscapes on the tripod until one day I stopped being lazy and hit the little button on the right side of the lens. No more slap, no more blurry pictures due to mirror slap. Still plenty of blurry pictures though.

 

Mac

On a single lens reflex camera the image comes in through the lens, bounces off a mirror and up through your viewfinder. When you press the shutter release the mirror flips up (the viewfinder goes dark briefly) and the shutter opens. The image that you see through the viewfinder is therefore what the film will see...or almost. Viewfinders tend to show a slightly cropped version except in a few cases.

 

The rangefinder cameras and other non-slr types show the image through a seperate lens on the viewfinder. So you will have a slightly different perspective. Focusing can be easier on a rangefinder for some people. And the vibrations caused by the mirror flipping up can cause trouble on an SLR.

 

You might check out the Learn section of this site. Not sure if this is covered but it probably is.

 

By the way, the SLR design is not limited to 35mm. You may know that, but just thought I'd mention it.

I think it's fully justified for an amateur (in the true sense of the word) to spend this kind of money on camera gear so long as they understand it isn't the equipment that makes great photos. Doesn't sound like that is the case here at all.

 

I got in a discussion about this subject a while back with a guy who couldn't believe I'd spend a few thousand bucks on camera stuff. He sits in front of $5000 television and drives a $50,000 car. He wouldn't spend more than $300 bucks for a camera. It's all about priorities.

 

Lots of people can't afford this kind of gear and that's fine, because you don't need to spend anything like this much to take great photos. But if you feel like buying the best you can afford, and that happens to be a lot, don't feel bad. Just take a drive to any suburban mall and watch tricked out SUVs roll past on their way home to a paved driveway.

 

Mac

I recently bought a Toyo 45 CF. It's not built all that well, but it does make some wonderful images. They beat my 645 MF hands down before you even begin talking about movements (which are somewhat limited but not terribly on the CF). The camera can be had for $500 used in good condition. You can go with some of the lighter lenses. My bag, with three lenses, darkcloth, six filmholders, loupe, and light meter is just way way way lighter than my 645 bag.

 

You could spend more and get a sturdier field camera that is still light as a kit vs the medium format gear.

 

The large format has really helped me slow down and pay more attention to what I'm doing. My photography has definitely improved because of it.

 

The investment is minimal vs an H1 or 1Ds. It will weigh less. And give you time to consider your ultimate options. You can scan with an epson 3200 if you like, and have the very best stuff sent out for a drum scan.

 

That's my advice. And I own an H1 by the way. Not working right now. 50-110 gives an error message. Need to send the entire camera and all lenses to NJ per their instructions. It's covered by warranty, but it's probably only shot 100 rolls of film and it just feels like it's a problem waiting to happen. I'll continue to hope that in five years time it'll still be working and 22mp backs will cost three figures :)

 

Mac

I do not intend to carry a full size refrigerator or any other kitchen appliance larger than a toaster-oven. That is unlikely to change any time soon.

Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on likely improvements in the

dynamic range of digital cameras.

 

I'm already a little confused, given that ISO can be set from 200 to

1600 on my dslr. Is this just semantics, where shadows that would be

clipped at a lower ISO are included noise and all, or is there

something fundamentally different about how the sensor reacts to

light with various settings?

 

What are the limitations currently that restrict dynamic range to say

5 or 7 stops of useable range. I realise the absolute range is

somwhat subjective given one's tolerance of noise, etc. But what

engineering hurdles need to be conquered to get 10 stops of good

clear range out of one of these sensors? What sort of processors

would be needed? When might we see such improvements? Are there

sensors out there now that can do it but just cost a hundreds of

thousands of dollars?

 

Thanks for any insight on this.

 

mac

Bob, I agree with you about the hot air part but not the part of their being devoid of any real content. I thought it might actually validate the subject a bit and perhaps encourage threads with tests and that sort of thing. These old threads have some usefull information mixed in with a lot of protests and a lot of people blowing off steam or "talking their book."

 

I do take your point about the unified view.

 

From Brian's comments above, it sounds like he feels these threads are valid, at least in some cases. I think I read that right. And from the reactions you see...the grassroots effort to supress these threads (look at Medium Format vs Digital from a day or two ago...perhaps giving them a home makes sense.

 

Mac

Actually, I read just about every thread on this topic. What annoys me is not the topic, but the numerous responses along the lines of "not this again." I think it probably discourages a lot of people from posting legitimate questions. Furthermore, a digital vs film topic doesn't fit neatly into the digital cameras forum or any other that I can think of.

 

Mac

Or Republicans vs Democrats.

 

I know the versus theme is expandable. But there is one "vs." that seems to intrigue more photo.net participants than any other. And one that irritates at least as many.

 

"come on guys, take it outside" is my message. Without diminishing the grave importance of the brawl. Relatively speaking, of course.

 

Mac

Is it time for a new forum? The debate between film and digital will

continue for at least a few more years. Maybe forever. It is a

valid debate. And also one that drives many photo.net members nuts.

I think it might be time to give it a place all to itself.

 

Just a thought.

 

mac