craig_shearman1

<p>"The only enlargers I have managed to find were a blue Beseler 23C, and a local Omega D2. The sellers say they are in very good condition, but should I trust enlargers as old as they are"<br /><br />I'm coming in a little late on this, but age is pretty much not a factor with these enlargers. My D2 is over 40 years old and I'm at least the third owner but it is still just as rock solid as the day it left the factory. These enlargers (both Omega and Beseler) are built like locomotives. They were meant to last a lifetime and they do. Unlike smaller and newer products that are built only "good enough' to do the job, they are over-engineered to do anything and everything that might ever be required of them plus plenty to spare. <br /><br />As for gels vs dial-in color/variable contrast, that is irrelevant. Both the Omega and Beseler have interchangeable heads. Condensor heads are standard, but you can also get diffusion heads, dichroic heads, variable contrast heads and cold-light heads (some from Omega/Beseler, some from third parties).<br /><br />I saw that someone mentioned Durst. My first enlarger was a Durst F30. Great little enlarger that I still have. So simple that there's basically nothing to go wrong with it. Only 35mm but there was the F60 that did 6x6. I would still prefer an Omega/Beseler but these are great little enlargers if you are looking for something compact.</p>

<p>You can buy a used one for about $40, so I would definitely not pay anyone to repair it. As Robert says, I would check the batteries. Maybe take the sensor off the front and put it back on again. Maybe try fresh batteries. Maybe try it with and without an external high voltage pack if you have one. Beyond that would really be exploratory surgery and probably not worth the trouble. BTW, I have 283 and I think three 285 units and love them.</p>

<p>Tim is correct -- once you have what you need for printing, developing requires only the tank and reel. There's no reason not to do it.<br /><br />As for enlargers, it depends somewhat on where you live. Durst and other brands I'm not familiar with are popular in Europe. In the U.S., the two most popular brands are Omega and Beseler. As I said on a post earlier this week, an Omega D series or Beseler 45 series will handle any negative up to 4x5 and there is a huge cottage industry of accessories and parts more so than any other enlarger ever sold in the U.S. Even if you'll never shoot 4x5, these are rock solid enlargers that will do anything you ever want to do in the darkroom but are available for next to nothing these days. Next-best are the Omega B or C and Beseler 23 series, the same thing but only up to medium format.<br /><br />Almost all enlargers can project on the wall (some by turning the head, others with am accessory mirror), but it's something you'll likely never have to do. Larger ones like the Omega and Beselers can do 16x20 maybe 20x24 on the baseboard. For larger sizes they can be mounted to the wall to go larger while still being horizontal.<br /><br />As for chemicals and paper -- Kodak Dektol, Indicator Stop Bath and Rapid Fix, Ilford paper. (Kodak doesn't make B&W paper anymore).</p>

<p>I spoke without looking at the pictures of the pictures. I suppose the weave is the point of this person's style. Still a lot of work.</p>

<p>If that's an Omega D2 and a Beseler 45MX for $500 for both of them, not $500 each, I would snap them up. Decide which you like best and sell the other one. Both of these are among the best enlargers ever made, and they're built like a locomotive so they'll last forever. I have a D2 that's probably 40 years old and I'm at least the third owner but it's still as rock-solid as the day it was built.</p>

<p>"Though most people here seem to think I'm nuts I'm still running a pair of D200's"<br /><br />Nothing wrong with a D200. I have a D200 and a D7000 and maybe it's just because I've had it longer but in some ways I am more comfortable with the 200.</p>

<p>Unless you're simply into the idea of the "weave" of the paper, this is a pretty impractical way to make a large print.<br /><br />Turning the enlarger sideways to project on the wall to make a large print is nothing new. It's been done for decades. But it's traditionally done onto one large sheet of paper, not a bunch of strips where the seams will show in the finished product. Not sure if it's still available but you used to be able to buy paper four feet wide (or wider) in long rolls and cut off the length you need.<br /><br />Processing can be done two ways. One is to build large trays out of wood frames lined by heavy plastic. The other is to use more of a trough -- either purchased or homemade -- and seesaw the paper through it.<br /><br />Doing strips like this person describes doesn't make sense because (again unless you just want the weave) you're still going to have to buy paper in large sizes (and probably cut it down to get the strips) and will need either a large tray or trough for developing. (The only reason I could see for a strip was if you were using roll film designed for an automated printing machine that comes in maybe 8 inch widths, but I don't imagine that's made in B&W anymore.)<br /><br />Silver gelatin is irrelevant. That's just the technical term for ordinary B&W paper. You could do the same with color paper, but of course you would have to do it all in the dark without a safelight.</p>

<p>Are you in the U.S.? The two most popular enlarger brands here are Omega and Beseler, and there are an entire cottage industry of every conceivable accessory for them. I would strongly recommend an Omega D series (takes any negative up to 4x5) or either a Beseler 45 series (also 4x5) or 23 series (medium format). Either one is all the enlarger you will need.<br /><br />Never heard of Kaiser. Leitz is very good, but I've only used one of them and I seem to recall them being more complicated that some other enlargers. Parts and accessories are available but you will pay extra because it has the word Leitz/Leica on it.</p>

<p>Four feet tall by how wide? And what are you using it for? Unless you're talking something wide, that's actually a small backdrop, maybe something for product photography or headshots, rather than a large backdrop (anywhere from 8-12 feet high) used for full-length portraits and groups.<br /><br />If look at <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com">www.bhphotovideo.com</a> or <a href="http://www.adorama.com">www.adorama.com</a> you can find backdrops in just about any material you like. There's paper, plastic coated paper, plastic, muslin and canvas to name a few. Denny Manufacturing is one of the biggest backdrop makers, and both B&H and Adorama list many others on their sites.<br /><br />If you are doing headshots, there are some backdrops maybe three feet wide and four feet high that are plastic coated papers that roll up for transport. Because they are plastic coated, they can be wiped clean. For product photography, you can use those but there are various "sweeps" and even product photography boxes where you put the object inside and lights outside.</p>

<p>"70-200 is a little long on DX for portrait and weddings. It's equivalent to 105-300mm on FX."<br /><br />I shoot weddings only occasionally but when I do I use a 70-200 on a D7000 and find that it's exactly what I want. Back in film days a 105 was my standard portrait lens, so that end is fine. And the extra length on the long end is welcome when shooting the ceremony from a balcony or off to the side up front.<br /><br />I also use a 24-70 and a 12-24 on my DX bodies and I'm happy with the combination. I've just learned to accept the angle of view I get with those as normal and not to worry about trying to use a shorter focal length to match film/FX focal lengths.</p>

<p>I use SmugMug. If you want to use it only to select, be sure to set it so that the customer cannot download or print.</p>

<p>Forgetting what kind of film is in the camera begs the question of how long the roll has been in the camera. I would recommend finishing the roll while you can still remember what it is. The sooner you develop the film, the sooner you get the satisfaction of seeing your pictures, the sooner you can learn what you've done right and wrong, the less chance there is of mishaps like opening a camera you thought was empty, etc. And while there are many stores of a roll being developed decades later, the sooner you process the better.</p>

<p>When I first shot 4x5 I bought an HP Combi but it was slow to load and drain times were slow as John notes. Since then I've picked up traditional strainless steel film hangers and tanks and prefer those.</p>

<p>During high school in the 70s I worked for a local "media center" (aka library) that was doing public access TV for local cable. We were shooting a documentary on the local wildlife refuge. When our head guy would go down there in the bright red van owned by the library, the wildlife would scatter. When he went in his own green compact car, he could get as close as he wanted. None of us were wildlife experts, but theorized that green (and probably brown) was a natural color that didn't get noticed by the geese, ducks, etc., but that red stood out. Take it for what it's worth. I don't recall sound being an issue.</p>

<p>Having shot both stills and video professionally, I agree with Lex. I find it a lot easier to shoot video with a video camera than to deal with all the issues you run up against trying to shoot video with a DSLR. There are prosumer cameras that weigh only a couple of pounds and compact cameras that weigh only a few ounces.<br /><br />Whether any given lens or camera is heavy or not is a personal thing, but the lens is only one of several things you presumably are carrying around to shoot an interview -- camera, tripod, lights, etc. If the weight of all that is an issue, you might consider a wheeled camera bag or an equipment/luggage cart.<br /><br />Nikon and Canon each have their pluses and minuses but neither one is significantly better than the other overall. If you stay with DSLR, stick with what you have.</p>

<p>Do you want monolights or do you want heads for the Norman pack? The pack doesn't do anything without heads, and monolights don't need a pack.<br /><br />My latest PocketWizards are the Plus-X model that sells for $99 each. That's all I need to fire a manual flash.</p>

<p>Wide-angle adaptors come in a variety of quality levels and price ranges, but even an upper-end adaptor should be less than the cost of a whole new camera. Andrew makes a good point -- even the highest-quality HD video is pretty low-resolution compared with still photos anyway. And the wider the shot the less detail you're able to see on the TV screen/monitor. Also, how long are these super-wide shots going to be on the screen?</p>

<p>Welcome to Photo.net!<br /><br />The OM-1 is a classic "real" camera. Much simpler to use than "modern" cameras with all their bells and whistles, and you should be able to pick up lenses and accessories cheap.</p>

<p>I've been developing film for 40 years and almost everything about your process seems foreign to me.<br /><br />To start, there is absolutely no need for pre-soak let alone 10 minutes. 30 minutes in the developer? Development times are typically 5-8 minutes (with D-76 for Tri-X or Tmax 400 at 75F). You don't have to use stop th but you should rinse the film for one minute in running water between the developer and fix. Kodak Rapid Fix works in four minutes. Regular fixer can take as long as 10 but some fixers work in five. Film then gets washed in running water for 20 minutes at about the same temperature as the developer/fix not "cold." (You can wash for five minutes if you use hypo clearing agent). Photoflo comes after washing, but rubbing alcohol has absolutely no business anywhere.<br /><br />The part about re-using your fixer and using it for both paper and film is just asking for trouble. In my darkroom everything is used one-shot and goes down the drain. That way all chemicals are always fresh and there's no question whatsoever about them being exhausted.</p>

<p>I've been developing film for 40 years and have never found a need to do inspection development or, consequently, to use a No. 3 safelight. I'm sure there is some application for it -- maybe the stories we get on here from time to time of somebody with an undeveloped roll of grandpa's pictures and they're not quite sure what kind of film it is or what has happened to the latent image so they don't know who long it should be developed. But for normal photography, if I have shot at anything close to the correct exposure and I'm developing at anything close to the correct time and temperature, nothing that I'm going to see for a few seconds under virtually no light is going to make a difference beyond what I can already compensate for when I make a print.</p>

<p>"I took some images with the 18-55mm at home and outside, and the results were a mixed bag in regard to sharpness even though I had increased the sharpness setting in the camera"<br /><br />There's no reason for the images from even a kit lens to be anything other than tack sharp, and there's no need most of the time to even touch the sharpness setting in the camera. To be totally honest, if you are getting a "mixed bag in regard to sharpness" you need to work on your focusing technique, making sure you are using AF properly (or manually focusing properly), have the shutter speed high enough not to get camera shake or motion blur from the subject, use a tripod where appropriate, etc. Higher end lenses can producer sharper images, but that doesn't mean kit lenses aren't sharp. If you aren't already getting sharp images from your kit lens, buying a more expensive lens isn't going to help.<br /><br />I say all of this not to be critical of you but to save you from being ripped off. If your camera shop is saying the problem is that you need another lens, they are just trying to sell you something and take your money when they should be trying to help you get the most out of what you've got. I would find a new place to shop.</p>

<p>Why are you buying film for him instead of him just buying it himself?<br />Film is not something you normally buy for a photographer. To start, it has to be the right format to fit the camera so you can't buy it at all if you don't know what kind of camera it's for. Secondly, photographers have very strong preferences about what kind of film they use (color vs b&w, print v slide and a use range of specific film types within each of those choices). Even if he's just an amateur who takes snapshots, does he actually want to use the cameras or has he moved on to digital?</p>

<p>Look at the Hoodman shades. They incorporate a plastic shade with a loupe specifically to address this issue.</p>

<p>What you have there is isn't even Kodachrome II or Kodachrome 40, just original Kodachrome from probably the early 1960s at best. If the box was already opened, then your father most likely at least opened it with the intention of putting it in his camera and might very well have actually shot the roll. Or he might have opened it and put it back without using it. No way to tell without developing it, and at this point the best you can hope for is B&W. Expect to pay $30, $40 or more -- it's a custom job at this point.</p>

<p>I have the same scanner and use the Canon software that came with it with no problems. It's still going after probably 10 years or more.</p>