ed farmer - mount laurel,

I have never heard this in reference to wash water. Prolonged

development however, can increase grain.

All of my RB lenses (except the 50 and 65mm) have hood/matbox systems from Jack Curtis. I don't have contact information with, but I believe that Jack still advertizes in the classified section of Rangefinder. Feel free to email me if you would like any more information.

I teach a non-credit HS photography class and recommend TMY to all of

my students. A few of the better ones end up shooting some TMX or

TMZ. Everything is souped in HC-110 (as supplied by the school)

except the TMZ for which I supply TMax developer.

 

<p>

 

My own work is pretty much limited to Tri-X in PMK and TMZ in TMax.

I have been down the road you talk about but, I returned long ago. I

really think that many of us have our view f the world skewwed by

photo.net. The mix here is heavy with "techies", much heavier than

the outside world. This makes us think that everyone's darkroom is

stocked with 10 films and 15 developers. I don't think that is the

case.

Try Ansel Adams and Horward Bond. They can be found at your local

Barnes&Noble or Border's.

Start with <a href="http://www.craigcamera.com">Craig Camera</a>.

Phil,

 

<p>

 

What film are you using? Try using running water in place of your

stop bath. I know that "tanning" developers, such as Pyro, will

produce an uneven surface, but I remember hearing this with others.

You should also make sure that all of you chemistry is mixed

properly.

I do not beleive that you are correct when you state that "thick

emulsion" films are those that have two emulsion used in their

manufacture. Many films mix multiple emulsions to enhance speed or

contrast characteristics. Thick emulsion films are simply those

where the physical thinkness of the emulsion is larger. If I

remember correctly these films will respond more strongly to changes

in developer times and dilutions.

Take a look at <A HREF="http://images.umdl.umich.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?lasttype=simple&view=entry&subview=detail&cc=musart&entryid=X-1985-sl-1.91&viewid=1&sstrt=32&hits=64&q1=adams&rgn1=All+Categories&c=musart&thsz=12&txsz=50&slsz=1">this</a>. The photo was taken in 1937 with an early Contax 35mm camera. I have seen this in the "museum set" at 16x20! There is much more to Adams' work than big cameras and big landscapes.

While I can't speak for those particular converters, it is possible

to increase reach with multiple converters. However, image quality

will suffer. Only you can judge your requirements against the

quality of the results.

In general, bellows and extension tubes do not adversely affect lens performance. However, you have to remember that lenses are optimized for certain reproduction ratios. Moving well beyond the design parameters of any lens will affect performance.

Chris,

 

<p>

 

That price in really low for custom B&W work. Email me and let me

know where you are located. If the neg is easy to print, I may be

able to work out a deal for you, but without more information, I

can't quote you a price.

Let's see: I have never seen 4x4 prints (not since 127 went out anyway.) 6x6 negs would be printed at 5x5. However, it sounds like you are shooting 645. I would expect those to be printed 4x5, unlike 35mm which is printed 4x6. No, I don't worry about the film being damaged. The only time I had a problem was with water damage which would have affect 35mm anyway. Most labs around here (Southern New Jersey) have about 3-5 day turnaround for proofs at about 60 to 70 cents a frame. This includes the film processing. A contact sheet is made by placing the film directly on the photo paper and exposing them all at the same time. This can be cheaper than having proofs made but the prints are smaller. Hope that answers all everything!

It sounds like you have a light leak in the film back. The amount of film exposure depends on when you take breaks in your shooting. You decription indicates that you would have stopped when the frames 5,7 and 9 where wherever the leak is occuring, with the stop at 7 being the longest.

 

The good news is that this is common with these backs and can be fixed by any competent repair site. You need to have the light seals replaced. This is not complex or expensive.

Yes it is. It is actually very nice for when I only want to carry

one body, one lens and one small flash. The price should be around

$75US on the used market.

You need to provide more information: What aperture and shutter speed where used on the two cameras? Where they mounted on the same tripod? Was flash used? What were the lighting conditions? Which version of the 80f2.8 did you use?

 

All of this, and more, will affect your results.

Nikon SB24.

I know this does not directly apply, but for the last few years, I

have been shooting sports with an 80-200 f2.8 AFD Nikkor and the

Sigma 2X APO converter. I have been very happy with the results and

this combination could be purchased for under $1000 as well. I find

this combination to be more versitile than a longer and slower lens

because I use the 80-200 for portraiture as well.

The service at <a href='http://www.qtm.com'>Quantum</a> is great. I

would recommend that you ship the battery to them.

You have a lot of good advice above, but one point in your post

caught my attention. You mention that your shots are "washed out".

To me that would indicate that the problem you have is thin, flat (no

contrast) negatives. Not that you have any fogging problems.

 

<p>

 

I have started teaching darkroom work and it has been very

interesting to see a lot of students working in B&W for the first

time. The most common problem that I see is underexposed film.

Underexposed film requires more development to increase contrast.

 

<p>

 

My first sugestion would be to forget the 25A until you are getting

better results without it. Go shoot another roll of film. The

entire roll should be shot under similar lighting. Shoot the first

third of the roll with the film speed set at 400, the second third at

250 and the remainder at 160. These are broad steps, but will give

you a good idea of where your true film speed will be. Process this

roll exactly like you did the last. See if the alternate settings

look better. If the over exposed frames look better that the first

frames, you can either adopt this new speed for HP5, or do some more

experimantation with longer developing times.

 

<p>

 

In any case, make sure that you come back here and let us know what

you have discovered.

Jeremy,

 

<p>

 

Any department store or kitchen/housewares store will have a selction

of digital cooking timers that will fit your needs. I am sure that

you can even find one with large numbers.

 

<p>

 

Good luck,

Although both answers above could be correct, it would help to know

which film, developer and fix you used. Also, how long did you

develop and fix the film?

It sounds like a fixer problem. Does it happen when you use fresh

fixer? Do you agitate your fix the same way you do your developer?

It could also be that your film is not on the reel correctly and the

film is coming in contact with itself.

Lynne,

 

You can leave your on-camera flash on and get the look that I think you are looking for. I prefer it with little or no detail on the couple. Optical slaves are going to be a problem for you in the long run. Every P&S, or disposible in the room is going to set off your second flash, draining the batteries and causing you to shoot while the flash is recycling. This can make it difficult to get consistant results. You need to look at investing in a set of radios.

For what it is worth, take a look at this image: <A HREF='http://www.edfarmerphotography.com/images/EdandJoanieRec01.jpg'>Backlight</A>.

 

This was done by turning off my on-camera QFlash and placing another on the oposite side of the couple. The second flash was on auto at f8 and my camera was set to f8 and 1/60 on Potra 400NC.

Any shutterspeed at which you can handhold your Hassy is not likely to be affected by mirror vibration.