dalahorse

I'm a black and white photographer and darkroom printer. My dilemma is often the opposite. When is it appropriate to load a roll of color film in the camera?<p>

I tend to see patterns, textures, and contrasts through my cameras, and find the colors present in many scenes to be secondary, sometimes even distracting. On occasion, I find or seek situations where color really makes the scene. For instance, consider a sunset on Uluru. I envision a giant red rock with a purple/blue sky behind it - it loses something without the colors (in my mind, at least).<p>

One thing I really can't stand to see, though, is thoughtless B&W digital conversion. I see a lot of, "this shot was boring. So I converted it to black and white and now it's artistic." In my mind (or maybe I'm talking out another part of my body), good black and white requires a slightly different skill than color. So challenge yourself to go out and shoot black and white for a day. Do it on purpose, not as an afterthought. Try to interpret your world as textures and contrasts and see past color.<p>

Justin,

 

I use Boston round amber glass bottles for all my photo chemicals. Although I buy mine off

the shelf locally, you can find them all over via search engine. The caps Ronald refers to are

called polyseal caps. They are certainly the best, IMHO.

What makes a lens okay for color but not B&W?

Ditto on Paul's advise. I owe him a beer for accurate RB67 lens disassembly instructions he emailed me a couple of years ago. The man knows his RB's!

Jack:<p>

Cibachrome is alive and well, being produced under the name Ilfochrome.<p>

Although a few B&W films and papers have gone away, many still exist and are doing quite well. I really don't see Ilford getting out of the film and paper business soon. They will almost certainly continue to produce quality products for at least 10 years, if not much, much longer. No modern digital camera will remain "modern" for more than 10 years. It's not intended to be a knock at digital, which is a fine medium. However, the "impending death of film" alone is no reason to switch to digital. Film cameras - especially large format film cameras - will continue on far longer than any individual digital camera will last.<p>Don't stop shooting your favorite format (whatever it may be) fearing that it will one day disappear.

West Coat Imaging is showing what resolution you need to capture/scan to print at various

PPI values. That's it. They can scan a massive number of pixels out of a small area of film.

They're then taking scan PPI for various film format surface areas and translating the

resolution to various print PPI values.

 

I really don't think WCI is trying to start a film vs digital debate.

Well, it is making the attachment when you drag the image into the message. However, the MacOS X mail application knows how to render many image formats and displays the attachments in the message space.

One thing to note: If you dont' want the text portion of your message broken up into attachments, drag all of your images to the bottom of the message (below the end of the text).

Perceptol and Microdol-X undiluted (1+0) make creamy, virtually grainless negatives. I

typically enlarge 6x6cm and 6x7cm negatives to 11x14". I have to focus my enlarger on

lines and textures because I cannot see the grain with my focusing tool. While there is a

slight sharpness loss, it may not be a bad thing with portraiture.

 

Perceptol diluted to 1+1 does not have bad grain clumping problems like most

developers, but no longer dissolves/softens grain. In other words, visible grains (grain

clumps) are tiny and very sharp.

 

Ronald's previous post said, "Slower film or larger negs are the best way to cut grain." This

is the absolute truth! If you can get more light on your subject or open up your aperture a

couple of stops, try a slower film like Plus-X.

 

I'd recommend jumping up to medium format, but you'd need a new scanner. If you

venture into darkroom printing, consider getting an enlarger that will handle medium

format.

Yes. However, the shoe does not have flash contacts. I use one on my RB and 330S. Check the used market if you don't want to pay the $180 for new equipment.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/33936-REG/Mamiya_213495_Left_Hand_Grip_GL701.html

http://www.calumetphoto.com/silver

Perhaps a medium format SLR/TLR with waist level finder would better fit your needs. I find that putting the camera in front of my eyes causes people to prepare for the photo (smile, etc). If I dial in ample DOF and prefocus my TLR, only occasional down glances to check framing, etc. are needed. Another option is to put your existing camera on a tripod, prefocus, and attach a long release. Then you can step back from the camera and interact directly with your subject.

I use the MT9170 (I don't know how it differs from the MT9180) with MH1001 ballhead. It easily supports my Mamiya RB67 (heavy, even for medium format) with the bellows racked all the way out. Granted, I rarely extend the center column more than 4 or 5 inches above the base. In windy situations, I attach my camera bag to the hook at the bottom of the center column for additional support. I would never detach the center column and use it in the boom configuration with such a large camera. I do, however, occasionally do this with my lightweight Pentax 35mm gear.<p>

I also have a much older Slik Master Sportsman tripod (heavy!!) with a big 3-way pan head. The Slik is more stable, but the Giottos is much easier to hike with and still pretty darn stable. Considering the inexpensive price of the Giottos, I think it's a great deal (good price, function, and stability). I don't own any carbon fiber tripods, so I can't really address the aluminum vs CF question.<p>

Hope that helps!!

Some macro lenses, such as the old Micro Nikkor 55/3.8 non-AI, have excellent optical characteristics for close up work, but do a terrible job of resolving images focused at "normal" (maybe 10-ish feet to infinity) ranges. This where the modern floating element design comes in. The modern Micro Nikkors and Pentax Macros all use floating elements and render sharp, flat field images from very close to infinity. I suspect that almost any modern macro prime (non-zoom) is probably very good. If they all prove too expensive, or if there is nothing compatible with your camera system, you can probably rig something up with an enlarger lens and bellows. Enlarger lenses are specifically designed for close-up, flat field work. They are essentially macro lenses without automatic diaphrams or focus helicoids.

Macro lenses are able to focus on objects very close, projecting their image close to (1:4, 1:2, ...), at (1:1), or larger than (2:1, ...) life size onto the film. Most macro lenses are optically optimized to do this with floating element(s) to correct image distortion, focus plane curvature, etc.<p>

Zoom lenses move elements around to modify focal length. Macro is more a function of focal distance (focus on close objects) than focal length (which affects angle of view). To further confuse matters, some zoom lenses do have limited macro capabilities.

100% of my nature photos are made with the camera bolted firmly to the tripod. When I consider the amount of time and/or money that goes into equipment, driving, hiking, waiting for the right light (sometimes hours in one spot), mixing chemicals, processing film, and darkroom printing, skipping the tripod step seems like a really bad idea. Definitely consider purchasing a tripod as soon as possible. If you don't want to spend a lot, you can skip the carbon fiber legs and fancy ball head. For US$200, you should be able to get something decent new, or something with more features on the used market. Check out Giottos tripods and heads. They're a little less expensive, but just as stable as most of the big name brands. I use a Giottos to hold up my heavy RB67 camera, sometimes for very long exposures.

I agree with Thomas. The original comment about B&W makes it sound as though B&W is somehow easier than color. In my opinion (as a B&W photographer and darkroom printer), "seeing" in B&W is different, not easier. In fact, without color contrast, B&W can be much more difficult.

That being said, I prefer to shoot on cloudy days - especially when there is definition to the different layers of clouds (as opposed to a big grey blur). I find that a yellow, orange, or red filter does nice things to overlapping clouds and clouds with bits of sky (which will go dark) behind them.

Printfile pages have served me well for over 10 years. I've never had a scratched negative from them, and I live in a dry, dusty area (New Mexico). Maybe you're loading film into sleeves before they're completely dry? I doubt your scratches are the fault of the Printfile products, but it sounds like you already had your mind made up before you put the question out there.

Here are some facts to consider:<p>

 

<ul>

<li>The factory exposes little arrows, numbers, and words on the edge of the film.</li>

<li>The camera exposes an image onto most of the film (about 56mm of the 60mm

width).</li>

<li>The developer will cause the exposed areas of the film to turn black (numbers and

images).</li>

<li>The fixer will remove the remaining silver from the film.</li>

</ul><p>

 

If I'm right in understanding that there were no numbers or images, then the film was not

developed. Since it was clear, it was fixed. If the camera was the source of the problem,

the numbers and words on the edge of the film would have still shown up after

developing. If the film were developed but not fixed, it would have turned out milky and

gone completely opaque very quickly after being exposed to light. If the film was exposed

to light while being loaded onto the reel, it would have turned out opaque, right out of the

tank. If the developer were mixed incorrectly or used at the wrong temp, there probably

would still have been <i>something</i> on the film.<p>

 

So, my theory is that (a) something went very wrong with the developer, or (b) the fix went

in the tank first instead of last.<p>

As I understand it, most (but not all) of the Mamiya TLR lenses use the same elements in the

viewing and taking lenses. Except for a couple of lenses, there should be no problem in

swapping them since they're the same part. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

I have both the RB67 and C330S. Here's my take...

 

Lenses: The older "chrome" (look at the shutter speed dial) TLR lenses have single coatings

similar to the original RB67 lenses (aka, "non-C"). The later "black" TLR lenses have multi

coatings similar to the "C" series RB67 lenses. Better coatings provide slightly better

contrast, flare resistance, and color saturation. I haven't used the latest (expensive) K/L

lenses for RB67, but I understand they're really nice.

 

In my mind, intended usage is a big factor. I think TLRs are awsome portrait cameras!

There's no blackout or shake during the exposure. Parallax compensation is easy to get

used to. The RB67 has a bigger frame size and DOF preview - two things that I find

important for landscape and macro work. Mirror shake can be a problem, but there is a

mirror pre-fire feature. The blackout, in my mind, makes the RB67 less appropriate for

portrait work.

 

Good luck with your decision! If you decide on an RB67, pay the extra few dollars for "C"

lenses! If you stay with the C220, pay the extra fer dollars for the "black" lenses!

Start by having your existing negatives printed on fiber based gelatin silver paper by a pro lab or friend with a darkroom. I'd scan some of the old prints and send copies to the lab with your film to give them an idea of the characteristics (contrast, tone, etc.) you're trying for. The next step (in my opinion) would involve using "real" B&W film (Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4+, HP5+, etc.) and processing. Finally, you can print your own material exactly the way you want. Read books and/or take classes on darkroom printing. Rental darkrooms can be found in larger cities. A basic home darkroom can be built for well under $500.<p>

It's also worth mentioning that 40 year old B&W prints are hardly old. Similar materials are available and in use today. A properly stored, archivally processed, gelatin silver print on fiber paper can easily last 150+ years. Read up at the B&W printing forums here for more info.

Several of my photos in my gallery here are from an RB67 with 90/3.8 lens. I don't think

my work is all that great, but I shoot for enjoyment only. If you need to see higher

resolution scans, I can upload something a bit bigger.

If you have vignetting, remove or replace your hood, stacked filters, or other object that causes interference between your lens and photographic subject. Also, many lenses don't provide even coverage at their widest aperture(s). Thus, there is sometimes visible light fall off in the corners. As stated in the previous reply, stopping down should eliminate the problem.

Your in-camera meter is probably going to read the snow as middle grey. If you overexpose a stop, that will whiten up the snow while still maintaining a lot of detail and texture. If you have the ability to take an incident or grey card reading, that will help you zero in on the correct exposure (thus making the snow white, not grey).

Lowering both EI and processing time (pulling) will help bring the overall contrast into a more reasonable range.

I get at least 8 months using fully-filled amber Boston rounds with poly-seal caps, using

the same batch of developer no more than 7 times. IMHO, diluted one-shot use is only

appropriate if the goal is to eliminate Microdol-X's solvent action (in other words, make

grain more apparent). Replentishing is not necessary if you simply adjust the development

times as described in the manufacturer's documentation (usually +10% per roll).