bethe_fisher

I've used A&I (though not recently) and Praus - I'd recommend both, but I currently use Praus for anything I can't do myself.

That grain does not look like Acros to me. For most films, I can focus 35mm and 120 under the enlarger without a grain magnifier. Not so with Acros. I need my Peak to even find the grain in Acros. As to using hard water, I have well water that's barely softer than a rock. I do several rinses with distilled water before doing one with photo-flo. When I develop 35mm or 120, I do all the washing by the Ilford method for saving water and using distilled. (knock on wood) No drying marks since starting to use distilled water.

Complete Guide to 2019 Artist Grants & Opportunities In case it helps anyone.

There used to be categories for the No Words forum - those disappeared when PNet switched to Xenforum. Among those categories were "medium format" "film" and several others which placed limits on the method for making the shot. There is additionally nothing in the sticky rules post that says you can't restrict the gear to some extent.

With all due respect, I was talking about the two I specifically referenced.

Depending on where you live, you may want to look for local programs. In the Syracuse, NY area, there's a place/organization called Light Work. They have an Artist-in-Residence program. In Pittsburgh, PA, there's Silver Eye, which does a yearly Fellowship program (the deadline is in the fall). The only way to get such grants or fellowships is to find out about them and follow their procedures.

No Pentax I know does that and I know the Nikons we used at the lab did not (we had an N65, I believe).

John Sexton, Lee Friedlander, George Tice. If you do more B&W than color, get a subscription to Lenswork.

Me, too. I send my color film to Praus Productions in Rochester, NY. I don't know about their scanning as I do my own. I've also used Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Oregon - they're good, but farther away so I switched to Praus.

Either HIE (in 35mm and 4x5) or Type 55.

Since the stripes are white, that means the negative has more emulsion in those places. That doesn't doesn't really jive with scratches (and the stripes don't really look like scratches). If the stripes are actually on the negatives, maybe it's drying marks? Was a squeegee used? Photo-flo?

In the absence of metadata, I doubt there's a way to prove definitively that the files are any particular age. And it's possible to add to the metadata with some programs and to change some of what's there. It also would depend on how the camera was set to begin with. And many people use them without setting anything (yes, not everyone cares). IIRC, even back then, cameras could be told how to name the files. Though they could also be told to start over if numbering sequentially and you can set them for whatever date you want. We had a fairly early digital camera at the lab (late 1990s) - I only used it for non-casework, but I'm pretty sure I could choose whether it used the time and date to name the file or to use sequential numbers. I'm pretty sure they were jpgs. I used to have a couple of my old photos from it, but I have no clue where they'd be now. If I can find them, I'll report back.

Since you're using Ilford paper, I'd start with the folded piece of paper that comes in all their boxes of paper and also read this - Making a Black & White Print - Exposure Testing . They have several other pages on their site with good info about developing film and making prints. One of the most important things is to be consistent. The paper should be in the developer for the same amount of time for each print (with Ilford RC and Ilford MG developer at 1:9 that's 1 minute), stop bath for the same amount of time for each print, and fixer for the same amount of time for each print. If you vary those, you can't compare two prints made with different times.

Congratulations!

I have an older Epson, and I've gotten lines and other weird things if there's dust in the area the scanner uses for calibration or if the holder isn't quite lined up. Cleaning the glass and making sure the holder is lined up perfectly might help. Worth a try anyway.

Having recently used some T55 that expired in '07, I can state that some of the stuff will still work. Not necessarily perfectly, but it might work. I usually do a long water wash of the negative and make sure the goo is all washed off. It usually takes 5-10 minutes for the goo to wash off well. I've done it this way for 10 years and my oldest ones are still ok. I haven't really been that worried about them lasting forever, though. I was told before that regular fixer could be used on the negative as well.

+ 1 more for using a standard developer. Ilford multigrade developer comes as a liquid, which makes it very easy to mix. A print is not going to look black then clear up to show an image. If you're getting black, then either it's been exposed too much or the developer is too concentrated or one of several other things that are tough to diagnose without knowing every detail of how you mixed the chemicals, exposed the print, etc...

If you could show us a picture of the "cracks" it would really help. Reticulation has a pretty characteristic look, as do the marks left if you bend it too much putting it on the reels.

Did you miss where I've actually BEEN at crime scenes and know exactly what is needed? It is NOT like CSI.

#1 - What country are you in? That matters. #2 - Did you buy a ticket to the event where you photographed them? In the US, there is usually a difference between selling a photo as an object to hang on a wall vs selling a photo to a company to advertise a product. Selling a print is frequently (not always) just fine. Selling an image to be used to sell something is called commercial use and requires a release in most cases. Many people do not correctly understand the difference.

Night - in a city and also of the stars. (I have a child and so am rarely free in the evening or at night to go out and shoot). @Brad_ Forensic?? I was a forensic chemist and can testify that forensic photography is boring and my 8-year-old could do it. Real cases are not like CSI and those shows were not always that accurate about how some types of evidence react to light.

My son's a Cub Scout and I'd bet he's the only local one who can even recognize a camera besides a cell phone.

To me, the mottling looks like what you get if the film was in a damp environment. The backing paper can leave a residue on the film in that case. I don't know that it's possible to remove.

As a few others have said, don't use Digital ICE with B&W. It basically thinks the grain is dust with B&W and you get weird artifacts.

HC110 is the go-to for old film. Expect the film to be fairly fogged after all this time, but you could still get visible images.