bethe_fisher

If you use mpix.com to print your photos, they show you the edges and where it will get cropped for each size you choose. You can move the image within the frame to get more of what you want in the print. In most editing software, you can use a crop tool to see how much is there and what the image will look like cropped to whatever size you choose. Most 35mm-size cameras will print close to full frame on an 8x12 rather than 8x10. It's mostly experience that will let you figure out what will show and what won't when composing in the viewfinder. I'm one of those who makes sure everything I want is in the frame, but I don't lock myself in to printing the full image. In the darkroom, I print to whatever ratio I find appealing for that image and cut my own mats to make them fit a normal frame.

This doesn't seem like sufficient washing. There should be several changes of water. Either use running water (at the same temp as the rest of the processing) for 5-10 minutes OR use Ilford's water-saver version - fill with water, invert 5 times then dump, fill with fresh water, invert 10 times then dump, fill with fresh water, invert 20 times then dump. Then hang in a clean place to dry.

I know others have liked the results from Shutterfly, but I've never gotten anything from them where the colors were right. They've also always looked cheap to me (plenty of relatives have used them and sent me the prints and books). I've only used Blurb once, but plan on using them again soon for a couple of projects. I'd guess Shutterfly is cheaper, but you can check that on their sites. Blurb's software was easy the first time - it's changed since then, so I hope it's still easy.

<p>If you're talking about the circles, then it's likely air bells from insufficient agitation or not thunking the tank after agitating. Since there are also drag marks near the air bells, I'd guess insufficient agitation. <br> My scheme - invert the tank back and forth during the first 30 seconds - not shaking it, just tipping it over. Thunk to dislodge any bubbles. Agitate by inversion about 4 times every 30 seconds thereafter, thunking after each group of 4. In my experience, using the stick to twirl the reel results in uneven development. Inverting the tank gets the developer to move more surely.</p>

<p> http://www.finao.com/products/seldex-slip-in-mats <br> http://www.matboardplus.com/slip-in-mats/ <br> http://www.tyndellphotographic.com/boxes/tyndell-v-groove-portfolio-mat </p>

<p>If you mean the dark areas along the edges, then it's what Glen said. <br> And in the bottom strip of this shot - https://www.flickr.com/photos/96655477@N08/31832503623/in/dateposted-public/ - there look to be several round white spots. I'd need to see them larger to be sure, but they could be from bubbles that weren't dislodged during agitation. It's always a good idea to thunk the tank a couple of times after inverting it so you get any bubbles to move off the film. </p>

<p>Developing your own B&W is really pretty easy. Look around on Ilford's site a bit - http://www.ilfordphoto.com/applications/page.asp?n=9 They have good instructions on the basics and what you need, etc... </p>

<p>I only can process B&W myself - color takes too much control over temperature (and I'm not going into debt to get a Jobo). With B&W, I can develop the film and make silver gelatin prints - all by myself. And I don't have to deal with color balance. <br> I do shoot a little color film, but most of my color shots are done with digital. Overall, though, I just like B&W for most things that I'm likely to shoot.</p>

<p>Here are two sites that give an idea of how to look at your negatives. I've under and over exposed at various times and still been able to print most of them in the darkroom. I've never had a problem scanning them, but always have to adjust them in PS to get what I want. A lot depends on experience. Keep working at it!<br> http://www.aregeebee.net/negs/eneg.htm <br> http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/p/how-to-read-negative.html </p>

<p>Different brands put it in slightly different spots. It's usually on the box or foil wrapper. If the rolls are out of those, then I don't know if it can be found until looking at the batch number after it's been developed (which might be too late if you want the info for exposing info). What do you have?</p>

<p>+1 to Tim. Also, my scanner software does the inverting, so I don't know what I'd get if I did it in PS instead. I nearly always need to adjust the image (I usually use a levels layer so I can see how it's going). <br> I'm not sure I agree with Charles as I seem to get easier to adjust images if I include the rebate. But I have a fairly ancient scanner (Epson 4870) - don't laugh, it still works. I'm primarily a darkroom printer, though.<br> Assess your negatives by looking at your negatives, not by how they scan. </p>

<p>I used to get a couple of fairly Popular photo mags, but dropped them when they became more ad than anything else. I still get B&W (the American one, not the British one) and Lenswork. Both are more about the images than the gear (gear is barely mentioned), but neither are really instructional. <br> For learning, I'd also check out your local libraries, to include any college ones you can get into. If there's a camera club in your area, they might be a place to find more info. Some are good for that and others are more of a "my gear is cooler" kind of group. You have to go to find out.</p>

<div></div>

Door to Gloucester cathedral in England<div></div>

<p>I mostly use fiber paper, which has a much more pronounced curl (I'd call Ilford RC quite flat, actually). I have a Saunders 4-bladed easel and love it. All papers I've used have been held flat by it. No, it's not borderless, but you could always trim the paper afterwards if you want no border. </p>

<div></div>

<p>After looking years ago, I realized the only way to get one roll per page was to shoot 24 exposure rolls. I gave in and shoot 36 (37), but live with each roll being two pages and therefore two contact sheets.</p>

<p>The age of a camera is not a determining factor in whether you need a new camera or not. As others have said, if your current camera does what you require, then you're fine. I still frequently use a camera my dad bought in the early 1960s - works fine. A camera is just a tool. Rather than shopping for cameras, shop for workshops. The most useful piece of equipment a photographer has is their brain.</p>

<p>'05 is kinda old for a fast film like D3200. If you can bear the grain, try the HC110. You could still get some good images if you figure out the right subjects and adjustments to make. And maybe meter at 800. Crossing your fingers can't hurt, but I wouldn't shoot anything that can't be repeated.</p> <p>(I'm still using up some Polaroid Type 55 that expired in '06 and it kinda works - you never know).</p>

<p>How much expired was it? One year or five? Or more? It does matter more with higher speed films. I shot some Delta 3200 that was about 3 or 4 years expired and it was fogged enough to notice, but still printable. I don't think I'd bother using any that was more than a year out of date and I'd shoot that at 1600.</p>

<p>Glad to help! Maybe spending so much time lurking on sites is useful after all. </p>

<p>Contact Toyo - I believe they are replacing the bad dark slides with ones of aluminum. </p>

<p>Read the thread all the way through (look at the photos on the first page, though) - http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131636-Blotchy-pattern-on-4x5-negatives&highlight=toyo+film+holder Just my thought.</p>

<p>By reusing, do you mean you're putting the used developer back in with the rest or that you made a big batch and are still using developer from that batch but not used twice? <br> They all look under exposed and under developed to me. The ones where you see streaks from the sprocket holes on the edges are ones where the agitation was likely too much. <br> I don't know D76 times well enough to know if you compensated for the temp. Did you? Just my opinion, but the first few rolls you do, it's best to shoot them at close to box speed so you can diagnose problems more easily. <br> Holding the strips of negatives up in front of a white screen and taking a picture of all of them would make it easier to see differences. With these, it's tough to tell what is chemical and what is reproduction for viewing. </p>

<p>What kind of film holders did you use? I ask because I've seen posts on the LFPF regarding issues with some Toyo holders. Apparently the dark slides let some light through and get a mottled appearance possibly like yours.</p>