bethe_fisher

<p>Solely my 2 cents (possibly worth less than that), but I'd consider doing a 120 camera like the Holga rather than half frame on 35mm. With 120, you don't need to deal with sprockets to move the film, you just need to turn the spool. 120 has the cachet of being higher quality, too. The Holga is/was a very simple camera.<br>

Whatever you make, having a set of funky filters might be a cool accessory. Some way of adding cool edges to the images via filters in front rather than filters in an app (the f-stop you use will affect this). </p>

<p>I currently use a Chamonix 4x5 with a ball head and love it. But I previously had a Cambo monorail and couldn't use it on the ball head unless it was perfectly balanced and exactly level. I ended up getting Berlebach legs and a Manfrotto pan/tilt head (808 RC4?) which worked great. I would think the legs you've chosen would work, but I'd go to the less wobbly head. </p>

<p>I shoot anything that records an image and prefer film for most non-snapshot stuff. Overall, film probably accounted for around 20% of the shutter clicks for the year, but a higher percentage of shots to be printed. Most of what I shoot on digital never leaves the computer, while a decent number of film shots get printed. Most of my film use is B&W and I do my own. If I didn't have a darkroom and enjoy that part of it, my percentages would likely be different. <br>

I think I shot about 3 rolls of 35mm B&W, 2 rolls 35mm color; 8 or 9 rolls of 120 B&W, 2 or 3 rolls of 120 color; at least 30 sheets of B&W 4x5 and 4 sheets of color 4x5. Most of the color hasn't been developed, yet, because I have to send it off. </p>

<p>Actually, to me it looks like there might not have been enough developer in the tank and the upper edge didn't get sufficient development. It would be important to figure out (if you can) which side of the roll was up. If you're using a plastic tank, make sure it's not one where the reel can ride up in the tank (ie. float). Be sure you're using enough to completely cover the film, but not so much that it's tough for it to move around when you agitate. And remember to tap the tank to dislodge bubbles after each agitation. <br>

I haven't used Paranol S or Rodinal, so I can't speak to the dilutions/times needed, etc..</p>

<p>I probably said the same thing last year, but... I need to shoot more. I need to put some books together (for me, not to sell) - it'll make me pick good ones that work together and tell the story. There are also still parts of Ohiopyle State Park I haven't hauled the 4x5 to. I also need to get to Hocking Hills in OH. <br>

I'm also trying to do more to get my work in the public eye locally. Maybe there's someone who wants a nice handprinted B&W on their wall. </p>

<p>It isn't necessarily all done in camera. Underexposing with get you deeper blacks with less detail, but you can get that in post, too (darkroom or computer). Some of it is scene-dependent, too. Plus what Andrew says about fresh paper and chemicals if you're using a darkroom. </p>

 

<p>I'm with John Farrell. And to quote Ansel Adams, "There's nothing worse than a sharp photo of a fuzzy concept." </p>

<p>Patrick - That's great. At that age, I swear my son grew overnight. While each image might not be award-winning, the series tells an important story. </p>

<p>I haven't ever even attempted a 365 project. The closest I've come was a 52 week project. I shot one instant photo each week (using a new 4x5 and Fuji FP100C and 3000B). The main goal was to get to know the camera since it was new. I did get a few decent shots, but it was tough to come up with a shot every week (I didn't want to redo past ideas either). </p>

<p>I gave up trying to clean negatives before scanning them. I bought a Wacom tablet and pen and use the heal and clone tools in PS. Yes, it takes time. <br>

The Edwal anti-stat might keep new dust from getting on the film. Worth a try.</p>

<p>Are you shooting the TMax at 400 iso or have you figured out your optimal EI (exposure index)? Less exposure can lead to graininess as well. I use DD-X and shoot HP5, Delta100, Acros, and TMax (usually 100, occasionally 400). I almost always rate the film about a half stop or more slower, so 400 box speed becomes 320 and 100 becomes 80. I don't scan, I print in the darkroom, but I really haven't noticed grain in 120. Also, some scanning software can emphasize grain when it's removing what it thinks is dust. </p>

<p>There's no real need to keep the lab sleeves. The PrintFile pages on their own are just fine. <br>

For a lab, you can try Blue Moon Camera and Machine in Portland, OR or Praus Productions in Rochester, NY. I've had good results with both.</p>

<p>David - Use the HIE as soon as you reasonably can. I've used some well past its date and it got grainier. I have some 4x5 kept cold that I need to use as soon as there are leaves (I just got it recently). I figure it'll look like I shot 35mm with the grain it'll have.</p>

<p>As to the OP - 5 years out of date regular B&W shouldn't be bad at all. Adding a small cushion of exposure wouldn't be a bad idea, but you shouldn't need to add more than a stop.</p>

<p>As the others have said, yes, the film was touching and the chemicals didn't reach the parts where there's no image. FWIW, I've never been able to load 120 on plastic reels. I use Hewes stainless reels in a stainless tank instead. There was a learning curve at the start, but I've found it to be easier. For 35mm, I still prefer the plastic ratcheting reels over the stainless. </p>

<p>I didn't get to use the darkroom much when school was out, so I'm hoping to do a bunch of printing when the weather is too cold or not pretty enough to go shoot. And I could try to finish the projects I started last winter and didn't finish. And redo my website (which I've been promising myself I'd do for about 4 years now).</p>

<p>Can you feel any type of distortion in the film at the spots where the line shows? If it got bent, it would stay somewhat bent and you should be able to feel it. Add me to the list of long-time film users who have never seen this one before. <br>

I don't think developer amount has anything to do with it as that would have made a line going along the length of the film, not across it.</p>

<p>You say you're reading and watching videos, but how much are you shooting? As Erwin says ^, practice, practice, practice. Take a class or two where you can get your images critiqued as well as getting instruction. Having others look at your shots and point out what's good or bad about them can really help. If you can translate that from viewing them after shooting to seeing the issues before you press the shutter, then you'll learn.</p>

<p>The best starting points for any film/developer combo is with box speed and manufacturer recommended times. From those results you can then decide if you want more detail in shadows or in highlights or whatever and then adjust to get what you want. <br>

I've never used Tri-X at 1250 in diafine, so I don't know what it might be that you like about it. Can you be more specific? Or post examples?</p>

 

<p>Mold looks like stringy things. Moisture usually makes it look mottled. </p>

<p>I've heard good things about The Darkroom lab, but those spots look like undissolved chemicals or sludge in the chemicals to me. Maybe they aren't running their machine enough or aren't cleaning it enough. It does happen.</p>

<p>What film? How processed? Purple usually means the anti-halation dye hasn't been completely washed out. Moisture will give you other problems. </p>

<p>I use an app for reciprocity that's also got adjustments for filter and bellows extension. I checked it and it doesn't have Fuji 1600 even listed and it's got a lot of films. Fuji Acros needs no adjustment until it's pretty long and the other Fuji films in the app don't need an adjustment until longer than about a minute. I've never used the 1600, so I don't know which it's more similar to.</p>

<p>To make a "good" contact sheet, do a test sheet with different times at a chosen aperture (I use f8, but you might want something different). Choose the time that gives you full black in the clear part of the negative (mine are full black around the negative, the clear part is slightly grey). Make sure you put the enlarger at the same height each time. These values will be different for your enlarger vs mine since we probably don't have the same type, same bulb, same whatever else. I have a Beseler 23CIII and use f8, 8 seconds, with the height at almost 13" (by the markings on the support). That's ALWAYS how I do my contact sheets. <br>

For printing full shots, that can vary by a fair amount. I'm not always perfect when exposing my film, so some shots need to be adjusted. But I can tell from the contact sheets how I might need to adjust them. That really comes with experience. Print more, learn more. </p>

<p>Impossible does make an 8x10 instant film, but you need the right holder and processor for it. It's also $200 for 10 shots. I don't really think it would be the first choice for pinhole. <br>

The paper Mike Earussi mentioned is the easiest to use, even though it needs to be developed and fixed. That isn't tough to do if you have a dark enough room (very dark, btw).<br>

And f295 no longer really exists. The site is now just a listing of its history. The forum folded last spring or so. apug.org has a section on pinhole - keep in mind that it is a film only site and digital is not the point there.</p>

<p>I'm an hour from Pittsburgh and less than that from a great state park with plenty of trails, streams, rocks, and waterfalls. But I could easily put together a book of great shots in walking distance from my house. Follow the light, see where it goes, go around it, watch it play.</p>

1970 and 2008 Dodge Challengers<div></div>