sper

<p>Hey gang! I just got a 2003FCW for a song, and I'd like to use it my prefered way, with the left handed flash gun grip. Now it has a 1/4" tripod socket and that's no bushing. The manual seems to indicate using the Hasselblad quick coupling plate, but I'm not sure how the grip would attach to that since they're made to slide onto the baseplate of the camera body, and the whole set up is dependent on triggering the camera with a lever that pushes the shutter release. But, the manual indicates that this is possible SOMEHOW. Anybody know how I can make this happen? Or simply which grip is compatible... No pistol style please.</p>

<p>I just bought a new Pentax 645NII off Fleabay and everything looks great, and appears to be working properly, except I can't see any information in the viewfinder! I've tried resetting the custom functions, and using both a loaded insert and an unloaded. I contacted the seller, but I also wanted to post here and see is there is something I missed?<br>

Am I doing something wrong, or do these go bad sometimes?<br>

Help! Thank youuu!</p>

<p>I am thinking about selling my Toyo 4x5 system. I just don't really have a good idea of it's worth today.<br>

1. Toyo 45A with recently replaced ground glass, plus folding hood. 8/10 condition<br>

2. 135mm APO Symmar Schneider lens 9.5/10 condition<br>

4. Polaroid Pack Film holder (works with Fuji 4x5 instant film)<br>

5. Grafmatic Back 9/10<br>

6. 4 Cut Film Holders. 9/10<br>

7. Monocular viewing hood. 8/10<br>

Think I could get an even $1k for that? Too high? Too low?</p>

<p>

Anyone have experience with the 'tough' compacts? I'm not super comfortable with any digital that doesn't shoot raw, but I'm traveling to Costa Rica and I want something that will go in the water. The Panasonic TS3 seems promising, but I don't know about the Olympus or Pentax equivalents. <br /><br />I just want good pictures, and the ability to not worry about sand, water, moisture, or knocking the thing against a tree when I'm ziplining.<br /><br />Once I get back I wanna mount the camera to my bike when I cycle around NYC. <br /><br />Anybody have one of these, and like it?<br /><br />I also have a Nikon P7000 which has great image quality, and SHOOTS RAW. Which is the only way I bother. Underwater housing though is out of the question, because honestly I want to sell the P7000 and get an X100, plus a 'tough' compact.

 

</p>

<p>That's interesting. What about just a plain old mirrored RAID over two drives? Would that be a good stable storage solution? How do I store my data in the long term?</p>

<p>I'm thinking about either getting a Drobo or the this option:<br>

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/MEQX2KIT0GB/<br>

My question is basically will I have performance issues if I try and run my photo library over Firewire 800 and process in Aperture. My internal HD is 1TB but that will run out fast. I'd like to keep all my work in one secure RAID, but because I have an iMac I can't do eSATA, only Firewire 800. Is RAID 5 the best way to go for photo? It seems like being able to swap out drives as they go bad might be a good way to do it for the foreseeable future. I'm also concerned about the processor drain as I can't ad a RAID card to an iMac.<br>

Is firewire 800 fast enough? Or should I keep my current libraries on my internal drive and just export catalogs of what I'm not working on at the moment? My files are Nikon D700 14 bit NEFs and high resolution film scans from V700 and Nikon Coolscan V. They occasionally get weighty when I scan 4x5.<br>

Any advice here would be welcome. I'm no computer expert, but I get by. :-)</p>

<p>Oh I learned the advantages of the pro shade. My images now have greater contrast and sharpness all round. It was a world of difference. Also since I do a lot of hand held shooting the 553 ELX really reduced my vibration, IMO. At least my negs seem sharper to my eye. I think I was jarring the body a bit too much when I released the shutter on my CM body. A few small things have made huge differences in my Hasselblad film, which is why I was interested in learning about the non T* lenses.<br>

Well good to know that if there is a difference it is negligible. Although I'll swear that my Nikon lens is indeed better in B&W than my modern autofocus Nikkors. :-)</p>

<p>Any truth to the notion that the old chrome C lenses are better than the T* lenses for black and white. I ask because I have an old pre-ai Nikon 50mm 1.4 (which I think it's single coated), and I have noticed that it does seem to have a really lovely low contrast character, which lends very well to B&W. <br /><br />It wouldn't be very expensive to get a 80mm 2.8 C or a 150mm C.<br /><br />I'm doing a portrait project using mostly Tri-X and FP4 and I want to see if I can ebb every inch of tonality into my negatives. I might even start developing in PMK Pyro..<br /><br />What is the consensus on this?</p>

<p>-Mark <br>

<a href="http://www.marksperryphoto.com">w</a><a href="http://www.marksperryphoto.com">ww.marksperryphoto.com</a></p>

<p>As far as bokeh goes, it is a 50mm lens, so I've heard they are generally not made to have especially pleasing OOF patterns. For that look to the 85mm. Although these days a 50 made for Nikon is often a portrait lens, due to small sensor sizes. So I guess you could argue that it should have had that consideration.<br>

The price point of this lens being so close to the Ziess is something to take into consideration, too. The only reason why I see not to throw down the extra cash is if you need AF. I've read that the Zeiss is no great performer as far as bokeh goes either, but it's all metal and has an aperture ring, which is important if you have older camera bodies.</p>

I've seen some really great images made with old brass lenses, and I'm thinking

about purchasing one. Can anyone give me some advice on making this kind of

purchase, what to look for, lens recommendations etc....

 

I shoot 8x10 out of a Deardorff. I'm looking for something in the 300-360mm,

"normal" range.

 

(Also, I'll admit I'm partially attracted to how cool it would be to own a 19th

century lens with waterhouse stops. The brass is so pretty...)

In response to the second post. My film handling area is very well away from my chemical

mixing area. So I would be surprised there were enough Amidol in the air to ruin a

negative, but that may be a possiblity. However, the spots do not quite appear as you

describe. They are simply grey blotches. Sometimes they are round, and sometimes

elongated.

 

The Amidol I used was from a new bottle just ordered from Photogrpahers Formulary. I

was printing with this last night, and it turned my prints pink. I've had this happen once

before, and I've read about this happening to other people. I using both Kodak Rapid fix

and TF-4, it didn't help anything. I might simply have a bad batch.

Detail on the sweater sleave. Check out the detail on his palm.

100% Crop 1.

After proofing last night it appears that, for the most part, the spots were printed through.

Very few of them appear in the paper-black areas surrounding my figure, and those that

do are quite faint. Also, I am going to try selectively bleaching these areas out on the

negative.

 

All good darkroom fun.

 

I would encourage more people to try Ortho+. It's increadibly sharp! Plus, I've yet to

shoot an unprintable negative. Which is not to say that it is some kind of fool-proof film, I

just mean that it is not any more or less difficult to use than other films. Plus, it's fun to

experiment with the developers and processes. I think I'm going to try some 510-Pyro

with minimal agitation next, either that or Pyrocat-MC. I think a compensating effect is

the way to go. I bought some of it in 8x10, and with as sharp as it is in 4x5, I'll be looking

forward to enlarging this. The only thing I would like to fix is the somewhat soot-and-

chalk gradation. I think I'm getting a full range of tones, but it seems a bit harsh in the

toe and shoulder. That may be the look of the stuff, which is not a bad thing, I think.

 

I included another from that first shoot, along with some 100% crops to give an idea of

how sharp it is.<div></div>

I noticed that I got a lot of strange dark spots on my negatives after processing last night. They are

areas of increased density, usually appearing in the very thin areas of my normal image density. By this

I mean, my negatives are portraits of people with a black backdrop. Most of the spots appear around

the figure, in the clear areas. They almost look like dirt or dust spots, because they come in different

sizes and shapes and are a light gray shade (It's not actually dirt, I checked.)

 

I'm using 4x5 Ilford Ortho+. My process is the Amidol Water Bath as outlined in Anchell's Darkroom

Cookbook. This is a developer of distilled water, 5g Amidol and 20g Sodium Sulfite. The water bath is

not really water, but rather a 3% sodium sulfite solution (to prevent streaking). I chose this not-

normally recommended method as a way of dealing with the usually ultra contrasty Ortho+ film. My

first trial worked quite well. My second worked just as well in terms of it's compensating effect on the

images, but these spots could very well ruin my negatives.

 

Anyway, back to process. There are three intervals in the developer, always followed by a 2 minute, no

agitation rest in the water bath. First 40 seconds, then 50 seconds, then 90 seconds. After that I use a

running water stop, and TF-4 fix. Since I'm developing ortho film, I use a red safelight. Meaning I can

see the spots by the time development is complete, so they have already emerged before the stop bath.

 

My first tray of Amidol was a bit grainy, meaning I didn't mix properly. So after the first run I mixed a

new one, but with both spots occurred. I also mixed two different water baths. For this I use 30g of

Sodium Sulfite to 1L of water (That is a 3% solution, right?). Spots occured with both of those as well.

 

Is this streaking, or something else? Dirty cut film holders perhaps? Any advice on this one will be

appreciated.

 

I'm including a scanned image from my first try with this process. There are no spots, but I thought

people might be interested in the look I'm getting.<div></div>

I forgot to say, the process I use is far from a secret, I just don't want to type it all out

right now, so email me if you want it. I'm going to have to do this in the next few days for

a school assignment anyways.

 

Also, I've had no consistency issues. In fact, I would say any inconsistencies i've

encountered have been human (read: me) error.

 

Honestly I've had nothing but fun reversing black and white.

 

-Mark

I reverse FP-4 with modified D-19 and modified Dektol as my first and second developers.

When I get around to it, hopefully soon, I plan on posting my notes on this process here

on photo.net.

 

My results have been mostly good. I've needed to do some tweaking here and there, but

I'm getting better and better at it with every experiment. I can tell you exactly how to do

this, it's not that difficult, but a bit time consuming. I do 4x5 and 8x10 sheets though,

and if you are wanting to do rolls this would make the process significantly easier.

 

I got tired of all that waiting and waiting for light to hit the piece of paper, and then reflect

all the way back into my eyes. A good black and white transparency is quite a thing to

behold. And it is the genuine result of that lens you love so much.

 

If you're looking for something you don't have to do yourself, DR5. But home processing

allows personal adjustments and toning.

 

Here is a kinda crappy scan of an early test. My results have since been even

more...positive...<div></div>

I have used the tin type kit. It was pretty easy to use and the results were very good. The

hardest part is coating the emulsion. You have to heat the emulsion and the plate, then

do a bit of a dance to try and get an even coating before the emulsion cools. I was never

great at this, but I have a friend who got quite good with very little trouble.

 

The images have a greenish color and dark tonality. When done right, they can be

sharp and very beautiful. I did some contact printing with lith positives (It's a positive to

positive process) and even a digital image printed on material made for digital negatives.

It was easiest though, to simply shoot 35mm slides and enlarge them.

 

I enjoyed this process because it was fairly easy to do and produced good results.

Alternative processes are great, but for the most part, I don't have the interest to master

something like gum-bichromate which requires lots and lots of effort.

 

I've not tried wet collodian, but for my part, if you did master printing from glass plate

negatives, you'd have mad street cred, yo.

 

Why the interest in tintypes and wet plates? Is there a civil war coming up I don't know

about? I bet you could make some cash at reenactments.

 

I don't know if you have a myspace account or not, but my tin type expert friend Steph has

some examples scanned. She lectured a class on them once, I'd refer all questions her

way. I emailed her the link to this forum post, but I don't know how much she cares about

photo.net...

 

Here is her myspace: http://www.myspace.com/stephaniecakes

 

Good luck, and post examples!

-Mark

"If you use the yellow snow, you have a built-in toner/stain."

 

Actually I'm pretty sure urine contains catechol, phenol, and hydroquinone. So yellow

snow could be a bad idea. Plus if you use TF-4 you don't want the acid.

 

Distilled water is cheap! Snow is certainly not clean. Using distilled water has more to do

with consistency than quality. I produced great negatives here in Southern Illinois from

tap water before switching to disstilled. My reason for switching was not to make better

negs, but to insure that I could create the same negs when I move back to Minnesota.

What is in the tap water here, might not be in the water there. On the same note, snow

here is probably different from snow in Minnesota. Your water marks might be from

improper Photo-Flo-ing. Remember, you wanna see soapy sudz.

 

-Mark

I'm only skipping the water bath pre development. The bleach and fix are one solution,

blix. I'm not trying to cut corners with chemistry, this is what the Tetenal kit comes with.

 

I would switch to the Kodak kit, but I've still got something like...76 sheets of capacity.

 

Helen, thank you for your answer...but I have no idea what that means. I've always

struggled with math. Any way you could simplify those instructions? I understand .15

above fb+fog. But "taken as the square root of the product of the exposure of the green-

sensitive layer and the least sensitive layer." is confusing. What is the least sensitive layer?

Does "product of the exposure" mean density? Also, I have no idea what a lux second is.

 

You guys are probably just gonna make fun of me more...heh...I probably deserve it. I'm a

senior at Southern Illinois University in the photography program. We used to have lots of

tech classes. I took basic sensitometry, so I have a base of knowledge, but apparently

there used to be a color sensitometry. They canned that a while ago, and just recently

canned sensitometry 2 (just a few semesters before I had a chance to take it!). Now, even

sensitometry, our basic advanced black and white tech class is in-limbo. Apparently the

powers that be think all one needs to know about color and B&W printing and processing

can be taught in two single semester classes. I feel like I rode the very end crest of a wave

that was a quality photography program.

 

Oh well, sorry for the rant. I just felt I should explain my lack of knowledge.

 

-Mark

I recently stared processing my own 4x5 and 8x10 sheets with the Tetenal 5 liter C-41 kit. I'm a photo

student at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, and our lab has a Jobo, but I didn't really like using

it, so I switched to dip and dunk.

 

The instructions with the 1 liter kit give times and tempertures for tray/dip and dunk development (For

whatever reason the 5 liter kit only had info for rotary.) Which are 38C, 3:30sec in the dev and 35-40C,

6:30sec in the bleach, etc... I agitate 4 lifts every 30 seconds, constant for the first 30 seconds.

 

Because of the rapid loss of temp, I now skip the 38C, 1 minute prebath.

 

My problem is inconsistency. I expose 160NC and VC at 125 or 100 depending on the scene, and

sometimes end up with thin negatives. Also, I have been getting negatives with very intense color

saturation, sometimes nearing what one could expect from cross processed film. On the other hand,

some of my negatives are great, of good density, no strange color shifts, and no heavy saturation.

 

I have a good jobo mercury thermometer and temper in a water jacket. However, tempering a gallon of

chemistry requires a pretty hot water jacket and a lot of time. I am suspicious that my dev. is heating

up a degree or so while I'm loading my racks.

 

To compensate for this I dump my jacket and fill it with nearly the same temp water as the developer.

However the danger here is that my dev. could then be loosing a degree or so.

 

Getting my temp right has been kinda frustraiting, and it is so very important with color negatives.

 

If anybody has any process and tempering advice in that area I'd appreciate it. But my real questions

are with the process itself. Is 38C the right temp for dip and dunk? Is 3:30seconds the right time?

There has been some variation in the manuals I've looked up online. Kodak recomends 37.8C (which is

only .2 degrees away from my starting time) and a time of 3:15. Also I think they recommend 1 lift

every 15 seconds, as opposed to my 4 every 30 seconds.

 

Basically, can someone give me some clear instructions for dip and dunk? I need to work out the kinks

in my process.

 

Also, are there any basic sensitometric tests I could run? I'd love to find my correct ISO, but I'm not

sure if the usual rule of zone I .05-.1 above fb-Fog still applies. How does one apply sensitometry to

color negatives?

 

Thanks for your time!

 

-Mark

 

P.S. I...uh...didn't spell check. :)

According to my testing, the intermittency effect appears to be causing failure in the

fourth exposure. This is where it first appears most noticably. Although to be safe, two

exposures is probably as far as I'd push it.

 

So I've got that out of the way! With my new testing methods my results should be quite a

bit more uniform. I plan on taking an empty paper bag and making masks I can tape on

my carriers. They'll each have a hole in a different place through which I can make

exposures. I'll plot my numbers as I get them.

-Mark

Wow. Intermittency Effect would explain quite a lot actually. The last two tests I've run

(10 zones per sheet) have been maxing out around a density of 1.40...and this is at a total

time of 24 minutes! My 5 zone sheets aquired much higher densities, this could indeed

explain my longer development times.

 

However, if you remember from earlier in our discussion, my test images at 7 minutes

were still quite thin and printed, as I thought they would, flat and muddy.

 

Aside from the density jump between sheets (zones V and VI), which is probably due

human error, my tests using two sheets with exposure over 5 zones was consitent with the

test images I was making. The density jump on my curve was throwing off my

determination of development time, but otherwise the data seemed to be good. I

processed four images at the 14:30seconds dev time and the negatives were nearly where

they should be. They were contrasty, but not so much that I could tell from the light table.

I still suspect my development time will be around 12 minutes.

 

I already know that my testing using two sheets was done incorrectly, but what puzzles

me was that my mistake seemed to register in the opposite way that it should have. I

stopped down to zone 1 from my meter indicated, made five exposures like a test strip. I

then flipped the carrier and stopped back to my meter indicated, or zone V. This is wrong

because I already exposed for zone V on the first side. So I should have opened up to one

stop above my meter indicated, right? This error should have simply given me a straight

line between V and what I thought should be VI, but I got a jump that looks as if I opened

up one zone to many, not one to little. Is my thinking right on this?

 

These tests are way easier with a hasselblad.

 

Jay, can you tell me the capacity for 510 Pyro with 4x5 sheets? I've been doing four per

run.

 

Thank you for all your help. You guys have been very patient with me, particularly Jay.

 

I'm late to class, no time for spell check, sorry.

 

-Mark

All ingredients were added. I remember adding the phenidone, and all the other

chemistry. I had your write up from digital truth in front of me as I was mixing. I

purchased the kit from Artcraft. He multiplied all ingredients x4. So I have, or had at the

start, 400ml of total stock solution. In the order you indicated, I added 300ml of TEA,

then 20g of ascorbic acid, 40g of Pyrogallol and 1g of Phenidone. I then topped off with

tea to make 400ml. The temperature was not exactly at 105?F, however it did not deviate

more then 10?F plus or minus throughout the mixing process.

 

When I make my working solution, I extract the dev with a syringe, and extrude it into a

10ml graduate. I then add it to 1000ml of distilled water. I make sure to pour back and

fourth from the 10ml graduate to the total solution. This goes on for a while, as 510-Pyro

is so viscous. I then stir the working solution. I temper to 21?C, and use dip and dunk.

agitation for the first 30 seconds, and then 10 seconds or four lifts and tilts every minute

for the remaining development. Water stop, TF-4 fix.

 

My testing indicates that, as you said, 14min. 30seconds development is far too long.

Although my negs were not bullet proof by any stretch of the imagination, they printed

quite contrasty. I had suspected this would be the case. As you can see from my curves,

there is a jump in between zone V and VI. This is also where I switch from one 4x5 sheet

to the next (as I have 5 zones per sheet w/ fb+Fog.) I am now plotting all densities per

dev time on 1 sheet by masking one half of the carrier. I marked my darkslide with 2cm

increments. I take a spot meter reading and stop down to zone one. Then like a test

strip, I simply expose each section according to my markings on the darkslide. I then

mask off half the carrier, and make another 5 exposures. I haven't yet processed these

four sheets, but I hope to today.

 

Considering the many differences in our techniques, a development time that is simply

100-150% longer is not unreasonable. I am very interested in seeing what will happen

when I start running 510-Pyro in tanks with 120 film. Due to the full inversion, I suspect

much shorter development times. I think it is crucial for me to make sure to fully mix my

working solution when using dip and dunk development, as I do not want any of the heavy

concentrate sitting on the bottom.

 

I am really busy with my midterm portfolio right now, so these tests are something of a

side project. When I have time to scan results, I will post them. Until then I'll continue

posting my numbers.

 

As for the comments about sensitometric testing in general, I am simply attempting to

grasp a greater understanding of my materials and how to most effectively use them. The

way in which I am doing this is well suited to this purpose.

 

-Mark

I just plotted my density perameters. Though I don't have time to upload the data right

now. With a paper density of 1.0 (which I use for VC) my "N" time is 14 minutes 30

seconds. I'm going to process a few sheets soon and make some prints. I am still getting

that strange jump between zones V and VI, but my professor looked at my numbers and

thought I was probably fine. I'm suspicious, but I'm looking forward to seeing my results.

 

I am as perplexed by the difference in my data from everythign I have read as you guys

are. But these are the results I'm getting and that's all I can really go by.

 

I was thinking that perhaps 510-Pyro is just not well suited to dip and dunk development.

Maybe it needs those full inversions in order to work at full strength.

 

By the way, I made prints of my initial 7 minute negative. As I suspected it came out really

flat on both VC and graded paper. So I'm not just missreading my negs.

 

I'll post again when I have something for you.

-Mark