joe_miller2

I have the Epson 4870 flatbed and it does a pretty good job considering the price. A newer version (4990?) is just out and the major difference seems to be its speed. There is a list devoted to the 4870. For more information go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/epson4870

This is normal. Mine works exactly the same way.

I bought a Fletcher from Light Impressions several years ago and managed to cut a perfect mat on my first attempt. I had avoided getting one for years because I'm not the artsy / craftsy type and usually have trouble with that sort of thing.. I don't think Light Impressions carries them anymore, but if you should run across one I can highly recommend them.

What do the negatives look like?

We used to dry prints face down on a ferrotype (sp?) plate to give them a super gloss. It was a real pain but that is the way

many expected prints were to look. I don't think glycern will help with the gloss but it used to be the basic ingredient in the

flattening solution the many used.

In a recent post, Jon Porter suggested DD-X as a replacement for Xtol now that Kodak may be discontinuing the 1 liter package. I really hate switching films or developers. So before I try it and do the hated testing, would anyone be willing to share their experiences and opinions of this developer? Especially whether or not you would consider it a good replacement for Xtol.

Lisa, look at the printing on the film edges (outside the sprocket

holes if 35mm). The numbers and etc will be black if the film was

fully developed. If these are a light grey the film was most likely

underdeveloped.

James, I know very little about POP. If you don't get an answer on

this forum you might have better luck with the Alternative Processes

forum.

 

<p>

 

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=

B%26W%20Photo%3a%20Alternative%20Process

The best idea might be to try the C41 films and see if you like the

results. My wife has been using Ilford XP-2 on a project. I do the

darkroom work for her and got tired of making small prints because she

couldn't tell enough about 35mm contact sheets. I had her expose it a

250 and was really suprised at the quality of the prints. It seems to

hold the highlights very well.

 

<p>

 

I have had a little trouble with scratches. I think someone on this

forum mentioned that that was a problem with XP-2.

You might try Farmer's Reducer. It should be available at most camera

stores.

You are not giving us enough information. For example, the negatives

could be underexposed (and probably are) rather than incorrectly

developed. What does the shadow detail in the negatives look like?

Did you expose the film at 400 or some other speed? What were you

photographing? The subject matter could result in the negatives

appearing to be light--especially to the inexperienced.

My guess is that you will get three different answers.

 

You did not mention a back or insert for the Mamiya. Have you looked into the cost of these? (If it does include a back then I would lean toward the Mamiya.)

 

Do you think that you need AF or a motor winder for the type of photography you want to do? Do you really need to imprint the date on the film when you do macro and landscape photography?

ISO=80

For N: Xtol diluted 1:3 for 15:45 @ 68F w/5 inversions every 30 sec.

For N+1: 18:30 (same temp, agitation & etc.)

Ilford recommends that you don't use a stop bath because of the

possibility of pin holes.

Last week I purchased two packages of Xtol that, according to the

camera store, was a recent shipment. Part A was caked in both cases.

This packaging problem has been around for a long time but, evidently,

faulty packages are still reaching the stores. You get the impression

that Kodak doesn't really care than much.

Erin, I would agree with the post above that urges that you practice

with a roll in daylight even if you have to waste a roll. You can see

how the film is put togeather and practice loading a reel. When I

replaced my old tank and reels I bought a Patterson system and had

trouble loading my first reel. I found that cutting two strips of thin

cardboard about 1 1/4 inches by 3 1/2 inches and inserting them through

the reel slots just below where the film is inserted would help

stabilize the reel and, at the same time, help guide the film into the

correct groove. I remove them after the film is started. (I hope this

makes sense!)

 

<p>

 

I would have to disagree with the above post that recommends the see-

saw method. I used it years ago in a situation where there was no

other option and would never do it again if I had a choice. (I use

Xtol at 1:3 for almost sixteen minutes. Can you imagine see-sawing the

film that long?)

Raja, I would be very careful about extreme temperature differences

when developing film. It is my understanding that having the stop bath

much warmer (say 5F or so) can cause the emulsion to swell and crack.

(This is called reticulation.)

 

<p>

 

I prepare the developer the same way you do and then chill the stop

bath and developer if they have been prepared in a previous session.

(If not, I prepare them like the developer.) The tap water here often

reaches 80F or more in the summer so, after fixing, I use a water bath

of the correct temperature (68-70F) an add the warmer water to this

bath gradually so there is no sudden temperature change. I haven't had

any problem with reticulation.

Dan, I can't compare it with Plus-X, but I use Delta 400 (at 320)

developed in Xtol (1:3) and like the results I get.

Jim, I develop Delta 400 (120, not 220) in Xtol 1:3 at 68 degrees for

16 minutes. The film is rated at an ISO of 320. Agitation consists of

rapid inversion of the tank 5 times (about 5 seconds) every 30 seconds.

Probably nobody is checking this question now, but what I was trying to

think of in the above response was the possibility of the negatives

being nitrate negatives. I understand that these are very flammable.

 

<p>

 

A possible alternative might be to borrow, buy or rent a scanner with a

transparency tray to see which negatives might be of interest.

Someone will have to help me out here because this is one of those areas in which my memory is a little fuzzy. If these negatives are really old, isn't there a chance

that they could be highly flammable if exposed to heat like that in an enlarger? Someone as old as me should know the answer.

If I understand you correctly, you still have spots (dust?) on your negatives even though you have washed them 30 minutes and this is a real problem because it is

35mm. I doubt it is dust as you surmise but I guess it could be. You might try using a film cleaner like that made by Edwal. I have had mixed success using it and

you might want to try a small area first. It this doesn't do it and someone else can't help then I guess you will just have to get good at spotting--it happens to all of us.

While there may be something obvious that both of us are overlooking, my suspicions would lie with washing. Are you doing anything different in this area? Do

you have "hard" water (i.e., water with high calcium content)? I give my prints a final rinse using bottled water rather than tap water for this reason. I guess if you

eliminate washing, the next thing to look at would be the drying process.