darinheinz

<p>Hi Ben!<br>

If you're talking about printing black and white:<br>

Not sure how much of an option this is, but a few years back I used to keep an enlarger and trays tucked away in a portion of the kitchen. I would then use the kitchen as a darkroom on nights when there wasn't any thunderstorm activity or full moon; naturally, I would spend a few hours in the afternoon prior putting black-out cloth over the windows and black masking tape over the various LED lights on all the kitchen appliances. Two sawhorses suspended a pair of 2x4s on which sat the enlarger and trays. The kitchen sink was used for rinsing. "Go Time" was generally about 10pm, and I worked into the night. It helped having a friend join me for the chit-chat and to advance the prints; that way I could have up to three going through the development simultaneously. As I recall, I had a newborn in the house at the time, and all of the supplies and such were shuttled into a back bedroom on the nights when I was "Going Dark."<br>

Developing the film is a little trickier. I ended up resorting to tray development in a closet for the 4x5 film. Barring that, I would recommend the "tube" type of tank. At one point I acquired a "Yankee" tank, but it proved to have just as much an attitude as its namesake (insert chuckle sound effect here). Touch spots, streaks, and uneven development became its calling card, and the contraption was quickly abandoned.<br>

As an alternative, which I've done with really good results, you might consider shooting with paper negatives. At around ISO 4, you can get some really interesting long exposures, even in daylight, and skip the total-darkness aspect of the film handling. Downsides, of course, are inability to do a traditional enlargement and a moderate loss of detail, which kind of relegates this to a more-or-less close-up application using swing and tilt effects as the cake's icing.<br>

If all else fails, shoot chromes and send them to A&I in Los Angeles. They will develop 4x5s in E-6, C-41, or D-76 process; great service, but at 3 bucks a sheet. Which might be just enough to satisfy your "sweet tooth" until a better arrangement comes along.<br>

Anyway, I hope this helps. Good luck!<br>

Darin</p>

<p>Thanks Dennis for the thread, and thanks also to Mike for the in-depth info and Jamie for the uploaded sample.<br>

I have one question: how much of a difficulty is the removal of the lens shade for near-FF work? In other words, is it truly integral to the lens (requiring the potentially disastrously risky aforementioned "shave" technique), or can it be detached using a jeweler's screwdriver and steady hand?<br>

I can see the image circle on the lower portion of the diptych, and really would prefer that effect over the not-quite-rectangular stock form. Especially since much of my work is 6x7, I would be able to do the cropping myself to sort of match my other work...<br>

Thanks in advance for the response!<br>

Yours,<br>

Darin</p>

<p>Hi Daniel!<br>

I recommend using fiber multigrade, archivally processed, for the negatives. The colored filters will work in front of the camera lens and if you are using multigrade paper for the positive, colored filters will work fairly well (because of the light transmitted through the paper going a bit yellow) in the enlarger head. High contrast = high contrast whether neg or pos image is being made. Meter through each filter to determine the additional exposure time needed.<br>

ISO will vary from paper to paper. The way I tested it was to set up a black, white, and 18% gray card on a wall and lighting it with metered light (strobe or sun works well). Make a note from exposure to exposure on the white card itself as to which ISO you are exposing at. Select the one that has the best representation, and use that ISO with that type of paper. Retest for other papers. The paper I use is around ISO 4. Using such a low ISO means you can stop down to f/64 and expose for 4 seconds in daylight without a filter...<br>

I am planning on posting a few negs in the future; I tend to avoid posting many images because of the pesky unauthorized distribution facilitated by the Interwebz.<br>

Hope this helps, Daniel! Good luck!<br>

Darin</p>

<p>Hi Jeff!<br>

Another alternative may be found here:<br>

<a href="http://www.lenshoods.co.uk">www.lenshoods.co.uk</a><br>

At the right price (free!), and delivered within minutes, it has been the source for my arsenal of lens hoods, many of which work *very* well for archaic and/or obscure lenses. Most of mine are made from black neoprene, which makes them lightweight and collapsible (ideal for stuffing into a travel bag).<br>

If no existing hood can be "crossed" to match your lens, it is possible to request one on the site, or to scale your print to match the lens dimensions.<br>

Thought it worth the mention...<br>

Good luck!<br />Darin</p>

<p>Hi William.<br>

The short answer is it's what I had access to. The headphone jack won't short or temporarily reverse unless something is seriously wrong (i.e. major physical damage), and is not as delicate as a coax DC jack. There is also an on/off switch on the battery pack which allows current only when both ends are firmly seated. Besides, having a fairly standard plug means I won't have to build cables, or try to find a specific one should this one break in the field. In a pinch, I can get two pairs of cheap headphones from a general store and splice the cables together with some black tape. Anyway, it works for me. This isn't a specific hard and fast mod; it is highly adaptable, and the nice thing is there is plenty of room for personal preferences. </p>

<p>Hi everyone!<br>

I started working on a night photography project, but experienced a good deal of frustration with the Pentax 6x7's limited time-exposure capability due to the 4-hour (or so) open-shutter lifespan of the lithium battery. So, I decided to modify the camera to accept an external power source.<br>

I did this by opening the camera's housing, soldering a wire to each of the battery terminals, and connecting the other ends to a monaural mini headphone jack fastened to a hole I drilled in the casing near the lens mount. Next, I built a battery pack (for my long exposures, I use a 4 D-cell arrangement) out of a plastic box and battery holder from my local electronics store. The powered leads from the battery pack are connected to a mono headphone jack identical to the one in the camera, with matched polarity. In the field, the camera is connected to the battery pack by a 3-foot cord with mono plugs on each end. I have already put in excess of 30 hours of exposure time on the 4 D-cells, and they are still going strong. Subsequently, I fabricated 6-volt adapters for my car's cigarette lighter and a transformer for household AC to 6VDC. The lithium battery has been recycled, and I should point out that the camera is no longer able to be used with the internal battery due to the nature of this mod. It seems reasonable that a switch could be introduced into the mod to isolate the power source to either internal or external, but I did not feel compelled to go to such lengths.<br>

I will be posting images from what has now become an extensive nocturnal adventure into my gallery later this year.<br>

Questions and/or comments are welcomed.<br>

Darin Heinz<br />Melbourne, Florida USA</p>

I was thinking of making pages roughly 10 inches by 16 for storing these; each page will hold 20 frames (4 strips of 5, in keeping with the wisdom of not cutting more than is necessary). 10x16 clear plastic bags can be sealed in strips using an impulse sealer fairly easily. It is then a matter of obtaining a large portfolio-size binder to store them in. Purely hypothetical at this stage, but certainly a more desirable workaround than leaving the 30 or so neg strips hanging on the drying line, like they are now. Any thoughts on this?

Taking the response from Jay:

 

When shooting, use a gray card to meter the light properly; there are many accurate such cards available out there, and most have detailed instructions on how to use them printed on the back. Naturally, make sure the meter you use (whether it is the in-camera meter or a hand-held light meter) is set for the ISO of the film you are using.

 

Bracketing is underexposing, shooting at the recommended exposure, and overexposing on separate frames of film. When using my view camera with chrome film, for example, I tend to underexpose by one stop, then underexposing by a half-stop, exposing normally, and overexposing by a half-stop. This yields 4 pieces of film which just about guarantees me one perfect shot. When using B/W film, I usually go one stop up, one stop down, and one at what the meter says.

 

During development, I have a tendency to add about 30 seconds, which is a procedural shift I have devised just out of personal taste given my shooting style.

 

As was mentioned earlier, a good quick-and-dirty method for determining whether underdevelopment was the issue is to look at the text along the edge of the film, and if you have an exposed (dark) segment at the very beginning of the roll (from loading the film into the camera), look at that as well. If it looks gray instead of black, either your developer was depleted or stop-bath was introduced prematurely.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Darin

If you find a location which is very dark at night, but close to a city which will provide "light pollution" on the cloud layer, it is reasonably easy to achieve this result by using a long shutter speed. At some point during the exposure, get to a position perhaps about 10-20 feet in front of the camera, out of the frame, and pop a flash at the ground (being careful to avoid introducing lens flare from the strobe). This will effectively render the grass sharp on the film. Practice makes perfect...

 

Good luck! I hope this helps!

 

Darin

Hi David.

 

A little late in responding, but the way I would go about it is to have handy a few pristine neutral-density gels (e.g. Rosco, Lee, etc.); when faced with a scene like this, you can tape a chunk of the gel over the lens, using a Sharpie to mark where the highlight ends and the shadows begin. Then cut out the irregular shape (easy to do since it is gel, and not a rigid filter). As long as the material is in excellent (and by this I mean brand-new) condition, you will still get a sharp image. Since the gel is right up to the lens, the edges will be out of focus enough that they will blur quite nicely and render themselves invisible to the film. I have used this method on several occasions in the field, with spectacular results. Needless to say it is probably best to try this technique in your backyard before attempting it out in the wild.

 

Good luck! I hope this helps!

 

Darin

I prefer dry-mounting across the board. I have gotten in good with a local framing company to do this for me, but

there are times when it is simply just not economically feasible. In these instances, when framing large prints, I affix

them to the window matboard first with linen tape, then take the whole contraption turned upside down, and give it a

good coat of spray adhesive, then press it onto a backing board. Within seconds, I use a small paint roller and use it

to press the print agaist the backing board to achieve flatness. Here in Florida, where the humidity sometimes

exceeds unbelievable limits, I have had "wet-mounted" prints last (so far) more than 15 years before showing signs of

bubbling or warping.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Darin

Hi Kevin. For general use, my 210mm works great. It's just a tiny bit longer than "normal" as focal lengths go, but it does the job when I need it to. For wider applications, I have a 135mm, which is nice when doing landscape shots (or the distorted fashion model photo in the desert... that sort of thing). I haven't used Sinar (Cambo owner since I was infected with "the Bug"), so you might find more affordable alternatives in similar lengths. 200-210 is a good starting point.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Darin

The photo-negative process is built in to virtually all image editing software. IrfanView, ACDSee have it, PhotoShop certainly does. Even Microsoft Paint has it--called "Invert Colors" under the "Image" pull-down menu.

 

There is really nothing to it, as it is generally a one- or two-click process.

 

It's also a good way to "preview" the negatives and select which ones you want to have printed chemically or professionally scanned, if you don't buy a scanner right off.

 

All it costs is time... and not much at that!

 

Darin

A quick-and-dirty approach would be to employ old-skool copy-stand techniques. Mount a digital camera with sufficiently high focal length directly above a light box, pointed straight down. Use an aperture setting one or two stops down from wide open to achieve maximum sharpness (a little counterintuitive, but this probably a different discussion in and of itself), and photograph the negatives. Load the photos into your computer, run a photo-negative process, and adjust for brightness and contrast, and you'll be all set. I have done this with 120 and 4x5 film with excellent results.

 

Good luck!

 

Darin

The lights will only dial down so far; I'm typically at the low-intensity threshold as is. Besides, as I like to shoot the same setup with film, adjusting six strobes-- between cameras, every time, it's really a hassle.

 

Actually, I should go ahead and say I've just about exhausted every other option which led me to posting my original question which was simply to achieve a lower ISO setting in the digital camera. Since a secondary function of using the digital camera in my situation is for preview purposes (sort of a "digital Polaroid," if you will) while shooting midstream, post-processing is out of the question.

 

I have heard of third-party "temporary" firmware which enables extra digital SLR functions, and was hoping this was one of those functions which could be adapted for in programming.

 

Darin

Hi Andy.

 

Thanks for your prompt response. As you suspected, there is another downside besides the decreased degree of sharpness, and that is the characteristic of adding "light catcher(s)" inherent in using additional glass/polyester layers in front of the lens; flare is what I'm trying to avoid, particularly when shooting, for example, with a wide angle lens with strobe or point light sources near the edge of the field of view (this happens much more frequently than is reasonably comfortable), but lens hoods work only moderately well, and only if the light sources are off-camera...

 

As for the dim viewfinder, it's really not an issue, as I would attach the ND filter(s) after composing and focusing. Typically I would attach a strip of tape to the focusing ring, securing it to the lens barrel to prevent its movement while in manual-focus mode.

 

I don't suppose there is an exposure compensation feature in manual-exposure mode with which I could decrease the sensitivity one or two stops...

 

An aside here: with my 4x5 view camera, I have become infatuated with paper negatives; the ones I'm using are rated at around ISO 4 or 5. If only I could achieve the same exposures with the Canon...

 

Thanks for the input. I'm anxious to see more responses to this thread.

 

Darin

Hi everyone.

 

I'm a Nikon man, and a film user, at that. Please don't shoot me (unless you're

using a camera, of course, and even then, only after I've signed a model

release).

 

Anyway, here's my dilemma.

 

My wife, a long-time Canon user (we get along great--nobody stealing each

other's lenses), has a 10D that I've recently started using in the studio from

time to time. I'm shooting with mostly wide-open apertures and monolights, and

that minimum ISO 100 is really a bummer. In the field, I prefer longer time

exposures than what I am getting with the 10D. Apart from stacking neutral-

density filters on the end of the lens, is there a way to achieve lower ISO

than 100? I was thinking there was some sort of firmware (sanctioned or not)

available that would give me these settings. I'd like to shoot with 50, or

ideally 25. As I am an anti-fan of the "shoot-crap-now-PhotoShop-it-later"

mentality and have an innate need to get it right in-camera, I have to ask: Is

there a workaround for this sort of thing, or should I just continue shooting

with Velvia?

 

I'm open to suggestions.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

Darin Heinz

Melbourne, Florida USA

I understand Total Chrome, in Davie, still processes 4x5 film. I have a nice big box of exposures I'd like to send out, and might use them if I can be assured of quality service. Also looking to print some of the film as Cibachrome (or equivalent), and really hoping to find a lab for one-stop purposes. Still a bit of a hike for me (I'm in Melbourne), but apart from setting up an account with Duggal, this might be my most viable option...

Hello, everyone.

 

While shooting images for a personal project recently, it came to my attention

in the form of supervision by law enforcement officers that the

so-called "Patriot Act" may hinder my ability to get the images I need.

Specifically, I was shooting a row of aircraft hangars from a spot just a few

feet from the road; typically 8 feet from the curb is regarded "public" area,

and I have always regarded photography from within this zone, regardless of

subject matter, as "safe". After talking with a few colleagues on the issue, I

have found that in many cases law enforcement officers themselves are ill-

informed about the specific rights photographers have, particularly when a

government (or otherwise sensitive) facility falls within the visibility of a

camera. Unfortunately, I have found very little information detailing what can

and can't be photographed, and would really like to have something in print

form clearly outlining these boundaries, carried in my camera bag as a sort

of "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Does anyone have experience with this sort of

thing? Any advice, web links, et cetera, would be appreciated.

 

- Darin Heinz, Melbourne, Florida USA

I am hoping someone has (or knows where I can obtain) about a dozen empty 4x5

film (3-part) boxes. I will be dividing sheets of film among several weekend

students. I used to have stacks of them but gave them away when I went digital.

Now that I've returned from the Dark Side, these things are nearly impossible

to find. I'm willing to pay a reasonable amount for them and cover shipping

costs.

 

Thank you!

Darin Heinz

Melbourne, Florida USA

<div></div>