bruce_watson1

<p>What Mr. Rodney said. I use the MR-12s, 50W, all of the beam spreads, and all of them in the 4700K option. I bought mine before they had a 5000K, but for the money I'd still go with the 4700Ks. Artificial sunlight, these are.<br> <br />Not only do I use these for soft proofing (I have a "proofing wall" with three of them so I can do side-by-side comparisons), but I use them all over the house. My wife loves the ones installed over the main kitchen counter which she says makes her work easier (she's a cookbook writer, so cooks constantly). And they are excellent at what they are designed for, which is art display.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Best entry level production monitor I know of in NA are the ones from <a href="http://www.shopfsi.com/default.asp">Flanders Scientific</a>. They have a nice set of 17" - 24" monitors with nice useful capabilities.</p> <p>Other than that, do like Beth suggests and go to a website like B&H and search for "production monitor". Lots to choose from, but the cheaper ones leave out the software features you seem to want like peaking focus, so look closely at their specs. Just sayin'.</p>

<p>If your dots are really metallic silver (doubtful) they would have to be exceedingly small, on the order of 3 microns or smaller. You'd only see them with a lot of enlargement; you wouldn't see them with the naked eye.</p> <p>The only place in the development chain to get metallic silver IIRC is from fixer that's been reused enough to saturate with silver, such that some silver precipitates out. The cure for this is to not reuse your fixer when developing film.</p> <p>All that said, it's unlikely that your black spots are metallic silver. It's likely crud from some other source. Film processing is a never ending fight for cleanliness. It's a fight you have to wage, but can never win.</p>

<p><em>I do not make prints yet- I've been scanning my own (eventually plan on enlarging) </em><br /><em> Any insight on any of this would be greatly appreciated.</em></p> <p>If you're scanning, the biggest consideration is density and graininess. It's not sharpness nor contrast. I say this from my long experience as a drum scanner operator.</p> <p>Why? Scanning B&W has the same basic problems of enlarging B&W. Namely, silver. Metallic silver is opaque, and in film its form is fairly fractal in nature. Light can't penetrate, and it isn't absorbed -- it's reflected. Straight up Callier Effect. Just like an enlarger. </p> <p>A good explanation of silver films and scanning was made in an exhaustive study by Tim Vitale in his paper <a href="http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf">Film Grain, Resolution, and Fundamental Film Particles</a> from 2007. Look in particular at the photomicrographs on page 19. That's how much enlargement you have to use to see film grains -- all you see in "normal" enlargements (below 20x) is film grain clumps. </p> <p>What to do about it? If you are ever going to make darkroom prints, you have to optimize the film for darkroom printing. It will generally scan just fine. However, if you are only going to scan (never make darkroom prints), you can optimize your film for scanning. This means a little less density, and small grain.</p> <p>What I ended up with for my own work, is 5x4 TMY-2 developed in XTOL 1:1. I did 1:3 for years, but in head-to-head testing I found that the tiny bit of improvement I was getting with 1:3 wasn't worth the extra steam distilled water I used to mix it. Really, you couldn't even see the difference at 15x enlargement, and that's a huge print from a 5x4 negative. I had to go to 20x to be able to tell the difference, and I've never made a print bigger than 12x from one of my negatives.</p> <p>I told my drum scanning clients. Most (of course) ignored me. The few who listened got the same excellent results that I did, so I know it works beyond my own lab. Just sayin'.</p>

<p>Looks like the bubbles you'd get if you used photoflow in this tank. You can't get photoflow completely out of a tank, so the next time you use the tank, the developer foams.<br> <br />The only "cure" I know of (other than a new tank that you don't ever use photoflow with) is to make sure your film stays under the liquid developer (and stop, and fix, and...). It can foam all it wants, as long as that foam stays above the film itself.</p>

<p>Things B&W have changed since the 1970. The big change was the rise of t-grained films. That would be TMax, Acros, and Delta. We've also seen the rise of some interesting new developers, like XTOL.</p> <p>My personal favorite film/developer combination is TMY-2 in XTOL 1:1. That's all I use now. This after decades of Tri-X and D76. I've still got a mostly full box of 5x4 Tri-X in the darkroom, but I know I'll never use it; TMY-2 is just too good.</p> <p>I'm just sayin' you might want to try the state of the art. If you don't like it, there's always the 70s to fall back on.</p>

<p><em>I'm considering getting the Hoya Recharge blue blocking coating for my next set of prescription glasses to help with eye strain since I work with computers all day for work.</em></p> <p>Don't. A solution looking for a problem, that is.</p> <p>Look for the cause of the eye strain and fix it. Blue light, by itself, isn't causing your problem, so blocking it won't cure your symptoms. But it will transfer money from your pocket to the coating manufacturer and your optician. I'm just sayin', don't believe all the advertising.</p> <p>Most eye strain at the computer comes from two main sources. One is decreasing accommodation with age (aka presbyopia), and the other is a lack of blinking. I've been there and done that with both of these. Blue coatings didn't fix it, the proper prescription did (when presbyopia starts setting in, expect to have to change prescriptions for your "computer lenses" every year for a while), and learning to look away from the screen and blink at regular intervals did.</p> <p>If you want a coating that will actually benefit you, get an anti-reflective coating (front and back). This really helps with clarity, but not necessarily eye strain. And anyone who wears glasses would be well served by a UV coating (sunscreen for the eyes).</p>

<p>Problem is two fold. First, the non-continuous spectrum from the fluorescents. Second is the light reflected from the green walls. Unfortunately for you, the green from the fluorescents and the green from the walls pushes everything very green.</p> <p>For the images you've already captured, most (not all) of the problem is in the green/magenta axis. So pushing the image away from green and toward magenta is part of the solution. Then your fluorescent bulbs are probably not color corrected (don't laugh -- the ones I use in my lamps are 5600K with a CRI of 93). This means that are probably at some random point in the orange/teal axis. If they are "warm white" they are probably closer to 3000K, if they are "cool white" they are probably closer to 6500K. What you want is something closer to 5000K, so slide the image up and down the orange/teal axis to get it where you want it. I find it's easier to do the corrections in that order -- green/magenta, then orange/teal, but of course YMMV.</p> <p>For future images like this, use a better light source. Look for bulbs that are in the 5000-5600K range, with CRI's at 90+. The best are from <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/858246-REG/Kino_Flo_26S_K55_120_26W_KF55_Lamp_120VAC.html">Kino Flo</a>, but their smallest bulb is probably too bright for baby's room. <a href="http://www.bluemaxlighting.com/compact_fluorescent_39_ctg.htm">BlueMax</a> makes some suitable bulbs. There are of course others. You have to look for them; you can't get them at the local big box stores. And of course they cost more because they are typically six+ phosphor bulbs.</p> <p>Finally, you might consider always doing a manual white balance with a neutral gray card before you make such an exposure. This lets the camera do most of the work of getting to a neutral color space. Keep the white balance manual while you make these exposures. Then flip it back to auto for more general use. If you forget to go back to auto, the next exposures made in different lighting will have their own color cast -- but of your making this time. Just sayin' that it's easy to forget to switch back.</p>

<p>As it has been since the beginning: <em><strong>Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights</strong></em>.</p> <p>The Zone System makes it relatively easy to separate and control these two activities. But lots of people have difficulty with Adams' explanation of the Zone System he created with Fred Archer. Enough so that there's bunches of other books out there to explain the exact same thing just using different words. But it's all the same principle: expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.</p> <p>As to density: Always use just enough density to accomplish your goals, no more. Why? Density correlates to Callier Effect, which causes compression of highlight values during printing or scanning.</p> <p> </p>

<p>First, it may take a number of cleaning cycles and/or prints to clear the old inks from your printer.</p> <p>Second, you have to use the correct ICC profile in the correct way for your workflow. If it's not a custom profile made for this specific printer and this specific paper (that is, not a generic profile made by Canon or your paper supplier) you should expect some level of color cast. The only way to avoid that with a generic profile is to just get lucky. Never happens for me, might happen for you, IDK.</p> <p>Third, printing B&W with color inks is a royal PITA. Always has been, always will be. If you want a color cast free B&W print, you have to use B&W inks. Color inks aren't going to give you what you say you want. They can get close mind you. But is it close enough for you? Only you can decide.</p>

<p><em>I can't seem to get everything in focus. I have two receding planes. One on the front of the barn which is slight and one on the left side of the barn which is more severe. If I focus at the base of the barn, the top is out of focus and I have to use tilt. Do I use a combination of tilt and swing to bring everything in focus and where is the best place to place initial focus?</em></p> <p>Ah, newbies. Always want to try the most difficult things first. No doubt with a short lens too (which just makes it that much harder to see what's happening when you use camera movements). Sigh... been there done that. ;-)<br /><br /><br> What I would do is start with a level and plumb back. That way you don't distort the image any and make it harder to see what's going on. Then you'll probably need some front rise to frame the image well. No tilts, front or back. If your back is plumb you'd only need some front tilt if that front corner of the barn itself is out-of-plumb, as in a falling down wreck. Which many of them are, but still.</p> <p>Focus on that front leading edge of the barn. Check to make sure you've got it framed the way you want it. Then push the plane of focus back into the barn about half way between the front corner you just focused on, and the back corners. Now neither the front corner nor the back corners are in focus, yes? From this half way point, stop down to pull both the near corner and the back corners into focus.</p> <p>That's one way. Depending on the angles, you might be able to get away with a smaller f/stop if you use a little swing. But swing is tricky. It gives, and it takes away. Watch in particular what it does to your background. Why? Swing can make out of focus areas have variable levels of defocus. It's a creepy look, not highly recommended. I find swing is best used when the subject of the photograph takes up the whole frame and there's nothing at "infinity" like background trees, for example. </p> <p>I suggest you try it both ways. Ultimately the only way to <strong>really</strong> learn movements is to burn some film and look at it on the light table with a 10x loupe. Or make prints even. You might be surprised at what you see. Which is the point in doing the experiment, yes? If you already knew all this stuff, you wouldn't be asking questions on a forum!</p>

<p>It's "flat" for at least two reasons. One is the very flat lighting. That was a choice you made for whatever reason.</p> <p>The other is the scanning, where you've compressed the highlights down into the three quarter tone values. Pull the image into a photoeditor like photoshop and look at the histogram. You aren't going to see any values on the highlight end. So... either learn how to properly set your shadows and highlights in your scanning software, or get scanning software that will let you control shadows and highlights better. That is, some software treats all film the same (and you can't really change it), and B&W film has a much lower density range than either color negative or transparency films. If you treat B&W as if it's color negative, this is about what it looks like. Just sayin'.</p>

<p><em>Bruce, if I've understood correctly, what has been said here tells us that there is a relationship between film speed and contrast.</em></p> <p>That is my reading of this thread also. But just because you read it in a forum doesn't mean it's correct. What's correct is perhaps the writings of Grant M. Haist, and in particular his two volume tome <em>Modern Photographic Processing</em>. Henry also, in his book <em>Controls in Black and White Photography</em>.</p> <p>Some thoughts: First, the rule <em>expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights</em> still holds. Always has, always will, and this is the primary control of final contrast. For more, read up on the Zone System. Archer and Adams pretty much nailed it.</p> <p>Second, the contrast you get depends on a host of variables, including the emulsion, developer, development time, temperature, agitation, etc., etc., etc. Different emulsions will react differently to any and all of those factors.</p> <p>Third, if you are in fact developing two different films for the same time in the same developer and expecting to get the same results, you're in for a rude awaking. Photographic chemistry doesn't work like that. See number one above.</p> <p>Fourth, old thick film emulsions might have been more susceptible to a speed-contast link than modern thin film multi-coated emulsions, and I'll be surprised if modern t-grain emulsions are not completely immune. But I haven't done sufficient research to know for sure. If you really want to know, you've got to do more than ask questions on forums like this. You've got to hit the books and read the papers and find out what the published science actually is.</p> <p>I'm just sayin' that before you believe me or any of the other rabble on the forums, do some actual research.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain to me the relationship between film speed and contrast?</p> <p>I don't believe there is one. There was once, and your quoted explanation makes some level of sense in relation to older films of the Super XX era and before. But modern films exhibit native contrast more as a function of design. That is, the designers built a specific film to have a specific set of sensitometric curves. </p>

<p><em>Lisco or Fidelity are (no joke) the same products and you can't go wrong with either.</em></p> <p>And Riteway. In the end all three were made by the same guy in the same "factory" in LA. IIRC he worked for Calumet which is also gone. When he retired that was the end of most new film holders. Perhaps Toyo still makes new, IDK.</p> <p>There's a thread on film holder history somewhere in the LargeFormatPhotography.info forums. Somewhere. I think I posted in it. Maybe a decade ago. Again, IDK.</p>

<p>Lisco Regal II, Fidelity Elite, Riteway. Newer ones with plastic dark slides (plastic tabs, not metal tabs). I avoid wooden holders because they can warp.</p> <p>Read this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/holders.html</p>

<p><em>No! Chemicals don't have to be at 20 Celcius.</em></p> <p>Not exactly. It depends on the developer. Developers that contain hydroquinone will give different results depending on developer temperature. This is because the hydroquinone is more active at lower temperatures. This can be used as a tool.</p> <p>For example, a metol/hydroquinone developer like D-76. If you lower the developer temperature, developer action is more hydroquinone and less metol. If you raise the temperature, the opposite happens. So, if you have film that needs some contrast boost, you lower your developer temperature (and of course compensate development time properly). If you want a somewhat softer image, you raise the temperature.</p> <p>When in doubt, 20C is your friend.</p> <p>As to the air temperature. Higher air temperature will of course eventually raise the temperature of your developer solution until air temp = developer temp. The question is, how long will this take? You can actually work this out mathematically, but it's hardly worth it. It's largely a function of the temperature differential. And you can control the equalization process easily enough with a tempering bath and some ice cubes.</p> <p>For example, I found that the ice from my main freezer is the right size and temperature to lower the temperature in my Jobo's tempering bath by 0.1C / cube. If I measure it at 21C, ten cubes brings it down to 20C like clock work. If you have ice available, air temperature becomes nearly completely moot.</p>

<p><em>Also, I would have liked a little more contrast in the photo I posted. Fluorescent lighting at Wal-Mart, and somewhat flat. I will have to learn to compensate, burn, dodge, contrast, etc., in PS.</em></p> <p>In lighting that flat, increasing contrast is problematic. This is considerably more about lighting than it is about exposure (and processing). That is, it's about the quality of the light, not the quantity. Said another way, raising the contrast on a section of flat tonality generally results in a section of only slightly more contrast, because all you're doing is increasing micro-contrast. What you want is more general contrast, and that's hard to do in all-enveloping flat light that's intended to make merchandise packaging easy to see and read. It's light that all about reducing shadows to near non-existence; that's what you're fighting.</p> <p>This is a major problem with "street photography". Two big things. You don't have time to setup, it's spontaneous by definition. Second, if you had the time you still couldn't do it because the act of setting up even a simple gobo (aka cutter) to add some negative fill and therefore give you some shadows on the side of the face, would in fact change the scene so much that it wouldn't be street photography any more.</p> <p>That's not to say that you can't take advantage of some lighting tricks in street photography. But to take advantage of what's there, you have to have a pretty good knowledge of light. And you can get that in concentrated form from "Light Science & Magic" by Hunter and Fuqua.</p> <p>Don't be thrown by the title. If you want to know how to use light to control the tonality of an image, this book is the one. Covers it all. I'm a natural light landscape photographer (large format), and this book really helped me make better photographs. Just sayin'.</p>

<p>I got it Mr. Ortega. Thanks!</p>

<p><em>For instance, if I shot at Tri-X at 400 and then pushed 1 stop in development, what would be the difference in results between that, and pushing Tri-X in camera to 800 and developing for same?</em><br> <em> </em><br> The first difference is that you'd still get detail in the shadow areas of the one exposed at 400, and you'd loose some of that if exposed at 800. The second difference is that your highlight density would be somewhat more dense with the one exposed at 400 and "pushed" in development one stop, while the one exposed at 800 and pushed one stop would have highlight density closer to "normal".<em><br /></em></p> <p>The bottom line here is "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" just as it has been throughout the history of B&W negative photography. The concept of "pushing" just puts a new name on the concept of under exposing and over developing.</p> <p>If you underexpose, you loose shadow detail. Which is fine if you want that to happen. If you don't want it to happen, don't underexpose. Those are really your only choices. No amount of developing is going to change the fact that you didn't give the emulsion enough photons to create a latent image. If there's no latent image, the developer has nothing to develop. Simple, yes?</p> <p>OTOH, highlight detail, overall image contrast, and graininess, are all effected by development time. </p> <p>To learn more, consider studying the Zone System. Even if you're only using roll film, the Zone System can teach you about the relationships between the emulsion, exposure, developer, agitation, temperature, development time, etc. It's not necessarily easy or intuitive, but it all makes logical sense. And it will take some study on your part to find all the pieces and figure out how they all fit together. Well worth doing; let's you control the image in a logical and therefore predictable way. And judging from your questions, that's what you're after.</p>

<p>I'd like it.</p>

<p>Well, some of it is undoubtedly the antihalation backing. But some of it is also the sensitization dyes. These are used to increase the film's sensitivity from blue only (orthochromatic) down through green to red (panchromatic). And these dyes are tough to remove completely. But they don't do any harm if you can still see them. TMY-2 is well known to have a pink/purple cast after processing. If it bugs you I hear that little daylight exposure (for the UV) can kill off the color. But I've never felt the need to do that myself.</p>

<p>Yeah, this is why people don't want to upgrade once they have a system working. Because microsoft is always screwing with the files, overwriting things you want to keep. Like it did for you.</p> <p>Any time you upgrade software, be it the entire OS or just your display drivers, a re-calibration of your display is in order, and if you're doing critical work, new custom profiles. Nothing will screw over a nicely working system like "automated updates". Just sayin'.</p>

<p><em>thank you Bruce .. how can i sort that out ?</em></p> <p><a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pigment+settling&t=ffnt">Let me search that for you</a> Megan. ;)</p>

<p>"subscription model" = rent. I don't rent my computer hardware, so why would I rent software? That's just silly. But a fool and his money are indeed soon parted. What Adobe does or doesn't do is no longer interesting.</p>