conrad_hoffman

A bit of a surprise, given their size and activity. https://www.dpreview.com/news/5901145460/dpreview-com-to-close Moderator Note: This conversation is the result of merging two threads on the same topic. The original opening posts were this one and the post immediately below, by Sanford, William

I also remember long ago using a simple board with some sprayed on tacky adhesive. Had to give it a recoat every now and then, but it held the paper OK, though with a bit of edge curl. Depends on the paper. I've had very flat paper and paper you couldn't flatten to save your life.

Still trying to grasp the use of the words "120, 5x7 and 4x10" in the same sentence as "convenience". Monobaths were always a bit of a balancing act and there's a reason they never caught on. "Convenience" reminds me of the old Kodak Tri-Chem Pack, that actually was kind of handy.

I have the old Saunders borderless that uses the same system of slightly reverse beveled edges to hold the paper. Works fine, so the above one should too. That said, I remember when borderless prints became a fad, but there are several reasons not to do it. The border area is most prone to damage and even chemical stains over the years. Having a border is conducive to using a matte to hold the print flat for display. Having a border gives you a good eyeball reference for paper white, something I find causes me to make a better print and causing the print (usually) to look better in hand. My old borderless prints are definitely more chewed up than the bordered ones.

IMO, in the color image there are several things that the eye is drawn to as the "subject". Too much clutter. In the BW image you have more focus on the branch and I like the contrast better. Nice!

Yeah, I've got a couple cameras with tiny peepholes. Makes me want a true action finder- the wire frame on a Speed Graphic!

Certainly you know what I meant!

In the 1920s or thereabouts, Risdon made pneumatic photographer's birdies, that tweeted and moved their tailfeathers, albeit brass tailfeathers. They're rare and you wouldn't actually use one if you could find it. Call me crazy, but I think it would be cool to have a modern version. Does anybody still make one?

High end monitors are pricy. I don't have one, nor does anybody else I know. Strictly RGB. I don't care about phones, which often do have wider gamuts. My printer is good, but isn't going to print much beyond RGB, if that. On top of all that, realistically, I don't shoot anything with a particularly challenging color range. For a while I got all excited about shooting RAW and using ProPhoto RGB, but it just didn't offer anything I could see on the screen or in my prints. Thus, I went back to plain old RGB for most everything. My guess is most people don't need anything more.

I've also used the Kodak method pretty much forever and have never had marks, weirdness, sprocket hole density differences or anything else. I agitate continuously for the first 30 seconds, followed by a sharp rap on the heel of my hand. 5 seconds every 30 seconds after that, though every minute works OK too for longer development times.

Negative looks not to be square format and they seem to have set up for a square scan?

Wiggling into my flameproof underwear... In one of my big Kodak research summary books they talk about developing agents. They actually admit that images developed to the same CI (contrast index) using different developing agents are pretty much indistinguishable. As somebody that liked to mess with different developer formulas, this is a bit of a letdown, but I have no evidence that would disprove it.

Ah, for a process camera with a vacuum film back!

Using a ground glass seems like a perfectly logical way to test and adjust. It's better than nothing, but the way it's done correctly is to put the camera under an autocollimator and view the image as it projects to the film. It's then trivial to set the infinity focus or check various other points. Works with small and medium format; never tried it with large format, but that seems less of a problem due to slow lenses and larger scale of everything. Sometimes you can find these on eBay- https://www.fluidr.com/photos/29504544@N08/sets/72157629450378049

Haven't done film for a while. Just pulled a 100' roll of FP4 off the shelf that still had the price sticker on it. $39!

Have to agree. If you want consistency, use once and dump. Somewhere in the manufacturer's literature there should be the number of square inches of film a given amount of developer can develop, but I only worry about having enough, not maximizing it. Time and film are way more expensive than developer.

Well, yeah, the last step is spotting, but if you're doing things right that should amount to just a few tiny spots, not a major project. Putting a particulate filter in the line can help, along with fresh chems. I was able to enlarge negs with near zero spots, but scanning is harder because you have more surfaces to worry about.

I've recently been doing some company history and slides have been most valuable because they often have the processing date stamped onto the mount. Most of the prints I have are a mystery regarding date. I would not remount them and would just copy at a smaller aperture or focus stack. Don't create further mystery for somebody in the future.

Of the various ways to do this, a video is about the last method I'd choose. The problem is you don't know if the sample rate (frame rate) is fast enough to get all the flashes, or some are missed between frames. If the strobe makes a noise when it fires (tube type, not LED) I'd record it at a high sample rate and then analyze the recording using Audacity (free sound editor). If the rate isn't too high and you have a turntable, put a narrow white strip of tape on a record and take a picture of exactly one revolution. Count the number of stripes and calculate the rate, knowing one revolution is 1.8 seconds. Best way is scope and photodiode. If you've got something like an old General Radio strobe, that will be about the only good method, though those have built in calibration compared to line frequency, so little need to measure.

My Kodachrome and Ektachromes seem to be in good shape after 50 years or so. OTOH, I don't know how to evaluate old negatives. Maybe they're changed, but I've no point of reference. I suppose if they're terrible, but slight shifts? All I can do is scan them and make the images look the way I think they should look. As far as memory of the original scene, I don't think that's reliable at all.

I never thought much about it, but I have more MF stuff than I realized. A C330 and several lenses, a Yashica D, a Zeiss Ikonta (520?), a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 Century Graphic and finally, a Yashica 44 that takes 127 film. I've got a roll film back for the Graphic, so should probably find some 120 film!

I like the bags to keep things clean when the lenses are in my shoulder bag. The downside is I consider them easy to fumble and I'd hate to drop a lens because I didn't have the opening where I thought I did.

Ha, even Ilford knows the truth- it says 4x5 film right on the end of the box! OTOH, maybe those are only for sale in the US. What does a UK box look like? I suppose you have to load 5x4 film in a 4x5 holder sideways?

Compared to chicken wings, film's not so bad. IMO, it only makes sense in black and white, home processed and printed (or scanned). Digital is the best thing that's ever happened to color photography. Kodachrome was nice if the scene didn't have too much contrast, but processing and printing color negative film is misery and expense. Not a clue why anybody would want to do it. BTW, just as seeing kids wearing baseball caps backwards, seeing 5x4 makes my head want to explode. It's been and always will be 4x5, unless maybe across the pond. Read your Kodak film box- it contains 4x5 film. 5x4 wouldn't fit in the box because the dimensions are wrong. 😉

You guys are all so far ahead of me it isn't funny. I've been trying to digitize some 1980s Kodacolor negs and have yet to be remotely satisfied with the results. Doing the mask subtraction and trying to get the colors right manually is near to impossible. I don't use PS or LR so the various plugins aren't useful to me. I just discovered that RawTherapee has a pretty good tool for the conversion but I haven't had time to fully explore it. It does seem essential to get as many bits as possible, so raw makes sense. 'Chromes have been much less trouble. Surprisingly, black and white negs can be as much trouble to get right, curves being essential. In either case I use a Z6 and a PS-4, lit by a Nanlite 5C and preset color balance. Anyway, more basic info on how you get your color balance right would be welcome.