conrad_hoffman

You need to be more specific on the lenses. Nikon made many versions of their manual lenses. IMO, the common 50 mm f/1.2 AiS is a somewhat soft and flare prone thing. You'd use it for that effect, not for razor sharp high contrast shots. Never used one, but the NOCT version is supposed to be way better. It's also big $$. The Micro Nikkor 55 mm f/2.8 is for those shots where crisp is essential, and probably the sharpest lens I own. IMO, the old 50 mm f/1.4 Ai with the chrome filter ring soft compared to the black 50 mm f/1.4 AiS version. No idea about bokeh on any of them. I've always considered that a bit of a distraction, not because it isn't an issue, but because it's so scene dependent.

Could be a dark leak- dark is leaking into the camera, causing light areas on the film, resulting in dark areas on the print. No? OK, it's probably the shutter curtains. Those cameras are known for shutter curtain problems, especially the second curtain sticking. If it doesn't keep up, you get over exposed areas. There is some advice on-line as to fixing it, but that sort of thing isn't for everybody. It could well be worse at the higher speeds.

Great books! I've got a copy of The Scientific American Boy. I think there was also a Boy Electrician book. I long for the days when people built things, out of necessity or for enjoyment. Not quite PC on the titles though, gotta get those girls involved too. There were also some good books on building photographic equipment. One was by Fraprie & Jordan, another a collection from Popular Science.

I'm pretty sure I've seen radio controlled releases, but it was years ago. Could you just buy some low end RC stuff at a hobby shop, plus a small servo, and rig it up to trip the shutter? Or, could there be an extra channel on the drone controller to do it?

I just copy stuff, never been an issue. Now, I never reset the filename in the camera, so dupes shouldn't be an issue. I set up my file folders by date. Folder "2017" contains 12 sub folders, 1701, 1702 1703 etc. Processed output usually gets appended "proc" and either goes in the same folder as the original, or/and to a folder specific to some project or customer. Where I can, I use a YYMMDD format so things sort in a sensible manner.

Have to agree, getting rid of the rays completely would be tough, and the image works fine with them. As an exercise, I wonder if the rays could be minimized by making a copy of the image, flipping it to negative, making it monochrome, then removing everything that wasn't "ray" with a lot of hand work. Blur it and use it as an unsharp mask with the original image. No, that's crazy, just go with the above!

Right off, I don't like diluted developers. That said, you don't have as much developer available, so it will exhaust if there isn't enough solution. Check, but I think one should always use a double tank for a single 36 exp roll with diluted developer. A single is probably OK for a 24. Developer is such a small part of the overall cost, I don't mind using D-76 full strength as a one-shot or couple-shots at most. Got mud? Try full strength. Partially used solutions go bad faster, so even with fixer I pour off a smaller bottle (16 oz.) and use it to capacity. Then I dump it and start again from the larger unused solution. The quality of your fixing will be much better. Nobody wants to hear it, but pushing doesn't actually work. There's little you can do to increase the actual film speed. Push the film and you'll have no shadow detail, even if you get the brighter areas to loo decent. I'd strongly recommend doing a traditional "ring-a-round" to understand exposure and development, or even try a Zone System calibration, though it's hard to take advantage of that with roll film.

I've had neg popping problems and though one can use a workflow that minimizes the problem, subtle neg motion will still reduce the quality of your prints. Glass carriers will solve the problem, but I don't have the money to buy them or the patience to keep them clean. Instead, a heat absorbing glass takes care of most of the problem. No doubt you don't get perfect optical quality without glass, but how much is good enough? Another little appreciated thing that kills quality is rolled edges on negative carriers. Some are produced using a sanding process (Timesaver machine) that removes too much metal at the edges, moving the support away from the frame. Same reason I think filed out carriers are stupid. The best carriers I've made myself from aluminum sheet. Whatever you're using, put a grain focuser on center and watch the sharpness as the enlarger warms up. If the focus isn't dead stable, start applying fixes.

Photo-flo MSDS here- https://intranet.ssp.ulaval.ca/cgpc/fsss/fichiers/Photo-Flo.pdf It's mostly water, propylene glycol and a wetting agent. Though the wetting agent is similar or the same as used in various detergents, and people have used such in a pinch, it's not really recommended because the constituents of detergents vary all over the place and you can't be sure of what you're bathing your film in. As for the grain pattern, look at a dried water spot under a microscope and reach your own conclusion. Maybe it's an optical illusion, but still darn hard to fix by rewashing.

Pretty sure it's a different chemical. I believe a water spot will actually change the grain distribution a bit at the edge of the drop and once that happens I'm not sure you can completely fix it by rewashing. Over the years I've heard all sorts of crazy reasons not to use Photo-flo or similar products, but it makes no sense. It's cheap insurance for your negs.

Donning my Nomex underwear, because I'm going to get flak for this, but if pushing worked well, it would be the standard recommendation. You're going to lose shadow detail and increase grain and contrast. Indoor shots usually already have a problem with shadow detail and contrast. Anything you can do, like quietly switching bulbs for ones a bit brighter, adding an extra lamp here and there, using a monopod or other improvised steadying device or finding faster film (hard these days), will make shooting a bit easier. That said, I've used my share of Tri-X and Acufine in the bad old days to good effect. Diafine seems more popular today. I'm not a big fan of dilute developers and for years used D-76 and HC-110 at the higher dilutions because that's how I was taught. One day, for some reason, I tried D-76 full strength and was much happier with the sharpness and grain pattern. IMO, the right grain pattern helps a pushed shot look better because it can put something in otherwise blank highlights. Don't be afraid to experiment a bit.

I use Paintshop Pro and do basically 3-4 things on most images. I keep my camera settings a bit low on saturation and sharpening, to give myself more freedom to post process. I only shoot jpegs. The first thing I do is an unsharp mask. In PSP the settings are 0.9 pixel radius and strength of 90. That suits my ancient D200 about right without any evidence of oversharpening on the edges. Next is histogram adjustment. I usually stretch the midtones a bit and put the gamma wherever it needs to be for overall look. Essentially I'm messing with the contrast and brightness, but without cutting anything off like it would if I just changed contrast and brightness. Finally I use what they call "local tone mapping". I think it might be some variation of an unsharp mask, but using much larger area settings. Used judiciously it gives many images a bit more punch. I don't know if something similar is available in other programs, or what it would be called. I put those three icons right up on the tool bar because I use them so much. After that basic stuff, and only if necessary, I might use a clone tool to fix small areas and a color tool of one sort or another to bring the image to neutral or whatever is needed. I'll often resample and optimize the jpg if I'm putting an image on the 'net. It would be quite rare for me to use the other dozens of tools available, but you need what you need. Here's the above, plus a bit of color enhancement (probably went overboard), camera image then processed image:

Any of the good enlarging lenses go for a pittance these days. IMO, an old design lens on a camera can give very pleasing results. A bit of flare can be nice. When you put it on an enlarger, the effect is reversed from light to dark, the field may not be flat, the resolution might suffer and I don't think it's a benefit.That said, it's a small thing and the end results are mostly you, not the lens. BTW, the f/4 Nikkon is often looked down on, but it can do a fine job if in good shape. Always use the penlight test on enlarging lenses!

I do some macro product photography and can easily spend an hour setting up a shot. The post processing might take me 3-5 minutes if I did my job right at the beginning. The worst thing in the world is to say, "oh, I'll just fix that later."

I still like TLRs. A Mamiya with the black lenses is sharp as anything. IMO, the chrome lenses are best used for soft focus portraits. Another interesting path might be a small Graphic with a roll back so you can get some tilts.

Like you, I took about a ten year vacation! AFAIK, the latent image ages worse than the film but people have had good success with really ancient film. You might have fog to deal with. I'd overdevelop slightly, figuring I'd rather have more image even at the expense of more fog. If I thought the roll was something that I might really value, i'd risk cutting it in half and doing the halves separately. Naturally the best frame of the bunch will be the one cut.

Even with rebates it seems like any decent lens I'm interested in is far beyond my means.:eek:

I use Chrome and the site is completely unusable at work. Eventually it stops flashing, but only if you don't try to do anything, then the whole cycle begins again. OK at home. It's the only site I've ever seen with this problem.

You've gotta check the negs. Light on prints means dark on negs. Until then, it looks like maybe static- were conditions dry during shooting or processing? Do you wind or rewind film fast? Undissolved developer might do something similar, but this seems too diffuse. A light leak or reflection problem is possible and it's interesting that the stuff on the third image is parallel to the building. Probably coincidence.

IMO, 4x5 and "quick" aren't things I worry about together. The Ebony cameras are nice, but I consider the camera little more than a box between the film holder and the lens. That's especially the case for portraits, where you probably won't be using much in the way of swings or tilts. How nice a box you want can only be decided by you. Maybe approach it from the standpoint of which model wouldn't be suitable.

Regardless, you've got to get it out of there before it seriously etches the elements. Keep looking for a repair person!

Same here. I almost always use old fashioned Kodak acid fixer for everything and just make sure the time is 2X clear. I started using Photographer's Formulary alkaline fixer for film and had no trouble with that either, though I don't know if I'll see any benefit in my lifetime. All my negs from the early '70s are in perfect shape and they were all done in regular fixer. Regardless of fixer, be sure to wash well.

If you have a small metal lathe, you can adapt almost anything to anything else. I like one of the early (small style) Schneider short focal length enlarging lenses reverse mounted on a bellows. I doubt a commercial adapter has ever been made to do that! I know there was a Computar enlarging lens that Ctein thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Never stumbled across one to try.

I've been around here for a very long time, but skipped a few years because I just didn't do much photography other than catalog type work. That made it much more of a shock to come back and see the software problems and lack of traffic. Forums without traffic are hard to maintain much interest in. I can't use the site at all from work- it flashes every time it loads an ad or whatever it loads, making it slow, annoying and unusable. I used to like to browse it during lunch. All that said, I still come back and hold out hope that things will improve. Photography itself has changed a lot, and the things that interest an old fart from the golden age of film, probably don't interest very many people anymore. The study of photography as a craft or an art form might be a bit passe.

I'm generally against subscriptions for every piece of software- I'd go broke! That said, I've got Win10 on a new machine with a subscription to MS Office, and I'm very happy with it. A subscription to PS might not be the horror everybody thinks, if PS is what you want to use. Every company has its detractors, and for me it's Adobe. I find their programs to be overly complex and expensive bloatware. Everything I've ever wanted or needed to do in terms of editing, I've done with Paint Shop Pro. The latest versions are extremely capable, especially if you customize the interface a bit.