Monophoto

<p>Enrique -</p>

<p>Cape Cod is a big place, but except for a few notable areas, it's not a place for grand landscapes. That means that photographic subjects tend to be smaller, and have to be searched for. The most readily accessible areas of Cape Cod are pretty heavily populated, so if you are looking to do photography, you would need to seek out some of the less obvious areas. As John H. said, the Outer Cape (roughly Brewster/Chatham and beyond) would be the place to look.</p>

<p>I happen to like the Cape a lot - we've been going there every year for 40+ years. But if you only have a few days, then I think that you might find the Cape disappointing. The Cape is really a place for exploring.</p>

<p>I'm not familiar with the White Mountains. But I agree with Donald's suggestion about Maine. If you are limited in time, the Kennebunk area is OK, but my preference is to go further north to Penobscot Bay. Rockport (MA) is a photographer's paradise; Pemaquid Point is also nice. Acadia is spectacular, but it's pretty far north. </p>

<p>But there are some really nice things much closer to Boston. Boston itself is a fabulous city. Cambridge is a lot of fun (and great for people watching). Salem has a lot of history. Rockport (MA) and Gloucester are both very photographable.</p>

<p>1. Absolutely - if you apply it on the emulsion side, it will be absorbed into the emulsion. If you put it on the back, it can be washed off if you change your mind. But a better approach is to make a sandwich with a second sheet of film that has been unexposed but fully developed, washed and fixed. That way, you will have two thicknesses of film backing between the image layer in the negative and the dye layer - when you focus on the negative, the dye layer will be very slightly out of focus. That way, any imperfections in the dye won't transfer to the print. And if you change your mind, you can remove the dye without rewashing your negative.</p>

<p>2. Yes. I allow a few drops of dye to dry on a white plastic plate, and then use a damp brush to pick up dye, smear it around on another area of the plate, add some water to thin it a bit, etc. It takes some practice to develop the skill, but it's really not that difficult.</p>

<p>I would be cautions about using the term 'contrast' to describe the variations that result from dilution. Contrast has a very specific meaning in photographic speak. Instead, I would term those variations in dye density. But yes, using a less dilute dye will result in less dye density.</p>

<p>One of the best places to photograph sunsets is Cape Cod - which is definitely on the East Coast.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jose's recollection is correct. In the distant past, it was customary for portrait photographers to retouch negatives using standard graphite pencils. Most 'portrait' films of those days were manufactured to provide the 'tooth' on the backing necessary to accept markings by pencils, but it was possible for pencil retouching to be applied directly to the image-bearing emulsion.</p>

<p>There is a significant difference between dye and pencil retouching - pencil is very precise while dye tends to be affect larger areas of the negative. Back in the day when these practices were routine, the precision of pencil retouching was sometimes seen as a problem because sharp pencil lines could transfer to the print. One manufacturer made a retouching table that used a motor to introduce vibration into the retouching process to cause pencil lines to blur and be less distinct!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There is an old technique that can be useful in situations where there are small areas with insufficient negative density - dye dodging. Obviously, the larger the negative, the easier this is to apply. It's very effective with 4x5 and larger, but there's no reason you couldn't use it with 35mm or roll film if you are prepared to work very precisely using a magnifier.</p>

<p>The basic premise is to use a small brush to add some dye to the negative in the weak areas. Beyond that basic concept, there are a number of options in implementation.</p>

<p>You can add the dye directly to the negative. In that instance, putting the dye on the non-emulsion side of the negative means that it will be separated from the image layer by the thickness of the negative backing - so that the dye cloud will be very slightly out of focus when you make the print. An even better approach is to sandwich a piece of unexposed but fully processed and washed film on the back of the negative, and then apply the dye to the clear film. That separates the dye from the negative image by two layers of film backing so that it is even more out of focus, and also means that if you change your mind, you can either throw away the dye layer, or else wash the dye off the clear film for reuse.</p>

<p><br />The color of the dye also is important. If you use a black or gray dye, then you will get some additional density in the thin areas, but using a colored dye means that you can simultaneously adjust the local contrast in the dyed areas when printing on variable contrast paper. In most instances, the best choice is a magenta color since that emulates the color of higher-contrast printing filters and causes an increase in contrast in the areas you 'adjusted' - so that in addition to adding overall background density, the extra contrast boosts the ability to print the detail in those weak area. Yellow dye causes a reduction in contrast - which has roughly the same effect as selectively flashing blown out highlights in the print using white light to add density without detail. Dr. Martin's Transparent Water Color Dyes are excellent for this purpose, however you should be aware that they aren't permanent and tend to fade over time (weeks to months) so if you choose to come back to a treated negative to make additional prints, you may have to renew the dye.</p>

<p>Hewes have always been the most expensive stainless steel film reels. But that not the issue here.</p>

<p>The issue here is that photography has made a dramatic shift away from film and toward digital. Sale of film processing equipment has declined significantly. Because of that, the used equipment market is flooded with processing equipment, so the relatively few people who are migrating back to film are opting to purchase used. </p>

<p>Marketing 101: lower volume inexorably means higher prices.</p>

<p>The major problem with refrigerating film is that it gets cold, so when the film is removed from the refrigerator and exposed to humid air, moisture condenses on the film and can cause damage.</p>

<p>To avoid this problem, as Louis says, put the film in a tupperware container or zip-lock bag for refrigeration, and then leave it in that UNOPENED container until it returns to room temperature. The moisture will condense on the outside of the container, but not on the film itself.</p>

<p>So the film was exposed, and then refrigerated. Subequently, in 2009, the refrigerated film was taken out of the controlled environment and put into an ordinary uncontrolled storage unit where it was exposed to unknown temperature and humidity conditions.</p>

<p>You didn't say how old the film was at the time it was exposed and then refrigerated.</p>

<p>Like people, film ages. Over time, it does deteriorate. Refrigerating film does slow down the aging process, and freezing the film actually causes the aging process to stop - as long as the film is frozen. Years ago, I spoke with a researcher from Polaroid who said that they had done some testing that suggested that the aging process actually accelerates after film has been frozen and then thawed. </p>

<p>Also, it's my understanding that beyond the fundamental aging issue there is also a matter of long-term latent image stability, which is why film manufacturers have always recommended that film be processed fairly soon after exposure.</p>

<p>You also didn't say how the film was packaged at the time it was refrigerated and later stored. If the film was refrigerated, and then moved on an uncontrolled space with high humidity while it was still cold, it is very possible for there to be condensation on the film that can also lead to damage.</p>

<p>I know it would be nice to be able to blame this problem on the lab, but I'm suspicious that the real cause is that the film has been improperly stored.</p>

<p>In theory, D-76 can be reused. However, it is chemically depleted during use, so it is necessary to either replenish it or extend the development time to compensate for prior use. Kodak used to sell a replenisher for use with D-76, but I haven't seen it any in years (decades). I also vaguely recall seeing tables in some old publications that gave extended development times for used developer.</p>

<p>But seriously, D-76 is cheap. Film is expensive, and images are often not repeatable. So avoid problems and use the developer as a one-shot.</p>

<p>Hypo clearing agent shortens the time required to wash the film after it has been fixed. You don't need hypo clear - its purely a convenience.</p>

<p>And the beauty of film is that because it is a plastic base, washing time is not an issue. With paper, you really do want to limit washing time to at most an hour or so. Furthermore, the plastic base of film won't absorb chemicals - unlike the paper base of paper. So film is inherently easier to wash.</p>

<p>I always use hypo clear just to be thorough, but if you are processing film and don't have any hypo clear, just wash it for a longer time. </p>

<p>By the way, the only 'household' chemical that I can think of that will neutralize fixer is hypochlorite bleach (Chlorox), and I don't think you want to use that on you negatives.</p>

<p>This is an interesting situation. Many prominent universities have 'style guides' that they distribute to their students that say that it is perfectly acceptable to use an image as along as maker/owner of the image is acknowledge in a citation. For some time, I've been associated with a professional non-profit publication, and our rule is that it is also necessary to state in the citation that the image has been 'reprinted by permission' - which means that it is necessary to request and receive permission from the owner before using the image. </p>

<p>I suspect that the simplified university rule is adequate for situations where the usage is limited to an academic setting and the material is not widely distributed. But I'm sure that to use images without explicit permission in material that is widely circulated conflicts with the spirit of copyright law.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, copyright law (which is unique to each jurisdiction, and gets really messy when the owner is not in the same legal jurisdiction as the person who copies the image) is generally based on the assumption that everyone will follow the rules, and puts the burden for seeking relief on the injured party. </p>

<p>The challenge you will have is that throngs of tourists spoil images of grand spaces. For that reason, I would not recommend the Cliffs of Mohrer and the Giants Causeway - both are mob scenes.</p>

<p>My suggestions are:<br>

Blasket Islands<br>

Connemora<br>

Rural Derry<br>

MacGillicuddy's Reeks</p>

<p>While you may be able to measure dry powders quite accurately, you cannot assume that the powder is homogenious, it, that the components are uniformly blended. So mixing partial batches from dry powders is not recommended.</p>

<p>You can certainly mix partial batches from liquid concentrates. In fact, that's a good reason for buying chemicals as liquid concentrates rather than dry powders. D76 and Dektol are only packaged as powders - you can mix a 'stock' solution (a concentrate) that you store in a sealed bottle, and then mix smaller quantities of a working solution as needed.</p>

<p>The advantage of dry powders is that you aren't paying for water, and they are easier to ship, which means that the shipping cost will be lower. So it's a matter of balancing the higher cost of liquid concentrates against the greater convenience of working with liquids. Another factor is that it's not possible to work with powders without releasing some dust into the atmosphere - that dust will contaminate any darkroom surfaces that it falls on, and you really need breathing protection when it's in the air. I started out with powders, but eventually realized that it makes more sense for me to use liquids.</p>

<p>There is security fencing at the ESB, but you can shoot through it. </p>

<p>The other tall building with an observation deck is the Top of the Rock - the GE building at Rockefeller Center. TOR is much better for photography because instead of fencing, the security border is glass. You can shoot through the glass, and there are gaps at the ends of the panels that are wide enough to shoot through. And the glass also provides protection from the wind - something that you will really appreciate if you visit in late January! DAMHIKT.</p>

<p>There are two observation decks at ESB, but both have wire security fencing. There are also two decks at the TOR, but the upper deck is only steps higher than the lower deck. My recollection is that there is no security border around the upper deck because anyone who falls from there will land on the lower deck, only a few feet away. But that upper deck is very cold and windy in January.</p>

<p>You've mentioned two reputable dealers in Manhattan - the third is Calumet Photo. I would be cautious about buying used equipment from anyone other than those three shops.</p>

<p>As others have said, the PATH train will take you across the Hudson, but if you don't know where you are going, that could be a bit risky - there are areas in NJ that are pretty rough. You might be better going across the East River to shoot the Manhattan skyline from Brooklyn. You can get there on the subway or by walking across the Brooklyn Bridge, and my sense is that the DUMBO area of Brooklyn is more tourist-friendly.</p>

<p>My travel formula is one camera (a DSLR with a rechargeable battery and extra memory card), one lens (a wide angle/telephoto zoom), a polarizing filter, a closeup diopter, and several hotel shower caps to act as 'camera raincoats' in the event of rain. On a trip to Ireland a few months ago I also took a table-top tripod and cable release, but I never used them. The camera goes over my shoulder, and everything else is in a fanny pack. I also take an extra memory card and a battery charger. Be careful with the memory card - if you need to change cards, be sure to put the full card in a safe place - DAMHIKT.</p>

<p>Ten days in Italy, with stops in Rome, Venice and Florence is a very busy trip. Concentrate on the experience - take lots of photos, but don't let yourself be bogged down with equipment.</p>

<p>Is the scratch on the emulsion or backing side of the film?</p>

<p>Two possible causes:</p>

<p>1. Grit in the felt light seal in the film cassette. The usual recommendation was to not reuse the cassettes that film is packaged in at the factory because the felt light trap can pick up trash that will scratch the film. But I successfully used the same cassettes for more than 20 years - the secret was to wipe a knife blade across the felt to dislodge any trash that might have gathered there.</p>

<p>2. Most bulk loaders have a bend in the film path. The design of some bulk loaders has the film pass over a plastic edge at this bend. Theoretically, that edge is smooth and doesn't cause scratches. I have several bulk loaders, some of which came from the used equipment market, and one of them has a tiny burr on that plastic edge that will scratch film. The ideal design for a bulk loader uses toothed wheels to engage the film sprockets at the point at the bend so that only the edge of the film touches anything at that bend. Those toothed wheels serve the second purpose of driving the counter that tells you how much film has passed that point.</p>

<p>There are two rally nice photography galleries in NOLA - A Gallery of Fine Photography, and the Louis Suhac gallery. Both are worth a visit.</p>

<p>In the French Quarter, try to avoid Bourbon Street. That's where the crowds congregate, and where it's most tacky. Parallel streets are more quiet, and present better photo opportunities.</p>

<p>The best time to photograph in the French Quarter is early in the morning, before the crowds build. Stroll over to Cafe du Monde for a coffee and bengets. There will be a few homeless people sleeping in Jackson Sqiuare, and there will be people out washing the streets and sidewalks. </p>

<p>Food? I've never had a bad meal in NOLA!</p>

<p>Upstate NY is a very large area. Since you are starting at the Western end at Niagara Fall, I suggest the following:</p>

<p>Rochester and the Eastman House - an iconic museum of photography</p>

<p>Finger Lakes - wineries! </p>

<p>Utica - photograph the train station. Yup, the train station. Union Station in Utica is a grand old structure with marble columns that reportedly were recycled from the original Grand Central Station in New York (the one that preceeded the current Grand Central Terminal). Fabulous place!</p>

<p>Canajoharie - visit the Arkell Museum. This is a hidden jewel - Arkell was one of the founders of Beechnut Foods that was the principle industry in this small town until a few years ago. He had a pretty extensive collection of 19th century art that he donated to the local library; today, the Arkell Museum is an extension of the library that has built is collection around Arkell's original contributions. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Alan's comment about accommodations is very true! But the seafood in Belize is great. Be sure to try the key lime pie. And the beer (Beliken) ain't bad either.</p>

<p>There are interesting photographic opportunities in Belize, but you would have to work for them. Lots of interesting nature to work with, especially plants and trees. There are animals, but they are harder to find. Some great history - you won't find Mayan ruins in Hawaii! The people in Belize are very friendly, and I think would be open to street photography. But Belize is a very small country, and the selection of streets in limited - there are street photography opportunities in Belize City, but in the smaller towns you would need to develop relationships with individuals and follow them around. English is the primary language, so sommunications would not be a problem.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Where on the Cape will you be, and what do you like to photograph?</p>

<p>Seriously, we can't answer your question for you - you have to answer it for yourself. Cape Cod is a big place.</p>

<p>Jack -</p>

<p>There should be no issue in making and selling an image that depicts a recognizable building as part of an urban landscape. But if you modify the image to essentially remove the setting so that the image is solely of the recognizable building, then you have an entirely different situation. The building owner has no claim to ownership of the overall urban landscape, but he can claim to own the recognizable design of the building.</p>

<p>Ultimately, there is no absolute right and wrong here. Instead, the legal risk comes down to whether the building owner feels that the picture encroaches on his ownership of the recognizable design of the building, and chooses to pursue legal action. Basically, if the building owner chooses to be a bully, then you have to hire a lawyer to defend you. And even then, the concern would not be primarily on the outcome of that legal action, but rather on the hassle and cost of defending yourself. </p>

<p>Something to always remember is that negatives are most vulnerable to damage when they are wet - because the emulsion is soft. Therefore, you really want to minimize handling of wet negatives.</p>

<p>Hangers are primarily intended to facilitate processing of negatives in small tanks. They are one of several options that are available for that purpose.</p>

<p>If hangers are used for processing, then it does make sense to leave the negs in the hangers for drying - why switch to some other method if that would require the additional step of removing the processed negs before drying them. </p>

<p>But if you use some other means to process the negs, then it likewise doesn't make sense to have to put wet negs into hangers for the purpose of drying them.</p>

<p>I use plastic clothespins to grip the corner of the negative, and then hang them in a drying cabinet.</p>

<p>I've been doing this for 35 years. But, as others have noted, not all commercial cassettes are easily reusable. Kodak (and others) criimp the end on the cassette. I think that's mainly to assure that if the cassette is dropped, the end doesn't pop off to fog the film. I have a number of cassettes (Ilford, Agfa, etc) that were produced in the late 1970's and early 1980's that don't have crimped ends and that can be easily reused.</p>

<p>You do have to be careful about crud accumulating in the felt light trap that can scratch the film emulsion. I always use a knife blade to wipe the felt to remove any dirt before I reload.</p>

<p>I use either masking tape or vinyl electrical tape to attach the film to the spool.</p>

<p>I can think of two ways to do this.</p>

<p>1. Many years ago, I rigged a setup to allow a tripod to be used as a stand for a 35mm slide projector (some younger readers won't know what those were!). I used a piece of 1x12 pine board - attached a sheet of 1/4" aluminum plate to the bottom, and then drilled a hole that I tapped for a standard 1/4x20 tripod thread.</p>

<p>2. Almost any hardware store (including the big box guys) sell 1/4x20 "t-nuts". You could easily drill a hole in the center of your drawing board and install a t-nut that would allow you to mount the board on a tripod.<img src="http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/T-Nut-1XGJ1?gclid=CNj4r770v7UCFQSg4AodAhEA9A&cm_mmc=PPC:GooglePLA-_-Fasteners-_-Nuts-_-1XGJ1&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=1XGJ1&ef_id=ULOLHAAADk7k7jB0:20130218125824:s" alt="" /></p><div></div>