bhneely

I highly recommend a handheld light meter of some sort for night shots, just to get a good baseline. I recently did a series in which the readings varied from 30 sec. to 4 min. at f/22 & 32, with Delta 100 rated at EI80, then developed as 100.

 

My standard reciprocity solution is to double the time for 4 secs to 2 mins, and to triple the time for over 2 mins. With the really long exposures, it seems I fell a bit short, and for the 4 min meter reading, I should have gone probably 15 mins instead of the 10-12 I was using.

 

In my experience, there's a loss of shadow detail (and at night almost everything in the scene is a shadow detail sometimes) in b&w with reciprocity failure. The light sources, which are really the only "highlights" in some night scenes, expose pretty quickly, but the shadows can take a long, long time.

I would do this in a much darker way. Have the model in dark clothes, her hair pulled back a little (but with some strays falling into her face) to give her a more severe look, maybe even put her in some dark makeup, black/dark grey background, and harder lighting. Use a main light from her right side, throw some very subtle light in, maybe even just a reflector, from the left, a hair light and a spot on the background. In other words, take advantage of the scariness of the look. You could have a great Halloween shot on your hands.

 

I like the experimentation.

You can also get Rodinal in solid form from Photographer's Formulary at <a href="http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=31&langID=0">http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID=31&langID=0</a> (this is their developer page). Solids are usually much easier to ship. It takes a little attentiveness and time to mix it, then you have to wait for it to cool, but I've been very satisfied with it.

 

Brian

<div></div>

Even with a large monitor, which I count as a 17" unit, 800 pixels of height is the maximum you can see without scrolling. Any image that requires scrolling loses more effect than a small image does.

 

I'm a very impatient surfer, so when I write a page, I have my habits in mind. I do not stay at a site that requires scrolling to view one image. I do not stay at a site where I don't have a thumbnail gallery option, because I generally don't want to look at every picture someone posts. I don't stay at a site that doesn't have clear navigation. I don't wait for flash to load. I don't stay at a site with bad grammar or spelling or broken links. I don't stay at a site that requires a membership or personal information before viewing anything.

 

I do stay at and explore sites with compelling images (a completely personal, esthetic thing, and I don't expect every photographer to compel me). I do stay at and explore sites that are well-written, where the links work. I do stay at sites where I can pick and choose which galleries/portfolios, as well as which pictures within each gallery I can view. I do stay at sites that, even if member-driven, give me at least a view images before requiring membership.

 

If I can make a curmudgeonly guy like that happy, I can make anyone happy. Flash is neat, big images are cool when you can see the whole thing, paradigm-shifting creativity in web design is amazing when it works right, but if I don't feel compelled in the first few seconds, I'm confident I can find another site (and another artist) that is compelling.

 

Brian

<div></div>

Since almost all the search links for folgernal referred back to the

same original posting, I'm left wondering whether the 30-minute

processing time includes agitation.

 

Would it make a significant difference if agitation were 10 sec/min

or 20 sec/2 min? I have some Bergger 200 rollfilm (which I've

discovered is decidedly not the beautiful emulsion that their 4x5 is)

that I'm willing to play with, but the thought of sitting there,

babysitting my tank to do agitation every 50 seconds is a bit much.

At least with 1:50 between agitations I can read something, work on

the Great American Novel about the angst of alternative process

photography and so on.

 

Thanks,

 

b.

Bob,

 

Things in Kazakhstan are bad enough that I won't buy locally made developer. Universal Developer #2 produces contrast that is truly mind-blowing - I get Zones 8-10 and Zones 1-3, and nothing in between using it. Vanya's coffee picture is much, much better by comparison.

 

As to using Jamaica Blue Mountain or Kona, are you guys insane? Drink it, then use the resulting uric acid, so at least you get some value for your $80/kg. Much better to use some inexpensive Colombian ($20/kg), or better yet, the West African robusta you get in Maxwell House ($5/kg).

 

b.

Ross,

 

I live in Kazakhstan, so my options are phenomenally limited. That said, I've been able to get decent scans at 300 dpi for up to 12x12. Not spectacular, and certainly not near the quality I want, but the one lab I found that does wet darkroom work doesn't know about burning and dodging. Scanning's my best option at this point.

 

b.

I shoot black & white film, and my current situation doesn't allow

for printing using a wet darkroom. I've been having my negatives

scanned and doing a lot of work in the digital darkroom. I've become

confident enough in the very basic techniques that I'd like to expand

my repertoire. Can anyone recommend a tutorial or a good book that

discusses primarily black & white digital work?

 

I searched the archives and didn't find what I was looking for,

though I did get to do some interesting reading.

Let me preface this by saying I'm not a chemist, and I approach development as a sort of latter day alchemy.

 

Ice cubes and refrigerated water. The temperature in my apartment is about 80, so my chemistry is stored at 80. When the water is 68, that still only brings the soup (Microphen or D-76, both at 1+1) down to about 75, and I'd rather do the long development times I'm used to than try to change my system for a temperature adjustment. So I drop an ice cube into 300 ml of the pure stock solution, get it down to 68, fish the ice cube out (if necessary) and top off with water at 68. Alternatively, I use refrigerated water to bring the temp down, then finish with tap water.

 

I use stop bath and fixer at room temperature, and rinse at 68. This system works well for me, though I'm in no danger of writing the next definitive work on darkroom accuracy.

I looked at buying one in Almaty, and it was phenomenally poorly made. The knobs didn't turn evenly (or even in time with one another), many of the fittings were loose, the model I looked at (the blond wood version) had a bellows made of cardboard and black gaffer's tape, and the lens had a huge burr (at least 0.5 mm) sticking out of the iris into the image area. The film holders that came with it had a bright brass spring to hold the film tight in the holder - it didn't appear to have been sanded.

 

So if you're okay with using a clunky, unreliable camera that may scratch and fog your film, or putting in several hours of work to make it usable, I'd say go for it. There was something I liked about it, but I'd rather have a camera that functions smoothly without spending an extra 4 hours and $100 to make it work.

I'm not a street shooter, but I think we all get bored sometimes, with everything in our lives. My subjects tend to be old broken things and nudes, and while I seldom find the nudes boring, sometimes old broken trucks all start to look alike.

 

I shoot something different, way different. Wide landscapes are a nice break from detail shots of rusting Studebakers. Street fairs are a nice break from nudes.

 

Head up to the mountains and shoot lonely shots of trees. If it's feasible, get out to the desert and shoot there. Shoot someplace where there are no people. Then, the next time you're on Hollywood and Vine, and the next big sleazy rock band walks by, you'll be fresh and ready to get a shot of their swooning, tatooed groupies.

A track for the hairlight would be a great idea. In my mind's eye, I saw the light built into the ceiling, but on a track would be better.

Here's an idea so crazy it just might work...build a light into your ceiling to use as a hair light. Have a switch on the wall to turn it off when you don't want the hairlight.

 

No, I don't want money for this amazing idea, just eternal gratitude. If it works, if it doesn't work, don't blame me, you were the one crazy enough to actually try it.

 

In reality, as I think about it, there would be some challenges...you wouldn't be able to change the intensity very easily, or move it around much. On the upside, you could craft a scrim to use as a light panel/softbox sort of thing for soft, overhead lighting (not sure how that would be used, but it gives some flexibility to the notion.

I can't help you with the equipment question, but if your travels take you through Almaty, Kazakhstan, and you need any services here, let me know. After searching for several months, I've found a couple labs that do consistent, quick service for both film and digital (though film services tend to be pretty expensive), as well as sources for film that doesn't seem to be out of date.

 

Brian

Yuri,

 

If I were in Russia, I'd feel I was in civilization...I'm in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Beautiful place, but difficult to find things.

 

Maybe I'll find something oddly lovable about UP-2. I actually kind of like Sovetskaya Bumaga photo paper.

 

Brian

I've searched the archives and trolled subject lines and didn't see

this one. I recently bought the above mentioned UP-2 developer, and

I'm looking for some sort of Western equivalent. It's meant for both

paper and film, with the instruction that paper should be developed

for 1-2 minutes and film for 3-8 minutes (yeah, that's a nice range).

 

 

 

It came in three packets - small, medium and large with instructions

to mix the packets in 30-40 degree (C, so 85-100 F) water. The small

packet was a fine, white, slightly granular powder that mixed

completely almost immediately. The medium packet was a brownish powder

(the color of sandstone) that clumped up and required some clump

breaking, and never did mix fully (several small clumps got filtered

out in pouring). The large packet was a very fine powder with

virtually no granularity. It turned the water a brownish color on

contact and formed a bunch of clumps. Those clumps broke up completely

and almost all of it was absorbed. The large packet smelled slightly

salty.

 

Any suggestions as to what it might be equivalent to? Any ideas for a

starting point? When testing a film/developer combination, do you run

an exposed or an unexposed roll to determine a ballpark development time?

Thanks everyone for the advice and support. I think I'll not be buying this camera. I'm more interested in making pictures than in futzing with cameras that have "character," not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'm actually not going to go with a Crown Graphic. The more I think about and actually envision using this camera, the more I realize how much shelf space it'll use. There's a Toyo I've had my eye on for several months, and I think I'm going to keep saving my pennies a little longer to get it.

 

The rest of the story is that this missive is coming to you from Kazakhstan...and let me just tell you that post-Soviet peoples aren't generally known for the quality of their craftsmanship. And before a Russophile, or citizen of the SNG goes crazy, don't forget the staircases and other huge pieces of evidence I have at my disposal. I love the people, I'm just honest about the general level of care taken in building things.

Sorry about that...I cross posted to Classic Cameras and Large format...

This isn't strictly relevant to classic cameras, but I think it's

similar enough to be of at least moderate interest.

 

Has anyone in the room used a homemade camera? I'm looking at buying

one for $150 that shoots 5x7. It comes with a barrel lens, some

limited rise & fall and tilt. Lensboards for it would have to be

handmade, and the movements aren't exactly precision. The bellows are

cardboard and black tape, appearing pretty sturdy and seemingly

light-tight.

 

What problems have you had using a homemade? What joys have you had?

Any hidden problems that one might not expect?

 

I'm cross-posting this to Alternative Process and Large Format, just

in case there might be some further insight there.

Has anyone in the room used a homemade camera? I'm looking at buying

one for $150 that shoots 5x7. It comes with a barrel lens, some

limited rise & fall and tilt. Lensboards for it would have to be

handmade, and the movements aren't exactly precision. The bellows are

cardboard and black tape, appearing pretty sturdy and seemingly

light-tight.

 

What problems have you had using a homemade? What joys have you had?

Any hidden problems that one might not expect?

 

I'm cross-posting this to Alternative Process and Classic Cameras,

just in case there might be some further insight there.

Has anyone in the room used a homemade camera? I'm looking at buying

one for $150 that shoots 5x7. It comes with a barrel lens, some

limited rise & fall and tilt. Lensboards for it would have to be

handmade, and the movements aren't exactly precision. The bellows are

cardboard and black tape, appearing pretty sturdy and seemingly

light-tight.

 

What problems have you had using a homemade? What joys have you had

(and you don't need to talk about the magnificence of a large

negative, because that's why we're all in this room? Any hidden

problems that one might not expect?

 

I'm cross-posting this to Alternative Process and Classic Cameras,

just in case there might be some further insight there.

<div></div>