chris_raney

<p>I met one of the guys from KEH camera in the camera shop where I just landed a part-time job, but I didn't think to ask. Sorry, Rodeo Joe, I don't replace working items unless they break. And thanks, Tom & Jerry (serendipity?), that's the number I was looking for. And yes, Craig, I will use the Wein Safe Sync just for good measure.</p>

<p>Thank you all. </p>

<p>Does anyone know what the part number would be for that cord you can plug into the Vivitar 285 thyristor slot, then attach it with the thyristor to the shoe of your camera? I'll be using a small soft box with the flash, so the thyristor needs to be relocated on the camera.</p>

<p>And would this 285HV flash be compatible with a Nikon D 200? </p>

<p>I'm not enlarging at all, simply printing the negatives the same size as the prints will be: contact print size. But a bolt of lightning just shot through me with your other comment. I had not stopped to think that I should be putting the ink-side toward the paper. This may be a hallelujah moment, Bob! </p>

<p>I'll get back to printing in a couple of days and I'll let you know how your suggestion worked out. </p>

<p>I'm still struggling to create an acceptable black & white digital negative. My current problem is that when I print up a tack-sharp, fabulously detailed digital negative on Pictorico OHP out of my Epson 2200 printer, it only generates fuzzy, ethereal-looking images in the darkroom when I print on either graded or multi-grade FB paper (my standards). The effect is similar to what Hollywood's diffusion lenses in the 1940s did for aging actresses. Were I looking for that gauzy, glowing effect where the detail turns to mud, well, I've achieved it. But I simply hate this look. What I'm trying to achieve are cold, knife-sharp, brutally detailed prints. And no, it's not the printer, because it otherwise produces tack-sharp photos. </p>

<p>I picked Pictorico OHP because it was a name that kept cropping up on these forums, and appeared to be the best material for this process. Am I operating on incorrect information? What does the Pictorico 'white film' do? </p>

<p>I've already ordered the two extra radio receivers. But since I have a captive audience, here, let me ask a question about synchronization: I'm using my beloved old Leica film cameras, so am I limited to my standard flash speed of--what is it?--50th of a second? (And yes, I have purchased neutral density filters).</p>

<p>Yeah, I figured that any shading on the smaller lights would negate their triggering by the larger light. I'll buy receivers for them, too. And thanks, guys.</p>

<p>Or better, yet, what is it I don't know? I purchased a dandy, bargain-priced Smith-Victor FL-290 studio set from Ebay, but now I'm suffering odd problems with it. I'm a virgin when it comes to studio lights, so I'm learning on the fly. When I first set up out in the bright sun (employing a clunky optical trigger that was included in the package deal) the result was a constant bang-bang-bang-bang from the monolight firing off because it's optical input was obviously overwhelmed by bright sunlight. That problem was solved when I purchased an inexpensive wireless trigger.</p>

<p>But today for some reason my (what are they called?) slaves-peripheral-modeling lights would not flash. They were fully functional whenever I pushed their test-fire buttons, and they fired perfectly when I tested them in my apartment later when triggered by the monolight, but out in the sun today they refused to function. I turned the system off and on several times; unplugged and replugged in the the wireless receiver, removed and reseated the wireless transmitter in the camera shoe, but still, the secondary lights would NOT fire. </p>

<p>The problem with the monolight's difficulties with bright sunlight were easily fixed. But as to those slave-peripheral-modeling-whatever-lights (what the hell are they called?)...what gives? </p>

<p>I'm sorry. Let me qualify things: I'm talking about developed film (Tri-X) that has been scanned, digitally corrected, and then the image being printed upon Pictorico OHP to make a contact negative I can print in my darkroom. </p>

<p>By fuzzy I mean they're ethereal-looking and not sharp. But I know they can look sharp simply from the examples in the Reeder & Hinkel book. I just wish they had spent a bit more time on describing silver prints. The book is mis-titled, in my opinion. It's more of a primer on platinum-palladium printing.</p>

<p>Also, they give rather short shrift to Photoshop programs. They say QuadTone RIP is compatible with essentially all of their programs. Yeah, sure, if you're talking about the ones that cost hundred of dollars, it appears. So my little Photoshop 7 that came with my scanner won't work? So I'm looking at dropping <em>more</em> money on a fancier Photoshop program? </p>

<p>And yes, John, I am printing on the correct side of the OHP stuff. And I purchased it because from what I've read the 'white' Pictorico product isn't as desirable. As you can see I'm simply floundering for a unified explanation of this process. </p>

<p>I'm going to confess that perhaps a combination of age, marginal computer literacy and an aversion to narrative-poor jargon has made creating acceptable, digital, black & white negatives an impossible task for me. I've invested in Reeder's and Hinkel's <em>Digital Negatives</em> book, downloaded and purchased the Quadtone RIP program, stocked-up on Pictorico OHP and even ran across a nice bargain on a lovingly used Epson 2200 printer. But I'm stumped into understanding how all of this rocket science converges into creating anything better than the lousy, fuzzy negatives I've seen so far. </p>

<p>What I need is a competent video tutorial. Either that or a willing genius who will engage in a messaging dialog for all of my mewling questions. </p>

<p>I've been off for a few days, and I'm thrilled to see fresh responses! Thank you all. I knew I'd receive good suggestions for my extremely modest printing needs. You've cut my work out for me, gentlemen. </p>

<p>When it comes to the cross-pollination between scanned film and the creation of digital negatives, I am still a fumbling amateur. Here's my problem: I am interested in printing digital, contact-print negatives in order to generate black & white silver prints in my darkroom, period. I am looking for a quality, dedicated printer that will do just that and will never be used to generate a positive print, ever. There are loads of posts out there, most of them dated, about which printers to buy, and so far I've counted a couple of dozen product suggestions. Are you feeling my pain and confustion, yet?</p>

<p>I have neither the intention nor interest in actually printing photographs from a printer; it's true, real, archival sliver gelatin prints from my beloved darkroom for me, or nothing. I have at least evolved into film scanning, and I delight in the ease of digital manipulation of my images, and now the end result will be--hopefully--perfected contact negatives.</p>

<p>So with the market saturated with printer choices, and with all the arguments over archival inks and how many nanodroplets per flyspeck this one or that one will do...all I need is a machine I can feed transparencies into that will produce top quality, contact negatives for black & white, silver printing, period. </p>

<p>Well, I have a radical, ridiculous thought. For those of us enamored-for-life with film, specifically black & white film. What would be the possibility of perhaps buying out or leasing processing patents and film production facilities as a non-profit, international consortium of dedicated Luddites? There are simply too many fine cameras in existence today to relegate to the attic or to the desk as a paperweight, and too many photographers still breathing who will adore film to their dying days for this spectacular product to possibly be killed-off during this sustained economic downturn. </p>

<p>As a website with international reach, are there at least a million of us throughout the world who feel this way? Would we each pay the equivalent of $10 into this project, $10 million? Would we be willing to pay the equivalent of $30, which would multiply out as $30 million?</p>

<p>Some of us can pay little, others can pay far more. What if within a couple of years our little consortium could collect an average of about $200 a head? Could a combined collection of a hundred, or even two-hundred million dollars, with perhaps an annual fee of $20, ensure us that we would be able to buy film in virtual perpetuity? If millions of people can line-up to gobble-up Apple's newest life-saver within days, are there enough of us in the world to make something like the saving of black & white film, happen? </p>

<p>I'm not a wealthy man, but I'm willing to cough-up $200 bucks right now to ensure that my beloved Tri-X is available long after I become obsolete. </p>

<p>I wouldn't have you suffer for anything, Barry. But even you have to admit that when you're 'enthralled' or 'engrossed' (your expressions) with your work you are certainly not in a 'normal' state of mind. Perhaps after five pages of verbage we should all retire the worn adjectives pain, suffering, and agony and go with something like...passion?</p>

<p>I have posted in several forums over the years and I perhaps have a bad habit of expanding my narratives a bit longer than absolutely necessary. That said, compared to the length of John Crosley's contribution--several pages back--I'm downright terse.</p>

<p>Marc Todd made some lovely points about suffering, anguish and madness (paraphrasing) not being particularly necessary for the creation of great art. And if some of those artists who had famously suffered from mental problems (again, I paraphrase) had had their illnesses cured their art might have been all the better. I couldn't disagree more. Stand in front of a painting like Van Gogh's Wheatfield with Crows and your eyes will water at the creative rage that consumed this artist's psyche. A man with a 'normal' mind couldn't have possibly painted like this.</p>

<p>'Normalcy,' whatever that is, is just another word for banality to the truly creative mind. I would suggest that finding any great artist in any field of endeavor, not just a talented person, but an individual with an outstanding gift will, by cognitive necessity, exhibit signs of behavioral 'abnormality.' And yes, great art is often created by some of the most troubled and troublesome people. Great art is compelled to disrupt the status quo. And that compulsion, the drive to create that level art is certainly not 'normal.' It may very well be, as we're now discovering, a form of creative 'madness.'</p>

<p>I am certainly not diminishing the sadness and suffering of those whose mental demons have robbed them of any hope of living content and satisfying lives. But any art, great or otherwise that conforms to the status quo--what is 'normal,' in the conventional sense--is not art: it's kitsch. </p>

<p>Pre-soaking the film, as I do, in distilled water doesn't disturb the latent image. And yes, if it leaches a lot of that anti-halation dye away that can't be a bad thing. Dump that water and don't reuse it, though. </p>

<p>Wherever you live in the world sodium sulfite is extremely common, and is fairly inexpensive. I purchased 50 pounds for something like a dollar a pound. </p>

<p>Thank you all, and yes, I do filter those chemicals that get re-used, like my Vestal solution A and my fixer. And Leigh, after fixing the film goes immediately into a heavy sodium sulfite solution and agitated for a full five minutes. Then it goes into the washer for 20 minutes. That purple dye is STILL leaching slightly by the time it goes into the LFN--I don't use Photo-Flo on my film. </p>

<p>The residual purple isn't the problem. The problem is that I can't just develop one or two roll of film without having to sacrifice an entire quart of solution A. Oh, sure, I can run many rolls though a single bottle of solution if I'm doing a marathon development, but once that solution A used at all--even for a single roll of film--as I've pointed out, it's toast. That's why I always keep three quarts on hand. </p>

<p>I purchase my sodium sulfite in 50 pound buckets. Might have to start doing the same for metol and hydroquinone! (sorta kidding)</p>

<p>I am thrilled with the results I've been getting from using David Vestal's version of divided D-76, and I have no reason--especially in a tropical climate--to change formula. So...forget the sales pitches for your favorite developers, please.</p>

<p>That said, something that has been troubling me is that once solution A has been used (I shoot Tri-X almost exclusively) then returned to the (glass) bottle it will, within a day or two, turn into an cloudy-gray sludge; awful little flakes of schmutz can often be seen floating in it. Unused, in it's glass container, that developer will remain clear and viable for months. Introduce it to film, though, and it goes bad, quickly.</p>

<p>I doubt I can do anything about it without drastically altering the outcome of my development, which I will simply not do. But is this some sort of oxidation that's taking place because of that nasty purple (anti-halation?) dye now being used in Tri-X film? A lot of that dye is leached out whenever I run the film through the clearing stage. And even when I use my wetting agent just before I put the film in the dryer it will frequently discolor the the wetting agent (LFN). This discoloring of my chemistry, though, does not occur during the fixing stage ( Kodak F-5).</p>

<p>What's happening here, wizened chemical heads? </p>

<p>Sodium sulfite, the primary ingredient in clearing agents, is a dirt-cheap chemical that you should be able to purchase in bulk at any chemical supplier. Make up a concentrated gallon of the stuff and dilute with water for use. I use it and then dump it, especially since it helps leach that purply die out of Tri-X. This will save you a bundle of cash over the long run. Oh, and I suggest recycling the plastics bottles and go to old-fashioned brown glass. </p>

<p>I'm still screwing up! Now someone tell me how to post the actual image, and not just the link, please. </p>

<p><img src=" alt="" /><img src=" alt="" />Sorry about the empty post. I'll try again: this was taken with an M4-P and a Summilux at f 1.4 on Tri-X; with available light, of course. </p>

Is this the site you were talking about?

 

 

 

http://members.tripod.com/olye10/e10home_image_inside_01_en.html

I've seen the same website, and I'm searching for it as well. I have two E-10s right now which together would create a working camera. I've also been searching the web for a repair manual on this camera. Have you had any luck looking for this?

Not to long ago I was presented with an E-10 that a friend had found to be too

complicated and much too unwieldy for him. It was my first digital camera, and

at that moment I fell in love; so much so that I now have two of them. Four

measly megapixels be damned, the glass on these cameras is the thing!

 

But since this is now old technology, is it possible that its electronic

innards are incompatible with today?s faster CF cards? Since I?ll be taking an

extended vacation this summer, I wanted extra storage capacity just in case my

Belkin Burnaway crashed. So, I purchased three Sandisk Ultra II cards on Ebay,

two in 2gb and one in 4gb. I was hoping the quicker processing speed of these

cards would help these slow cameras process my raw files a few steps faster.

 

Damned if any of them work. Both cameras reject them with the warning ?Card

Error!? the four gigger won?t even fit in the card slot.

 

What?s going on? I own four other cards?from 128mb to 2gb?by four different

manufactures. And all of them work just fine in both cameras.

 

Is this a problem of compatibility, or have I been sold counterfeit

merchandise? On the outside of the boxes are the barely discernable words ?Type

I Card.? What?s the difference between type I and type II cards? None of my

existing cards (nor these Ultra II cards) have this numerical designation. I

can?t wait for my local camera store to open on Monday to take these things in

find out what?s what. I need an answer now, please.