nikon grrl. . .

hi everybody. well, first i want to start off by thanking all of you for your input. i couldn't bear the thought of going into a darkroom and seeing everything come out ruined. greg, i followed your advice and scanned the negs--used a cheaper office scanner, but it looks like if anything, i can scan them as you suggest and get images that way. thankfully. i am so grateful. if ever i hated digital, i don't now. also, chris, i haven't rewashed them, but will try with a strip. still don't have much hope for that, but it's worth a try. also, i have class tonight so i will ask my teacher. i'll post what he says.

 

also, i hope anyone in the future reading this will take heed and let your chemistry sit overnight before using it, please! the picture below is blown out terribly, (tmax 3200, way over-developed. will use much selectol if i can traditionally print these) but thought i'd show you a sample of my beloved dad. i'm not sure, but i think if you look over his right shoulder, there's a light spot that may be caused by these infernal white marks. or it could be the sun. thanks again.<div></div>

sorry guys, that attachment was too large. here it is again:<div></div>

here is a picture of the nightmare scenario. by the way, i think they're totally ruined. i

looked again through light, and the spots show, through and through. does anyone here

know if it would be possible to scan these and fix this awfulness?<div></div>

richard, i don't think they're air bubbles. in fact, i'm positive. this may just totally throw me

into digital. the only way i can describe the dots are that they're all over every frame of every

roll of film, and it looks like it would look if my film were covered in fungus. which it's not.

it's just ruined, i'm sure, and i'm so sick i can't even deal with this. i just can't believe it.

oh, another thing i wanted to add--i washed the film in tap water after the stop bath and before the fixer. i've never done this before. just thought i would stretch out my fix. do you think this could have caused the big, white, opaque spots?!

thanks lynn. i'll try! as soon as i can i'll post a shot of the disaster. oh my god, rolls and rolls of my father. i pray all is not lost. . .

dave, i wish it were that simple. these spots sort of look 'burned into' the negative, but only when viewed from a 90 degree angle. as i said, looking head on, i don't see them. have you ever heard of anything like this? are my negs ruined? do you think this is becuase i used the xtol straight away after mixing it?

hi everyone. so i spent a week with my ailing father, taking pictures of him

all the while. these shots are, of course, invaluable to me. i whipped up

some xtol and went to processing. i did everything as usual. the thing is,

ALL my negs are coated with opaque, perfectly circular spots. i can only see

these when i look at the neg from a side view. when i hold it up to the light,

the neg looks good. however, i'm terribly distressed, and kicking myself all

the while.

 

now, i've never seen spots like this. they are not on the emulsion side. they

will not rub off. my only thought is that i didn't let the xtol 'rest', and

that tiny granuels burned their way onto the films surface. guys, before i go

into the darkroom and face absolute heart break, please, please, for the love

of god, tell me there is hope. do you think these will print? if i can see

the neg clearly, isn't that a good sign? or, since there are these marks, am i

totally sunk?

 

i shot with tmax3200 at 1600, used freshly mixed xtol 1:1.

 

any help (and hope) is appreciated.

Thanks everyone. I really appreciate your insight. Guess I'll go for the middle ground and spring for the F3.5! Thanks again :)

Disclaimer: I love film

 

Just curious: are any of you crime photographers, or do any of you know anything about crime

photography? I'm just asking, because I know the late, great Technopan was sometimes used to

document crime scenes. Doesn't it seem that digital photography is the weak link in crime scene

reportage? I mean, if I were a lawyer, I'd call into question the validity of digital capture in a crime scene.

Do crime photographers use film only? And if they don't, shouldn't they? I mean, it leaves a physical,

unalterable imprint of the captyured image. Serkiously, this has been driving me crazy. Any answers will

help lead me back to the land of film stasis. help!

Hey there, Andrew. I am by no means an expert, but I have traveled with a batch of 400

asa sheet film. Looking back, i think it would have been a lot easier to just let it go

through the x-ray machine than make an isue of it at security. you see, the guy looked at

the box, ignored me, and i heard him say under his breath, "is this paper?" and started to

open the box. i had to go through hell, as if going through security isn't horrible enough.

the people at tsa don't seem to know anything about film, much less security (sorry, just

my opinion). why is this? i don't know. but really, i think as long as you're not using

super fast asa, like everyone else says, let it go through the conveyor. wouldn't you do

that with roll film as well? good luck and have fun!

hi guys. listen, i'm new to the bellows world. i've always been curious to what bellows could do for me,

but it wasn't until i raided my father's closet and found one (very cobweb laden, had to use wd-40 to get

it clean) that i'm way into trying it. slapped my f3 on one end, my normal lens on the other, took a look,

and saw. . . nothing! it's all fuzzy, and my dad used it so long ago, that he didn't remember enough to

tell me how to use it. do i focus with the lens? do i focus with the bellows? how come no matter what i

do i see nothing? please help! oh, and what do a bellows do? thanks for all.

 

regina valdez

hey all. you know, i have to say, for those who say the death of 220 is no big deal, well, it is. it helped me to shoot medium format almost with the same convenience of 35mm, with the ability to shoot 30 shots on a roll. also, i was considering purchasing a mamiya 7, and then i could shoot 18 shots using plus-x. now, i would only be able to shoot 9! there's no longer an incentive for me to purchase plus-x. on my last shoot, i used all delta 100.

thank you so much for the responses. i'll try the faster films and hope all turns out alright.

the mentioned films i'm not too familiar with, so it will truly be an experiment. thanks again:)

hi all. i'm getting ready to go on a shoot in texas, getting all my camera stuff together, buying film, etc.

much to my chagrin, i'm not able to find kodak plus-x 220 film. i loved this film, and it was nice to get

thrity frames in large format negative. i never heard a word about kodak discontinuing this film. have i

had my head in the sand, or was this a recent thing? i'm so upset. what is a film photographer to do?

sometimes it seems that no matter how much i value film, it doesn't matter, because it's going to be

discontinued regardless. why do the companies make buying and using their product so hard for us?

hi there. i want to take natural light, firework portraits on the fourth of july. i will be shooting medium

format. anyway, i know the fireworks will burn hot, and it will be difficult, but is there a film that can

handle this situation? for example, a child holding a sparkler at night, showing the details of the sparkler

and the details of the scene behind the child, as well as his/her face? any help is appreciated. oh, and i

sure don't want too much grain, either. thank you.

thank you guys so much. i really appreciate all your input, and i put your collective wisdome to good use. i blasted the light (i.e. put it close instead of far) and made the light go through an umbrella. i also used a reflector to prevent 'raccoon-ing' of the eyes. there was no way i could get these women to put on makeup, but, looking only at the negs, i think i got some good shots. also, i'm glad i used plus-x. thank you so much. you really helped me go into the shoot with confidence!

mike, yes, i'll be printing these myself, both the black and white and color. so i can do all this softening stuff post shooting?

hi stephen, no, blemishes aren't the problem so much as pores and lines. it's older women i'm shooting. still use a red filter?

good god. i spoke too soon. just checked adorama and those softening filters are hundreds of dollars. please help. what can i do to make these women look good without going broke?

thank you guys so much. i guess one thing i can do is see if i can get a filter between now and monday. i'm not so confident about my lighting abilities. and bruce, what is raking?

hey all. i'm going to be shooting some women this weekend under studio

lights. only my second time ever. i'll be shooting with a mamiya 645. i'd

like to use plus-x 125, as it comes in 220 rolls. i'll also use a few 160vc,

but that's for another forum, i'm sure! question is, last time i did studio

shoots, i got too much texture from the skin. in other words, skin

imperfections that people don't like to see were magnified so much! what can

i do to soften this effect? i'll be using a 110 lens and an 80 lens. also,

what is the best way to shoot plus x? and i'll be using a photogenic monobloc

light bounced from an umbrella with a matte velvet back cloth. thanks thanks

thanks!

okay, i don't want to be ms. naysayer, but what gives? geez, i'm all set up for bulk loading,

got my agfa 100 px (not exactly cheap) and bulk loader (ap bobinquick) and the dag gone

thing doesn't work! is it me? it's taking so long, my hands are getting sweaty and making

the film sticky. i can't get the dang film to go through the slot which puts it to the spool.

what am i doing wrong? or should i have bought the lloyd or the weston? i cant stand the

unpleasantness of what i'm going through. please help!

hi guys. how's it going? well, it's come the time for me to save up for a new lens. i am

mostly into portrait work and environmental portraiture. i have the standard 80 and 55

lenses that come with the mamiya pro, but am looking for a new, mostly portrait lens. the

150 2.8 is much more, and much bigger, than the 4 lens. my question is, if i'm doing shoots

in the field, handheld, not sudio with tripod, which lens which would be best? also, with the

f4 lens have a nice 'bokeh,' or depth of field. i like to have the face with the background

nicely blurred. i'd like your advice before i drop a load of cash. thanks a lot!!

 

regina

thank guys. your sample pictures are amazing! you've given me a total vote of confidence,

and i'm going to buy a couple 100' rolls now and hope i can get some shots as good as

yours. thanks!