rob_gruber

What are the differences between the various Ricoh GR1 models (the GR1, GR1s, GR1v)?

I'm looking for a black one with the SNAP mode and either no date feature or one that is

easily turned off. Which model would be best?

I will give T-Max a try. I've never really been fond of it and have always shot Tri-X or

Neopan 400 as my standard film but then I've certainly never tried T-Max and Rodinal.

Thanks.

I've been very happy using black only printing on an Epson 1280. Great tones, no color

shifts. Check this out:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Really worth a shot as you don't have to do anything besides change a few setting in

Photoshop and your printer. No new drivers, no new ink.

Good luck.

Usually print my black and whites at home on an Epson 1280 using black only and am

satisfied with the results but I would like a printing service (preferably online or in New

York City) for printing bigger prints and for printing 8 x 10 and up color prints. Under 8 x

10 doesn't interest me but if some of the more commercial online services like oFoto or

Kodak Easy Share do a good job with black and white and bigger prints that would be fine.

I will do all the color correction etc in Photoshop and just want someone who will do a

good job printing preferably who accepts FTP for large files and isn't too pricey.

I've search around and seen recommendation for Adorama, Mpix, and Pictopia. Who's the

best now (early 2006)?

Thanks

Rob

What's the best to get a blown out, grainy look like Daido Moriyma's 'New York 1971

book? The grain he gets seems to have a different look than I've gotten pushing Tri-X in

Rodinal. Part of this is that these are half frame enlargements from an Olympus Pen but it

seems more tight and salt and peppery where I seems to get a mushier, larger grain. I'm

figuring whatever I get will be accentuated by scanning the negative, which is fine.

I seem to remember something about him using maybe very warm D-76 or Dektol or

something but I don't know where I heard or read that.

Point well taken about the black and white not being natural. I guess I just don't like

photos that look too filtered and find that I don't really need the enhancements they give

under most circumstances however this is a bit of an uncommon type of light reflecting all

over the place.

Regarding circular vs. linear polarizers, which would be easier to work with using a

rangefinder? Do you just sorta turn the thing in front of the view finder and note the angle

and screw it on the lense at the same angle to get the same effect? I read something about

a Mamiya 7 viewfinder being polarized itself and linear filters completely blacking them

out. Not sure if this is the case with the Mamiya 6.

Just to clarify, I'm not really looking to dramatize the scenery, it should be quite

spectacular on it's own. I just want to cut any glare or other effects of so much snow, ice

and water that would take away from rendering the scene as I see it.

Going to Patagonia next month with my Mamyia 6 and planning on shooting mostly black

and white, probably something like Ilford FP 4 as I look the look of it. What type of filter (if

any) would I need for this type of photography? I generally shoot without filters and since

the system is relatively new to me, haven't bought any for it yet. Would I want to pick up a

UV filter, polarizer, ND?

I'm using an MIS Eboni black cartridge in an Epson 1280 to do black only printing and love

the results. However I'd like to print a few color prints. Can I leave the Eboni cartridge in or

am I better off switching to the regular Epson black? If so need to run any kind of cleaning

cycle? Will the Eboni cartridge dry out if I take it out?

Thanks,

Rob

I recently got an Epson 4180 for scanning black and white medium format negs. My first

scan came out pretty well but it has a streak in the sky area that isn't on the negative. I'm

wondering if there is something wrong with the light source of the scanner or if this is a

common problem or what.

I noticed it a little in the scan and at certain angles in the resulting print. Is the scanner

defective?

I'm going to New York to photograph the upcoming Christo exhibition of the Gates in

Central Park. It will be thousands of saffron orange colored gates against the what I expect

to be the bare trees and grey background of February in New York.

I ususally shoot medium format black and white film but want to capture the orange gates.

My initial thought was Kodachrome with it's steely grays and bright reds but I just found

out that it isn't available in 120. So I'm wondering if there is another 120 film I could use

or if I'm better off with 35mm Kodachrome. I'm really looking for almost a black and white

type of look but with that bright dash of orange. Graininess is not a problem. I just want

something that is sort of a color Tri-X type of look.

Two more things:

1) Is Epson's software sufficient or do I need something like VueScan or Silverfast? The first

scan I did, letting the scanner do some unsharp masking came out pretty good. Not sure

what I'd get with more in depth software.

2) I will be trying initially black only printing using MIS Eboni ink but of course if that

doesn't work I'll try their UT2 inkset so I'd like the scan to work with whatever printing

solution I end up with.

I'm on a Mac OS 10.3.6 if that matters.

I recently got an Epson 4180 and and Epson 1280 printer to scan and print my 6 x6

medium format black and white negatives. I'm a little baffled by the scanning process and

especially by all the math involved in determining scan sizes. I've read some questions

here and perused scantips.com and other websites but I'm still a bit confused.

If I'm scanning black and white, what bit depth do I want to use? Is there any point in using

48 bit color? I'll be doing post processing in Photoshop 7.

To get a scan which will work at the maximum size of my printer 13" wide, what dpi do I

want to scan a 6 x6 negative at?

Can anyone recommend some good resources that are intended for the less mathmatically

inclined and go toward the more artistic side? Books are fine.

Thanks.

Wow thanks for all the comments so far.

I would love to know where you saw refurbed Minolta Multi Scans at the price of 4870's.

Just to clarify, it's not that I don't realize that even a good scan is going to take some work

in PS, just as even a good neg takes tweaking in the darkroom. My point with that was

that I don't want to waste hours in PS making up for the limitations of scanner I bought. I

used to fight with an old enlarger in a darkroom which was way too dusty due to it's

location, once I started to renting darkroom time in a place with very high quality

enlargers and clean rooms, my enjoyment level and efficiency went way up. I'd rather not

repeat the experience in digital form. The time spent quickly adds up and surpases the

dollars saved.

I know scanning is going to be a huge investment of time and it's not something I'm going

to do twice, once time with a less than adequate flatbed and once with a film scanner

down the road. So I'd like to make the best choice given the limitations of say $1000.

Thanks again for all the great responses.

I've been pouring over the forum and found lots of good information but still had a few

questions. I'm looking to get a scanner primarily for 6 x 6 Tri-X and FP 4 negs but I'd like

to play with some 35mm negs as well. Output size will be the biggest I can get out of an

Epson 1280 (12 x 12 for medium format and whatever the biggest is for 35mm).

From what I've read here, flatbed scanners like the Epson 4180 and 4870 are good enough

for the medium format but probably fall short for 35mm. Even in the medium format,

although the stated resolution is enough, the shaprness leaves something to be desired.

That being said am I better off with an Epson flatbed and a dedicated 35mm film scanner

($700-$1000) or just saving up for a film scanner that will do both like the Microtek Artix

120 ($1700)? And if I'm going to get another scanner for 35mm, is it worth buying the

4870 over the 4180 for medium format or is the difference negligable.

My main concerns are getting the tonality of medium format as close as possible to a good

darkroom print. I'm not a sharpness freak. However I don't want to spend hours in

Photoshop because I bought a cheap scanner.

Another poster on this list suggested the following some time ago:

3200

1+100 hc110 19mins 30 degress Celcius. Minimal agitation.

I've tried lesser development times using this formula, very warm HC-110 with

minimal agitiation and it's worked very well.

I've never seen a photo and had my first (or second or third) thought be "wow, great

shadow detail". It literallly doesn't impress me, that is make much of an impression.

Overall tonality, yes, very much so. But shadow detail, not at all.

<p>Some of the my favorite photography, Robert Frank, Bresson and other street

photographers, is technically pretty imperfect and tends toward over exposure.

William Gibson a more atistic photographer uses overexposure and over-

development very deliberately. And for artistic effect it works. Same with Ellen Von

Unwerth. Tri-X in Rodinal over exposed and over developed.</p>

<p>I've never really understood the obsession with shadow detail and minimal grain.

But then while appreciating what went in to Ansel Adams photos, I don't particulalry

<i>like</i> them artistically. I think if photographers are honest with themselves,

the obsession with shadow detail, the zone system et al can all really be traced back

to him.

<p>Interesting thread.

This isn't really the question but you might try FP4+ in Rodinal. It's easy to mix,

keeps a long time and produces really nice negatives with FP4. I played with FP4 in

HC-110 but found it too contrasty and now I use Rodinal and save the HC-110 for

Tri-X where it really looks great. The enhanced sharpness is nice and grain isn't a

problem.

Not sure how it works with your other film choices but if you're just looking for a

liquid with a long life, you might want to take a look at Rodinal. It's somewhat easier

to mix than HC-110 because it's more liquidy and less syrupy.

What are the 1:25 (approximate starting) times for the new Tri-X and Rodinal?

The Massive Developement Chart only lists a 1:100 time for the new Tri-X although

it's got 7 minutes for the old stuff at 1:25 which in 35mm at least doesn't seem to

have changed much.

Is that 7 minutes time still valid at 68 degrees?

I think if there were so little differences between different films and developers and

the "Wow" factor was such a non-entity, this forum wouldn't exist.

Most of the postings on this forum, my own included, presuppose a Wow factor or at

least a distinction between properly developed films.

Personally the Wow factor is something that is very real. It may well come from

choosing a film and sticking with it, but there are some films that never look great to

me even if they are "properly" developed and others that tend to look right tonally

even if the photo itself isn't very interesting.

If it wasn't for the Wow factor, we'd all be shooting C-41 film or tweaking our digital

photos in Photoshop.

A nice fiber print from a film you like, not a film that has a certain amount of

resolution or density or grain structure but a film you LIKE, is the reason I think we

still choose the somewhat archaic mode of producing images.

I personally think the times Kodak published were very close to correct at least for the

120 version. I got really dense negs using the 1:31 combination at 6 minutes which

I've been using on the old Tri-X for quite some time.

I moved to a 1:50 dilution for 6 minutes and now have negs that look very much like

the "old" Tri-X at 1:31 for 7 minutes. Keep in mind this is only for the 120 version.

I then tried this same dilution for the the new tri-x in 35mm and got very thin,

inderdeveloped negs, so I'm going to give the old 1:31 dilution a shot tonight.

Give the 1:50 dilution a try for your 120 negs for about 6 minutes.

Rob

Honestly I didn't do any scientific evaluations of Hp5, I followed whatever the

recommendations were and I didn't like it much and doing the same non scientific

test, I liked Tri-X. I then fined tuned from there.

Didn't see any reason to persue it more as I can get Tri-X in 35mm or 120 for about

$2/roll.

I think the new Tri-X, in 120 at least, is better than the old in terms of grain with the

same great tonality.

I'm sure with dedicated testing etc you could get nice tones out of HP5 (or anything

else really) that's just my non-scientific opinion.

What about Tri-X and HC-110?

I really like FP4 but have never been a fan of HP5 because it always looks too grey to

me. But Tri-X looks more like the 400 version of FP4+ and does well in all formats in

both HC-110 and Rodinal.

Just a thought since you are switching anyway.

Short answer: distilled water.

I had some problems with gummy negatives and switched to using distilled water for

most of my process and I haven't had them since.

I use distilled water for at least my developer and my photo flow. I usually use it for

my fixer and permawash as well although I wash for 2 minutes under tap water.

Distilled water is about a buck a gallon and takes away some variables that could

screw up your process.

This is non-scientific but it works.