terence_spross1

<p>Reciprocity failure at these times is a major concern as the film manufacturers do not publish this info. Experimentation with careful note taking can help, but getting linear results normal looking results like the posted photos in at best difficult. Some tricks include pretrating film to modify its reciprocity results is one thing thats been done. (Take some film off the bulk roll and presoak it, dry it and spool it in the dark) Chems used for the presoak can be alluded to on internet searches but I couldn't find live links to actual formula. another trick used that really works for months exposure is a shutter that is operated for 1 second every day at a specific time. The exposure is actually 300 seconds for 300 days, much easier to predict the reciprocity results and it still integrates all that happens at the scene over 300 days on a single piece of film.<br>

I have to say that the easiest way to do that kind of image now is a digital camera taking 300 photos that are then merged into a single image.</p>

<p>Jason -<br>

note that the portion of the photo that includes the stairs and the back of persons heads that you had a link to does not actually appear to be sharper - its just closer to the camera -so the features are all larger. Compare the head sizes to the students head sizes..</p>

<p>Shooting a panorama by stitching is not what I meant but the process is similar. Stitching can be as simple as finding a straight line where each pair of overlapping images merge and joining them there eliminating the overlaps. It could be a straight cut or a percentage blending between the images. The viewer will usually detect a straight cut but the blending method works best. In fact some of the intermediate point and shoot digital cameras have a panoramic algothrithm built in that locates overlap in sequential images automatically and blends them producing a large jpeg from a series of shots. No Photoshop involved. I recently saw the result from such a camera when I was in a Walmart and an amateur was picking up a panoramic print and proudly showed it to me. A little Jaw dropping considering I know how much work is involved with Photoshop. It was because the womens 10 year old daughter read the camera manual while on vacation and without prior photographic experience (the first day she ever took any kind of photo from what I was told) shot a series from a hotel balcony and the result never went thru a PC - straight from the flash card at the kiosk.... I couldn't detect any seam.<br>

BUT I DIGRRESS....<br>

A 100mm lens should get you the detail needed. Tripod mounted of course since now camera motion would become the limiting factor. I wasn't thinking about substituting more than one student at a time but actually that should be a time saver and quite doable. I think that where the blending occurs should be easy behind the second row of students but following contour lines on the robes fold, for example, on the first row would yield the best results. I believe you can get away with this in this kind of situation because the lighting does not change and the students don't move much between your shots. I wouldn't want to consider this method if those facts weren't true.<br>

I wish a simpler answer were available.<br>

Even if your camera had a 100MP sensor the other concerns expressed by the other posters would become a major problem with a single shot if everything else was the same. Subject motion, lens sharpness, filter degradation, etc. It is always what is the weakest link.</p>

<p>While I agree with the warnings about filters, glass sharpness, etc. I'm assuming that you want <strong>reasonable facial detail so that on a banner enlargement</strong> -which is what student shots usually want- viewers can look and view a banner print closely and clearly recognize their friends: <br /><br />Assuming your uncropped post is completely uncropped and a 5D RAW image has 2500 pixels horizontal, then about half of the horizontal area is unused to the left and right of the students. Therefore there is 1200 pixels horizontal left to be shared by all the students horizontally about 27 students horizontal (don't count the second row for this analysis) that leaves 44 horizontal pixels per student. In this even division of student heads it includes space (about 2/3 space) between each student leaving about 14 pixels horizontal per student face. The software smooths (blurs) this some in your cropped view so the pixels aren't seen. If you considered the vertical pixel count you would have a similar number. Faces are taller than wide - so approximately 14 X 20 pixels per face. JPEG looses more and it looks like you are close to the limit of what you can expect. For most of the students I don't see relative motion blur, so that's not your primary problem. Also wide angle lenses reduce camera motion blur as I'm sure your aware. <br />The lighting situation is very apparent although no where near as difficult as stage plays.. <br /><br />If it were me I would blow the dust off my LF camera and shoot this shot on 4x5 where there is sufficient effective resolution. Also the latitude / dynamic range of negative film is such that with good dodging/burning under an enlarger the lighting variances can be resolved. However I would NOT want to print more than a couple enlargements this way and I personally haven't ever made an exposure equalizing negative to sandwich in the enlarger to make a multitude of identical analog prints. (I've seen this done but it gives me a headache jut thinking about it.) A digital camera does make an effective preview device when mounted to a LF camera by the way.<br /><br /><strong>A better answer</strong> I suggest is to take the wide angle shot like you did as a reference. And then quickly shoot a <strong>multitude of telephoto pictures</strong> of the students from left to right. After the fact use Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, Gimp or whatever to reassemble the clear faces into the wide shot. Correcting for lighting and any blinking eyes/rolling eyes/unbecoming expressions at the same time. Result: about a 100MP image ready for printing.<br /><br />I know what you are thinking - this is going to take about 3 hours to edit. You are also thinking - I don't have to do this for my wedding shots. Intuitively a 17"x20" portrait enlargement with a couple of heads in a typical wall mounted enlargement is not going to have the viewer hovering over it looking for pimples etc at a 3" viewing distance. <br />This is different, the main subject is a bunch of small heads and you are in fact going to have the viewer looking ever closer at a 30" wide banner print.<br />You don't get something for nothing so if you want a masterpiece lots of extra effort is needed.<br /><br />If you have never done that sort of photo-editing before add about 8 to 10 hours of learning curve time. (But once you know how to do it -it becomes easy if not tedious), You are not done until the viewer does not know it was edited. Sorry to say you don't get something for nothing.</p>

<p>Like Hillary's post, I frequently use a Kodak Stereo camera.<br>

I can't afford to switch to digital now. Eventually my stereo shots will be scanned to digital for use with the promised new HD 3D monitors. Also, I use slide film in my Minolta occasionally when I know there will be enough of a single subject for projection.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Thomas -"... obviously been through non-Kodachrome processors."</em></p>

<p>I'm sorry to hear that.<br>

I'm wondering what could be going on as I've had Kodachrome sucessfully processed via Sam's/Walmart. I understand all E6 is also processed by Dwaynes' now. So if Fuji identified it as non-C41 maybe the fault is at Dwayne's not-segregating E6 vs. K14 process correctly. Or did the roll go through C41? What are the end markings on the film? Perhaps someone can identify if it is a Dwayne's mark or not.</p>

<p>I would have thought placing the box end would work, but I've always put "K14" in the special instructions box.<br>

In any case, for the sake of the rest of us, did you complain with the known facts. Whoever made the mistake needs to be corrected. They can't do that if they don't know about it. Don't assume that talking to a clerk at Walmart will get forwarded to anybody.<br>

I have only a couple rolls left.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>James Dainas: "Each zone is one f/stop but for me it is easier to explain things using zones. 'Caucasian skin falls on zone 6' is easier than 'Caucasian skin is one stop more than a gray card reading'."</em> <br /> <br /> For me its just the opposite - I'd typically think the Caucasian skin is one stop more than a gray card. But I understand the concept and reasons behind the Zone system.<br /> ____<br /> <br /> <em>Jeff Henderson -- </em> I agree with you 100% in your first post and the idea with measuring the number of frames with string is also interesting.<br /> <br /> Sometimes I've used a changing bag to either switch rolls in the middle of the roll or more often cut the roll already exposed (to put in a metal canister) and splice a new leader onto the remainder of the roll such that it will be processed differently.<br /> _____<br /> <br /> <em>Peter Korazan: "If so, is this true for slide and color print also?"</em> <br /> Yes definitely. This is way I prefer to do my own color processing and mix my own color developers . I have control over time, and developer activity.<br /> <br /> <em>"... I do not have the inclination to set up a dark room, for the same reason I do not like spending much time in the digital darkroom"</em> <br /> If you don't pay attention to these details - especially for some exposure situations, then you are compromising what your photos are capable of. I understand that it takes time to do away from the field - but think how many fewer shots Ansel Adams would have published if he only published normally exposed and developed shots.<br /> ____<br /> <br /> Now my controversial statement: <br /> Digital Sensors in digital cameras vary in their usable range, and much like that Super -XX film that was mentioned, sensors are getting to have a comparable or better range such that one shot, stored in RAW, has more than enough range to mimic the n-1, n+1 results. I still shot film - but I'm awaiting better and more affordable sensors.<br /></p>

<p>The other concern when seeing peeled leather on a used Minolta is that service may have been attempted but not completed. The first step to accessing some of the screws is to pull the leather back.</p>

<p>Get a cheap digital voltmeter connected to an extension cord (probes covered in electricians tape for safety) and check your AC line voltage at the times of day you plan to do prints. Check it many times over that period of time. If it is within two volts of staying the same then its probably stable enough as it is. It doesn't really matter what it is as you will be correcting for it - it just has to be consistent.</p>

<p>My son uses a Kodak Signet 40 I gave to him, making him study the details and classic rules of photography before he can use the digital camera I gave him.<br>

I use:<br>

Kodak Stereo camera (obviously this is for transparency film, but I have used print film in a bind forcing me to scan stereo pairs)<br>

Minolta SRT-101, Minolta XE-7e two I usually have Porta in one and an E6 film in the other (experimenting to replace Kodachrome)<br>

other Minolta's I have are in need of repair, same with my Praktica, but I will repair at least the Minolta Maxuum 5000 soon.<br>

For the fun of it I plan to experiment with my WWII era Petal spy camera as soon as I can find that missing magazine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Besides the color filters, the other difference in color enlargers is a consistent light source with a constant color. Some diffuse light B&W enlargers use fluorescent light that is notably inconsistent with color temperature and shifts as it warms up. I wouldn't even think of printing color with a fluorescent light. Color enlargers with incandescent light sources usually include a voltage regulator so that a voltage change in the buildings wiring do not change the brightness and also the color of the light from the bulb. If the voltage in your house/building is consistent 24/7 then this is not a concern.<br>

I would suggest, if your enlarger is rock solid, that using red/ blue / green filters in an additive way is less expensive than a subtractive filter set but requires three separate timed exposures with each print instead of one. If you get used to that work flow it can be quite easy although it precludes dodging. Much was written on this in the seventies and I used it just before I obtained a subtractive set. I almost preferred the additive method (I had the three filters on one long sliding filter holder so sliding from one to the next was quick.) but I wanted to try all the methods.<br>

Later I got a new enlarger with a color head. They are now inexpensive on ebay. I strongly advocate a color analyzer for use with the enlarger. Some include built in timers for the additive method, but most only provide suggested subtractive filter set recommendations.</p>

 

<p>Although somewhat dimmer, the f/4 lens from Kodak has obviously more depth of field and can therefore cardmount mounts/glass mounts do not matter. At least that has been my experience.<br>

Home viewing on a projected screen has not had competition in the past, however since large screen 1080p plazma displays are becoming quite common, their brightness competes with the f/4 choice though.</p>

 

<p>For home/hobby use I wouldn't worry about Kodak going after you even if you stated here that you were using a specific formula and listed it on a forum such as this -Kodak is not the RIAA after all.<br>

If you wanted to go into selling a developer - that's another story. (and questioanble in this digital age and financial stressed time in history)<br>

If you are a pro selling a large amount of photos processed with a patent infriged formula - that would be a legal liability, but I'm not sure of Kodak's history on attempting to recover in a situation such as that. They would have to find out about it first place somehow.<br>

But I'm not a lawyer - usual disclaimer here.</p>

 

<p>There is nothing you can do now, but I'd be more concerned by the light exposure you gave the unfixed film while examining it. Hopefully you used an acid stop-bath otherwise the residual developer in the emulsion will just continue developing it while sitting in the water bath -stand developing. There may be a problem with it anyway. I would have dried the film -in total darkness- and then continued with the fix at a later date. If you have a darkroom with a dark drying cabinet or double doors on your darkroom I would recomend drying now if the UPS shipment doesn't come.<br>

Incidently, the C41 fixer with B&W advice is good with the standard C41 fixer, not with the Blix (bleach and fix combined) chemicals often found in some home kits.</p>

 

<p><em>Patrick - "Kodachrome is impossible to shoot <br />It is impossible to still buy film<br />Kodak no longer makes film<br />You cannot have film processed<br />Film is dead<br />Slides are very complicated"</em><br>

Thats funny - I finished shooting a Kodachrome 64 earlier this year and the processing was great and seems no more complicated - maybe less complicated than a digital camera I recently used.. I didn't think it was difficult at all and sometimes I estimated the exposure and it still dame out great. This was with a manual Stereo camera and only 3 frame pairs had less than optimum exposure<em>.</em><br>

<em></em></p>

<p>Ususally I'm very fussy about exposure - however, one day I forgot my incident meter and the battery in Minota SRT was dead , and just got lazy - didn't even try that hard - exposures off in both directions - using Porta 160NC, the results were surprising, compared to 1970s Kodacolor.<br>

(It was in the 70s when I did most of my learnig about exposure details.)</p>

<p>Helps me understand how the disposables can be meterless.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a Vivitar VI enlarger with a color head, an 8X8 sheet of optical ground glass, and a few consumer grade scanners.<br>

So, I've thought about doing this a lot as I already have this equipment. The goal would be equal or better results than spending $ on a new scanner, Considering I have negs from 35mm to larger. <br>

My prelininary calculations, however, indicate that the light source is insufficient, and ironically the B&W head of the enlarger may have a brighter source, realizing the color correction need only be in the scanning software. So the project is on the back burner while I look for the old B&W never used head I stored away some where. <br>

The problem with translucent plastic , I think, is blooming - bright areas bleed to adjacent dark areas. The conecern with the optical ground glass - like the glass used as a focusing device in LF camera, it the individual pit size relative to projected film grain. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>You shouldn't be able to see digital artefacts in a small print. It says their Frontier is set to scan as fast as it can will a resulting small resolution. Fuji machines can be set for a much higher resolution. </p>

<p>I don't know if the Frontier machines can be set for borderless or not.</p>

<p>WalMart doesn't make it easy. There is no simple sign telling you about slide processes or other available services. And the clerk usually doesn't know. You just have to trust that when the envelope is filled out right you will have your film processed OK. So I wonder what the clerks are now saying about the 35mm camera - maybe something like "They now have these cameras that take film <i>and</i> have interchangable lenes <i>just like some of the digital cameras</i>!"</p>

<p>More importantly, most if not all disposables, contain a 35mm cartridge that is initially extracted when the camera is manufactured. Asyou take pictures the film is wound back into the cartridgewhere it is safe. So even if you break the camera apart the current photo could be destroyed along with a portion of the previous photo. But photos taken prior to that will be safe.</p>

<p>I have bought my Kodachrome from the Rochester Institute of Technology's book store the last few years. But last week when I was there the clerk, who is a photography student and generally knowledgeable (in all fairness I found he transferred to RIT) did not know Kodachrome was still available or that there was any way to process it anymore. He only knew that they hadn't had any in stock for months. This is not a good sign considering this is Rochester and RIT has connections with Kodak.</p>

<p>I see that nobody has responded yet -<br>

Answers for Terry Williams -<br>

1. more debris in metal than plastic? I don't know the source - the tank is clean and darkroom clean according to your post. But was the film clean when you started? So I don't think the tank was your problem. You say the plastic was easier for you - then go for it.<br>

2. Cleaning tanks is usually just rinse thouroughly and dry before next use. There is no problem with running them through the dishwasher, but I have used dish washing detergent and an old toothbrush to get scum off. Alcohol could also be used. Rinse after using any chemical cleaning agen. Some solvents like acetone could be used on the metal but definatly not on plastic - but I don't know why you would need to.<br>

3. Plastic reels will wear out eventually, but not before metal reels will probalby be accidently bent.:-) An residue buildup shuld be cleaned by the toothbrush method. I had that happen many years ago when a medical emergency caused me to leave a rolll of B&W in the tank with developer for - as it turned out -a month or so. Pieces of emulsion everywhere - but it still cleaned up.</p>

<p>Adriana - answer: No the film is ruined. Next time use the sendout envelopes. It should be safe once its dropped in the box.</p>

<p>I suppose the wisdom from the manufacturers side is that since films in the 100 speed range now have the grain that 25 speed grain used to. The demand for 25 speed film would drop below a profitable point. I suppose sales figures bear that out. But to some degree marketing plays into this, as profits for a specific film was projected to be less, advertising dollars for that film were not spent. Therefore to some degree it was a self fulling prophesy. Without advertising to the masses about advantages of slow speed film they are going to sell enough to provide a good price point.<br>

On the other hand look at what 800 speed film has done for the average consumer in a disposable camera -- The ability to get a good snapshot without as much camera motion concerns, with good depth of field (small cheap aperture - fixed focus) in subdued light. The average consumer assumes the higher speed number is better - even if it isn't for their particular purpose.<br>

I wonder what a 2010 version of Kodachrome 10 could like like --- just daydreaming:-)<br>

_____________________________<br>

But this is the B&W forum and the original question was about B&W.<br>

Kodak could produce an amazing recreation of Panatomic -X if it wanted to.<br>

The question was about LF film. The problem is the resolution of the typical 8x10 camera does not permit the fineness of grain of to be realized if it was available. That was the whole point of shooting LF - to bypass the grain. So 4x5 film today would be comparable to 8x10 many years ago.</p>

<p>The Kansas TV news gives an inside look to Kodachrome processing at Dwaynes.<br>

This link has a clip made last year, but the byline included the rumor that Kodachrome might not be supported by Kodak after 2009.<br>

http://www.kake.com/hattebergpeople/headlines/30496989.html</p>