andy_evans

Hello friends,

I recently jumped on a chance to purchase an enlarger with several lenses for less than $100, but it unfortunately came not attached to a base board, as the included instruction manual shows. The base of my enlarger is a hollow cylinder, essentially, that seems to want a very solid cylinder to attach to and make its life complete.

Searching eBay for 'base' or 'mount' has mainly turned up auctions for the film holders. I can't imagine a perfect-diameter slice of PVC pipe glued to a board would work? I'm not particularly crafty for a B&W photographer. Thank you for any suggestions.

(I hope this post is in the right place. I couldn't find any relevant topics in Equipment, or find any subforums in B&W).

I was going to do a roll of ATP in my typical Fx2, with reduced agitation. I always do a pre-soak with reduced agitation. The only

arguments against it are that it might be unnecessary, not harmful (Film D Cookbook, for example). But Rollei specifically warns against

a pre wash. Kodak's TP needed to be dropped into the developer in the dark to ensure even development. Any guesses as to why a pre

wash could hurt?

Thanks

Andy

<p>Hello friends,<br>

I've looked at the latest Darkroom Cookbook, which includes many new developers, but each is only given a brief blurb supplied by its creator, followed by a recipe.<br>

The Film Developing Cookbook was very useful to me for its conceptual division of developer types--soft grain, high definition, etc. But the new Darkroom Cookbook blurb for PC-TEA, for example, only mentions "HP5 grain is only apparent at 20x enlargement! etc." There is no helpful categorizing. (I am not, unfortunately, at the expert level at which I can read the ingredients, judge the sulfite level, etc. and categorize it myself).<br>

There are many useful posts here, of course, on Film A: Developer B or C: A Comparison. But is there anything like the Film Developing Cookbook, with categorizations and analysis of developer action, but including recent developers?<br>

Thank you,<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Hello friends,<br>

I have some rolls I never got around to developing, which have now been sitting around for 5 to 6 years since exposure. Most are slow or very slow conventional grain films, no T-Max or Delta. I haven't kept them in an oven, but they certainly have been above 68 degrees at some point.<br>

What goes wrong with old film? I imagine I'm losing some speed, but I'm not sure what else. More fog and grain?<br>

I typically use high definition developers with reduced agitation, as I'm often developing rolls with different contrast ranges and I shoot my 120 film on a Rollei without an internal light meter and thus need a bit of wiggle room. <br>

Pyrocat-HD, FX-1 and FX-2 are my go-to developers, but I've read that Pyrocat (contrary to the boxed instructions?) requires increased exposure and I'm guessing these not-so-fresh rolls may have lost some sensitivity. I'd love to try Hypercat someday, but don't trust myself to mix it without killing or maiming myself.<br>

And whatever the developer, should I extend development and/or dilute the developer to compensate for the age of the film?</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

Andy</p>

<p>A friend and I are building a scanner cam (http://golembewski.awardspace.com/) -- hacking a LIDE scanner, that is, and using it as a digital back. Right now, in keeping with the DIY aesthetic, the camera body is two cardboard boxes and the lens is from a magnifying glass. But we're looking to upgrade!<br>

I wish I had an enlarger lens to hold up in front of a bright window and see what kind of image it projects. But I don't, sooo. . . <br>

---> Do enlarger lenses project a large enough image for our use -- at least a 5" diameter circle, I guess? I'm guessing the 150mm for 4x5 negatives have the most coverage.<br>

---> Could an old enlarger serve as a passable view camera? It's got a lens, bellows, and a rail, after all. We wouldn't need a ground glass back, after all.<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

Andy</p><div></div>

<p>Hello,<br>

I'm a high school photo teacher, looking to set up the most basic studio for my students to photograph each other. Just a backdrop, a primary light, and a reflector. Or two lights if they're cheap.<br>

1. Is there a way I can do this with ordinary off-the-shelf lighting -- just find a strong, even light, and improvise a diffusion material? We'll be shooting B&W, so no worries about the light temperature. And I'm thinking lighting for portraits, shoulders-up, or still lives, so I don't believe I need a huge amount of wattage.<br>

2. Alternately, what's the most basic light on the market? I tried navigating the B&W options but just couldn't make any sense of the results I was getting.<br>

For a backdrop, giant pieces of white or black paper will do, right?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance,</p>

<p>Andy</p>

<p>My instructions say minimal agitation (every 3 minutes) should only be used if adjusted development time is at least 15 minutes. With some low speed film shot in full sunlight, even 15 minutes is giving me more density in the highlights than I need.<br>

I've been agitating for the first 60 seconds, then switching to 10 seconds agitation every 3 minutes. No signs of streaking or uneven development. This is with distilled water, tall Paterson tank, about 4 rolls at once, 68 to 70 degrees.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Aperture is warning me that some of my unadjusted 16-bit gray scans have hot and cold areas. The manual doesn't exactly go on at length about hot and cold areas, saying that they represent information at the limits or beyond Aperture's working color space. Will a 16- bit scan from Vuescan, with correct auto-levels, ever give me hot and cold areas? <br>

Is Aperture really just warning me of undifferentiated areas? I made a relatively flat scan of an underexposed negative, so that no area scanned as pure black. Aperture warned me about a shadow area, which was, indeed, virtually transparent on the negative. But I had not adjusted the scanning exposure to put it near a 0% black.<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your replies. Thinking back, I did force the 35mm onto the reel a bit. I'm relieved that it was a loading problem, which is easy to fix.<br>

The 120 rolls in the same batch showed the same magenta cast. Once I saw that, I slammed the lid back on, and fixed for an additional two minutes, but with the same batch of fixer. I'll try re-fixing in a fresh batch.</p>

<p>Pyrocat HD in glycol<br>

Summary: As you can see below, I've got these odd areas of stain/no-silver bleeding into the frame from top or bottom. My first guess is an agitation problem, second is semi-exhausted fixer. The details:</p>

<p >My first try with Pyrocat with four 35mm rolls turned out very well. A day later I processed 3 more rolls, but I must have made some terrible mistake. The film base is (correctly) pure black only in the horizontal border between frames. The vertical borders are a very solid stain that bleeds into the frame itself.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I developed in a large Paterson plastic tank. I mixed the developer with distilled water, and used it at 75 degrees. I used minimal development, as outlined in the instructions, agitating every three minutes. After pouring in the developer, I agitated for thirty seconds. Development was sixteen minutes. For four 35mm rolls, I calculated 1200 mL solution. The second day, for two 120s and a 35mm, I calculated 1300mL solution. This may have been pushing it. I noticed when I poured out the developer that the tank was quite full. Too full for proper agitation maybe?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >My first tanning developer was Precysol, and I had streaking problems. I wrote to Peter Hogan (I'd bought Precysol from his distributor before I realized you sold it) and he said sprocket streaks were definitely due to under agitation. My agitation method then was what I grew up using -- about one inversion per second.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So I used a much more vigorous agitation this time around -- closer to cocktail shaking. 1200 - 1300 mL is a lot of liquid to move around! This was pretty vigorous, but like I said, the first batch turned out great!</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I used distilled water as a stop bath each time. I fixed with TF-4 for four minutes. The first day I mixed it fresh, then kept the working solution for the second day. (The instructions say each liter of working solution can fix upwards of 1200 square inches of film. I calculated 35mm to be roughly 50 to 60 square inches, so that's a lot of film, right?) The TF-4 instructions say agitate for 30 seconds out of every minute, so I did that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I hope I'm not leaving anything out. It was hotter the second day, so I stuck my working developer in the freezer for 15 minutes to cool it down.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I know initial agitation is crucial. The large Paterson tanks make me a bit nervous, because it takes a good 10 seconds for 1200mL of developer to spiral down the funnel and into the tank. Then another five seconds to get the lid on, which never seem to fit properly. And with inversion, a little developer always leaks out! I have since checked the Film Developing Cookbook, and they say if it takes longer than 10 seconds to pour in the chemistry, you should agitate for the first 60 seconds. So I'll try that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you have any suggestions, it would be a great help. I have no real experience with tanning developers.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >[On second look, I see that the problematic stain is magenta, and Pyrocat is supposed to have a tannish stain. I'm very confused).</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thanks in advance,</p>

<p >Andy</p>

Thanks, good suggestions all around. I emailed Emil, I hope I'll hear from him. Tomorrow I can try out elevated

temperatures.

I did a scan on my cheap flatbed, no tweaks or sharpening, from the first trial run, above. Some parts of it I like.

http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=y3ctpbdrrt3&thumb=5<div></div>

I love Gerhard Richter's paintings. I believe he just squeegees them when they're still wet. I'm wondering if there is any way to do

something similar with film -- nothing quite so dramatic, just moving the emulsion a few millimeters or so. But I know emulsion is designed

to stay solidly in place.

I have some soft emulsion film, Adox's Ortho 25 ("handle wet film very carefully; a hardening fixer is recommended"). I gave it a 5 minute

presoak, and tried both squeegee-ing and scraping before loading it on a reel and developing. I figured if I did this pre-development, I could

still get some interesting edge effects in an acutance developer, that would clash with the actual blurred subject matter.

Well, the squeegee had no effect -- it just glided across the wet emulsion, even when I applied a lot of pressure. And scraping with a

plastic edge did exactly that -- removed the emulsion entirely in streaks. Perhaps I will try something more variegated, like steel wool.

So, no luck with smearing yet. Should I try warmer water for the presoak? What happens to the emulsion with increased temperature? I

know basic developing technique warns us to avoid major shifts in temperature during the process.

Thanks for any suggestions.

Best,

Andy

Richter examples:

http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423817074_305104_gerhard-richter.jpg

http://www.skd-dresden.de/media/300_nm-richter-pr01.jpg

Thanks, Chris and Lex. Looks like if I want to try "real" stand development, a different developer might be in order. I

have some FX2 coming in the mail, and I also like what I've read about GSD-10.

I did get a chance to work with metal reels, with practice film, and it was a bit intimidating. Not sure if I want to risk

crinkled film until I get very good at it.

I emailed Peter Hogan with my problem, including the details above, and he gave me one straight-up answer, so here it

is, for the sake of posterity and future searchers: agitate more!

"Hi Andy, suprisingly, sprocket streaks are due to under-agitation! The recommended agitation technique for partial-stand

is very close to minimum, and it is easy to go under by being just a bit too careful. Try agitating a bit more - you won't

hurt the film and you should eliminate the streaking.

Regards,

Peter

So I guess I'll go back to the shake-it-like-a-cocktail-shaker agitation I did as a beginner.

Thanks for the quick responses, Randall and Lex. I pre-soak the film for at least 3 minutes before starting. The partial-

stand development is the recommended one in the Precysol instructions, so the developer should theoretically thrive with

minimal agitation. The directions: continuous agitation for the first minute, then 10 seconds for every three minutes

thereafter. I am actually turning the tank on its head and back -- 3 inversions over the course of 10 seconds.

Now that I think of it, the streaks are worst when I develop a 35mm roll by itself. For the roll pictured above, I used a

medium-sized tank to allow room for the developer to go somewhere when I inverted the tank, but I didn't put an empty reel

on top. I've heard such a "spaceholder" reel can keep the reel with film on it from moving, but I don't really see how this

could happen, the reel fits around the column pretty snug-ly. It seems like an empty reel on top might inhibit the chemical

flow even more.

I got the best results when I put a 35mm roll on top of a 120 roll in one tank.

Sounds like metal reels are a good bet, so here's my dumb question, since I've never examined them closely: do they have

a mechanism like plastic reels that advance the film with a twist of the wrist, or are they just a solid piece of metal that you

push the film into by hand? Do you disassemble them to pull out the delicate wet film when you're done, just like plastic

reels?

I'm having some problem with sprocket hole streaks in 35mm. I'm using the partial-stand development method, with plastic reels and

tank. I'm pre-soaking the film, using repeated water rinses for a stop bath, and Kodak Rapid fixer (I've just purchased an alkaline fixer

and will be able to switch over to it from now on). I've been taught that sprocket streaks are often due to over-agitation, but that doesn't

seem to be the case here; the streaks have less density than the surrounding area. I agitate using "gentle" inversions with a half-twist.

I use a community darkroom , so it's possible the reels aren't 100% clean. Would the pre-wash negate this, though? I've also heard that

plastic reels inhibit the free flow of chemicals more than metal reels. I do have metal reels available and could make the switch.

The water is filtered, but Napa Valley is somewhat notorious for minerals in the water. I could try switching to bottled distilled water.

Thanks in advance.

Example:

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6985/sprocket2xy2.jpg

I was happy to find these developers still made by Photographer's Formulary. I'm particularly interested in using minimal agitation to

maximize sharpness and edge effects, but I'm worried about uneven development. Precysol is my current favorite developer, but I still

sometimes get sprocket streaks with my 35mm rolls.

The FX1 instructions suggests agitation every other minute for maximum sharpness. I use plastic tanks, and agitate with "gentle"

inversions followed by a small twist -- about 3 seconds for each repetition. I have heard of the twirly attachments that can be used with

tanks; please let me know if you have had good experiences with them. I have never used metal tanks, but have access to them. My

photography teacher once mentioned that plastic reels impede even circulation more than metal reels do.

Digitaltruth unfortunately sent me 777 instead of FX2 so I don't have their instructions. The Film Developing Cookbook doesn't say a whole

lot about stand development: use a prewash, agitate continuously for 60s, then leave it for an hour or more, with a water bath if necessary.

Please let me know if you have any additional tips.

I shoot mainly medium format. I'm planning to try Rollei's Pan 25 in both developers.

This will also be my first time mixing my own developers. I plan to use distilled water; let me know if there are any beginner's mistakes I

should watch out for.

Thanks in advance!

Andy

The Film Developing Cookbook lists it as "engraving-like gradation" ie biting grain, very high

apparent sharpness.

But I read through some posts here and no one mentioned these characteristics.

Thanks!

Andy

After working in MF with a TLR's normal lens for years, I was surprised I could get a long lens in the

Konica Omega Rapid without paying a small fortune, as I would with a Hasselblad, etc.

I've seen the camera invariably described as an excellent wedding camera, which surprised me. The

minimum focus distance isn't particularly close -- the closest framing one could manage would be a waist

up shot of the subject, with plenty of room above the head.

I wouldn't expect a rangefinder to do close close-ups, but this seems quite limiting. Am I missing

something?

And an aside: is the 58mm wide angle much rarer than the normal and long lenses? I got my camera and

2 lenses for under $200, with plenty of chances on eBay. I only see one wide lens available for $500.

Thanks for reading.

Andy

Hello,

I looked for recommendations for commercial labs in the Gearing Up or Learning sections, but didn't find

anything; please tell me if I overlooked such a page.

I'd like to get a 2 1/4 color negative scanned and printed to 16". I don't mind sending it out, so anywhere

in the country is fine.

I've gotten scans from West Coast Imaging in the past, and to be honest, I probably don't need quite that

level of quality. The photo in question was taken on a tripod, but at 2sec or so, with a relatively shallow

aperture.

Thanks in advance,

Best,

Andy

Thanks, guys.

I've actually had no light leak problems with my Holga, and I don't tape the back or the

exposure number window.

I'm not so experienced with Photoshop, but I could give that a shot. How can Photoshop

interpret which subjects (living/dead/foliage/skin/sky) to render as bright (rich in infrared

reflection)?