paul swenson

I would highly encourage you to go to Kodak's website and read the

data posted there regarding X-tol, dilutions, storage. Many of the

above concerns are addressed there. Developing times are posted for

many of the common films, including Ilford, Agfa and others.

I used to work at a lab that used the Jobo CPP-2, so I'm sold on rotary processors. I'm looking to purchase a unit for myself and the CPE-2 is more in my budget, but obviously a step down from what I'm used to as far as agitation and temperature control. I would be using this unit for processing B/W film and perhaps some c-41, specifically XP2 or T400CN. I'm not to familiar with this unit except what I've read on Jobo's website. I run a small portrait/wedding photography business, so I need something consistent, durable, and reliable. A good unit?

Jim's advice is of course excellent, and the most practical for a

consistent workable solution. Regarding the Omni-bounce ,I've heard

you can make your own for a couple of dollars by cutting off the

bottom of a plastic bottle of rubbing alcohol, or similar, with a

smoky white plastic and big enough when cut off to slip over your

flash head. I agree though that these work better with horizontal

framing. I personally prefer a flash that swivels, not just for

vertical bounce, but for rear bounce with horizontal framing.

Some photographers swear by a little device called the Stofen(sp?)

Omni bounce. It is a relatively inexpensive plastic diffuser which

slips on over the flash head. When the flash is fired, light is

sprayed in all directions, that is, in front, up, and behind you. I

believe this is most effective when used in a room, where there are

walls and ceilings to act as reflectors as opposed to outdoors. In

the absence of a swiveling flash, this might be the next best thing.

Stofen does have a website, I'm sorry I don't know the address though.

For anyone checking back, here is the email response I recieved from

Sigma regarding this problem.

 

<p>

 

Dear Sirs,

 

<p>

 

Thank you very much for your E-mail.

 

<p>

 

First of all, we regret very much that our customer had such a

trouble with

the Sigma product.

 

<p>

 

Your lens is required for free upgrade to be compatible with Canon

Elan7

camera, therefore,

 

<p>

 

we kindly ask you to return the product to Sigma Corporation of

America.

 

<p>

 

It will take 3-4 days for returning.

 

<p>

 

You cannot control exposure, therefore, please do not take a picture

with

 

<p>

 

the lens and Elan 7 camera. You will get over exposed picture.

 

<p>

 

Kind Regards,

 

<p>

 

SIGMA Corporation of America

Service Department

15 Fleetwood Court

Ronkonkoma,NY 11779

U.S.A.

 

<p>

 

Tel: 631 585-1144

 

<p>

 

Fax: 631 585-1895

 

<p>

 

http://www.sigma-photo.com

Thanks all. Yah, it is a 105, not a 100. I discovered the problem

just yesterday with slide film in the camera. Thanks Roger for the

eye opening info. I just emailed Sigma concerning this problem and

if anyone is interested I will post back with there response.

 

<p>

 

-Paul

Testing out my recently purchased Elan 7E, I found that the depth of field preview doesn't work with my Sigma EX 100mm 2.8 macro. It works however with all my Canon EF lenses. I put my Sigma lens on my EOS 3, and it stops down fine with the DOF preview on that camera. Anybody know what gives? Could this be something peculiar to the 7E?

I have a Rolleiflex Xenotar 3.5, circa 1961 - same thing, the word imprinting on the edge of the film does bleed into the very very edge of the exposed image. It's never really bothered me though, and hasn't proved to be a problem for me.

The film flatness issue is one of the arguments for digital (filmless) cameras, where this is a non-issue. I'm including a website address for a rather lengthy and technical article on film flatness, but informative none the less:

 

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/flat.html

Here is an address you may want to check out-

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/flat.html

I highly reccomend you go to http://www.photo.net/photo/ and search the

archives as the chromagenic films have been discussed considerably

there.

Process one of the rolls and you can check for fogging. Obviously

you should see nothing but clear film base.

I think it's been shown that standard x-ray baggage scanners will not

harm film, especially just one time through. Recently a new

highpowered anti-terrorist scanner has been placed in airports around

the world. It pre-scans with a low powered sweep and if it detects

anything suspicious it hits with a high powered scan which will

definitely fog film, whether it's in a film shield bag or not.

 

<p>

 

Chances are the machine you checked your film through was not one of

these. But the moral of the story, whenever possible have your film

or camera bag, hand inspected.

The drive button which controls single shot "s" vs consecutive

shooting "c" should also have a third option, a little clock symbol,

that's your self timer setting.

John, I would hope that Edward doesn't aspire to be a Bresson or a

Newton or a Gibson. What's the point of trying to copy someone

else's style? All those aforementioned photographers sought out to

define the singular clarity of their own vision. (Which, by the way,

all artists should do: Edward, myself, anyone). This is why to a

certain extent when one runs into criticism that's so diametrically

opposed to what one is doing I think you have to take it with a big

grain of salt.

 

<p>

 

There are many different approaches to portraiture that are valid.

When I look at Edward's portrait, I don't see it as something done by

a polished professional. I see something experimental in nature,

with both merits and flaws. So do I judge it by the same criterion

that I would judge a published print made by Ralph Gibson? I don't

think so.

 

<p>

 

Now if you are going to come back with a response saying that you do

not compromise you critical opinions no matter what the context of

the work is because that would compromise you integrity, then we just

simply disagree on approach.

 

<p>

 

My comparison of Edward to the "rest of us" in this forum is not an

accusation of mediocrity, that is unless you are assuming that we are

all mediocre. I am assuming this forum is made up of photographers

of many skill levels, but with a common love (hope that's not too

warm and fuzzy). It's just that I assumed that none of us are dead

or famous. I apologize to anyone if that's not true.

 

<p>

 

You obviously have put a lot of thought into your subsequent posts

on this thread, and they offer some valid opinions on style and

criticism, but my major objection was to your first post which was

blatantly adversarial and counterproductive to this forum.

 

<p>

 

To Edward; I obviously don't know you, and I feel that you're name

is being batted around like a beach ball, Thanks for inadvertantly

creating an interesting and thought provoking discussion.

The original darker photo has lots of merit. To simply dismiss it as

a "bad Picture" strikes me as a real ego trip on the part of whoever

would say that. I mean, who are we critiquing? Are we to hold

Edward to the same standards as Avedon or Bresson. C'mon this is

just a guy who shares a common interest with the rest of us.

 

<p>

 

Taking a Vince Lombardi approach to this forum when giving critiques

is absurd. Besides even Lombardi gave pats on the back once in a

while. The tough love approach to critiquing or teaching is such a

cliche, great for anecdotes and the movies, but otherwise totally

overrated.

 

<p>

 

This photo has great mood. I don't mind at all that their is very

little if any shadow detail on the shadow side of the face. I feel

that the imaged should be cropped to exclude the lower two thirds of

the image. But we all realize this is a polaroid, no negative in

which to make a cropped print or mainipulate image densities, and 4x5

to boot, technically a very challenging medium. Is it a perfect

photo? No. Am I going to patronize Edward with a condescending

lecture on what philosophy he should engender to become a great

photographer? No.

 

<p>

 

This thread demonstrates there are many varied opinions when it comes

to critiquing a single image. It takes a lot of temerity for one to

shout that his is the only right one.