joshx

If you decide to go with D76 or ID-11 (1:1), consider trying <a href="http://sprintsystems.com/filmdeveloper.htm">Sprint Systems Standard</a>. It is cheaper than D76 or ID-11 and yields similar results (my school darkroom supplies this to us).<P>

I use it at 1:9 with Pan-F+ (@ISO 25) for 5'40" at 68F, agitating the first 10 seconds, and for 10 seconds each minute thereafter. Ridiculously fine grain, but consequently not razor sharp: you will struggle to find any grain on an 8x10, but will think "This could use an unsharp mask."<P>

However, shooting at ISO 50 and developing for 8'30" at 68F will yield slightly grainier and sharper prints.

I second Doug's wish. Whenever people talk about places that are on their "must see" list I ask if they have been to the Grand Canyon. If they haven't, I tell them to go there because it is the most amazing thing I have ever seen.<P>

I had seen tons of photos and video footage of the Grand Canyon, and I still wasn't prepared for what I saw. Can you imagine what it must've been like for people exploring that region and coming across it, without any idea it even existed? Mind-blowing.<P>

Anyone reading this thread who hasn't been to the Grand Canyon, put it on the top of your "must see" list.

alice, scan the negative again after you turn it 180 degrees (half way around). if the line is in the same place then that means that it is on the negative. if the line is in a new place then it is the scanner. (note that this only works with off-center lines. if the line were in the center of the frame, turning the negative and rescanning wouldn't tell us anything.)<P>

my money is the scanner and not the negative.

I am amazed how good the images look. Who says you need to process your film right away? Thanks for sharing.

Adrian,

 

Try <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Gb1L">this</a> thread. I don't think any new dedicated film scanners for 645 (or any other medium format) have come out in the past 4 months, but somebody correct me if I am wrong. (I've been keeping an eye out for any new 6x9 scanners.)

Claudio, my only suggestion would be to shoot some more and have it processed. Perhaps you made a mistake when shooting the film? (It happens to all of us.) Or perhaps, the lab messed something up. It sounds as if you have plenty of film, so take a few test shots and keep a few for yourself to develop in B&W if that previously gave you some kind of result. Send the other few out for processing in E6 and unless the lab is making some sort of mistake, they should give you images. Sorry I can't be more helpful. If you find out what went wrong, please post the problem in this thread.

A 50mm (or 55mm or 60mm) is often called a "normal lens" and is perhaps the easiest to work with when learning photography because you can shoot subjects close up or from some distance.<P>

As Alan said, you can get a normal lens, telephoto lens, macro lens, wide angle lens, etc for any SLR. The part you are having trouble with is matching a lens to a body. There is one very easy way: buy a camera body with a lens as a kit.<P>

Unless you buy a camera body and lens which come together, you are going to have to research the compatibility of each lens you look at and the camera body. Sorry, but I have never come across a database that lists what type of mount every lens and camera has; there must be at least a thousand different SLR lenses and well over one hundred bodies.<P>

Again, as Alan said, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax bodies take lenses by the respective manufacturers as well as Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina lenses. However, not every Nikon lens will be compatible with every Nikon body; you'd still need to check this out if you wanted to buy a lens and body separately.<P>

If you don't want to research anything, haven't found an SLR body with lens combo that you like, and want someone else to just tell you what to get, then do this: buy <A href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=800475174&is=USE&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">this</a> used Pentax P3 camera body and either <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=800482660&is=USE&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">this</a> lens or <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=800488692&is=USE&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">this</a> lens. (If the links don't work, look in B&H's USED department; the camera is a Pentax P3 body for $69 and the lenses are Pentax 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.7 for $99 and $59 respectively.) The beauty of that camera is that not only does it allow fully manual control or program mode operation, but any Pentax K-mount lens will work with it, regardless of when it was made or what features it has. Of course, you can only use the features of a lens that the camera body and lens have in common. See <a href="http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/technology/summary/index.html">this chart</a> for details.

Karen, the "accordian leather part" is called the bellows, as Nick said. If it really is leather, then Neatsfoot will help loosen them up. But I would try to apply the oil and extend them only in baby steps to prevent cracking.<P>

And I second Charles that you should rewind and remove the film first.

Ron, a few months ago I bought some Velvia 100 off of eBay that had expired in 1996 but had been frozen the whole time. I shot a roll and was amazed at the lack of color shift. I develop my own E6, so I know the chemistry was fresh, which might have helped; or not. It looked awesome. I imagine your Provia is fine.

It could be a sticky shutter. I don't know about the shutter type of the Contax 139, so I can't say. But imagine that the shutter moved horizontal, but at an erratic speed - that could give the strange pattern you see.<P>

But, if there is banding on portions of the film outside of the image area, then it sounds like a light leak. Perhaps it is a faint leak, so unless the camera is in the sun or sitting on one frame for too long, you can get variation (snap off a few shots quickly in succession and the light leak is lessened on the ones that were 'exposed' only briefly to the faulty area.)<P>

Disclaimer: This has been my 2 minutes of rampant speculation for the day.

Wait. What is the exact type of film? This is film for making color duplicate slides? If so, it should be processed in E6. If however this is ortho it should be developed in B&W, and if it's internegative film you will probably need lith processing. You should use the processing chemistry recommended for the film if you want the best results.<P>

If you tell us more about the film perhaps we can help you better.

Juli, everyone has a favorite brand, and will recommend that brand, so you are probably going to get lots of different answers. Which is good as it will give you many cameras to research. ;) I would check out previous threads here on Photo.net because I am sure similar questions were asked more than a few times.<P>

Personally, I use a Pentax ME, but that's not autofocus so it won't help you. A used Canon EOS autofocus body can easily be under $100, which gives you enough money for a good prime lens (used of course).<P>

Perhaps one thing to consider is choosing an SLR system which allows you to re-use your lenses with a new body, if you should ever decide to upgrade. That way you don't have to buy all new lenses just because you picked up a newer body with all the bells and whistles.<P>

Hopefully other more knowledgeable people will chime in about their favorite student autofocus SLR system: I got into photography with a digital point-and-shoot camera, progressed to medium format, and now I am trying out 35mm. Methinks I am a rare animal.

Franklin, I've never used that camera, but browsing one of the <a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/folder.html">Medium Format Digest archives</a> reveals that at f/11 your lens should be pretty sharp, but is soft in the corners when wide open. (Search the page for "tourist" and keep hitting "find next" to read more about that specific camera.)

Alice, check out <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">The Massive Dev Chart</a> for info on all sorts of film and developer combinations (use the drop-down menus on the left). In the least, it offers a good starting point. Good luck!

<i>Other than some TLR's and modern MF cameras, no camera with a red window has a film advance stop.</i><P>

That is not necessarily true: I have been using a Kodak Medalist II quite a bit lately and it has a red window and a film advance stop. It just depends on whether you consider the Medalist a "modern MF camera". ;)

I have always found <a href="http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/photos/angles.html">this</a> webpage helpful in calculating field of view.

Herman, I have been using <a href="http://www.ptgui.com/">PTgui</a> for a few years, and I am very pleased with it (using v3.4!). The interface isn't entirely intuitive, but the help file is well written so it is easy to figure out.<P>

Hmm, I just checked the price (65 euros), and it has gotten more expensive since I first obtained it. Download the trial version and see if it is right for you.<P>

Perhaps you should check out Panorama Tools itself. PTgui is an interface for the free <a href="http://panotools.sourceforge.net/">Panorama Tools</a>. However, Panorama Tools is all command line driven, and this kept me from using it standalone. (There are free applications that help with picking control points and such.) Also, there are free downloadable Panorama Tools plugins for Photoshop and the GIMP.<P>

It's been a while since I looked for panoramic stitching software as I am happy with mine, so I am curious as to see what other people recommend. Good luck!<div></div>

So I refixed a portion of the film for 4 minutes, washed using the Ilford method, and the piece is clear, and stayed that way for more than 24 hours. So my best guess is that there was still some residual chemistry that didn't get washed out, causing the film to acquire a pink tint within 24 hours of drying, even though it was completely clear.<P>

Thanks for the suggestions and help. Without a mentor in the traditional sense, books and the internet have taught me what I know about photography. Yes, this bodes ill. ;)

I don't see a problem with using the chrome and desaturating it for an assignment or making B&W prints. Unless you claim that you used B&W film; lying is unethical, in my opinion.<P>

I thought that both sets of images were very similar looking, surprisingly (as you said). The T-Max appeared to have more shadow detail in the full frame image, but in the detail images I saw no real difference in that regard.<P>

However, there are two potential problems that I see:<P>

1. Desaturating the chrome to mimic the film response of B&W is fine and good if you have an identical image shot with B&W film and can adjust the channels appropriately. I have not seen a very reliable "magic bullet" approach to duplicating the film response of B&W from a color image, but if you have one, then it will be fine. (I haven't looked very hard in the last year and a half either.) If you do have a method, I would like to know. ;)<P>

2. Sadly, Velvia 50 will only get more scarce in 120, as Fuji no longer makes it (at least it isn't listed on their website anymore as one of their professional film products). A different chrome film might not perform as well, so you should try another one out.

Dean, thanks for the photos. That is not what my lens cap looks like. Now I am annoyed (not at you, of course). I will pursue a refund.

Richard, definitely hit Maligne Lake, Lake Louise, and Mt Edith Cavell.<P>

I don't know how much of a hiker you are, but generally if you are willing to hike a bit in the Canadian Rockies you can get much better shots than those near the road.<P>

For instance, I took <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4842887">this shot</a> from the trail which goes around behind Mt Edith Cavell (can't remember the name of the trail). Well, actually I took the photo just after I descended the mountain, but I believe I was on/near the trail when I took it.<P>

(I have learned much from PN since I stitched together that shot, and looking at it now I should go back and adjust the curves to make it less contrasty and adjust the saturation to tone it down a bit. But I was young and foolish.)<P>

Enjoy your trip!

Thanks Doug. I will check them out at B&H.

Eldad, I forgot to add <a href="http://kcbx.net/~mhd/2photo/outneg/outneg.htm">this link</a> as well. (Another explanation.)

There are two ways to do this: find someone with a slide printer or print your own. I have never done the former, but I know people who have. It can be expensive and difficult to track down someone who can do this.<P>

As for the latter, George is right: Dan is the man at this. His page is <a href="http://www.danburkholder.com/Pages/main_pages/book_info_main_page1.htm">here</a>. Note that he does contact printing with the negatives. If you want to project them, you might have to modify some aspects of the process (print smaller and potentially sacrifice resolution, but if you're printing on wood you won't notice).<P>

Basically you have to prepare your digital file, invert the image to create the negative image, print that on a transparency with an inkjet printer, and then use the transparency as a negative. That's the simplified explanation.<P>

If you are trying to be really precise, you need to calibrate the process, which can be a bit of work. However, once you do that you are good to go if you keep your materials the same.<P>

Good luck and have fun!

OK. So the concensus is that I didn't wash enough, and probably didn't fix long enough. Good to know for next time.

 

Rolf, the stop bath was continuous agitation and I used Sprint's stop bath, which is acidic.

 

George, I will try refixing a piece today or tomorrow and I will post my results.

 

I printed through the pink tinge easily enough (of course one could argue the advantages of colorless negatives), but I don't want to affect the archivability of my negatives. So I will modify my film developing regimen and use the Ilford washing method.

 

Thanks again to everyone who responded.