michael_madio

<p>"I don't care if it flashes with my camera, it just be on like a flash light" ... are you looking for a constant light source or a flash/strobe?</p>

<p>If looking for a flash it might be easier to rent another SB800. The QFlash gives you more power. How will you trigger the flash?</p>

<p>Yes, that I know. You can get active development with just ascorbate provided the pH is high enough. What intrigues me here is the low pH and evident activity ... I simply do not expect anything this active at a pH of 7.2 (near neutral).</p>

<p>Ahh ok ... thanks for the clarification. My motivation for a two part developer is curiosity. I wanted to see if I could get a Diafine-like developer with Phenidone and Vit-C that hopefully has similar characteristics (full speed, fine grain, compensation, etc.). My aim would be for a 6-10 minute developer.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=557681">Lowell Huff</a>: Sorry, I'm a bit short on Caffeine right now so I'm not getting it ... why what?</p>

<p>Diafine A for 45 mins I can understand (still a bit surprising but it is quite slow) but the activity with just phenidone+c+bicarbonate is in the range of a "normal" 8-10 min developer.</p>

<p>Disclaimer: I am no chemist, not even remotely close. This is just me monkeying around in ignorant bliss. Please correct me where my thoughts and assumptions are incorrect.<br /><br />Assumption #1: Phenidone-C developers need a pH upwards of 8 for active development. I've concocted and tweaked a few developers based on this assumption and it has worked out well (could just be dumb luck!).<br /><br />Here's where it gets interesting. I thought of trying a phenidone-c divided developer with phenidone+ascorbate in part A and alkali in part B. My proposed two-part developer is as follows:<br /><br />Part A:<br />Ascorbic Acid - 80g<br />Sodium Bicarbonate - 60g<br />Water - 750mL (make sure all is dissolved and effervescence stops)<br />Phenidone - 1g<br />Water to make 1L<br /><br />Part B:<br />Sodium Hydroxide - 1.45g<br />Borax - 6.92g<br />Water to make 1L<br /><br />Develop for 5 mins in each solution.<br /><br />The idea here being to make a highly concentrated part A to get a bunch of developing agents in the film and part B will increase the pH to make the developing agents active. As a point of reference a developer with 1g/L ascorbic acid + 0.025g/L phenidone + alkali (e.g. borax, carbonate) is very active.<br /><br />I tested this on small scale (100mL) with film clips just as an indication of activity. I expected to see no activity when in part A and see the film blacken when in part B. However, after about 2 mins in part A, the film was nearly black. At first I thought I contaminated part A causing the pH to go up but I checked with a calibrated meter and it showed 7.2 ... pretty much what I expected.<br /><br />So with my divided developer idea aside, does it make any sense that I saw active development in part A at such a low pH? This obviously disproves my earlier assumption but does anyone know what the active range for a phenidone-ascorbate developer is?</p>

<p>N.B. I posted this on APUG as well in hopes of getting more feedback.</p>

<p>Define better ... the 1D series are more different than they are better. What improvements are you looking for?</p>

<p>It's known as digiscoping ... see here: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digiscoping">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digiscoping</a></p>

<p>No issues with 320TXP on a metal reel ... haven't tried with plastic.</p>

<p>Re Caffenol ... it's not the caffeine ... others have tried caffeine pills without success. It's most likely the caffeic acid and other unknown "stuff" that occurs naturally in the coffee (some speculate it's chemically similar to catechol). The soda makes the solution alkaline (coffee is acid) and puts the pH in a range (pH 9+) to make it photographically active. Soda is not a developing agent on it's own, it's an accelerator. Look at <a href="http://caffenol.blogspot.com/">http://caffenol.blogspot.com/</a> for some good info and examples of what can be done.</p>

<p>Re paracetamol, it works well once converted to p-aminophenol with lye. Parodinal (<a href="http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html#Parodinal">http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions%20and%20Times.html#Parodinal</a>) is one recipe that works like Rodinal. I also worked with a p-aminophenol/vit-c/borax developer called TCB which is documented here: <a href="http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/03/tylenol-and-ascorbate-it-works.html">http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/03/tylenol-and-ascorbate-it-works.html</a> . I have used both Parodinal and TCB with success.</p>

<p>No sophisticated lab required for any of this. All you really need is a scale, pH meter, and graduates. You can now get accurate scales and pH meters that can be calibrated via eBay for little cost.</p>

<p>The general sentiments of taking your time, learning what you actually need, and concentrating on clients from the previous comments is very sound. However, if you would like to get equipped right off the bat I have a few practical suggestions (take it all with a grain of salt ... it's my opinion only and may not be suitable/practical for you at all).</p>

<p>From a computer perspective, skip Photoshop and go for Lightroom. It will do at least 90% of what you need and the workflow is better. You can always add Photoshop or Elements later if necessary. You should consider data backups ... even something as simple as a few external drives to copy your data is good (2+ TB drives are inexpensive now).</p>

<p>From a camera perspective, go with a mid-range Nikon or Canon body. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the other brands but Nikon/Canon are the dominant professional systems making it easier to find/trade used gear (a very good way to save $$$) and finding rentals is easier. You will need extra memory cards and batteries.</p>

<p>From a lens perspective, avoid the kit lens and go with something f/2.8 or faster. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 + Canon/Nikon 85/1.8 lenses have pro level image quality and can easily cover an entire wedding without issue. If you want super-wide angle look at the Sigma 8-16/4.5-5.6 and if you want longer focal length look at the Sigma 50-150/2.8. You can always go for the Nikon/Canon versions of these lenses as they generally are better but cost more. In practical use (8x10 prints or web) the difference in image quality is negligible and often imperceptible.</p>

<p>From a lighting perspective, get the top-of-the-line system flash (Nikon SB-800/SB-900 or Canon 580EX II). You might be tempted to start with a less expensive model but you will realize their short-comings as you progress and buy this in the end. These flashes provide two very important functions, tilt-swivel head and focus-assist. The tilt-swivel feature will let you use bounce flash (walls/ceilings) to make flattering light. The focus-assist will help when shooting in low light such as some wedding ceremonies or receptions. If you want to get into pro style portraits you will need off-camera lighting. A simple setup with an umbrella, light stand, and long sync cord can produce pro level portraits. Lighting can literally make or break a photo. In many cases a photo shot with good lighting and entry level camera+lens will look much better than the same photo with poor light and top end camera+lens.</p>

<p>When shooting one-time events such as weddings you will need backup gear so you can continue shooting when equipment fails. Unfortunately, in practical terms this means you need to buy 2x your core gear. A budget-friendly option is to rent the extra gear and factor those costs into your prices. If you really want to stretch your purchasing budget you should consider buying used. Also consider that you don't necessarily need to have the latest body for high quality work. You can often buy a used body that is one/two generations old for half the price of a new current generation body. An older body with good lenses and good lighting can easily produce great results and the money you save can be put towards redundant gear or additional lenses (you might want to overlap here ... e.g. the 85/1.8 and 50-150/2.8 can cover each other in a pinch) and lighting.</p>

<p>Potassium bromide is a common restrainer ... it's typically used in film developers to reduce fog (not always needed) and in print developers. Typical amount is 0.5-1.0g/L.</p>

<p>I use a Qflash in a Softlighter. I made a simple L bracket to hold the Qflash horizontally and use the bare bulb similar to what Nadine shows with the Sunpak 120J. It works quite well.</p>

<p>An aspect of flash photography that's often forgotten is that it's more than just something to use when needed, it can be used as a distinct part of your palette. You can use flash to create interesting light that did not otherwise exist. Two very good resources are http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/ and http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</p>

<p>To address the original question, is it possible ... yes, but why limit yourself? </p>

<p>Try Google Picasa (free) or Adobe Lightroom (not free).</p>

<p>As BeBu mentioned it is normal and mentioned in the manual (x-sync). If you want to shoot at a higher shutter speed with flash read about 'Auto FP High Speed Sync'.</p>

<p>According to the documentation the Metz 45 CL-4 Digital and 76 MZ-5 flashes are compatible with just about everything, even digital.</p>

<p>Ilford XP2 Super and Kodak BW400CN are C-41 black-and-white films that may work for you. One option is to use regular colour C-41 film and convert to black-and-white later. Another option is to use real B&W film such as the TMAX you mentioned and process it yourself (it's very easy and requires minimal equipment and chemicals).</p>

<p>Keep your chemicals at room temperature (~20C). I did the marbles thing a long time ago and it got annoying. Butane gas (BBQ lighter) works well to keep oxygen from photo chems.</p>

<p>Read this ... http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/</p>

<p>Even better ... http://www.adorama.com/ROSB.html ... use the CTO filters.</p>

<p>The first priority is to maximize sharpness at the film plane. This takes some experimenting with film holders and adjustments but it's very important. Once you have that worked out, scan at the highest optical resolution (I believe it's 4800 ppi with this model) and down-sample by 50% or more. Don't use any software enhancements (sharpness, grain reduction, dust removal, etc.), save the files as 16-bit TIFF, and post-process them in something like Lightroom or Photoshop Elements to make adjustments for levels, contrast, sharpening, etc.</p>

<p>There are file encryption utilities available (e.g. openssl, aescrypt) that work well or even 7-zip that has AES encryption built in.</p>

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=528518">Dave Luttmann</a>: Thanks for the correction ... I often get PPI and DPI mixed up. You're absolutely correct in that the scanner also needs to be set for the correct media and detect the proper film holder to use the high-res lens. Practical resolution is arguably between 2200 and 3600 ppi ... I found best results when scanning at 6400ppi and down-sampling between 40% and 50%.<br>

@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=604166">Jim A</a>: I tried what you mentioned some time ago with a 5D + 90mm macro lens and did not get very good results ... what you show looks really good!</p>

<p>I have an Epson V750 which is very similar to the V700. First, it's not the greatest scanner for 35mm film but it's okay (I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 for 135 and 120 film). The Epson V700 has two sets of lenses that are focussed differently. If you scan at 4800 or 6400 dpi the scanner will use the higher resolution lenses that are focused approx 2mm above the glass platen (you must use the film holders) and if you scan at anything less the scanner will use lower resolution lenses that are focused on the glass platen. You must also go through the process of adjusting the height of the holders to achieve maximum sharpness (there are plastic feet on the bottom of the holder ... make sure they are all facing the same way using the arrows as a guide ... try one orientation, the other, then without and compare results to find the best arrangement). Assuming you are using Epson Scan, use it in Professional Mode, scan at 6400dpi with a properly adjusted film holder, set scale to 50% (net result is 3200dpi scans), save as 16-bit TIFF, and avoid the use of any enhancement features (e.g. grain reduction, dust removal, ICE, etc.). Once you have your scans, expect to do post-processing for levels, contrast, and sharpening (I prefer Lightroom for this but Photoshop Elements is inexpensive and can work just as well).</p>