photojim

... or extend your wash. I find adding five minutes to the wash gets

rid of the dye, too, and it won't harm your image like overfixing

can. I fix for approximately twice the time a piece of leader of the

same film type requires to go clear.

Keep persevering. I'm still learning about PMK myself, but I've

gotten some very encouraging results from it (with Tri-X and Plus-X;

oddly, my Ilford results, with both the Delta films and the

traditional emulsions, have been disappointing thus far, but I

haven't tried Pan-F yet).

<p>

Agitate like a madman. Pyro oxidizes very rapidly. I give three

very violent shakes of the tank every 15 seconds. I use a one-minute

running wash, fix with TF-4, two minutes in running water, two

minutes in the used developer, and fifteen more of wash. Tri-X and

Plus-X stain magically. (I get base fog with Plus-X but it's not

objectionable.) I used Hutchings' recommendations for time and EI

for both films.

Mirror lockup is tricky to find although you can get pseudo mirror-lockup with a lot of bodies when you use the self-timer.

The FM3a sounds like the camera you want. It has TTL flash, a good meter, aperture priority, a fully mechanical manual mode for reliability, and it is available new.

If you want to buy used, an FM2n or FE2 would probably be perfect - perhaps an FA.

If you really need mirror lockup, the F3 would probably be your best choice. The flash technology is TTL, but you'd need to buy an expensive adapter (AS-17) to use modern flashes, unfortunately.

If I were you (and I'm not - nor are you me) I'd buy a used high-end autofocus body and a Nikkormat. That way you'd have a body with mirror lockup for your macro work, and a modern camera with high-end TTL flash and autofocus capability. The F801s or F90/F90x (or American equivalents) are not expensive and are relatively easy to find. They make quite decent manual-focus bodies too although they do lack the mirror lockup feature you request. That's why I'd add a Nikkormat (the FT3 would be ideal) to the pile. Then again, if you had a second autofocus body, you could target certain cameras to certain jobs - the F90 and F80 for action, e.g., and the F2 for macro. The F2 is about as good a manual, mechanical camera as you can get.

I live in Regina, Saskatchewan, about a five-hour drive north of the south unit. The park is beautiful - particularly the south unit. In fact, all the scenery near the park is pretty nice. The north unit is scenic, but less spectacularly so.

I haven't gotten a lot of good photos there due to lack of good light (I've only made a couple of day trips) - but the area warrants the investment of time.

When will you be there? I could be persuaded to visit. :)

I use a LowePro Compact AW bag which just about perfectly meets the standards for a carry-on bag in terms of dimensions. On a recent Air Canada trip from Regina, Saskatchewan to Victoria, British Columbia (via Vancouver, BC) I had no difficulty taking this bag on board any aircraft. However, in Regina heading through security, and again coming home from Victoria, the security personnel physically searched the bag with great care and detail, checking that each lens was indeed a lens by looking through, and looking through the viewfinder of each of my bodies. None of my other luggage was subject to search.

In Victoria, the person even verified that my electronic flash would fire and that my flashlight worked.

Since both people were very polite and friendly (the fellow in Victoria was even humourous, which I appreciated), this was a significant change from flights I took as recently as last March and October of 2000 (understandably). In the eight legs I took on those trips, the extent of searching of my camera gear was a person in the Quebec City, Quebec airport wanting to open my camera bag. Once she took a lens out and saw it was real, that was the end of her search.

The aperture scale in the little window can slip. This seems to happen with my camera. That might explain your problem.

I'm going to try to get mine repaired.

Mike,

Québec doesn't have much of a skyline... with one exception. The Château Frontenac atop the promontory above the river is beautiful and typifies Québec. The best views seem to either be from the ferry from Lévis, across the river, or in Basse-Ville (there's one particular street there, I wish I could remember its name, where the view of the Frontenac is beautiful). I also shot a bunch of shots of the hotel from the Promenade des Gouverneurs (a boardwalk along the cliffs just in front of the hotel) with a wide lens, at dusk. It's a fascinating photo subject.

I don't think you have the *right* to a hand inspection, but if you ask nicely, and package your film conveniently, they will accommodate your request. I put my films into translucent film canisters (Fuji mostly), then packed the canisters into Ziploc bags, all then put into a big clear plastic freezer bag.

I mailed my exposed and surplus films home to avoid the risk of a "no" and to save luggage space.

Pack a couple of rolls of 3200; the machines are only good to 1600. Say you have 3200 speed film and that will also help.

Kodak D-76 is notorious for gaining activity as it ages. The pH

gradually declines (I think) with time and that activates the

hydroquinone (which is normally inactive). See Anchell's The Film

Development Cookbook for more.

<p>

What is happening, as a result: your film is being overdeveloped.

This increases grain.

<p>

The solution: change developers, or use fresher D76.

<p>

I used to use Ilford ID-11 because you could buy 600 mL packages. I

don't think you can any longer, but they still have 1 L packages. ID-

11 is functionally identical to D-76, and, in fact, some believe more

chemically pure to the original D-76 than the current Kodak product.

Since I started this thread, I thought it might be nice to tell you how it worked out.

Quebec City is gorgeous. The leaves near the river were still in prime colour for most of the time we were there (October 15 to 31). The weather was good and we had a great time.

I acquired an 80-200/2.8 lens a month or so before departing. Most days, I carried two autofocus bodies, one with the 20-35 and one with the 80-200. Occasionally I also carried a third body (well, my wife did) with the 35-135 or a 55 micro lens. I shot a lot of black and white but I didn't use the 35-135 much. 95% of the images were shot with the two f/2.8 zooms.

Vieux-Québec is a photographer's paradise... interesting buildings, the river, the wall, people everywhere, calèches (horse-drawn carriages) ... just buy your airline ticket and go.

Île d'Orléans is a short drive from Québec and is beautiful. There is a highway that goes roughly around its perimeter. There are lots of old churches, tons of maple trees, beautiful old cemeteries ... lots of film was shot there.

We went down the river one day to Baie St-Paul, which is gorgeous. Cap-Tourmente is along the way; itès pretty but the snow geese didnèt come much last year. Still worth seeing, though. We took a diversion by taking the ferry to Île aux Coudres, and that island was the highlight of the trip. The light on the water on the eastern end of the island was dramatic and the ocean trawler made for a perfect image. (Sorry, not yet scanned...) And the brioche from the local bakery was decadent!

Québec was wonderful and I look forward to visiting it again. And in the touristy areas, English is widely spoken (although I rarely spoke it - part of the fun was to speak French).

I've never used Tri-X Pro, but regular old Tri-X Pan (35mm flavour)

is heavenly in PMK. Rate at ISO 400, 14:00 at 21 degrees 1:2:100

dilution, two violent shakes of agitation each 15 seconds, one minute

water wash, 3-4 minutes in alkaline fixer (like TF-4), one minute

wash, two minutes bath in the used developer, fifteen minute wash.

Stain to die for, and beautiful prints, promarily on contrast grade

two, when exposed with my equipment.

There is no one single best developer for any one film. I would use

whatever works for you.

<p>

I develop my Ilford T-grain films in Kodak XTOL, and Kodak Tri-X in

PMK from Photographer's Formulary...

I'd enjoy hearing experiences with the Efke films in PMK developer.

These emulsions seem ideally suited for a pyrogallol-based developer.

I wouldn't worry about the toxicity terribly. Wear rubber gloves at

all times when handling the chemistry, and you should be fine. I've

read that pyrogallol crystals are very dangerous for the lungs if the

dust is breathed, so I recommend purchasing premixed chemistry (e.g.

from Photographer's Formulary) rather than making your own from

powder or mixing prepackaged powdered PMK.

If you want the infrared look, there is no substitute for infrared

film. And you really need to be able to experiment with it in order

to predict what you will get.

Read this month's column by Herbert Keppler for an interesting

discussion about whether Leica's optics are better than the

competition's.

- downtown Calgary ... lots of skyscrapers, interesting older buildings, people, and the famed Calgary cows (sculptures) all throughout. I particularly like the Stephen Avenue mall ... but most of downtown is photoworthy.

- the zoo ... off Memorial Drive East.

Jim

The filter on my Industar-61 lens is 40.5 mm, but otherwise this

information is correct.

Testing with the leader, as mentioned above, is a good idea.

<p>

The generally accepted rule of thumb is this: you should fix for

double the time it takes for the film to clear. When the time to fix

the leader becomes double what it is with fresh fixer, you need new

fixer.

<p>

For example ... if you need a 2:15 fix to clear the leader, use 4:30

for the actual roll of film, but when your future leaders of the same

type need 4:30 to clear, your fixer is done and you should discard it.

Gas hypering is a more common method to increase film sensitivity for

long exposures. You can buy gas-hypered Tech Pan from some suppliers.

I shot the Delta 400 at ISO 400. Perhaps I should give it more

exposure.

I developed my first rolls of Kodak Plus-X and Ilford FP-4 Plus in PMK the other day. I had really good luck with Tri-X in PMK and was expecting to succeed again.

<p>

I was surprised at how different the films looked.

<p>

I shot the FP4 at ISO 125 and the Plus-X at EI 80, per the recommendations of Anchell's Film Development Cookbook. Development was at 21 degrees for 10:00.

<p>

The FP4 negatives are pretty good, perhaps slightly underdeveloped (or underexposed). There are some areas of good density. Base fog is very low. Staining is quite high but not as high as with Tri-X.

<p>

The Plus-X negatives were very odd. The density is much greater. Staining was very high. Unfortunately, there's a very noticeable base stain as well, absent in the FP4.

<p>

The Delta 400 negatives were the most disappointing. I developed this film for 12:30 @ 21 degrees. I was worried that the pyro stain would not be very strong, but it is fine. However, the actual developed silver image is quite faint. The majority of the image seems to be formed by the stain. (This is what I was expecting when I first used pyro.) After development, the used developer was extremely dark. (It was more like rusty water with the other films, but in this case it was nearly opaque.)

<p>

I have yet to print any of them.

<p>

Your experiences with these films would be welcome.

I've always wanted a fast compact camera and I recently acquired one (a Canon ML35AF with a 40/1.9 - it was dirt cheap). It's a nuisance to always carry an SLR so I only usually bring one when I know I'm going to photograph.

<p>

What sort of camera are you using to fill this role (if you are indeed filling it) and what kinds of photographs are you taking?

<p>

This Canon I bought can take filters so I think I'll shoot a lot of black and white with it.

<p>

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.