evan_goulet

Thanks for the advice. It would appear that I may have been overly concerned for the health of the latent images. I'll keep my normal process for at least the first roll, and change things up if anything is out of whack.

I used to post and contribute here years ago, but then life got real busy.

 

About 1.5 years ago, I decided to break out the film gear on a trip to the Grand Canyon. I shot medium format Arista.EDU 100 and 35-mm Tri-X. Both would have been exposed at ISO 200, due to some red filter usage. Life then got real busy again, and I haven't gotten around to developing them.

 

What would be my best option(s) for developer choice in this situation. Is it Diafine? Stick with D-76 or HC-110?

 

More/less agitation.

 

I have been wading through some older threads, but most of the found film stuff is decades old.

 

Evan

<p>A halfway decent rule of thumb is to subtract 20% of the developing time per stop pulled. And that 20% gets applied incrementally: <br />Assume 10 is the starting point for your film at box speed.<br>

1-Stop Pull: 10-(0.2)10 = 8 min<br>

2-Stop Pull: 8-(0.2)8 = 6.4 min</p>

<p>She asked for tips on adjusting.. I gave a tip on the paper shims. I also pointed out a potential software issue that can cause defocus in the scanner.</p>

<p>I guess you were offended that I expanded upon your point and felt the need to type some more yourself.</p>

<p>The focal plane of the scanner is on a plane that sits above the glass (When one of the film holder options is selected), hopefully in the same plane as your film. So, in order to really fine tune the focus, you have to fine tune the height of your film plane. Not sure how the better scanning holders adjust, but you will just have to systematically adjust and scan until you nail it. For the Epson holder, I have used pieces of paper to shim the holder to the proper height, then just made shims of the same thickness as the paper pieces.<br /> Alternatively, do you have the right setting on EpsonScan (Assuming EpsonScan)? Here's a question I asked a few years back on a similar topic. Turned out my lack of focus was in selecting the wrong setting: <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00MAH5">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00MAH5</a></p>

<p>I know some people tend to avoid flash because they feel that it overpowers the scene. I have found that you can reduce the glaring effects of the flash by diffusing the light. On a point and shoot camera this can be done by taping some tissue paper (or maybe even printer paper) over the actual flash. This will cut down on the light coming off the flash and create a more balanced feel to the lighting.</p>

<p>Wouldn't the best way to discern the differences be to shoot the two films under identical conditions and then measure the differences (either quantitatively or qualitatively)? You could also look up the data sheets on Kodak's website, and glean some information from those.</p>

<p>My feet are my zoom.</p>

<p>Here's Nokia's own white paper on the technology: <a href="http://europe.nokia.com/PRODUCT_METADATA_0/Products/Phones/8000-series/808/Nokia808PureView_Whitepaper.pdf">Here</a></p>

<p>Hmm... Picasa, also owned by Google, and it appears headed towards Google+ as well. I recently pulled all my photos off of Picasaweb because of its transition to Google+. For me, it was more of a concern of they changed the gallery formats, and less of a concern about rights to photos.</p>

<p>Thanks, I did a little reading on the evolution of the SR mount last night.</p>

<p>There is a black tab between the f/11 and f/16 marks, and the bright metal tab is about an inch over from that black one. As I am not fluid in Minoltan, I am not sure as to what MC and MD refer.</p>

<p>Quick Google... MC = meter coupled, MD = smallest aperture...</p>

<p>Lens is a Focal MC Auto 28mm f/2.8. From a Google search of the numbers 20-06-51, it appears that it is a Minolta SR mount. I got it in a box of multiple Nikon lenses. Was hoping it was a Konica AR, but it's not. Thanks in advance.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Thanks for the responses so far. I agree that it doesn't look like x-ray fogging from what I have seen in various online articles. I think it could have been a one-off type thing, where this roll experienced something outside of the norm that none of my other rolls underwent, so possibly before it got to me. Like I said, other rolls stored along side, and of higher speed, have been perfectly clear in the base material. I might post some scans to this when the film finally flattens out (and so does my schedule).</p>

<p>I just processed some Neopan 400 and got some pretty severe base fog, worse than anything I have ever seen. I have had the roll for about three years (I think expiry is 2012 or 2011 sometime), it has been in my film drawer for that time at room temperature. I exposed it at box speed, and developed in T-Max Developer 1:4 for 6.5 minutes at 20C. Fixer was Kodak Rapid Fixer 1:4 for 7 minutes (my usual process). Washed in tap water, followed by DI water w/PhotoFlo. The film had been exposed 1.5 months prior to developing, and had been through the hand-check luggage scanner on the way to/from Chicago.<br /> Some Tmax 400, and some Neopan 1600 (from the same vintage as the Neopan 400) were developed in very similar processes, same batches of chemicals and they turned out fine. <br /> From the photo, I hope one can see how bad this is. The frame numbers are visible, but I have never seen a fogging like this. I haven't used Neopan 400 in a while, and I don't have any other rolls from that vintage to experiment with. It will be interesting to see how they scan whenever they flatten out.<br /> I guess my question is, what is the likely source of the base fog? Is there something in the storage that would have prevented this (e.g. freezer)? Other film, faster speed, stored same way didn't have this level fogging. Does this fogging look as extreme to you as it does to me? </p><div></div>

<p>Try doing it in low light, with moving children, and manual focus...<br>

That's my usual situation.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/phototechnique/essay06/essay.html">Why focus-recompose sucks.</a></p>

<p>I have encountered this often with shallow depths of field as well. I have since started to focus while the shot is composed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but as it's costing me nothing I may as well use it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ahh, but it does cost. Inventory is a four-letter word... "evil." You will be carrying inventory costs, particularly if you aren't doing a huge amount of business. <br>

I take it you are not offering film processing? I think a lot of people find it convenient, particularly with C-41, to purchase film at the same time as you are picking up/dropping off your film to be processed. It would add another trip into the cost of shooting color film.<br>

Will you have CLA services or some means of ensuring the mechanical integrity of the cameras you do sell?<br>

Just some realistic things to consider.</p>

 

<p>eBay reaches the widest audience. I have bought a few off of there. Other than that, perhaps find a used book dealer who specializes in the rarer, out-of-print stuff... a place that collectors would frequent rather than the general public.</p>

<p>Just get it printed on a larger size paper, like 12" x 16", and trim the extra 4" from the print. </p>

<p>I think the variation in quality coming from different one-hour labs is so great that the only way to answer this question is to do a side-by-side comparison of your specific labs in-question. Anyone can sit here and say their CVS/Walmart/Target/Walgreens gives great results, but the bottom line is that there is variability in the level of operator training and machine maintenance.</p>

<p>Note: I have also seen a wide variety in quality coming from "pro labs" lately. I don't know if they just don't get that much film, but the occurrence of fingerprints and dust/dirt has become alarming from several "pro labs" in my area.</p>

<p>Wollman Skating Rink in Central Park. OK, it's now called Trump Wollman Skating Rink. Classic city backdrop on the ice rink.</p>

<p>I have to say, I thought there was a typo in the post title: "EF 50mm f/1.2 <em>for</em> Costa Rica?" That would be a question up for debate, but with "<em>or</em>" there, to me it is clearly travel to Costa Rica. Those frogs may not be there forever.</p>

<p>Select film, with film holder. Un-check the thumbnail preview box. This will cause the software to show a preview of the entire scanner bed when Preview is hit. Then, using the marquee tool, you can highlight a desired frame. Hit the Zoom button and the scanner will zoom in on the selected area. You can make adjustments on the zoom preview. Then, you go back to Preview, and select another frame. The original frame should still remain highlighted. Make adjustments. Repeat for each desired frame. When ready to scan all the selected frames, just click on each of the marquee selections while holding CTRL, and they will all be highlighted. Scanning will scan each individual highlighted frame separately. This works on my version of Epson Scan for a V700. Since I am not working on the scanner at the moment, some of the steps above may need to be modified, but you get the gist of it. A bit of a pain, but it should work for you. Alternatively, search eBay for holders.</p>

<p>Is it consistently back-focusing or front-focusing, or is it just soft?</p>