William Michael

Hello. welcome. Goodness - it's 'the world of the windmill' - quite cute: I feel dizzy looking at it. Nice to have you aboard. WW

Good question. Apropos Portraiture: we can broadly group Lighting Scenarios into two groups - 1. Available Light at the Scene, which includes all Continuous Photographic/Video Lighting 2. Flash Lighting whilst also accounting for all the Available Light (as per 1 above) at the Scene (also referred to as the Ambient Light at the Scene). The primary reason why, for Studio Portraiture, I will mostly always opt for Flash Lighting is because doing so gives me absolute control over Subject Movement Blur. For any Adult Portraiture in Available Light, where the Subject(s) are adult and healthy, I want to have available a Shutter Speed of 1/320s as my slowest option. If photographing Children or aged Subjects I want 1/500s. I also want to have available a relatively low ISO and a sufficient range of Apertures to allow a range of Artistic Interpretations. Additionally, consider a Group Portrait where a large DoF becomes more important, than for example, a simple Single Head Shot. In one simple sentence: I have not found any Continuous Studio Lighting Set which come close to allowing me to have the range of ISO/Aperture/Shutter Speed which I demand. Professional TV Studio Lighting and some Professional Cinematography and Stage Lighting Sets come close but still fall short. On the other hand, for Studio Portraiture, Flash allows for the Camera's Shutter to be set at the Flash Sync Speed, and by adjusting the Studio's Ambient Light (i.e. "my studio is essentially my living room with thick curtains drawn closed") the duration of the Flash remediates any Subject Motion Blur. (Powerful) Studio Flash Heads provide suitable power to allow a good range of Apertures to be available at reasonable low ISO. The Guide Number (at ISO100) of a the Flash Unit is a standard comparison which is often used. I began using Elinchrom Studio Flash in 1976, because the Studio which employed me then was set up with Elinchrom. I bought into that system and have built it and used Elinchrom ever since. My Elinchrom Flash Set has always been more than suitable for all the Product Photography I have done, which comprised smaller items: art (mainly paintings); jewellery; coin and stamp collections; and food. All of which were shot in a medium sized studio, essentially built for Portraiture. Other Members, especially those whose careers have been more skewed to Product Photography than has my journey, will have more to offer in guidance apropos Product work, having stated that, I concur with the comment about Colour Temperature variance of CFL Lighting (Compact Fluorescent Lamp), (made by Andrew, aka AJG, above). To expand - although the kit you referenced describes LED Lights (Light Emitting Diode) and not CFL, the description of the product states: "About this product Kit includes: (. . . The kit comes with four 24W LED bulbs, each equivalent to a regular 200W incandescent bulb. , with a color temperature of 5700 K. Ideal for photography lighting The 24" x 24" / 60cm x 60cm softboxes spread light effectively to give you even lighting for the best possible shots. Equipped with an E27 lamp holder, you can connect a bulb directly to each softbox or use them with other lights or flashes." Whilst having the knowledge that the Colour Temperature of these LED Lights is 5700K is important, equally as important is knowing the CRI of these LED Lights (Color Rendering Index). Mostly all LED Lighting historically has a low CRI, however technological development is improving the quality of LED for a range Photographic uses, noted mainly Videography. Even so, my gut tells me this particular set is not very good. The above issues are virtually not present in quality Studio Flash Lighting, hence my choice of Flash rather than Continuous Lighting for my Studio Portraiture. WW

It is. It is a Lighting Kit designed for Video. REF Translation of Title of the Kit - "NEEWER Photography Lighting Kit with Backgrounds, 2.6x3m Background Stand, 5700K 800W Equivalent to 24W LED Bulbs Umbrella Softbox Continuous Lighting, Photo Studio Equipment for Video" *** This kit would not be my choice for Product Photography and it is an extremely poor choice for Portraiture: I think Flash, with Modelling Lights, would be much better for Portraiture, and also is my preference for mostly all Product Photography. WW

Addendum: From my experience - HC-110 is useful for Pan F rated at 100, but it is a poor choice for badly underexposed: Microphen (stock solution) is much better. Even Pan F rated at 100, I would prefer to use Microphen. Microphen Stock Solution, for pushing film, use minimum necessary and gentle agitations. Suggest you agitate regularly with two gentle inversions, every minute. WW PS - Please advise what you choose to do and the outcomes you attain. Also congratulate your teacher for addressing the fact that she had not direct experience: and give her the above feedback and suggestions too. Thanks

From my Ilford Technical Services Diary Notes: 1. preferably do a few clip tests across development times, not temperature, with a new roll of Pan F rated at 400, in similar lighting scenario(s) 2. recommend Microphen 3. stock solution of Microphen, develop clip tests at 12; 18; and 24 minutes, at 68F/20C, gentle agitation 4. if not doing clip tests, use 18 minutes, 68F/20C, gentle agitation. Good luck WW

My thoughts too. Maybe the middle connection is poor i.e. the connection between the two tubes - perhaps identified by the tubes being able to be wobbled. WW

Opps... * " . . . Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound."

I reckon it would be a good idea to let us know where you live/work. WW

Using a 2B pencil on the back of the envelope calculation - there appears somewhere between eight (8), and ninety-eight (98) of your forum posts, which didn't make it. WW

Welcome. Nice to have you aboard. WW

Mostly all of the forum posts made it to the PN that we have today. The layout of the forums are different, but the content remains: Examples - LINK LINK WW

**** MODERATION COMMENT Yes. I find them quite artless, and offensive. An irruption of misogyny. It is reasonably obvious to which images hjoseph7 and arthur_mccullock2 refer. Note the images posted contravene neither the Site's Terms and Conditions nor User Guidelines. Note also that opinions such as "xxx pictures masquarading as art" and "quite artless, and offensive. An irruption of misogyny" are valid opinions, and as valid opinions equally should not be removed. Please note that the above is a Moderation Comment constructed for Members' information and as such it may not be further commented upon, in this thread or the Forums William

Firstly - Thank you to all those Members who 'report' spam in any guise - single images, members albums, comments and forum posts. Reporting spam triggers a few very useful functions, one of which is alerting Moderators to suspicious activity. Being alerted by a member's report makes it so much easier for a Moderator to effect a 'permanent' remedy to the Spammer's Account. That seems to be the situation. I understand the owners are now aware of the situation. It seems plausible that a system modification is required. Access to effect such a modification is two levels above Moderator Traits and also requires expertise (and possibly access beyond (general) Administrator Traits. Having Moderators who operate in 12 hour "opposite" time zones, has been a strength of Photo.net since the "early days" and you all can thank Josh Root for that policy implementation. Without appearing to blow trumpets - I reckon that it's good we have that situation now, too. Having said that - please note that Sandy has been taking on the bulk of the front line 'removal' activities. For clarity, my activities lean more to cleaning up the debris. WW

Paris, France 2014 - ridiculously slow shutter speed and high ISO - EOS 5D; EF35/1.4L

Ta.

If the second mentioned are the exact negative measurements, sans border, my guess would be 126 Roll Film. Introduced 1906. 126 was used in Kodak 4 Series Folding Cameras, and typically in those cameras provided a neg. 6 1/2 x 4 1/4, I am almost certain, with a border. The extra 1/4 inch on your negatives could probably be accommodated by encroaching 1/8" into each side of the strip border. WW

I know Matt Murray is well versed as a collector, pod-caster and journalist with a passion for this type of gear. I don't know if he is still writing, etc but maybe send him an email - he might be able to assist. LINK WW

Kodak Roll Film 111. Neg Measurements 6 1/2 x 4 3/4 inches. Released 1898. WW