peter_hughes2

A deep tank uses solution inefficiently, hence is only economical for

replentished developers, not one-shots like PMK. A deep tank for 8x10

takes 3.5 gallons (14 liters)! I develop 8x10 in trays.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

Jim -- Are we talking about an "Omegaron"? The original post

said "Omegaor", which I interpreted as a misspelling of Omegar, which

I still say is "Ohmygod." The Omegaron you own may be another story

entirely--maybe a Rodagon with the Omega name on it?

<p>

I've *heard* that the 75mm Nikkor is not as good as the 80mm.

However, I have not had any personal experience on this one. I owned

a 105mm f/5.6 El-Nikkor a number of years back and it was excellent.

It's not a good buy. The "Ohmygod" lens is crap. IMO the enlarger is

worth, *at most*, $200 w/o lens.

<p>

Invest in good lenses, such as Componon-S, Nikkor, or Rodagon. I

found a beautiful 135mm Componon-S locally for $175. A steal. But you

can easily find one for $250. I also suggest buying all the same

brand lenses, though this is not crucial.

<p>

Condenser enlargers are contrasty, with highlights that lack

sepration. So eventually you will probably want to get either a cold-

light head or a dichroic color head. I use an Autofocus Chromega D4

for both b&w and color. I paid $300 for it, with one board and

carrier. Another steal.

<p>

Look around for a deal/steal. People are selling off their darkroom

gear nowadays. The D-series Omegas are superb machines (personally, I

wouldn't use anything else), very popular and plentiful on the used

market. Camera stores hate having them around, because they take up

space and nobody wants them. Most dealers will be happy to talk price

with you if you are serious. Take my word for it, they just want to

get them out the door!

<p>

Once you get it set up, with all the right carriers, boards, heads

and lenses, you will NEVER need to buy another enlarger as long as

you live. So be patient and invest wisely.

<p>

BTW, you don't really need a glass carrier to print 6x7.

<p>

Check out: http://www.classic-enlargers.com/omega_enlargers.htm

Bear in mind that his prices are *high*, especially for the enlargers

themselves. But he probably has what you are looking for, in terms of

accessories, in stock.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

Add my voice to the praise. Now what about"flightseeing"?!

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

photodo.com did rate it the highest of any lens they ever MTF tested, but they only test at f/4 and f/8, not wide open.

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

Fry Photographic in Monterey. I know that's a bit south, but...

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

Tony -- one small correction: the matricies, not the seps, are

developed in tanning developer. Then the 3 dyed "mats" are rolled

onto a receiving sheet, one at a time.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

A exclusive PMK user for the past couple of years, I'm thinking of

experimenting with other developers for my 35mm fashion work because,

well, the stuff just has *too long* a tonal scale. But I shoot a lot

in high contrast, mixed lighting, and PMK has been wonderful for

keeping the highlights from becoming blocked, especially if I

overexpose 2 stops and undevelop about 30%.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

One last thought: it has been proven that Heavy Metal music, played

very loudly, can cause the marks you describe. Might try switching to

Mozart. :)

Are you using a manual-advance camera or a motorized camera? If

manual-advance, wind slower. The friction of the film inside the

camera generating static discharges is probably what's causing those

marks.

I agree with the static electricity theory. Are you photographing in

a particularly dry climate?

You have magical powers. And you are not alone. I have discovered

that I can still the ocean waters by setting up my camera to take a

surf photo.

A peice of white plexi. But, as Mark point out, the light loss will

be considerable. I suggest upgrading your head to a Chromega

lamphouse, which will provide you with diffusion AND plenty of light

PLUS you can print color with it.

<p>

You might also rethink your paper and paper developer.

Delta 100 & 400, and for really fine grain Pan-F. Forget about T-Max

films--IMO not worth the effort to process properly.

Kodak High Speed Infrared is what you're looking for. Beware two

things: 1) the film MUST be loaded into the camera in total darkness

(a changing bag will do); 2) the film is VERY grainy. I would suggest

a trial ISO of about 125 with a 25A filter.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/peterhughes.htm

Get a postcard printed with some of your best images. That way people

will be able to evaluate your work beforehand and know if they want

to participate.

<p>

I think the area in which you live will greatly influence your

success rate. I live in a sleepy area--Monterey, CA--where people

don't do much except retire and die. The energy in a cosmopolitan

city like San Francisco or L.A. is much more "up."

This is a very interesting thread.

<p>

As I see it, the primary advantages of digital printing (and I'm not

speaking here of digital *manipulation*), is that one does not need a

darkroom--which, in a world of astronomically high rent prices, is

sometimes difficult to come by.

<p>

The cost, time, and degree-of-difficulty factors of digital v.

conventional printing I calculate as about even.

Two quartz broad lights or reflector photofloods placed at 45 degree

angles to the copyboard should do the trick. Then you need to use an

incident lightmeter on the copyboard to make sure that the

illumination is even (to within 1/3 stop) from corner to corner. It's

tricky but it can be done. Make sure the lights are not too close to

the copy.

Sorry, Shawn, but the difference between digital prints and "real"

prints made in a darkroom is like night and day--let's say noon at

the equator and midnight at the North Pole. At least at this point in

time.

Get a large frame backpack, the kind designed for serious hikers. I

used to carry my 8x10 Deardorff, 2 lenses and 3 holders in such a

pack--a Kelty exterior frame.

<p>

Then I developed bursitus in my left heel and a herniated muscle in

my back. And so I switched to medium format.

<p>

A couple of months ago I traded my 8x10 outfit for a Canon EOS-3.

<p>

http://www.ravenvision.com/rvapeter.htm

The above posters are absolutely correct. You'll need to feel your

way and make your own decisions.

<p>

Until then, however...

<p>

an entry-level Canon or Nikon SLR

a 28-80 zoom lens

Ilford Pan-F, Delta 100 & 400

Photographer's Formulary PMK film developer

Kodak Rapid Fix (Part A only!)

Ilford Multigrade IV and/or Warmtone paper (RC or FB)

Kodak Rapid Selenium toner

Kodak Selectol Soft paper developer

Acetic acid

Kodak Photo-Flo

Kodak Hypo Clearing agent or Heico Perma-Wash

an Omega enlarger

a 50mm El-Nikkor enlarging lens

some stainless steel developing tanks

<p>

Learning how to use the above will take you some time.

<p>

Good luck!

My only criticism is that the picture is a bit "cutesey" for my

taste. Kinda hits one over the head. As for the technique, well,

superb. Fact is, I have a series of shots almost exactly like it,

shot with almost the same lighting, and the same camera and lens. I

printed it slightly warmer, though. And I opted for somewhat more

neutral expressions. Also, my model was older, about 2 years old.

<p>

Perhaps I'll scan one of them and put it up.

I use the Ilford films--Pan-F, Delta 100 & 400--with PMK and get

superb results. But don't look for the finest grain with Pyro.

<p>

In general, I would stay away from the T-Max films.

"Lighter fluid" (i.e., naptha or benzene) is harmless to negatives

and will dissolve oily gunk quite well.

<p>

Try it on a throwaway, just to make sure.

<p>

I wouldn't wash the negs in soap, or anything containing water.

I don't know if this will help you: Delta 100, 120, @ ISO 80, in PMK,

1:2:100, small tank, 9 - 10 minutes @ 70F, agitation 5 sec per 30

sec.