lex_jenkins

<p>August 2007? No problem. I've developed older film stored at room temp that was nearly indistinguishable from fresh film. As long as it wasn't exposed to high heat (inside a car in summer) it should be fine with the right developer.</p> <p>I've tried several developers with older film and the only ones I'd consider unacceptable were Diafine, Rodinal and Ilfosol-S. Much as I like Diafine, it's not well suited to expired films, either old films recently exposed and promptly developed, or film exposed years ago. The only worse base fog I've seen was with homebrewed developer made from Red Devil lye and other horrible stuff, sans any restrainer. Rodinal fogging can be tamed by adding a pinch of Borax, although it's still uber grainy. Ilfosol-S is best suited to ISO 100 and slower films anyway, so skip it.</p>

<p>I'd use HC-110. It doesn't exaggerate base fog in older film, has good speed for Tri-X up to 800, and reasonably fine grain. Overall it's very comparable to D-76 at 1+1. I have lots of Tri-X souped in both and wouldn't be able to tell the difference if I hadn't labeled the negative sleeves. And HC-110 doesn't seem to change properties with dilutions. I liked <a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html">Dilution H</a> for the more relaxed developing time compared with the familiar Dilution B. Twice the dilution, twice the time, easy to remember. Usually 9-10 minutes in Dilution H with Tri-X at 400-800 looked right for my negatives.</p> <p>I didn't use Xtol enough, but it seemed like a good developer with fresh Tri-X, with good speed and reasonably fine grain. No significant visible differences between D-76 1+1 or Microphen 1+1 with fresh film at the box ISO. However I'm a bit wary of using ascorbic acid developers with older film. In my limited uses of Xtol and Ilfosol S - one container each - both seemed to exaggerate base fog a bit with expired films.</p> <p>Avoid Diafine - it will exaggerate base fog in older Tri-X, and it's very grainy so enlarging small sections will have very obvious grain, although with fresh film the acutance is good.</p> <p>No idea about Acufine, never used it. But in general speed enhancing developers -- including my personal favorite, Microphen -- tend to produce more grain and have a risk of higher base fog with expired films.</p> <p> </p>

<p>My <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1077909"><strong>"Wayback machine"</strong></a> folder on photo.net contains mostly 30 year old and older scans of prints and negatives, mostly Tri-X souped in D-76 or HC-110, pretty much all I used back then. The only exceptions (as of this writing) are the guys playing basketball (that was Ilford HP3), and the square box camera photo (Verichrome Pan from the early-mid 1960s).</p> <p>The Tri-X since around 2000 has finer grain in most developers. Judging from my recent scans of older negatives, there's a subtle difference in that nebulous thing we call tonality as well. Usually I prefer to print in the darkroom, and I see differences even on straight RC prints between my 1970s-'80s prints from Tri-X and those from the late 1990s when I resumed darkroom work after a hiatus.</p>

<p>The look of Juergen Teller and Terry Richardson is pretty similar to Warhol's. They built their distinctive looks on P&S type cameras with built-in flashes, although usually the flash was slightly off-center so the shadows fell a bit differently - more to the side rather than straight down. Compare the modeling shadows around the noses, jaws, etc.</p> <p>I'm not sure about Teller's work with dSLRs, but I've seen photos of Richardson at work using a dSLR with a flash mounted on a small side bracket, the type sold by Nikon for it's own flashes, and other makers, often used by paparazzi. When the camera is held vertically the flash is nearly centered over the lens.</p> <p>Another way to mimic that close to center, near the lens flash look would be to use a sync cord or wireless unit and handhold the flash close to and over the lens. Not too difficult with a small, lightweight camera, but tricky with a full sized dSLR and large flash.</p> <p>Keep in mind that the closer the flash to the lens, the greater the risk of red-eye. Depends on the subject's eyes. Some blue eyed folks are more prone to red eye, but I've seen odd reflections with all eye colors, and older folks will show evidence of cataracts if the flash is too close to the lens. But with digital you can review each photo and make minor adjustments in flash proximity and angle.</p>

<p>Yup, a normal lens for any given format should get a similar look, assuming similar framing. Little or no flattening or exaggeration of nose size. It's a familiar look from snapshots years ago because most fixed-lens cameras used whatever focal length was "normal" for that format.</p> <p>Regarding the overall look of Warhol's best known Polaroids, those are distinctive because he mostly used a Big Shot. Cheap camera but with a unique feature - a plastic Fresnel in front of the flash cubes, close to and directly over the lens. The effect produced rather even lighting across the face in the center, with rapid falloff toward the edges. You can mimic this look with a small flash directly over the camera lens (a built in pop up flash is perfect), by adding a Fresnel in front of the flash. A cheap credit card sized magnifier will come pretty close to mimicking that flash distribution. I carry one in my wallet and occasionally use it, holding it with my left hand in front of the flash on my P&S cameras.</p>

<p>The 116mm lens on the SX-70 with 7.9x7.9cm format has an <a href="http://www.radical.org/aov/">angle of view</a> of 38 degrees at 3m and is roughly comparable to a 52mm normal lens on a full frame or 35mm film camera. It's difficult to compare because of the differences in aspect ratio. But it's comparable to an 80mm lens on a 6x6cm square medium format camera such as a typical TLR or many 6x6 SLRs.</p>

<p>Sure, safety concerns are relevant, as long as photography is the main issue.</p> <p>Same as methods used to tether or secure cameras overhead in gyms when photographing basketball, volleyball, etc. Recording activities from overhead - whether using tethered cameras or drones - shouldn't expose others to danger.</p> <p>Or the use of sports/active cameras like GoPros to record extreme sports and stunts. For extreme sports, recording is incidental to the activity. But stunts like drifting in heavy traffic expose innocent passersby to danger, so it's a gray zone between relevance to photography and public safety.</p> <p>I think we can accommodate these debates without digressing into disputes over nationalism, military interventions, politics, etc.</p>

<p>I've enjoyed using my Rolleiflex and Yashica TLRs, and an old Agfa Isolette folder, for the same reasons folks have given here - the novelty is usually regarded as charming and non-threatening. I've even had people ask me to photograph them, with no expectation of ever seeing the photos. But I rarely encounter any objections anyway, so I don't choose cameras solely for that reason. I just happen to enjoy using those old boxes.</p> <p>I have only a few examples of prints scanned from those, and some folks have seen these before. I need to scan some negatives too since my enlargers are packed into a closet at the moment.</p> <p>These are both from my Rolleiflex 2.8C, although one has been cropped to fit 8x10:<br /><br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1634767-lg.jpg" alt="Baby shower" width="506" height="635" border="0" /><br /><em>Baby shower</em>.</p> <hr /> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1635244-lg.jpg" alt="Baby shower, too" width="600" height="596" border="0" /><br /><em>Baby shower too</em>.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Unless we've got the Off Topic juice back, it seems better to assume that when someone brings up the topic here, it's in the context of photography - whether for fun or business. "</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed, and further digressions into politics will be deleted. There's plenty of room for spirited debate on the subject that is relevant to photography.</p>

<p>It's been awhile since I checked but even 20 years ago Bogen/Manfrotto and Slik had very capable entry level video heads with fluid motion for panning and tilts. The B/M version came with a 3001 leg set, which wasn't a very good leg set - the thumbscrew locks were a hassle.</p> <p>However I found a <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=376531&gclid=CKzSvvCRsccCFQEdaQodB-gJZQ&is=REG&m=Y&A=details&Q=">Slik 504QF-II legset/video head</a> in a pawn shop for $25 and it was really good for the money. The leg set was the same used in the 300DX still photography tripod. While it also used thumbscrew locks, it was literally much slicker and better than the Bogen/Manfrotto entry level leg set. I kept the leg set and replaced the video head with a Velbon magnesium ball head. Unfortunately I misplaced the video head years ago. Besides being a good value in an entry level video head it was also useful for tracking birds in flight near water level on the lake where I lived, as long as I needed only landscape/horizontal orientation for my camera.</p> <p>So one of those heads with a tripod of your choice should do.</p> <p>I would avoid the tilt/pan head that comes with the Slik U212 Deluxe. While the head is advertised as suitable for video, it's not very good. The panning and tilt depend on crunchy plastic-against-plastic for damping, it's difficult to level properly, and it's a very crude feel compared with the <a href="http://www.slik.co.jp/slik_com/HE-504QFII_HEAD.html">Slik 504QF-II video head</a>.</p>

Non-specific or generalized fogging usually indicates something other than light leaks inside the camera. First thing I'd check would be the fixer. Be sure it's not exhausted, mixed to film strength, etc. Second, I'd check my developing tanks, lids, darkroom or changing bag for light leaks. I once forget the spindle in a plastic tank and reel system. Opening the pour lid to pour in/out chemicals caused fogging. It only affected the top roll of the two-reel tank. Then, check the film to be sure it's fresh, not exposed to high heat (car trunk or glove box). Yup, done this too. Then be sure the film was spooled up tightly and not changed in bright light (although this tends to cause only edge fogging, unless using film with no anti-halation backing, or infrared). The most likely camera fogging would be from a warped film door, or if the door was prevented from closing properly, resulting in a bulge. This can be checked pretty easily just by inspecting and feeling the seams. TLR doors can be sprung by letting them flop open, straining the hinge. And the Rollei can be finicky to get the hinges aligned after detaching the door. There's a remote chance of fogging through the viewfinder, but something would have to be seriously awry for light to get around those baffles and seams to the film area.

To elaborate a bit Mike's comments, cropping and enlarging was a common technique for exaggerating grain. Sometimes it was necessary to get the shot with limited equipment. A tiny fraction of a negative, even normally exposed and developed, can produce interesting grain effects. Somewhere in my photo.net portfolio is a tight crop of a man's wristwatch, showing pretty good detail and resolution but extreme grain, from using Tri-X in Diafine at 1200-1600. There were also grain masks for placing over or under the negative for enlarging. Haven't seen one in years. Trent Parke's more recent experiments appear to be using digital photos very tightly cropped to exaggerate grain-like noise for an abstract effect in faces. A less sophisticated digital camera (by current standards) like the Ricoh GX100 at ISO 200 or higher can produce noise that's remarkably comparable to Delta 3200 - which was not what most buyers wanted, so that particular camera was less successful.

An acutance developer will get more gritty grain even without pushing. Many folks like Rodinal but I got better results with a Beutler type formula like Tetenal Neofin Blue, although it's not really suited to push processing. Tri-X in Diafine will be very grainy, but it's not a tight gritty grain, and the tonality is characteristically grayish. Best for high contrast lighting. Very dilute D-76 or ID-11, at 1+3, will sharpen the grain and edges, although these aren't great for pushing either. Tri-X didn't get really grainy in Microphen until I hit 1600 or so. Beyond 6400 the negatives are too thin to be practical. Diluting Microphen to 1+3 will also enhance edge effects and acutance, but at the cost of speed enhancing properties (at stock solution strength it boosts some films a bit, a true speed of around 500 with some 400 films). BTW, TMY in Rodinal develops uniquely gritty grain even at the box speed of 400. Sharp, sandy salt and pepper quality. Might be interesting up to 1600, although there wouldn't be any shadow detail.

You'll get much less sagging with a sturdier tripod. I have the Slik U212 and enjoy the versatility, especially for getting low at odd angles. It does most of what I'd want from the much heavier Benbo. But it flexes a lot under load because of all the nylon and rubber mating surfaces. Makes it frustrating to get accurate alignment. I didn't use mine with anything heavier than a Nikon FM2N and moderate telephoto, 300/4.5 AI or smaller. Nowadays I use it occasionally with my D2H for infrared, but only with the legs partially extended or at ground level using the center post as a fourth support. An older Bogen Manfrotto 3021 legset, or heavier, will have metal to metal joints and much less sagging under load. Might be a better value than a carbon fiber legset costing less than $200.

Yup, I noticed that as well about 10 years ago. Tri-X now resembles 1990s T-Max 400. More sensitizing dye and iodide content, stronger residual purple base tint (whereas my older Tri-X negatives dried neutral steely gray), finer grain... good film, but not really Tri-X any more. The differences show in the same developers used than and now, especially HC-110 and D-76. By the time I began using Diafine Kodak had already changed Tri-X so I'm not sure how that classic combination should have looked. Alas, HP5+ isn't quite like old Tri-X either. Good film, more of a classic look, but not a substitute. Meanwhile, I began to prefer TMY for pushing. It suits me better at 1600 in Microphen.

If I had spare change to toss around I've long had a craving for a Leica IIIc or IIIf with collapsible 50/2 Summitar. That'd be a swell pocket camera and fashion accessory. But on my budget I've been contented with an Olympus 35 RC. Maybe not quite classic all manual cameras but there are several compact 35mm rangefinder and zone focusing cameras from the 1970s-'80s. I used to have a Minolta Hi-Matic zone focusing viewfinder model that had a really sharp lens, their lowest end model of that lineup.

<p>Those others were only intruders.<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17864622-lg.jpg" alt="R0012942_20120519_LR-3" width="1000" height="1000" border="0" /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"But in cinema, those two problems don't really exist. I mean, film is very expensive. But other production costs are, too. You cannot seriously make a TV show without good cast, agents, crew, producers, etc. Film is just part of that cost. So in relative terms, it's not a huge deal."</p> </blockquote> <p>There's never been a time that the cost of film wan't a huge deal. Film is prohibitively expensive for independent movie makers and always has been. My stepfather was an independent filmmaker, mostly shooting PSAs and industrials between more creative projects during the 1960s-'70s. The cost was significant back then and often a factor in shooting fewer takes, in addition to costs for union crews, talent, etc. On a couple of projects his budget was so squeaky tight he had me - a 12-13 year old kid with a new SLR - shoot the stills. Great experience for me, although my photos were probably barely competent.</p> <p>From the late 1980s I was involved in a few independent movie productions, most of which never got anywhere, and all were done on video because film was prohibitively expensive. At the very least the videos were done as demos in hopes of attracting investors. That's probably the case with the vast majority of movie-making hopefuls over the past 20-30 years.</p> <p>That's why Quentin Tarantino, in the extras segments for Pulp Fiction, recommended Hi8 video to aspiring filmmakers 20 years ago. Filters, smoke machines and post work could come pretty close to emulating the look of film. With digital, indie filmmakers like Gareth Edwards on <em>Monsters</em> (2010) have taken it to the nth degree, using ordinary affordable digital video cameras, pickup actors, and doing most of the post work himself on a home computer with off the shelf software. Great looking and sounding movie, very professionally done, although some might find the pacing a bit slow - it's more about suspense than horror or action.</p> <p>Some cinematographers and directors still insist film is best, but their skills and talent could probably fool most of us if they shot only digital. Even artists like Vilmos Zsigmond could probably get the same results with digital now that he got with <em>McCabe and Mrs. Miller</em>. Much of the look we associate with film is actually attributable to the single camera or few-cameras techniques necessitated by the cost of shooting and editing film. Video and, much later, digital, enabled cost effective multi-camera techniques, quick cut editing and an overall hyper-kinetic look, while avoiding the jittery look of classic nouvelle vague jump cuts.</p> <p>With the exception of a tiny handful of specific scenarios where film might hold a technical edge, the only reason to use film now is because you enjoy it and the process, not for any perception of technical superiority, whether for still photography or cinematography.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"Ahem.. I was fixing instead of developing, you were right. I just wanted to develop a fresh roll I recently shot and I realized I grabbed my fixer to start mixing it for development.. Stupid, stupid.. :) Eh, we learn from our mistakes."</p> </blockquote> <p>Happens to most of us, at least once. ;)<br> <br> I finally got into the habit of not only using a specific and distinctive container for fixer, but keeping it on the opposite side of the darkroom so I'd have to walk a few more steps to retrieve it.</p>

<p>I'd like to try Win10 on my laptop since I mostly use it only for web browsing. But the auto-download/install seems permanently stalled, and I'm seeing a lot of bug reports and privacy concerns. I don't have the time or patience to jump through hoops to make it work. So I'll wait and see.</p> <p>I'm still pretty satisfied with Win7 and don't feel any real need to change. Windows 7 has been the most stable and trouble free version I've tried, pretty much handles everything with very little intervention or maintenance. And all my old software dating back to Windows 95 still works, no problems.</p>

<p>Ditto Stephen's suggestion. Same thing I've done to clean droplets of dried tree sap from lenses and filters. Very common problem here at certain times of year.</p> <p>Warm up the water and verrrry weak liquid detergent mix (Dawn or similar), not quite hot but warm. Dab with cotton swabs. I usually finish up with lens cleaning fluid and microfiber cloth, but isopropyl alcohol (no rubbing alcohol, tho') would be fine. That's pretty much what's in Zeiss lens cleaning wipes anyway.</p>

<p>The photos I've taken that are most likely to matter to people who matter to me are candid snapshots of family and friends. I try to share those whenever possible. They'll already have those, so I don't worry about what happens after I'm gone.</p> <p>The other types of photos I do are mostly for myself. I've already enjoyed the benefits that accompany that type of photography.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"So did you manage as a young person to take a decent self portrait? Thinking back I am kind of glad I was not part of the self absorbed selfie generation as I have always been very shy and self conscious."</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Sure, a few, when I was a young teenager. Had nothing to do with being self absorbed. I was very introverted and self conscious.</p> <p>But the self portrait is a form of artistic exploration that dates back centuries. It's a way to explore concepts and techniques before involving a model. Often it's a self-contained, fully realized concept and needs no additional model or justification.</p> <p>Occasionally I do selfies now for Facebook. Can't say I'm entirely comfortable with it, but it's mostly to share moments with friends. And I wouldn't ask someone else to do something I wouldn't do. I enjoy taking candid photos of people. It's important for me to see how I come across to others as well. If I appear uncomfortable or insincere I need to see it for myself before I can expect another person, especially a stranger, to trust me with their photos.</p>

<p>This may be the photo that launched me into exploring <a href="/photodb/folder?folder_id=1045890">a theme</a>.</p> <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16689252-lg.jpg" alt="Fine chapeau and a smoke" width="525" height="700" border="0" /><br /><em>Fine chapeau and a smoke</em>.</center>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17874300-lg.jpg" alt="You forgot your change." width="669" height="1000" border="0" /></p>