light-zone

I'm going to try and answer your question Beau. I too

contemplated building tanks out of plexiglas. After pricing the

materials, (including having the pieces cut to insure that all

angles were square), I found it to be less expensive to buy used

tanks. Much less expensive for that matter. Clear plexi is the

least expensive, but not really suitable for tanks, and the solid

grays, in the appropriate thickness is, of course, alot more costly.

And I didn't need to go tot the trouble of building the tanks and

then see if they were all indeed water tight.

<p>

If you do decide to build your own, check out glue manufactures

web sites. The German companies have a "program" in which

you specify what materials will be bonded, and under what

conditions they will be subject to, ie. water, heat ect. The correct

glue will then be reccomended.

Lotus is very good, but pretty expensive. Check out this site, and

the links it provides. I ran across sources here in Germany that

really blew me away!

<p>

http://www.moersch-photochemie.de/

http://www.fotoimpex.de/Fotopapiere/fotopapiere.html

<p>

This is a distributer in Berlin, and they have a VERY cold toned

paper called Fomabrom which you might find interesting.

"Remember, 16x20 is only a four times linear enlargement from

4x5, or the equivelent of a 4x5 print from 35mm."

<p>

I'm a little confused. I always thought an 8X10" print from a 4X5"

negative was a 4X enlargement, and an 8X10" print from 35mm

was a 36 X enlargement. Using the theory that a square yard has

9 times the area of a square foot, doesn't the same rule apply to

making prints? I'm not familiar with the term linear enlargement.

How about giving a compensating development process like

split D-23 a try. I too shoot in high contrast situations and this

developer allows me to read my shadows, place them around

zone 4 and still not block up the highlights.

I think the comparison Tri-X and HP5+ would be a "fairer"

comparison, both of the films being ASA400. I like both of them

but use the HP5+ because it is more readily available in 8X10

and the price (here in Europe) is about 35% less than Tri-X.

Instead of comparing curves, wouldn't it be more interesting to

compare results? Doing a test shot using both films will provide

you with "real world" answers, and not the hypothetical ones than

curves indicate.

I don't have an origional Zone VI dark cloth, but rather a

homemade one using a similar design. When checking the GG

with my loupe, I use the same opening as for my head because

a small amount of light at that point won't deteriorate what I see

through the loupe.

<p>

The film holders are inserted after removing the darkcloth, but in

bright sun, I re-mount the dark cloth AFTER inserting the film

holder to prevent the direct sunlight from hitting the camera back

and filmholder. You can never be too careful when it comes to

light leaks.

I have to agree with Jim. Have a drum scan done at

800-1000dpi, retouch in PS have if you need a tranny, have one

put out on a Fire 1000 or another similar system. Then you have

both a high end digital file (although such exposure devices as

the Fire 1000 usually require an RGB file and not a CMYK) and a

transparency.

Thanks Steve. And I like thie idea of a "Helpful Hint's" thread too.

<p>

Here's mine.

While travelling a month ago, I realized that Murphy's Law is no

joke. I had two 8X10 dark slides crack on me. Using black cloth

tape on both sides of the crack, I was able to make them light

tight for the remainder of the trip.

You will find that by placing the prints face down on the chrome

sheets and insuring good contact by using a print roller, you will

get a glossy finish by merely allowing them to air dry.

<p>

I've never tried the clothes iron thing, but it sounds possible.

Properly exposed and developed Tri-X will give you a very nice

20X24. The addition film speed comes in handy when shooting

LF and you find yourself consistantly stopping down to f32.

<p>

Tri-X will give you a different quality neg than one of the

mentioned t - crystal based films. Higher accutance perhaphs?

I've found it to be true after switching over from T-Max to Ilford

FP4+ and HP5+.

You can do one or the other, or both.

<p>

Look for the information found on the

<p>

Dust and spotting

<p>

section of the start page.

Although SLIGHT information can been seen on the negative,

that does not necessarily mean that there is ENOUGH

information to print. Negatives provide more information than

papers.

I think what you need is a combination of exposure technique

and development process that will give you "beefier" shadow

details. You might want to try giving your film a longer exposure

and looking into compensating development processes like a

split D-23 for instance. I've been using this developer for about 6

months now, and can only give it 2 thumbs up. It allows for

excellent shadow detail while retaining information in the

highlights as well. There are several threads on this board

dealing with such developers, and belive me, they are worth

reading and trying out. Since swithching over to spilt D-23, my

8X10 negs are EASY to print, with only a minimal amount of

dodging or burning necessary, and that is to achieve the look I

want, NOT in order to "save" a shot.

Our Studio in Germany takes used chemicals to a re-cycling

depot. Wether or not they are then properly "disposed of" in a

earth-friendly matter or not, I don't know.

<p>

And doing the "right thing" has it's price as well. When recycling

say, 150 liters, it costs us about $60. It's no wonder that more

people don't recycle. It amounts to being penalized for doing the

"right thing".

Any other members who are also located in the EU and are able to help out, please feel free to

contact me as well.

The above email will work, but is NOT current. Stale old cookies.......

<p>

Thanks

<p>

William Levitt

light-zone@web.de

I too thought that the 450mm Fuji would be too "similar" to my 360mm lens,

but I bought it anyways am am very happy with both the size and its

performance. I chose to drop my 360mm lens from my "arsenal" going with

my 300mm instead. I just returned from a trip to the Canary Islands where I

found myself well equipped with my 210mm, 300mm and 450mm lenses.

Now I have a 165mm Agulon and a 250mm Wide Field Ektar to sell.

Has no one seen books by Frederick Evans? Some of the most

beautiful shots I've ever seen, and through his work (platinum

prints) you can really learn what it means to "see the light".

The rule of thumb , atleast as I have discovered through my own

studio experience is, the closer in you go with the camera, the

smaller your light sources have to be in order to have control

over the lighting.

There are flash companies out there that offer specialized

lighting for close up situations. We have, in our studio, an older

system from Hensel, comprised of power packs and light

sources that are the size of a quarter, and they run through fiber

optics. This is great for jewelery and other small objects where

the lighting must be critically placed, and where the subject is

not just "lit", but where a mood too must be created.

Try looking for Hensel.com (it may be under Hensel.de, I'm not

sure).

There are some positive aspects to telephoto lenses as well.

For a camera with limited bellows draw, a true telephoto lens

will allow it's use where another lens of equal photo length will

exceed the bellow draw capabilities of the camera.

I read a thread recently that using an amonia solution is the trick

to getting rid of fungus. You might want to go and check the other

threads for more detailed information. It was too long ago so you

should be able to find it quickly.

All of the above are good suggestions! In addition, get use to the

fact that your hands will be in the soup more often than not. If

you're sensitive to the chemicals, try using non-latex surgical

gloves. After suscessfully staining my fingers brown by using a

split D-23 developer with bare hands, I went to using the gloves

and I find no perceptible loss in sensitivity. And knowing that my

hands are protected allows me more "freedom" to keep my

hands in the developer in order to maintain control over the stack

of negatives.

High-end drum scans made for the purpose of going to off-set

press (atleast at the Lithographers here in Germany) ARE done

during the scan.

High-end scan software such as LinoColor establish the

necessary criterian (contrast, brightness, sharpness and color

balance) using a detailed "pre-scan". The changes are then

caluculated and applied during the fine scan.

I too had this problem. I moved up from a Minolta Autocord to a Rolleiflex, and

was not aware that the film had to be fed UNDER the first roller (but not under

the second, by the take up spool) in order to have the film counter work

properly. As soon as you load the film in this fashion, not only will the film

counter work as it should, but you'll feel pretty dumb about the whole situation

as well. Well, I did atleast.

Light-Zone