zensphoto

<p>You're going to get a bunch of answers for this question. And you have looked over several very good cameras in your post. I shoot only Canon when it comes to DSLR, so get the Canon 5D Mark III. If you want just one lens for it, you could buy the EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM, or these three. Or a combination of two to meet the budget. <br /> EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM<br /> EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM<br /> EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM</p>

<h1> </h1>

<p>No the Black Rapid Snap. However, an alternative to look at that I use. <a href="http://www.customslr.com/">CSLR</a></p>

<p>Canon genuine batteries for the camera you have is the way to go. I know you can find a lot of really great prices about how so and so's battery is just as good as the real thing. From experience, that is not exactly true, and if you stick with the Canon genuine battery you'll always get top quality in your power. I am also not discounting any of the other people here, if it is working for them great, I just buy Canon genuine batteries.</p>

<p>Hi Jill,</p>

<p>After you photograph 100's of subjects, and you understand the basics and the advanced setting in either film or digital, examine your photographs, look at the data recorded about the photograph, everything comes automatic to you.</p>

<p>I want it sharp and I want it all sharp.<br /> I want it sharp and I want to see that water slow.<br /> I want it close and fast and the background blurred.<br /> I want whats moving to be stopped in time i'll shoot it fast.<br /> It all comes so automatic to me, like Jim is talking about "it's sort of in the DNA". Practice is the name of the game. The more photographs you take, you look at what you take, and what you did to create the look and feel you want in your photography the easier it gets.</p>

<p>My instructors at NYIP told me all about how to take the perfect photograph, and at the end of that lesson they said, make sure you break all the rules every so often so you can make the perfect photograph even better. So what are you doing with photography? You're painting with light.</p>

<p>The most important thing that is going on even when you know all the settings and how to make it look good. It is you who is making the photograph, not the tool. Or The person behind the tool makes the photograph.</p>

<p>Film and Processing forum looks to me from the subjects in it, that you can talk about b&w and color so I don't think you have to apologize for posting about the color here, it seems to be pretty open. I personally don't think film will be going away just yet. You are always hearing about someone on Photo.net and other websites returning to film even though they are also shooting digital at the same time. There are qualities you just can't get with Digital that you can with film. It is not to say Digital is any better or worse than film. As long as the movie industry is still using film it is going to be round. Even with the advancements of digital motion picture movies, there are still independent movie creators depending on B&W and Color film. I think it's going to be around for a long while with some come backs for the next few years of different kinds of traditional and improved films along the way.</p>

<p>Whoops, I forgot to state this is my opinion because people come after you here sometimes when you state your own opinion about some factor in photography and want you to provide proof. I can only say read around the web and you will get the idea.</p>

<p>One of many and not the only place on the web. <a href="http://www.lightandmatter.org/2011/general-photography-articles/learn-photography/the-three-basics-of-photography/">The Three Basics of Photography</a></p>

<p>Off subject, did you by any chance play that country club Exeter?</p>

<p>It is the 7" 668GL-70NP/H/Y of the Lilliput, I can do a short video of how it works if you like and email it to you if you like. I got it not because I can't use the little LCD screen on the camera, that works great, but during "I want to make this photograph look just the way I see it with a few adjustments I can do right now" and see it in full HDMI high definition or even make a HD video where I can actually see my subjects better this is really a cool thing. Plus, at the age of 47, working in the computer industry for 26 years my eyesight isn't exactly improving as I age the bigger screen makes doing everything with the Canon 60D or any other DSLR brand a lot easier for me. Cool toys for DSLR's that work. HDR doesn't need to be unrealistic looking like a lot of my HDR is, it can be adjusted to look very natural as well. 5 bracket shots, a free shareware or advances software such as Lightroom, Photoshop, Adjust 5 whatever can make an image look very detailed with out all the illustration look that it can product too. I'll pull up a few HDR's I took that are not so dramatic and are used to bring out the sky just slightly and post the links for you to examine just for fun.</p>

<p><strong>Eric Merrill</strong>, I have this book on my Motorola Xoom very interesting read worth the buy.</p>

<p>I'm with <strong>Horace</strong> about the negatives not being returned. The negative is your proof of copyright to the photograph in the event you just so happen to have a photograph that looks just like someone else photograph. If Wal-mart isn't returning your negatives I certainly wouldn't go there ever again and find a place that does.</p>

<p>Also, what is Wal-mart doing with your negatives now? Selling the photographs of excellent quality to stock picture places? Probably not, but what if that is what they are doing? Would you know for sure? and how the heck would you challenge them in court if they own the negative of the original photograph? It is definitely something to look into on the legal side of photography.</p>

<p>After thought... One thing I just got for my Canon 60D is a lilliput HDMI 7" LCD screen I attach to the hot shoe so I can see live view a lot bigger and make adjustments until I have the photograph I really want people to see. The Canon 60D is pretty good with Live View so you can make that near perfect shot right when you take it. </p>

<p>Maybe look into some High Dynamic Range photographs with the 60D such as this photograph I took over <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15844672-md.jpg">Lake Erie at Huntington Beach in Bay Village, Ohio.</a> </p>

<p>This is a <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14084612-md.jpg">natural blue</a> sky I shot with the sun behind me using the Canon 60D with out any filters. <br>

This is a modified with Topaz Adjust 5, Topaz B&W Effect and Photoshop CS4 <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14604993-md.jpg">blue sky</a> . Both are pretty close and you can get a good deep rich blue sky with the Canon 60D with or with out the Polarizing Filter. I have used a Circular Polarizing Filter on the Canon 60D and the NR at the same time to also achieve a darker sky when the light just isn't right. On page 96 of the online version of the <a href="http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/9/0300004019/03/eos60d-im3-c-en.pdf">Canon 60D manual </a>you might also want to poke around with the White Balance settings to see what you can get as well. Never hurts to experiment with the camera a little bit. <strong>Stephen Lewis</strong> has made an excellent point about exposure also more experimenting to obtain the look and feel of your photographs. </p>

<p>Jay no it is not, if you don't have enough chemicals in the tank and some of it is exposed for say any length of time with out chemicals on it, it isn't being developed. If you inverse it back Jay then chemicals are now on that part of the film. When you dump it back upside down that film is again not exposed to chemicals, again latency takes affect on the film. And the Tank I am using requires more chemicals how about that? Some of my one roll tanks require less. The tank doesn't absorb solution at all, but if you fill it up with all the piece and parts in it some of the solution stays in the tank. Stop taking things I have said out of context please. You know what never mind, I'm wasting my breath with this forum. I'll do my developing that is working my way you do yours your way. Simple. Why should I be upset with you anyway, you're a no body just like me.</p>

<p>Just want to point out Jay on page 8 it talks about developing with a processor roller transport processor, you can also have a portable tank roller that will do the same thing. I haven't had much luck with the roller processing with the Arista type of film. Inverse works great. So yes, XT-400 as I stated talks about the rotary development process.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/product_pdfs/aristaedu_ultra/AristaEDU_Ultra_100.pdf">http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/product_pdfs/aristaedu_ultra/AristaEDU_Ultra_100.pdf</a></p>

<p>Agree Jay, however, I wouldn't use those times on Arista film. <br>

Recommended Agitation: Agitate continuously for first 30 seconds of development,<br />then provide agitation of 5 to 7 inversion cycles for 5 seconds every<br />30 seconds for remainder of development time.<br />Where continuous agitation is used for rotary processor, reduce the developing<br />times by 15%.<br />Development times may need adjusting to suit individual processing systems and<br />working practices. If an established system is producing good results, adjust the<br />recommended development times until the desired contrast is obtained.<br>

But I do it this way. <br>

First 10 seconds after I dump the developer in, I inverse for 10 seconds then every 30 seconds I inverse once with out any rapid inverse. I develop for a total time of 6 minutes in D-76 at 68F/20C. this is what works for me. And we both know people that work with Black and white film like to experiment. Also you will notice in these instruction above right from the inside of the film it talks about rotary processing, well when you do that with a hand tank it doesn't develop up well. Sorry again Jay for using TX-400 Kodak I really should have said Arista thanks for pointing out the error.</p>

<p>Yes, 24oz of chemicals filling up the tank is passed the 590cc of chemicals, I know what the tank information says, it says 590cc of chemicals will cover an entire roll of 120/220 what the tank instructions fail to tell you if you inverse the tank the 590cc isn't going to cover the bottom of the roll when you invert it for the length of time you are keeping it inverted. So after a few mistakes back in 2006 when I go my first Holga plastic camera shooting 120 and having this happen I said lets try 24oz and see what happens and then is when I fixed the developing problem. I have a feeling this is the same problem you are seeing.</p>

<p>Inverting the tank for black and white film and even though if you look at the MFG recommended developing instructions for 120/220 not all of the MFG's say that but they do on the TX-400 Kodak to use rotation not inversion I have found that rotating cause uneven developing and inversion 35mm. 127, 120/220 keeps the development nice and even as long as you have enough chemicals in the tank.</p>

<p>The only thing I use rotating for is C-41 Color Negative processing in the hand tank that works great and inversion doesn't work well with C-41 Color Negative Hand Tank processing at least not for me. Of course we aren't talking about color development here.</p>

<p>I agree with you there Larry. There is always chemical issues it seems, however I think I have all the bugs worked out of my method at least right now everything develops out until I come across something I haven't done yet. Even mixing my own chemicals from raw chemicals while experimenting have managed to develop out pretty good. </p>

<p>Horace T, that is exactly what I am saying, so put in 24 oz if developer and try it again and when you move your developer from tank one to tank two make sure you pour it back in the beaker or what ever you are using and make sure it is exactly 24oz again. I would just add if you mixed a full gallon to pour it back in there, and mix up the bottle a little and then pour out 24oz again and put that into the second tank and I believe you will have solved your dark band of underdeveloped film problem.</p>

<p>I must be tired out today, if the tank doesn't have enough chemicals in it, yes, even a few seconds out of the developer is going to cause a latency in that development. The idea with inversion it to move the chemicals around so fresh chemicals are hitting the film all the time. If there just isn't enough chemicals in the tank and you invert what ever is exposed is going have a latency or be behind in development.<br>

If the whole tank is full no. But I don't know for sure if your whole tank is really full, I only can speculate the cause of the second roll with the 1.5 to 2cm's of under developed film. I would have to either test what you are doing and I know with a full tank the whole 24oz in both tanks the film is going to look perfect as long as my chemicals are fresh. Some times chemicals stay fresh for a real long time sometimes they don't depends on how many rolls you are doing, for each gallon of D-76 I use I get a smooth 26 rolls of B&W 35mm out of it. For 120 not 220 I get about half that. After all those rolls my chemicals are exhausted and even say at roll 13 my 120 may not come out exactly as I had expected so I usually add about 30 seconds more time developing it so it is developed enough for me to scan it.</p>

<p>The idea there was a shutter problem was mentioned if that was truly the case then I would say all of the rolls would have this problem. What frame size are you using 645 6x6 6x7 or 6x9 I have enough camera's that shoot 120/220 to cover all those sizes, I could shoot two rolls of arista 100 and do what you are doing to see if this happens if you would like and show the results by shooting photographs with my digital camera if you think that would help you see what I am trying to explain?</p>

<p>The band at the top or bottom I don't always put my film in so the top of the photograph is at the top of the tank I just load it in pitch black so I have no idea what I am looking at when I load it. Anyway, at 590cc of chemicals you are left with a little more of 4oz of chemicals not hitting the film when you inverse it. If this tank was clear when I turned it up side down with the lid on it of course you would notice that about 1.5 to 2.0cm of the film is exposed to no chemicals for the entire length of your inversion. This would put that little bit of film behind in the development. I'm coming to this conclusion that you probably pour in the developer, agitate it for 10 seconds then inverse it upside down for 30 seconds then reverse it back to top up which all the film would then be exposed to chemicals, then upside down again and the 1.5 to 2.0cm are again exposed to no chemicals and thus by the end of your development cycle because you use these chemicals on the first tank and just dumped them into the second tank again with out measuring them you should notice at least an ounce to two ounces missing because not everything leaves the tank there is always some run off left in the tank and an ounce isn't very much when you see it in a beaker it wouldn't be real noticeable unless you really stopped to look at it. It is just enough less chemicals to create the less developed portion of the roll of 120/220 roll. I am just speculating that this is what is happening. I am just sharing my experience that I have come across. On top of it you are using the sodium metaborate water which also will need to cover the entire roll of film even if it is just sitting there for 1 minute without agitation. If the first developer isn't covering the whole roll the sodium metaborate water isn't going to develop out the band that has already been behind for the past 6 minutes of developing which would mean if you did a 30 second rotation 3 minutes of time in the 6 minute the upper top of the film has been out of developer. When I see your photograph you put up I also see waves from the chemicals in it like as though it was out of the chemical and dripping down. With a fixer that is exhausted you can see that on the whole negative sometime, but in your case I only see it in the under developed portion of the negative.</p>

<p>Alright I believe you. My mistake totally.</p>

<p>If there lets say, 590 cc = 19.9502734 US fluid ounces looks like this in my hand tank just covering the full roll of 120/220. At the bottom of the threads is exactly 24 oz of developer, stop bath, fixer, hypo, wetting agent. You can also see a C ring on the spool that holds the 120/220 film in place so it doesn't move up and down the spool when you do inversion agitation. It stays locked on the spool. Here is what I think is going on with your development, after you do your first tank of development some of those chemicals are being soaked up due to the tank inside, how much is being used up, and when you flip the tank there isn't enough chemicals left to cover that top band or bottom band for that matter depending how you have the film on the spool. I always just fill the tank with a full 24oz and pour it back out in to the beaker and remeasure it to see how much has been used, then back into my Gallon of developer, stop bath, fixer, hypo, and wetting agent depends what step you are on, and remeasure out the chemicals again before starting the next tank. This way I am absolutely sure I will have enough chemicals for the next tank of 120/220. I have done what you are doing now, and have ended up with that same band on the top or bottom of my 120/220 and just went with the full 24oz all the time and the problem has completely gone away. Again if the spool is stationary when you turn it up side down and wait, some of the film will be, behind in development and thus give you the band you are showing us in your photographs.<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16074452-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="510" /></p>

<p>These two have been around for awhile, I have purchased raw chemicals from them and have made my own brew before. <a href="http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/">http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/</a></p>

<p>I will probably be shot at the door by someone, I have used Nikon, and I can tell you I have a Nikon L110 Point and shoot. It does a great job for a 12.1MPix camera. Every other camera I own from 35mm to my Canon 60D is a Canon camera. I have some Kodak old school film cameras. What is going to get me shot at the door is... Canon just makes a better camera. <--- My opinion from shooting Canon since the 70's.</p>

<p> </p>