Brian_Edwards

One of the problems with matte papers is that often the prints can often look pretty flat, and the darker tones can be pretty muddy and mushed together.

I have a mac mini duo core with 2gb of ram, and 80gb hard drive. I also have the mini-stack with a 500gb hard drive (to store images). All seems to work quite well; even the mac version of CS2 runs fine (though I sure that the universal version will be faster). Based on my experience thus far, I recommend. I do suggest that you purchase with extra ram pre-installed, opening up machine is a bit tedious.

Yes, you need to read about action sets in either the Photo Shop documentation or a Photo Shop book (one example: Chapter 9 of Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2 will lead you through it).

T.J.

 

I'll say what I want to say.

Bigoted? We're perhaps a bit thin-skinned, maybe?

You should have tried to get closer.

Allen:

 

I am having trouble figuring out just what your problem is with the intial post (and some of the responses). Also, you seem to be making a host of generalizations without a lot of evidence to support those generalizations.

The original poster did not claim that they were his own photos, so what's the problem?

Has slow shutter speeds, so it looks like a IIIF.

John:

 

...entitled to "hobbyist"...?

 

There is one correct spelling of the word. Check any real dictionary.

"..may be familiar..."

 

You do need a dose of humility.

 

You can try to pigeon-hole me all you want, but I think your argument, which appears to be along the lines that the preferences of graphic professionals and designers/art directors should somehow determine what the aspect ratio of film or digital cameras should be is simply, and I am putting this mildly, idiotic. If want to shoot square, shoot square. If you need a square image, but have a 6X7 camera, then crop. If you need a camera that has a square (or whatever) aspect ratio to satisfy the needs of your clients, then by all means, don't let any lowdown street photographer get in your way. Nobody is forcing you to buy a Canon, Nikon, or whatever digital camera, and nobody is forcing you into a 2X3 mold. Get over it, buy a 'blad and add a digital back, be done with it, and make your clients as happy as little clams.

 

By the way, it's spelled "hobbyist".

Well let's just take all of the full-frame HCB (or Eugene Smith, or Gary Winnogrand, etc.) prints out there and trash them, since they clealy do not have any artistic merit!

 

There's absolutely nothing wrong with individuals having different preferences about formats, but you express yours in just about the most prejudicial manner possible.

But some of us prefer the wider 3:2 format.

Looks a bit like a younger Kevin Spacey.

You need to know how much developer you need for each roll you process. That means if you dilute, you still must make sure you have enough developer for each roll, after the dilution. I Use XTOL 1:1 in my Jobo. I use 100ml of developer for each roll. So if I develop three rolls, I use 600ml of solution (300ml of developer, 300ml of water).

My understanding is that you should be shooting (pardon the pun) for a negative that prints

well on grade 2 paper, i.e., with good shadow detail and zone VII highlights that hold some

detail. Have you done any film speed or development time testing?

You will eventually want to do some film speed tests, to determine what your personal film speed is. There are plenty of BW books out there that describe the process. It's not too hard, you just have to be careful and systematic. This will answer the question of whether you really want to rate your Tri-X at 100. Many rate it at around 200, but what you do will depend on how accurate your camera shutter and thermometer are, what developer you use, how you agitate, etc. The important point is to develop a method of developing your film that you are comfortable with, and do it the same way every time you develop your film. That way, you can control what you are doing. In particular, you can begin to control contrast by varying development time, and do so systematically.

 

Good Luck!

 

P.S.

 

My suggestion for developers is to keep it simple. Start with D-76 or Ilford ID-11. You will also need stop bath (either Kodak Indicator Stop Bath or Ilford Ilfostop will do), and fixer.

For the CPP, you want a serial number above 22000. That's when they upgraded the motor and the circuit to allow for using the expert drums. Evidently, if you are not using the expert drums, the lower serial numbered Jobos are fine.

Mix the fixer according to directions. You can reuse the fixer, but it will eventually exhaust. You can buy chemicals that will test whether the fixer has been exhausted. You should use the fixer full-strength, unless otherwise indicated on the packaging.

This is the my favorite section:

 

"...perhaps now is a good time to consider selling your surplus gear..."

 

Just who is this guy, anyway?

I agree on the CAs...they seem to be everywhere the bright white meets anything (even remotely) darker than bright white.

You probably will have to underdevelop by 30 percent or so. You might actually get pretty

decent results, regardless. Most of the time, it is better to overexpose black and white film

(which you have done) anyway, so there's no need to push the panic button. Your usual

developer should be fine, but sometimes D-23 is used as part of water-bath (or two-bath)

development to reduce contrast, but maintain shadow detail, which is what you want to do

under the circumstances. Look up "compensating" developers, water bath, or two-bath

development for more information.

Check out digitaltruth for the formula for D-23.

You will have to reduce development time, but you might be close enough. I actually rate my Ilford FP4+ at 32 which is an equivalent two-stop overexposure. Tri-X is pretty forgiving, and rating it at 100 as a matter of practice is not unheard of.

 

You could try to mix some D-23 (water, sodium sulfite, metol) which is a compensating developer that might keep your highlights from being too blown. I actually use this developer all the time and am pleased with the results I get. On the upside, you should get great shadow detail, so all is not lost.

If I am not mistaken, Multigrade Developer is for paper, and not for film. Kodak D-76 is for

film. Putting two and two together suggests that the instructions to which you refer are to

use the D-76 to develop the film and the Multigrade developer to develop the paper when

you print the negatives.