james_ollinger

Also thanks, I'll check out the BOOK OF PYRO. I don't have a copy, but I'll borrow one from the library and see what it says (I enjoy reading this kind of stuff regardless).

Thank you everyone, for the advice and info.

 

Conrad: please don't go to the trouble. That's a neat idea but I don't see myself actually doing it. Not for the relatively little darkroom work I do anymore.

Exposure and development are both an art and a science. The science part is that if you do everything the same way, you get repeatable results. The art of it is deciding what to do to get a result you like, because we all have different needs, tastes and interests.

 

Bottom line: I don't think a 10% difference @ 20C and 1:1 dilution is going to make much difference. Especially if you're starting out and you're not doing critical work. At a higher temp, shorter time, stronger dilution, yes, perhaps. But if I were you, I wouldn't fret it. You have enough on your plate already.

 

"So, how long do you process your TRI-X for?"

 

Actually, I shoot at e.i. 200 and use Kodak's development dial to calculate the time accordingly. Plus I live in California where the ambient temp is usually higher, so I like to process around 75F. I like the results, and that's the art part of it kicking in.

It's beautiful. I don't know what to say.

Wow. The price must have come down. It seems like the last time I looked (years ago) they were >$100 and there was just no way I could justify it for what I do.

I haven't. But there are a lot of formulas for two bath developers. I'd try those first.

 

The thing to do is to identify exactly what it is you're trying to get, and then find out what will accomplish it. What is it specifically you're trying to get? High emulsion speed? Fine grain? Low contrast? Normal contrast? High acutance? Developing speed? Economy?

I'm a weekend warrior and now occasional darkroom worker so I can't justify the expense of a calibrated step tablet,

but I've wanted one. I've got a couple Macbeth densitometers I picked up a surplus store but they need to be

calibrated. I've got an uncalibrated tablet, but can't use the densitometers to calibrate them without a calibrated

tablet. Catch 22.

 

Anyway, I was thinking about it and it seems to me you might be able to make one without using a densitometer. I

don't have access to my darkroom now and won't for quite awhile, but I'm just thinking out loud and thought I'd share

and see what people think.

 

You need:

 

A roll of general purpose b&w film (your choice)

A camera/meter you trust

An 18% gray card (or some other suitable item)

An enlarger with a color head you trust

A darkroom meter

 

1. Set up for photos of a gray card on film. Meter card and shoot exposures. Begin at -5 stops through +5 in 1/3rd

stop increments.

 

2. Process normally.

 

3. Find the first exposure where there's discernable density, not just clear filmbase + fog. This exposure gets

marked as 0.1 density.

 

4. Set your filter pack to 0M 0Y 0C

 

5. Load this exposure (0.1) in the enlarger and measure with the meter. Null the meter or write down its reading

(depending on your meter type).

 

6. Go to the next densest exposure on the negative strip. Note the difference on the meter but don't change

anything.

 

7. Go back to negative marked 0.1. Add color filtration in equal amounts until you get the meter reading for your

unknown density negative. When you get that on the meter, you've added that density. E.g. if your filter pack is

10M 10Y 10C, then your test negative density is 0.2 (10 of MYC is 0.1 density, so add that to the 0.1 on our known

negative, and you get a density of 0.2. If the filter pack were 50M 50Y 50C, you'd end up with a density of 0.6).

 

8. Record the density for that negative.

 

9. Repeat until you've gone through the strip.

 

10. You now have a calibrated step wedge.

"that is the beauty of a clean A1,F1,FTb,etc,etc they are so spartan and simple to use,no need for a operators manual the size of a phone book."

 

Yup. I think there are a couple things on the A-1 I had to look up but they were minor. Yet I have to look at the owner's manual every time I take the T70 out, otherwise I invariably have something set wrong and didn't realize it. And I've had my 40D for six months now and I'm still going through the manual on it, trying to learn what does what.

Thanks! I collect light meters so these are appreciated.

I have two A-1s. One's well used, one's a creampuff. I don't remember hearing any problems they're particularly prone-to. Just check it out thoroughly--all shutter speeds, all apertures, all modes, etc.

 

One of the nice things (depending on your POV) with electronic stuff is that it tends to be obvious when they go wrong. They either work of they're dead. So if something is wrong with your A-1, chances are it'll become obvious when you try it.

 

I remember drooling when the A-1 came out because it did so many things. Read the press from that time and it's just a marvel. Now you look at it and it seems very spartan.

I've never had a bulk roll of film x-ray'd so I don't know how far it penetrates. But maybe(?) the just the outer layers might have been fogged. If you determine the film is fogged, discard a few feet and then test it again. You might be able to keep some of it.

Check out Canon Angle Finder C. http://www.adorama.com/CAAFC.html It works on EOS cameras, it's "correct" (not flipped), it has a magnifier and it's got decent eye-relief.

I used the same fix for both film and paper. I don't believe there's any benefit in keeping separate stocks unless you keep track of how many rolls/sheets you're processing and it makes your record-keeping easier.

John's right. Every thing you add between your lens and the outside world potentially degrades the image. It might be a lot, might be unnoticable, but a ray of light won't go through an optical element without being affected somehow.

 

But as noted: if you keep them clean, if you use a lens hood, if you buy quality filters that are coated, you're going to get better results.

 

How much difference does it make? Depends a lot on the type of work you do. Ultimately what matters is whether it's noticable or not. The best thing is to take test shots of the sorts of things you normally do. Make a set with and without the filter(s) and compare them.

I just bought a Bogen/Manfrotto 679 for my 40D and a heavish zoom. I put the Bogen 234 swivel head and the QR release on it. I'm very happy with it and it was the right mix of weight, size, and fit for me.

 

What worked best for me was going down to the local shops and actually seeing and feeling them, particularly the various Manfrottos, both aluminum and carbon fiber. That made it easier for me to decide what was too heavy, what looked too wimpy, what was balanced, etc.

 

Some things can be bought from spec sheets, but some things (cameras, lenses, tripods, etc) should be personally seen and felt.

Please post a follow-up. I'm curious to know how this turns out.

 

I also wonder if maybe the instructions are simply wrong. Someone makes a typo and it never gets corrected.

Thank you for sharing! I appreciate it very, very much.

If you know you want a particular color, by all means get it. Otherwise I suggest getting a plain ND and a polarizer. The polarizer may intensify the color enough (like blue sky) for you. If not, you can look into colors. But I'd hate to buy a graduated blue and then use it once a year. (I've got a "tobacco" that I used exactly once. Looked great in the catalog but not so much in practice. Not for what I do, anyway.)

 

After awhile it should become more obvious which filters you will want to get.

 

If you buy a square filter like a Cokin or a Lee, you'll end up with a filter holder sooner or later. You could just hold it over the lens if you want, but it's not the most efficient way of doing things. The nice thing about square filter systems is that they can be used with a lot of lenses with the appropriate adapter ring, so if you pick the right size, you can buy one set of filters and use them on a lot of lenses. You can do the same with screw-in filters but step-up/step-down rings aren't always a good solution (vignetting).

Thank you everyone.

 

I'm an amateur historian, and I find stuff like this fascinating. I'm not interested in generic "test negatives," I'm interested in Kodak Shirleys. I wanted to collect/see them and how they changed over the years. If I can get a variety of them, I'll put them on my website.

 

If anyone knows where I can find them (they're not even on eBay--at least I haven't seen any), I'd love to hear about it.

 

Special thanks, Waldo, for posting that one. Do you know when it was made?

A long time ago I remember reading something about Kodak's test negatives/transparencies, which typically featured

a girl for flesh tones, etc. The girl (and thus the test neg) was called a "Shirley"

 

I've searched all over and I can't find anything about it. I see people referring to Kodak test negs as Shirleys, but no

website that shows them over the years, no source to buy them, etc.

 

Anyone know anything about Shirleys? I'd love to know.

Is it possible the ambient temp of the developer is too high?

 

You might try a speed test for the film. Expose Tri-X at 320, 400, 640, 800, etc, and see if you get a good result at a higher speed. You may end up adjusting your E.I.

"One last question: when should I use D-76 1:1 and when should I use the stock solution? I recall reading *something* about it, but I can't remember what."

 

Higher dilutions typically give you higher acutance and a little bit of compensating effect. I like that, so I always used the highest recommended dilution of whatever I developer I was using. Since I also like using developer as one-shot (use one and discard), diluting is more economical than using it straight.

I also recently purchased a 40D (my first DSLR). I bought a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Giottos-Inches-Professional-Protector-Multi-Coatings/dp/B000QHSF0Y" target="_blank">Giottos Aegis</a> LCD protector for it. I'm very happy with it.

"I've read that it's OK to just run water on the film for 30s~1min instead of stop."

 

Developer needs an alkaline environment to work. When you plunge it into stop bath, you're hitting it with a chemical

at a lower pH. This drops the developer's pH down below the level where the chemical reactions can take place, and

development is halted. Acetic acid has a much lower pH than water, so the development halts ASAP.

 

You can do the same thing with water but it's not as dramatic a change in pH and not as efficient. How long do you

have to use a water bath to effectively stop development? I don't know. I knew someone who did it 30 years ago and

he washed it for 10 minutes, which wasted a huge amount of time and water. But I don't think he came up with 10

minutes from any kind of science or experimental results.

 

The other thing the Stop bath does is keeps the developer from contaminating the fix bath. You can shorten the

fixer's life and effectiveness if you bring residual developer into it, and that can bite you later on down the road.

 

Acetic acid is cheap, fast, and lasts a long time in B&W work. Is it really that important to substitute it out?

You might try a couple of events and see what becomes obvious that you need. I.e. you might consider a monopod rather than a tripod if you're going to be moving around. A monopod offers some stability but gives you more mobility (and a smaller footprint) than a tripod. If you just plant yourself and that's it, a tripod might be better.

 

If it were me, for events I would simply put a UV filter on as a lens protector and use the camera's on-board white balance for color correction. For wildlife/outdoors, I'd start with a circular polarizer. And not to belabor it, but a monopod works good for that as well--you get some stability, and the monopod is lighter and easier to carry than a tripod if you're trekking.

 

Again, if it were me I'd seriously spend time reading the STROBIST website (www.strobist.blogspot.com/), which is filled with fantastic information, tutorials, advice and inspiration on using small flash for professional lighting. It's amazing what you can do with shoe-mount flashes. He's Nikon-oriented because that's his equipment, but you can translate it for high-end Canon or 3rd party as well.

 

Good luck. It sounds like a nifty job.