ed_farmer

This thread was started last November and the OP hasn't returned since. It seems like there's a lot of nonsense here so I'm going to try to sum up a few things in case someone finds this in the future: Processed film with no edge markings is ALWAYS a processing problem. It may be that the developers is shot, or improperly mixed OR was not the first chemical put in the tank. By far, the most common reason is that the film was fixed first and then the developer was poured in later. Ask me how I know THAT one! When two films are processed together and one comes out fine while the other is a shit show, the most common problem is not using enough chemistry for the number of rolls in the tank. While the one on the bottom MAY come out perfectly, both usually suffer some when this happens. Feel free to ask me how I learned that one as well.

I'll second the idea of removing the film in the dark and pulling it out of the canister. If it's still attached the spool, you can then rewind it properly. You probably killed a few frames with kinks and scratches. When you continued to wind the wrong way, you may have reversed the direction the film is wound on the spool. If you can't get it back in the canister, you might just have to roll it up and put it in a light tight container.

For my taste and experience, all of the images produced are flat. The f22 image is the best, but could have used EITHER more exposure at the printing stage, harder paper or more development. I can't tell which from this thread. Your blacks aren't black in the f22 image and I don't think that the whites are white in the other images. Over all . . . This is about finding what works for you. Film, rating, developer and time. When I was shooting TMax films, I usually over exposed by up to a full stop and then overdeveloped by about 10 or 15%. Everything printed on grade 2, Zone VI, paper. Later, I switched to Tri-X and PMK Pyro developer. I also over exposed that by at least a 1/2 stop but found that development time was very forgiving. I'm not going to get into the Adams thing . . . I learned a hell of a lot from his books but put much less than I learned into practice.

Yes . . . What you describe as "vertical" strips are actually horizontal lines. In the image posted, the one on the right looks like they could be scanning artifacts. If you are not making wet prints, examine the negative under a strong loupe or dig out the enlarger to project it and see if the lines are there. The grain doesn't look excessive in the images. HP5 isn't particularly "gainless" and you don't say what developer you used. Scratches ARE a possibility. As noted, if it's one roll it's the canister. If it's every roll, it's the camera. Light leaks cause white strips on prints. Not black.

Work flow . . . We need to know something about your work flow. We can't just assume and guess. Portra400 is a great, neutral film that shouldn't give you problems. Printing and scanning those negatives on the other hand, like any negatives, can be more troublesome. I have shot far more than a handful of Asian weddings and I never really found them to be an issue. The skin tone CAN come out over exposed or the scanning process can over expose it. This largely depends on the amount of skin filling the frame. A tight shot of a face for example may over expose. Flash can do this as well. If you can't fix this images in post, you should get a few prints made at a good lab and see what's happening.

It's possible that there's a scrim over the background light but he looks awfully close the wall or paper. It's more likely that there a several spot light throwing those splashes on the back drop.

I haven't shot any Delta3200 but many years ago I played with TMax3200 at ISO25,000 and I loved the look for the right portraits.

Interesting . . . The OP was last here the day she posted this and has only two posts . . .

Yes . . . It makes sense: The problem has nothing to do with the actual distance. The problem occurs when the internals of the lens are at their extreme. This should still occur, with the extension in place, if you move your subject so that the lens is again indicating at or near it's minimum focus distance.

Another option . . . I have to go look at my 23C (it's not in current use) but where do you have the upper bellows set? I never set it at "35mm" as I found the light too bright, printing times too shot and the light a little harsh. I always moved it to the top even when printing smaller negatives. This would have the added benefit of lowering the heat at the negative stage.

OK . . . What kind of reels are you using? Plastic or steel? Is it possible that you are damaging the emulsion when loading the reels? This do look a little like "pinch" marks.

I used to teach a photography class in the evenings at a local high school. It was mostly moms and the title was always something like "How to Take Better Pictures of Your Kids and Family". One of the first things that I told them was always, "You're going to be much less happy with your pictures once we start this class." My intent was to give then an understanding that once they started to learn more about photography, they would realize that their pictures were not very good. Then they could learn how to improve them. Is it possible that you are judging your photography a little more harshly now? Ansel Adams used to be happy with a few really good pictures in a year. If you are being critical, I think it's a bit much to expect one keeper in a day of shooting.

This is very different from and much simpler than the dye transfer process. Dye transfer required three or four, CMY or CMYK, pan matrix internegs that were then coated with a dye and transferred to paper one at a time, in registration, building up the image one color at a time. If you are interest in learning more about the process, research the photographer Ctein who may be the last in the world practicing the process. Pan Matrix film was discontinued years ago and he bought a walk in freezer to store all that he could get. I'm not sure if a similar product is still being produced anywhere.

I'm still not sure why you need to use photo paper. But, I'm not familiar with this process (other than Polaroid) so, don't pay too much attention to me.

I have found the 18-200VRII to be a great "carry around" lens and it's one of the primary lenses that I use in wedding photography. I don't see much point in picking up a 35 or 50mm prime, even a fast one and even though I carry both a 30f1.4 and a 50f1.4 in my bag. Those, it seems to me, are for later. As to the idea that anything longer than 105 isn't very useful, I have to disagree. My 80-200f2.8AFS is one of my favorite portrait lenses for singles, doubles and some triples. Head shots, head and shoulders and even 3/4 length shots. If you get close enough to do these with the 18-50, you risk distortion and you will not be able to soften the backgrounds as much as you might like. My usual suggestions in these circumstance is to look less at what you have done in the past and more at what you want to do in the future. How does your current kit limit you in the direction and then figure out what lens you need to accomplish that task.

So . . . As noted earlier, the first to look at is the edges of film. There should be bar codes, an identifier for the film stock and numbers. If there is not, you have a processing problem. The most common of which is that you have mixed up or mislabeled your developer and fixer so that you are fixing the film before development. If you have edge markings, the most likely is, again as noted earlier, that the film is not advancing through the camera. How are you determining when to rewind the film? Are you just shooting the 24 or 36 exposures and rewinding? Or, are you waiting until the advance lever will not complete its motion and then rewinding? These are mistakes that we have all made and learned about the hard way. Beyond these suggestions, we need input from you.

You might want to do a little more research . . . The instructions above will allow you to remove the light sensitive material from photo paper, I have to ask why you are using photo paper for a substrate in the first place? I expect that water color paper would be closer to what you are looking for. I have never seen a diffusion print made from a negative.

"Actually being a good wedding photographer is learning how to keep your cool in various situations and learning how to control groups of people without getting all shook up." I've always said that if the couple is still talking to me by the end of the night, I have 90% of the job in the bag. Very little bothers me when I shoot a wedding. Late brides, pushy parents, uncooperative kids, other photographers . . . It all just rolls off my back. If it didn't, I wouldn't have made it through the 6-700 weddings I've covered.

I don't see anything special either . . . "Lust at Large" leads me to believe that the photographer isn't trying to accomplish much.

This isn't likely from the 80's. You're looking at the 60's or 70's when screw mount and T-mount lenses were popular. This is worth no more than $100 and you might have trouble finding someone who will pay you that. The filter (attachment) is mostly there for protection and is worth a few dollars. All that I did was copy "Asanuma auto-tele 1:5.5 f=300mm" into Google. You will see a few for sale (ignore the prices) and a few videos on the lens.

Here's the thing to remember . . . Through a "normal" range of values, the shutter speed has no effect on the image. Aperture on the other will have a number of different effects on the image, mostly surrounding the idea of depth of field. Most lenses are not as sharp at their maximum aperture and most suffer from diffraction issues at their minimum aperture. Most are sharpest at one or two stops closed from max. Most lenses shouldn't be used at f16 or smaller. So, for the most part, for consumer lenses most images will look best at f5.6 to f11. In fact, in many cases, you really will not see much difference in this range if you are shooting in natural light. So . . . When do you vary from these apertures? When shooting with flash, there are number of advantages to shooting with larger apertures. First, you flash will not use as much power. This will allow it to recycle faster and will usually improve the balance between the available light and flash. When you need an extremely large DoF, you should stop down further. Just remember that at some point, a smaller aperture will result in an overall softer image. When shooting portraits, I usually go for very large apertures. In my wedding work, I have a stable of fast lenses, 30, 50 and 85f1.4, 135f1.8 and an 80-200f2.8. I often shoot these wide open but there are times when I am close enough that DoF is too shallow and I stop down to about f4. But, remember this is a set of extremely well designed, heavy, expensive lenses. It took me years to build this kit and people actually pay me to use them. So . . . To answer your question in a more complete but maybe less useful way . . . I decide what aperture to use based on how I want the picture to look. You don't say what gear you are working with or what you are trying to accomplish. A little more information about your goals, will help us provide more specific information.

The 135 is the only "ART" lens that I have. I've been shooting with the Sigma 35f1.4 and 85f1.4 with a Nikkor 50f1.4 in-between. I'll shoot with this lens for a while before deciding on a dock. I don't expect to trade the other two for ART lenses anytime soon. I thought about selling the 30 and replacing with a 35f1.8 Nikkor (smaller and cheaper) but I love my 50 and 35 just isn't that different. That's how I ended up with the 30 in the first place. Thanks for all the great information, all of you!

I just ordered a used Sigma 135f1.8 ART lens, used, from Adorama. Does anybody have the accompanying USB port to upgrade firmware and, I guess, do other things? Do you recommend the lens without?

Your Wacom tablet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the problem . . . Sort of . . . What is likely is that you inadvertently changed some value to a new default while you were poking about with the tablet pen. It's very easy, compared to mouse buttons, to drag or click something without noticing. You included nothing about what software you are using but I suspect that there is some gui in the SAVE or CONVERT or whatever command whatever software you are using, where you changed the compression level or clicked a checkbox or something. I would go through the process and carefully review all of the information being used to create your JPEGs.

I THINK that the two methods depend on the lens and body in use. I'm not sure but I remember it that way. If your exposures are only two or three seconds, turning the speed ring doesn't work well because of the potential for movement. However, if you are going to five or ten seconds, any movement in the short time it takes to close the shutter shouldn't be an issue. You can also use the "bulb" setting which closes the shutter when you release the cable. This works great and you can get a locking cable release if that works better for you.