d_s31

<a href=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19344432>Artists

Lament Polaroid's Latest Development</a><p/>Interesting story about how some

artists don't want to give up the medium. I didn't know Polaroid made 24"x20" film.

<i>I mean, for paying $40 to have three 120 rolls processed...</i><p/>That's pretty much what it is all over the place +/- $15 a roll. I've seen as high as $20 for a roll of 120.<p/>Have you considered the developing kits? Tentenol or the Kodak E6? For <a href=http://www.adorama.com/KKE6SU5L.html>$50 plus S&H (Adorama will ship it.)</a> the KODAK kit will do 20 rolls of 120 <a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/ti2443/ti2443.jhtml?id=0.2.24.14.18.14.3.28.22.3&lc=en>(more with adjustments)</a>. That's $3.25 to develop a roll of slide. And if you're scanning them, you'll have the film flat on the bed or carrier. You already have the equipment to develop film.<p/>Just a thought.

To get the look I'm thinking of:<p/>Build a logo similar to that one out of DWV pipe. Maybe add a 'P'. Photograph it. PS it to make it look like a digital logo. Leave it black or make white like PVC pipe.<p/>With the housing situation like it is and especially new construction, maybe a logo that says 'Will plumb for food." ? <p/><p/>Kidding. I'm a little down on the economy myself.

<i>I had a beloved K10D that I finally outgrew. I just felt there were better cameras out there. I waited until I felt I couldn't wait anymore for them to upgrade.</i><p/>What about the K10D that you outgrew?<p/>And what is it about Sony that made you consider it a better camera than the K10?<p/>These aren't rhetorical questions. I really would like your opinion.

Try to rent one. Ask around at your local photo shops or even here.

I've used the 7200 and all I can say is that it's one hell of a value. It has an accurate D-MAX rating of 3.3. I have some shots from a wedding where someone took one of those disposable cameras with the flash on and took a photo about 4 ft in front of the subject - outside. The face of the subject was very bright and I was able to reduce it some, but it was no where as balanced as the print. It has trouble with the highlights. Other than that, it does beautiful scans!<p/>This site is so Nikon and Cannon happy - that's why it hasn't been mentioned much. When a newbie asks about scanners, the replies are always "Just buy a Nikon." Sorry, but not all of us have $550 for a Coolscan and that's assuming you can actually find one in stock. And on the auction sites, <i>used</i> ones are going for <i>more</i>. <p/>It's ridiculous especially when all of the reviews I've read about the Coolscans say that the D-Max is nowhere near the 4.8 they claim and it's actually less than 4. The new Plusteks are getting close to that for a fraction of the cost - yes less features like automatic batch scanning - but a hell of a value. I'm not going to spend $550 on a scanner when I'm shooting less and less film and when I do shoot film, I use a complete analog work flow.

Oops, Freestyle also has a bunch of <a href=http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=108>others too</a>.

I don't know the size, but here's start:<p/><a href=http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=108&pid=2528>Rockland Colloid Tintype</a>

KODAK Portra 400VC.

I have a Plustek 7200 with SilverFast 6.5. The "QuickScan" on the scanner sucks for B&W. You need to do a "IntelliScan" for a decent scan - which should automatically bring up the SilverFast program. From there, the SilverFast has a selection for what film you're scanning. Mess around with that. Sometimes, scanning the B&W negative as a color neg will give better results. (BTW, I noticed that the T-MAX and Across films scan much better than anything else, so far.) If you have a neg that has a lot of contrast, you may have to scan it at 7200 and digital darkroom it to get something nice. Also, try changing the setting to 8-bit monochrome in case you haven't. That helps too. Good luck!

I vote that your chemistry is old. I know that you tested the fixer for exhaustion, but I say make a fresh batch and see if your problem still exists. If not, make a fresh batch of developer. Or try different brands.

I agree with Hansen Tsang. I think it's the dynamic range. The photo I posted looks so much better on Ilford Multigrade IV! Plus I cropped out the vignetting.

Everything, including darkroom equipment, is impermanent. <p/>Just to make this thread philosophical.

I don't know about Walmart, but I hate it when mini labs put all the negatives piled on one another in that little envelope on the side. I have had bent negatives in the past.<p/>My Dad went to Walmart and the tech printed one of his photos and said "This is professional!" and proceeded to tear it up - even when my father protested that he did in fact take the photo. (It wasn't <i>that</i> good.) He wasn't charged, but he did spend all that time there.<p/>I've stopped using big box store mini labs because of what I've said and what the others above said. And no, there's nothing Walmart, Costco or any of the drug store chains can do to get me back.

Actually, Kodak, Fuji and Ilford offer many of their newer B&W films in 35mm, 120, 4X5. KODAK has their TMAX line in all of the sizes and Tri-X - no Plus-X. Ilford looks like it has all of them in all of the sizes you've mentioned. Fuji B&W line also looks like it has all the sizes you've mentioned.

<a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&sb=bs%2Cupper%28ds%29&sq=asc&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=&ci=335&at=Film+Type_Black+%26+White&at=Size_4x5&basicSubmit=Submit+Query>See here for 4x5 selections.</a>

<a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/colorReversalIndex.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.11&lc=en>KODAK's lineup</a><p/>Oh, I meant to ask, "Am I reading this wrong?"<p/>Oy, vey!

<a href=http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/lineup.html>FUJI

Film Lineup</a><p/><p/>I find Fuji's slide film selection a little confusing, at

least compared to KODAK's, and I was looking that the <a

href=http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/velvia_100.html>Velvia

100</a> and the <a

href=http://www.fujifilm.com/products/professional_films/velvia_100f.html>100F

</a> and it looks like now they're the same film. Whereas, before, the 100F had

a finer grain. I guess we may see the 100F "disappear" because the entire Velvia

100 product line will be the same.<p/>I'm a reading this wrong?

<i>4) Only shoot between noon and 1pm.</i><p/><p/>Why, those are my working hours (12 - 1pm). But, I get a one hour lunch break at that time. <p/>Why yes, I'm a member of Congress.<p/>I'm just full of these, folks!

I have a manual focus camera and use a Linear. But, when I stack them (i.e. place the polarizer on top of a Red 25A), the camera has a tendency to underexpose - sporadically. In other words, when I try to compensate for the strange behavior, I end up with grossly overexposed or negatives that are just right.

There you go! A double whammy against Rodinal: it's toxic and you have to dilute it in dihydrogen monoxide! <p/>Sorry, couldn't resist.<p/>By the way, how do the Greenpeace folks feel when they ram ships and all the oil and whatnot spews into the ocean? And using violence to further their goals? That's what terrorists do.

Oops, forgot the scan.<div></div>

T-Grain films. KODAK has been considering scanning in the design of their new films.<p/>Color: Portra 160 or 400 VS OR Ektachrome 100 VS if you want slides. (I don't see why since you're scanning them.)<p/>B&W: T-MAX 100 or 400. <p/>Unless you're shooting action, I would go with the 160 & 100. OK, maybe a couple rolls of 400 speed film for those rainy cloudy days - this will spare you from having to carry a tripod or mono pod. I once had TMAX 400 on a bright sunny day and even with my camera at f/16 1000th sec, it still over exposed the film. My shutter speed tops out at 1000th.

NC = Natural Color (This is for people and portraits) <br/>VC = Vivid Color (Nature, Landscapes)<br/><a href=http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/portra/400main.jhtml>KODAK's PORTRA Films</a>

Oops, the memo is dated December 2007 - sorry. And what he said about UC I have <i>never</i> seen anywhere in print by KODAK or as a rumor. I think the sales guy was pulling the UC being cancelled out of his butt.

It's no mix up on his end, Thomas. It's KODAK. There was a memo going out to dealers last October/November 2007 that showed the 35mm PORTRA films (only in 35mm) being discontinued. It was posted here on P.Net but it has since been deleted off of the system. I have a copy in my hand but no scanner - which is probably good since I question it's accuracy, now.<p/>The link you posted shows 35mm Portra VC and NC being around and your link is newer, so I'll be going by your posting. It's also hopeful thinking because I really like the Portra VC 160 & 400.