mark_lindsey

no! no! no! this film is horrible, don't use it! send it to me at my

address right away! :)

have you thought of going with a tungsten constant light source? light

is light, hell, you could use chicken lights if you had to......

I guess the best way to go is to look at it is on a case by case basis

and weigh all the positives and negatives---then make the best choice

that you can.

<p>

I remember in school being pressured by some dealer reps to purchase a

digital large format back---"you have to make a seperate exposure for

each color (rgb) and its about $30,000, but you have to have it to

compete in today's market!!", yeah right, I really needed that.

<p>

good talking to you...

Michael, don't you think your response is a bit ironic seeing how

people are jumping to this new and expensive technology (considering

most of them probably have traditional printing equipment already or

access to it) only because it is "new" and "digital". Don't get me

wrong, this technology is great and I use it extensively for

advertising work, but I don't really see any advantages to it for fine

art work. To spend all this time and money (if you are not already

digitally equipped) just to achieve "almost" or "at least as

good"(time will tell), just seems a bit silly to me.

my main problem with this concept ( and i use computers for

advertising work extensively) is the sad loss of the evolution of the

printing process. I went to the chicago museum of art and held a

moonrise printed in the 80's in one hand and a moonrise printed in the

40's or 50's in the other---what an educational experience. all this

will be lost, not only for the viewer but also for the photographer

who never advances the quality of a particular image past the initial

printing or the pressing of a button. how sad

I think that a plexiglas diffuser might have a more even light than

the cup.. just a thought.

I have never really had any problems with small normal minus dev.. I

always use a highly diluted dev. for extreme cases, and haven't had

any objectionable mid tones with that process.

<p>

I'll flush the tmax only after I have made some grand looking negs! :)

sorry mike, but it really does work--amazingly well---you should try

it. Adams saw this done in a gallery in europe (so others have done it

as well)

<p>

Jeff, My wife painted several rooms in our house with a dark royal

purple type paint--kind of earthy-- (I believe that Adams suggested a

20% reflectance) and with selenium toned images it makes the prints

come alive like I have never seen before.

both will give you the quality you need for most uses unless you will

be enlarging really big, worry more about which one will be best for

which situation, large format is great, but what if you can only get

the shot with the medium format??

I don't understand what you are trying to say about tmax film/dev---

please explain.

try to avoid getting any type of focusing hood. all you need is more

crap to carry! do what you can with the focusing cloth and good luck.

here is the weston website, ask away....

<p>

http://www.edward-weston.com/

Hi Justin,

<p>

I have used hc110 for many years and it is very flexible and fast

developing. I have used it with tmax for quite awhile, but have

recently begun testing tmax rs developer and so far find it to be just

as flexible and makes for a much sharper image.

I have seen images from others with this type of effect before and

found them to be much more interesting than these pics- I think you

need a much more moody and directional light. sorry to say I now find

this effect to be a bit tired and overdone. seems a little gimmicky.

Thanks for all your help guys.

<p>

Cesar, I am sure its underdevelopment, I always check the rebate edge

(where the film type info is printed) to see whats up. When the rebate

info is faded, then it is underdeveloped, and it was.

<p>

Thanks to both of you for the info on dilution. I will adjust my

methods so further testing can continue.

Jeff,

<p>

so you're saying that the concentrate is only "a" and "b" with no

water added?--and then its 9 parts water with 1 part of the

concentrate to get the working solution? hmmm- I think I may have

diluted the concentrate way too much---I have been working with hc-

110 too long I think! Let me know if this is what you are saying.

<p>

thanks,

<p>

Mark

Hello Claudio,

<p>

I found the 1:9 dilution in an article by John sexton, perhaps it was

a misprint? Where did you find the 1:4 dilution at? It sounds much

more reasonable considering what I have gotten with 1:9.

Hello everyone, I have been working with tmax rs dev. with 120mm tmax 100. first, should I be using tmax dev rather than rs with roll film?

second--if rs is okay to use with roll film, I am using sexton's time/dev for a starting point (T-100 EI-80 T-MAX RS 1:9 13 min @ 75F )and am finding that it greatly underdevelopes the film, has anyone else used these recomendations and had similar results?

<p>

thanks

these guys seem to have everything for do it yourself repairs, check

it out.

<p>

http://www.micro-tools.com/

take a look at the alps 5000 printer, fantastic quality, no mess, and

affordable. best home printing I have ever seen

In many of the pictures that I have seen of B. Weston, he was using

the mamiya 67.

<p>

Both he and his dad were just as technical as Adams, they simply came

from different directions to get there. After all its nothing more

than applied sensitiometry whether you call it trial and error or the

zone system.

Paul, I prefer fiber by far, but no one has to be more happy with

your prints than you. use what you like and be happy about it.

all you need to know is at the kodak web site with animation type

directions and all. they can be used in polaroid backs I believe

some websites are already carrying the probuct. (adorama for one).