michael_banker

I have an eye fi pro x card and am looking at buying a fuji x100. Has anyone used them together? Does it work well or do I need to buy a

higher speed card?

I have been using PMK for the past year to make higher density negs

for palladium prints and am quite pleased.

I just tried stand development using PMK on a pinhole image and really

like the etching effect.

I would now like to try stand development using PMK with an Ortho film.

Do you have any experience using PMK with an Ortho film?

Any suggestions on PMK development time or dilutions for Ortho film?

I'm planning a 4X5 pinhole project.

The final output will be a palladium print.

The subject is low contrast but I want the neg to be high contrast.

It was suggested that I use Ortho film.

Is reciprocity for Ortho film similar to regular B&W? Better? Worse?

Does anyone have reciprocity data on any Ortho film (Arista APHS

preferrably)?

Gentlemen, thank you for all your insights so far.

I've been thinking that I don't need to consider SBR for exposure as long as I stick to low contrast lighting, so I don't need the BTZS Power Dial. I should be able to nail the exposure by determining my personal film speed (0.2 over b+f for palladium prints)and then just using the incident meter because the SBR will be close to what the meter sees. Is that right thinking? I realize that the meter could drift over time, so I might need to adjust for this fixed offset.

Palladium works well with denser negatives (DR=1.8-2.1), so blowing out the highlights is tough to do. In worse case I can just expose the print longer (for example 45-60 min instead of 8 min). If I use stand development it should be self-regulating anyway (i.e. depletes faster in highlight areas than shadow area of the scene). So the main development problem I have is getting a high enough contrast index over a long enough stretch of the curve to make this low contrast scene into a high contrast negative, so that I can get a full-range palladium print.

Jay, it seems that arista aphs, because it is inherently high contrast should work for the stills, but because it is not sensitive to red it can't help separate the tones in the sky and clouds. It is cheap, so I will have to try it. I have always wanted to try development by inspection and this would be a good way to start using a red light and watching the higlights pop through.

Gentlemen, any other film suggestions for the landscapes?

For development, I think I will standardize on a 60 minute development time at 70F, and so what I need to do is test the development at different concentrations of the developer, until I get the density range of 1.8-2.1 that I am targeting. I don't have a densitometer, so I will just use my eye as a comparative densitometer with a couple of hole-punched sheets of film and a step wedge to figure it out. Development wise I'm thinking that uneven development is probably my main enemy. As long as the developer develops strong adjacency effects to increase the apparent sharpness, and it provides even development when left standing, it is worth considering. Does this make sense?

Jay, does hypercat meet these two requirements?

Any other suggestions out there for developers that meet these two criteria?

Rich, thanks for the input about the quality of the pinhole. I am thinking about the zero image 4x5. I have the 6x6 and it works great. I have noticed that the pinhole sizes are smaller for the given focal lengths than my calculations. Do you have any idea on why that might be? Do you think this is a good choice?

Thanks again, I am really enjoying this discussion and you have a great help already in helping me think through this project.

Jay, thanks for the idea on using Arista Ortho.

What is the reciprocity for this film?

Also have you used Hypercat with stand development?

I have the goal to produce the highest quality B&W prints that I can

using a pinhole camera and a palladium emulsion.

I will be shooting landscapes or stills with natural light in very

early morning (low contrast).

I will be using 4x5 film with very wide angle views 25/50/75mm.

My goal is to consistently produce high contrast palladium prints from

these relatively low contrast scenes.

I don't want to lose details in the shadows or the highlights. I also

want good tonal separation, and good apparent sharpness (much better

than pinhole would normally suggest).

I am planning on using an Gossen Pilot incident meter to determine SBR

and the BTZS Power Dial to determine the exposure.

I am planning to use PMK with stand development in a Nikor 4x5 tank

with a dilution of 1:2:200 for 60 minutes. I am hoping that this will

prevent the highlights from blowing out, will mask grain in wide open

areas, and will maximize apparent sharpness through adjacency effects.

Finally, I will contact print a proof using a palladium with ferric

oxalate emulsion on Bergger COT paper in a homemade UV box at my

standard time of 8 min and developed in potassium oxalate. The

contrast will be adjusted in the final print using sodium

chloroplatinate.

I am not sure which film to use for this project; Tri-X (@ 250) or

Bergger 200. Do any of you have experience with stand development with

these two films? Does one expand better than the other?

Also, do you think PMK 1:2:200 at 60 min is a good start for stand

development for low contrast scenes?

Finally, you BTZS incident metering disciples, any suggestions?

Thanks for any insights!

Hi,

I use mostly tri-x in 120 size with PMK. I think that the stain masks the grain in wide open

expanses and gives better separation in the highlights. This is noticeable when I scan at 4000

dpi especially. I believe this provides the best B&W negative for scanning. In Adobe I convert

to B&W using the channel mixer and give the green channel more emphasis. Hope it

helps.Try it and see what you think.

Hi,

I use a Jobo 3005 for 8x10. I load it in a film tent and run it on a motor base. Every minute I flip the drum on the base to change the rotation. Works great and is very consistent. The 3005 is one of my favorite pieces of equipment.

I thought of using the film tent with trays as a darkroom and even bought an infrared camera so I could develop by inspection inside the tent but never got around to implementing the design. Sounds like the ultimate in development control without a full darkroom. I only do platinum prints by contact and really don't want a whole darkroom.

Mike

Hi,

I developed two negs at 75deg for 9min with 25rpm using pmk 1:2:100

but the contrast is way too high.

Suggestions on time and or mixture are much appreciated.

Thanks.

Mike

Hi,

I was using HC-110 for 6x6 negatives, but was unhappy with the values in the hightlights and the graininess in the large lighter areas. I was losing details in the highlights, i.e. the tones that I saw in the sky were not in the negative. And the grain was too pronounced in the large open areas.

I may be scanning the grain (gaps between clumps of grain) at 4000 dpi but I decided to try a new developer because I was trying to solve two problems.

So, I switched to PMK to get better highligh separation and to mask the grain with the stain and it worked.

When you scan you can't get what isn't there (highlight seperation) and you also will get what is there (grain).

One key point though, scan in color (that's what the scanner is designed for) then convert to mono from the channel mixer display in Adobe PS. This will allow you to adjust the mix of green, red and blue used in the final monochrome output.

PMK hasn't been bad. I use day tanks, so the fumes are low. I won't go back to HCL-110. One thing I didn't expect is that the acutance seems higher than with HCL-110.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Hi John,

I use Tri-X mostly and also started with HC-110 B but was gritty in the wide open areas.

I have switched to PMK because the stain seems to mask the grain and also seems to draw out more detail in the highlight areas.

Occassionaly I had trouble even in midtones with grit but has gone away with PMK.

It scans very well on my Nikon 8000 in either 35mm or 120.

Mike

Hi,

I just bought an 8x10 camera and plan to first develop in trays.

I will use the same film (Bergger 200) and the same developer (PMK) for the next four months, so that I can focus just on the process.

Here's my plan:

First session, develop a single sheet at a time using PMK based on time and temp.

I know PMK already, so handling sheet film is the lesson here.

Second session, develop film from a single film holder (2 sheets) at one time based on time and temp.

Each one will be in a seperate clear acrylic tube to keep them from adhering in the tray and to agititate each one more consistently.

Mastering use of the tubes is the lesson here.

The tube ends will be open to allow flow from the tray.

It's cumbersome to pour stuff in and out of multiple tubes, so why not just leave the ends open and let the fluid in the tray flow through?

Third session, develop film from two holders at a time on a time and temp basis in tubes.

Handling four tubes is the lesson here.

Fourth session, develop film from two holders (four sheets) on an inspection basis starting with a time and temp estimate.

I believe that developing by inspection will eliminate variability due to minor exposure errors, in addition to time or temp errors.

It is an art, so 4 sheets allows me to experiment a little.

I plan on using a UV infrared camera ($69) with a B&W monitor so I can see what I'm doing and to inspect the film. To keep the light from the monitor from fogging the film, I plan on using a a tunnel of cloth as a shield.

The tubes are clear, so I can see the non-emulsion side of the film.

Once this is perfected I will add more tubes with sheets to the trays up to a max of 8 sheets.

The goal is to consistently produce platinum-ready negatives.

The approach is development by inspection in trays.

I have not done this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

If I don't enjoy enough seeing the negative form before my eyes, I will go to a jobo 3005 (+$200)expert drum and just use time and temp.

The good news is that it only cost me a few trays, a few acrylic tubes and a UV camera that I can resell.

Anyway, food for thought.

Mike

Hi,

I am new to large format and just bought an Arca Swiss 8x10.

While I am waiting for it to arrive, does anyone know what size lens

boards this will take?

The seller, not the owner, doesn't know.

When is the 177mm size used and when is the 100mm used?

Thanks.

Mike

I have M12 backs.

After you advance the film to the first number, you have to turn the advance knob back to tell it that you are at the beginning of the roll. When I don't do this, the frames overlap like you described.

Hope it helps.

Mike

Jeffrey,

I too am chasing the holy grail of the ideal negative for scanning.

My premise is that a scanned negative should need minimal adjustments in Adobe.

Although changes can be made in Adobe, it is by formula and may not reflect the scene as accurately as capturing it on the film to begin with.

I shoot medium format mostly and scan at 4000dpi on a Nikon 8000.

I scan in RGB mode and invert in Adobe.

I convert to monochrome using channel mixer.

Generally I favor green at the expense of blue in the mix to minimize grain.

All tonal and contrast adjustments are made in 16 bit mode.

In my opinion. it seems that grain and tonal separation are the two key characteristics for scanning.

It also seems that a staining developer has big advantages for scanners designed to scan in color.

I have standardized on Tri-X and PMK for the moment.

Tri-X stains well and the new version is finer grained than TMY.

Things I've learned:

First, don't place your exposure too far down on the toe, you will lose shadow detail due to compression.

(i.e. you can't scan what isn't there)

Second, PMK gives me excellent tonal separation, especially in the highlights.

(i.e. you can't scan what isn't there)

Third, the PMK stain masks grain, especially in large open areas of the negative.

This has been the most delightful result so far, smooth open areas.

Fourth, due to PMK edge effects, acutance is quite good minimizing sharpening.

At the moment I am reading Phil Davis "Beyond the Zone System," hoping to gain additional insight.

Although BTZS is focused on creating the ideal negative for making prints, not necessarily best scans, I think that a good understanding of his methods might spark ideas on how to optimize the negative for scanning.

So far, I have ruled out significant overexposure and underexposure due to loss of details in shadows or highlights.

I have also decided that adjusting exposure based on the subject brightness range is critical to maintaining good tonal separation in both shadows and highlights simultaneously.

And of course the development time has to be adjusted according to subject brightness also.

The one place I am deviating at the moment is how to handle the effects of flare.

Flare is very destructive especially towards shadow contrast.

My current thoughts are to use the developing time as a starting point but decide when development is complete based on inspection using an infrared camera.

This will also adjust for many other possible mistakes but must de decided based on a few frames of the whole roll.

Anyway, there is my two cents.

Best regards,

Mike

Hi Nathan,

I finally broke down and bought the glass carrier for $230 from B&H.

Now, I plan to set focus once and for all and lock it in manually to eliminate this step in the scanning process.

Is anyone else using the carrier and ignoring autofocus like this?

Mike

Hi,

I have recorded about 100 CDR ( with mostly 25-50MB images in the past 3 years. I have problems reading 4 images, so far.

I have switch to Mitsui CDR because Kodak apparently doesn't make disks anymore. I understand that gold colored is better than blue or green because of the recording layer is more archival. The "archival" quality disks also have a thicker clear layer rendering scratches less damaging.

Also, don't use alcohol-based pens. They will seep through and destroy the recording layer eventually.

Finally, make two copies of each disk and put one away where it doesn't get used.

I still use film and scan but you need a good system for scanned images anyway.

I store in uncompressed tif format because it is lossless and I suppose it is a format that will always be around.

Hi Janet,

I have used Vuescan for 2 years with a Nikon LS2000.

It is very powerful but it is so flexible, it is easy to hang yourself.

Start by resetting the defaults from the "file" dropdown menu.

The device tab covers all the things unique to your scanner.

On the device tab, set it to "basic" under "option type."

This will eliminate all the extra stuff for now, until you get a handle on the essentials.

Put image type to "web." This field basically sets the dpi that the scanner will use.

Leave everything else in default mode.

Now, click on "preview."

Are the marching ants encircling the whole image?

The default is "auto" which crops about 2% all around, so the ants should't be quite to the edge.

Now, if you hit scan right now it would scan the whole image and afterwards it would save it as a file in the default size of 4X6 (see the "files" tab).

Did the problem go away? Is it full frame now when saved?

You may have done this already but resetting the defaults first may have cleared the problem. Overall Vuescan is very reliable but once in a while gets confused.

For quick family photo stuff, I scan in print mode and save as a 24 bit tiff file in 4X6 format(see files tab) and I also save at the same time as a jpg for web use by selecting "save jpeg file" also and then specifying quality 80 and size reduction of 2 (you need to be in advanced mode on the device page not basic for this).

For more excating work, I scan in archive mode, save as 64 (R,G,B and IR for dust) bit raw tiff in 35mm or 6X6 size. Later I process all the files using the batch mode reducing it to a 48 bit tiff and reduce the fiel size by 1/2 before bringing it into photoshop. This way I can always go back to the raw scan if I am not happy with the processed version.

Anyway, there a few things I own that I boast about but Vuescan is definitely one of them.

So, hang in there, I hope this helps.

Mike

Hi Robin,

I use screw-in B+W polarizer and 81b warming filter with a rubber hood with threads on the inside. These are my high use filters.

Previously I used the Cokin polarizer and hated it. It has a color cast to it and is difficult to rotate when using with grads.

Occassionally I use a Singh ND grad or a Tiffen orange grad. I use a Cokin with a hood then.

For speed, I leave the rubber hood, and cp or 81b on and just add the Cokin holder for the grads.

I bought it all used on ebay to keep the cost down.

Use step-up rings to avoid vignetting.

Mike

Hi Toby,

If only two lenses then used 35/1.4 (street,group, low light)and 105/2.5 (isolated subject). Two lenses makes decisionmaking very easy.

If three lenses then buy used 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 180/2.8 ED.

OR

If three lenses then buy used 20/2.8, 35/1.4 and 105/2.5.

The 35/1.4 will be on the camera most of the time.

The 20/2.8 could be used instead but you must be more skillful to avoid problems in the composition.

The others will come out for specific needs.

You will never regret buying any of these lenses, so just buy what you can afford; 1, 2 or 3 lenses.

Mike

Hi David,

I am also looking at the SWC.

The SWC/M handles a polaroid back and the SWC doesn't. Mostly moving the tripod shoe down and the the viewer up. Optically they are the same though.

The 903 and 905 have better non-reflective coating inside the body and the viewer has the level built into it, whereas the SWC and SWC/M have the level built into the camera body and a prism built into the viewer to read it.

I think that the glass formulation changed with the 900 series also, but it doesn't make a big difference.

Of course parts will be available longer for the newer models than the older ones.

That's what I know.

Mike

Hi everyone,

Merry Xmas!

Thanks for the responses again.

How about a few more answers though.

I asked specific questions in this last round.

Scott, I was thinking some more about what you said.

I wrongly thought that you can't see what you can't optically "resolve," that 4000 dpi is the optical resolution, the limit. From experience I know it isn't true. My thoughts are that the things between the lines in a test chart are visible if the contrast between those things is higher than the contrast between the gap the lines on the test chart. They might not resolve into nice neat lines very well but would still be visible. In my experience there is a always a lot of local contrast where there is grain, i.e. dark and sigficantly lighter grains mixed together. Also, I know that the lines from the test chart are in fact grainy when magnified not smooth like I might think. Does this make sense?

So, I would like to shift this discussion toward the scanner.How much can the Nikon 8000 ED see between those lines? What is the "resolution" of the CCD? Is it more than 10 pixels in that 0.045 mm gap? This is equivalent to saying that I can't see what the CCD array can't see. In the brochure it seems to imply that the CCD has 30,000 pixels but it doesn't say how big the CCD array is, so I can't calculate the CCD resolution. Obviously there are probably some optical issues here also to consider and LED things too.

I understand that this physical model is not very precise, that in reality it is a statistical thing and much more complex but maybe it is still helpful for a basic understanding of what's going on.

Thanks.

Mike

Hi,

The highest resolution film is probably something like Kodak Techpan.

I understand it can resolve 220 lp/mm under ideal conditions. This

means it can see a gap under very high contrast circumstances of

about 45 microns. I also understand that when they measure rms

values, they use a photo cell that is also 45 microns. Maybe this is

no coincidence, maybe the sensor is sized to look at the "gap" of the

highest resolution film.

Anyway, the grain is always significantly smaller than the

resolution. On another photo.net thread it was suggested that grain

was 3 microns and grain clumps (3-6 grains) were 6-9 microns,

roughtly 1/0th the size of the gap between line pairs.

If this is true, however, then it should be very difficult to ever

see grain clumps because of the resolution of a 4000 ppi scanner is

at best 2X the resolution of the commonly used film, but the grain

clumps are 10X smaller still and yet we see something. I read

elswhere on photo.net that we are seeing the gaps between grain

clumps or dye clouds. (This is starting to sound very much like a

lp/mm discussion, except now we have clusters (like lines) and gaps.)

So, the photocell that is used to measure rms, is a pretty good way

to measure granularity because it is only when the density of grain

clumps or dye clouds becomes high enough that it becomes visible. If

rms is an absolute measure vs a relative one, then shouldn't we be

able to correlate it to scan resolution and build curves. For example

at 2700 ppi the rms must be 4 or less to be grainless, and at 4000

ppi the rms must be 8 or less. Or, if the rms is 10 then you must

scan at 5000 ppi to get rid of it. Etc...

So, I am just trying to find a good way to define the "film space"

for my scanner without doing it empirically. Supposedly Kodak and

Fuji are producing film for scannability. Certainly they must have

some way to measure it.

Scott Eaton, Norman Koren and Struan Gray can you guys comment?

Thanks.

Mike

Hi,

I really appreciate the comments so far.

I'd like to draw out a few more points.

The highest resolution film is probably something like Kodak Techpan. I understand it can resolve 220 lp/mm under ideal conditions. This means it can see a gap under very high contrast circumstances of about 45 microns. I also understand that when they measure rms values, they use a photo cell that is also 45 microns. Maybe this is no coincidence, maybe the sensor is sized to look at the gap of the highest resolution film.

If this is true then grain is always significantly smaller than the reolution. On another photo.net thread it was suggested that grain was 3 microns and grain clumps (3-6 grains) were 6-9 microns, roughtly 1/0th the size of the gap between line pairs.

If this is true, however, then it should be very difficult to ever see grain clumps and yet we see something. Maybe the only time grain becomes visible is due to aliasing. Is this possible? Aliasing is probably progressive not appearing just suddenly.

So, just trying to understand what's happening. Scott Eaton, Norman Koren and Struan Gray can you guys comment?

Thanks.

Mike