nomennescio

I'm a Art director and I've worked with a photographer who duped,

shot or transfered the negs somehow to transparency film. He

claimed that he got better colors and better sharpness (for the

scanner) then doing a print. I think the main reason was that a

neg film is easier to work with in difficult light situations than a

transparency film. Shure was an expensive way to work. To bad

he didn't tell me that in advance.

I would suggest taking a guess and then shoot some Polaroids.

A bit more expensive but a lot quicker/easier than shooting,

processing, reshooting. Especially if your subject don't last to

long, drying out etc.

I have a Schneider symmar 210 5:6 without a shutter. It's an old

one from the end of the sixties. It has got additional markings on

the lens, 1:12 370 in green. This means that it's convertible. So I

check the archives and various articles and they all say the

same thing. To convert it to the longer focal length, remove the

front element. But (and here comes the question) if I unscrew the

front element this leaves the apreture mechanism exposed!

There doesn't seem to be any way of removing any less. Am I

missing something here? Or rather WHAT am I missing?

Please help me

Born.

As a father of two little girls I see daily incredible bursts of

creativity. Just as every other parent does. I think every child has

all the creative potential and original vision it would ever need to

become a great artist (what ever that is).

BUT! We can very easily "unmake" the potential artist in them by

not giving them the right stimulation or environment in witch to

grow. It's so easy to take this ability away from them through our

methods of child raising, our schools etc. We don't meen to of

course, but it nearly always happens any way.

Hence the scarsity of original artists in the world.

Levitation... The idea of objects floating in mid air struck me a

couple of years ago and I've been making pictures on and off

since then. I call the series Est Deus In Nobis, (a latin quote by

Ovid 43 bc - 18 ad) that means there's a god in us. He was

talking about poetic inspiration. I think it adds a interesting

dimension to the pictures. The plan is to have an exhibition

eventually. If you're interested some of the pictures can be seen

at

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=207

316

And no, no photoshop involved.

I have the same problem here in Sweden so the faulty boxes

seems to be distributed all over the world. My V's differ quite a lot

in size but reaches seldom in to the "proper" picture area. (At

least in this particular box.) On the other hand, I usually print all

of the negative... I should be interesting to hear Polaroid's

explanation.

Hi Brian

This brings me back, I think I remember going through half a

pack before it started looking right. For me the emulsion didn't

want to stick to the paper.

First. Is the film fresh, does it look okay if you proccess it the

normal way?

I have discoverd that the water you soak in is important . Try

destilled water or "soft" (acidic?) witch seems to work better than

Ph neutral. Personaly, I have only used high quality cotton paper

so I don't know if the paper quality matters. A flat paper without

texture should give a nearly "normal" looking picture while a

textured one could give you problem with adherence. I squeegee

the paper quite hard twice to remove any exessive water, check

at an angle against the light so you have an even "shine" on the

surface.

"all I get is a cyan mess" Could it be that the negative move/float

around ever so slightly on the paper when you roll over it?

" the only color is cyan" The colors migrate from the negativ to

the paper in a somewhat orderly fashion. First goes the yellow

and at last blue. If you want a "normal" picture you have to peel

apart and put to paper as quickly as possible so you don't loose

the yellow. Whait a while and the blue color is the only one left in

the negative left to transfer. Altough I never managed to get an all

blue/cyan one.

As for times I process and immediately cut the chemical pod off

whith a pair of scissors while counting to 10 (seconds) then i

peal apart and place the negative on the paper. Then I gently roll

a fairly soft plastic bottle across the negative so there's good

contact between negative and paper. Wait for a minute or two

(depending on witch paper I use, you'l have to test) and voila!

Exposure doesn't seem to be of any importance concerning the

transfer process. But dark areas seems to adhere less well than

light ones.

Hope this helps. I will check my old notes when I get home and

see if anything else comes up

I like fog. So if I understand this correctly. A blue filter should (at

least marginaly) increase the fog effect?

Hi

I'm going to London this summer. Does any one know of any

shops or stores selling LF cameras, accesories and stuff?

Everything is of interest.

View Camera Magazine had an article on TMAX and XTOL about

a year/a year and a half ago. I don't remember what number. It

got me started on this combination. I do have one problem, I

process in trays in undiluted XTOL 20° C. My N-2 times are a

mere 4 minutes. I don't want to dilute because I want to be able

to reuse it. Perhaps much less agitation will solve this.

Hi!

Could someone perhaps tell me anything about this old

Arca-Swiss. How old is it, model etc. The serial number in

unfortunately unreadable. I have had it for nearly 15 years and I

was suddenly curious.

Living in Sweden it's a little bit inconvenient to travel to the U.S.,

land of unlimited number of LF workshops. Does anybody know

of any LF workshops in Sweden? In europe?

Are there any Swedish LF photographers in this forum? Would

you be interrested in trying to get one organized?