robert hall

<p>Yours isnt so bad as it is, but if you want to see what's possible, google has an html 5 web site. (google it)</p>

<p>Beyond that, it's style and culture. </p>

<p>Why don't you measure the back glass?</p>

<p>Posting an image without any thing to base scale off of will not help. </p>

<p>Lay a ruler down if you can't measure the glass on the back. </p>

<p>Welcome Bart! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, no problem.</p>

<p>I would recommend that you not use the same fix for paper once used for film, but otherwise, you are good to go.</p>

<p>Using fix on film then on paper carries over something, which I forget what it is at the moment, that is not so great for the paper, but then I suppose it depends on your level of concern for the longevity of the print.</p>

<p>Check around for the options. Somewhere is a choice to tell it what kind of negative size it is. I'm not in front of my computer at the moment which has the scanner, but it will help. </p>

<p>Peter is right, it's not a magic solution, as with anything artistic, there is a certain amount of learning that needs to be done to really get the best results. </p>

<p>What scanning software did you use?</p>

<p>Why do you think they must be built for rectangular negatives?</p>

<p>I am able to scan any medium format film on them. I can't get 6 of my 6x7 scanned but otherwise it's pretty good.</p>

<p>I use both epson scan and scanvue software.</p>

<p>If you had the processing done at a lab, it might be that they over developed them.</p>

<p>Shadows don't do much with more development, they get the exposure they get and that's it, but highlights can really go though the roof in density if they are over developed.</p>

<p>It seems most labs over process a bit to make sure they get something on the film. I would completely agree with Craig... Do it yourself. It's cheap, easy, and gives you proper control over your film.</p>

<p>You might also consider, if you are new, to shoot some FP-4 or HP-5 as they are a little more forgiving on exposure and development.</p>

<p>You are off to a great start!</p>

<p>How good you are may have little to do with your ability to charge what others are charging. As many have already said, commercial viability is necessary but not sufficient. If there is a stable market space for your work, you might sell your wares.<br>

Charging what others do depends on what the market entry barriers might be. Those that are selling work, what ever that may be, have put marketing and capital resources into making people aware of what they have or can do. Until you do this, what you ask for and what you get for work may vary wildly.<br>

I know far more excellent artists/photographers than I do business men and even fewer who are both.</p>

<p>Regardless, best of luck.</p>

<p>They are both process lenses? The good news is they are very very sharp at Macro, the bad news is they are only very sharp at infinity. ;)</p>

<p>If you were to mention the focal length of the lenses that might help. Some would suggest that a 300mm lens is a "normal" coverage lens on an 8x10. Some may like something a bit wider.</p>

<p>I have a G-Claron 355mm and use it a lot with my 8x10 as it covers my 12x20. It is a bit long for a normal lens for 8x10 but it suits me well.</p>

<p>If you could let us know the focal lengths and what you like to shoot, black and white or color, studio or landscape, this would help me form an opinion.</p>

<p>Lenses are tools. Some suited better to somethings than others. Ask my wife, she used one of my expensive chisels as a paint can opener.</p>

<p>While I don't want to say chemicals are chemicals, I think you will find that your developer will have the greatest effect on your work as far as the chemicals go, but I think how you have exposed the film and how you print the film will have a much greater effect on the final product than the chemicals will.<br>

I have been in the darkroom pretty much for 40 years and have used many and make many of my own. As an educator of darkroom enthusiasts I would recommend that you pick one developer/film/paper combination until you have control over it. Then move on to something new if you feel the need.<br>

I have been using Ethol LPD for many years as well as others, and it develops a nice warm tone and lasts for just about ever. It's the only developer I actually pour back into a container after a session to use at another time.<br>

Another tip I might suggest is that you spray some canned air into the tops of the bottles before you seal them. It keeps the chemicals from oxidizing and will offer come economy.<br>

Best of luck,</p>

<p>Robert Hall<br>

<p>If any of you are in the area, please feel free to stop by and see portfolios from my recent China work.<br /> <br /> The body of work is created by the lith process and toned via 1:1000 of my own toner solution for 10 seconds to produce several colors due to the extremely fine silver grains of the process.<br /> <br /> <br /> Upcoming Shows:<br /> <br /> Ghosts of the Elders, the Southeast China Portfolio <br /> <br /> Windward Vineyard <br /> April 1 through June 30, 2010 <br /> Paso Robles, California<br /> Map location http://www.mapquest.com/mq/5-fLge<br /> <a href="http://www.WindwardVineyard.com">www.WindwardVineyard.com</a> <br /> <br /> Charley Hafen Jewelers <br /> May 19 - June 15, 2010 <br /> Reception May 21, 2010 <br /> Salt Lake City, Utah<br /> Map location http://tinyurl.com/ybtak3y<br /> <a href="http://www.CharleyHafen.com">www.CharleyHafen.com</a> <br /> <br /> <br /> Here are a couple of the more popular images...<br /> <br /> <a href="http://roberthall.com/china/content/bin/images/large/IMG_0168.jpg">Sample Image One</a><br>

<a href="http://roberthall.com/china/content/bin/images/large/IMG_0173.jpg">Sample Image Two</a><br>

<a href="http://roberthall.com/china/content/bin/images/large/IMG_0169.jpg">Sample Image Three</a><br>

<br /> <br /> Thank you,<br /> <br /> Robert Hall<br /> www.RobertHall.com</p>

<p>I believe the correct sequence for getting in to the service menu is { power button + start button + enter button}<br>

I have to do this every few years on my 2500 to replace the battery.<br>

Thanks for your post.</p>

<p>Take a look at this. It's pretty good. You may have seen it.</p>

<p>http://www.nwdocumentary.org/weston/</p>

<p>This is on Weston.</p>

<p>By saying zone system, you mean black and white I take it...?</p>

<p>What you would want to do is over expose the film and under develop the negative. Highlights always get what they need for exposure, what you would be missing is the exposure the shadows need. Development does little for shadows but the highlights will go through the roof.</p>

<p>As a suggestion, I would try metering the background as the sun goes down (if possible) and when it is 1/2 to 1 1/2 stops darker than the neon, shoot away. The values of the highlghts and the shadows will be close enough to give you something worth printing.</p>

<p>If you can't do the above then meter the shadow area, subtract 2 stops because it will try to make the shadow the middle, and push the neon up into the higher zones. If its really dark outside, you could have 15 zones or more between the neon and the background, well beyond what film can handle. Then when you have the film developed, ask them to knock off about 15% of the development time. This might keep the highlights from being developed into next week and you may have something printable.</p>

<p>Really you should, if you could, process your own film and do a little testing to have control over the process. It's hard for some lab guy to guess what your dev times are when he wasn't there to help you expose the film.</p>

<p>I hope this helps a little,</p>

<p>-Robert

<p>Keep in mind as well of reciprocity failure. As your exposures become longer than 1 second (for most films) you will have to deal with reciprocity.</p>

<p>As for making IR filters, they need to be unexposed but developed slide film. Any slide film will work. Depending on the dye packets one will get a texture with the film used. I have used 4x5 film and I usually try one or 2 sheets for effect.</p>

<p>Best of luck</p>

<p>-Robert Hall</p>

You have the idea Matt. That is how it works.

Sounds like there would be little downside to giving it a try unless something else happens during processing. Anytime we touch the film there is that possibility.

Wieslaw,

This is news to me. Could you give me some direction on a source for your statement, or perhaps you would simply expound on your statement a little more?

Jeff,

This is not a bad idea either as it is a non destructive attempt to restore an image. I would look for a film that may have a little more tonal expansion range, such as FP-4 (Ilford) with brackets at one and two stops under exposure then use a N+1 and N+2 development on them to see what one might achieve.

Best of luck Matt,

Robert

Matt,

If your negs are that thin, there is very little hope. One has to have something in the first place.

If you can see an image clearly with full detail however thin, you may have a chance.

You understand my post completely. (however as thin as you describe your negs, this probably is a waste of time in anything, including selenium.)

I suggested for getting the kits from photo formulary. They can help you use them safely and properly. They have both the bleach and the pmk kits to do this. The formulas I use is the same posted by Steve Anchel in the "darkroom cookbook". It's potassium dichromate and sulphuric acid. The PMK has Pyrogallic acid. Both are quite poisonous if handled improperly.

Please don't let people who apparently have no idea how to handle chemicals scare you off from using them if one can do so safely. If you are not skilled in proper handling techniques this would be foolhardy to do any darkroom exercise without proper safety training. If you want something really nasty, I would be happy to help you with mercury intensification. Hey! at least it is reversible. :)

Russ,

The fist step in intensification is in fact the dichromate bleach.

The process is a bleach and redevelop just like one does when one sulphide tones.

I have used this process on clients negs for years when they come to me with thin negs. It will not produce miracles, but it will get an image.

Paul,

Quoting John from a net search is one thing, giving it a try yourself is quite another. Give it a try sometime and see for yourself.

Looks like we have lost the brain trust for working with film.

I would first try a density boost via bleach and redevelop. You would need to redevelop in a non sulfite developer, I use PMK (pyro) at about 80f, high strength like 4+8+100 as opposed to 1+2+100. I repeat the process twice. You can find a pmk kit from photographers formulary as well as the kit for intensification.

The bleach uses potassium dichromate and the process will improve the density of the film if there is actually something there in the first place.

After you have done the process a couple of times, you can then use either selenium or one last bleach and redevelop in a sluphide toner. This can add substantial density to the neg, but it will be a final step. Once that is done, it is set.

At that point I would scan, process and perhaps use a film recorder on the negative.

Best of luck.

Canon G9

12mp, raw, hot shoe, filter adapter, small.

or...

The Lumix/Leica.

Jason lives up the road from me. He is a [pretty good] photographer and a cinematographer.

He is working on getting this video complete as soon as the weather turns.

http://www.alternativecamera.com/JBILF.html I think is the spot to find out when it will be available.

So who hasn't sneezed on the glass?

I would look for a warming filter in open shade and be very careful of high contrast areas. (direct sun on the face that may or may not include shadow.)

I would suggest working more towards the eye level of those you shoot.

Try using a fill flash. (do this in pratice before you do it for a client)

Try getting just a hair closer to the subject.