janne_moren

<p>As someone who bakes bread as a hobby I can say that weighing actually takes less time than fiddling with volume measurements. What you need is an electronic scale that you can tare as needed (they're quite cheap). Put the empty container on the scale and zero it. Pour the first ingredient to the correct weight, then zero the scale again. Do each ingredient the same way. Compared to playing with measuring cups (trying to get each ingredient ot the bowl with no spilling, making sure you're actually getting all of it out of the cup, having to wash the measuring cup or spoon between each ingredient), weighing is faster, easier and more accurate.</p>

<p>It does give you a noticeably cool cast in the shadows, that's true. It's not what I'd call a neutral film. That said I really like the results I've been getting with it.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3683509144_741ce047a7.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Bob, I actually mixed up a 2l batch of wetting agent and reusing that. You can use it for many rolls before replacing it. The cost is no issue at all in other words. But on occasion you may well find yourself in a situation where you're without it for whatever reason (say you go someplace to help a friend develop and forget to bring it, or whatever), and then it's good to know what you could and could not use in a pinch.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whichever way get's the printed image right-way-round, my take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you live in the mirror world where Kirk and Spock are evil and wear goatees.</p>

<p>You could look for liquid soaps or dishwashing liquid formulated for allergics (is that a word?). They contain no perfumes and minimal or no coloring or other unnecessary ingredients. Of course, if you buy a wetting agent like Driwell it's no more expensive than these specialty products so unless you run out of wetting agent and happen to have this on hand there isn't much point.</p>

<p>If you're of the hard-core do-it-yourself crowd that mix their own developer, make their own glass plates and so on, then you can make your own wetting agent simply by making hand-made soap, skip the perfume additives, and formulate it to be liquid rather than a solid. I'm sure you can find the time to do it while your homemade electric motor is grinding the lens elements for your new LF wide-angle* ^_^</p>

<p>* (yes, I'm envious of those people and once I retire I'll see if I can't start doing stuff like that too)</p>

<p>The smoothness of tonality (not smoothness of skin; that picture is more heavily processed than I'd like) and,well, calm rendering is one factor making MF stand out. Not really sure where that comes from but it's common enough that I'd say it's a signature feature of the format. Another feature is that the depth of field curve (the falloff both front and back) depends only on the lens focal length. When you shoot with, say, a 90mm lens on a 6x7 camera you have the depth of field characteristics of a 90mm lens but the angle of view of a normal. That affects the perceived quality of the image too.</p>

<p>I started out by simply reading the Ilford PDF above (very helpful) and looking for a few YouTube clips that show you exactly how to do it and what things you need. Once I got the stuff (it's not much, and it's not expensive) I sacrificed one roll of film to practice loading it onto the spool. First time I developed for real was nerve-wracking, but it went fine. As it turns out, BW film development is pretty forgiving; you can mess up times and such quite a lot and still get a perfectly recognizeable image.</p>

<p>The things you really need are:<br>

* One developing tank and a reel to put inside (plastic or metal; people have religious wars over it, but either is fine)<br>

* A changing bag. Yes, you _can_ try doing it in a really dark closet or something, but a changing bag is way easier and you don't have to rearrange your living space to use it.<br>

* A thermometer. Any decent one that goes from about 15-40 degrees C will be fine.<br>

* One measuring cylinder. I have a 300ml one; it's a bit small sometimes. Get a decent plastic one, they're not expensive. Don't get a kitchen measuring cup as they're not very exact.<br>

* A largish bowl, decanter or similar to mix stuff in. About 2-3l is right.<br>

* A couple of bottles with tight corks or caps. Size and number depends a bit on what developer you intend to use and so on, but at least on 1l one for the fixer and perhaps two 0.5l or four 0.25l ones for developer.<br>

NOTE: there is _no_ need to buy special "photographic" bowls or bottles for developing. I use a couple of empty bottles of distilled water I bought once, and a few glass Sake bottles. Could use soda bottles, beer bottles (if you have a resealable cap) or whatever. Go to a cheap store that sells plastic stuff (like 100yen stores or 99cent stores) and get bowls and stuff there. The only important thing is that you don't use the same things you use with food. You don't want to mix them up; the chemicals are not particularly dangerous but it's certainly not healthy to eat and your food will taste horrible. And your film does not respond well to development in leftover chicken broth.</p>

<p>My favourites now are HP5 for high speed (iso800) and Acros for low speed. Both are very good, with distinct feel. I do use XP2 a bit as well, and the results are nice, but I'm a bit put off by having to send it out for development which makes it expensive and time consuming.</p>

<p>Soccer (statue outside the soccer stadium in Nagai park, Osaka):</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9579774-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /><br>

Yashica 124, Kodak Ektar 120.</p>

<p>Turn off all sharpening when you scan. The sharpening function in scanning software is usually very heavy-handed and indiscriminating. This is by far the most common cause for excessive visible grain when scanning negatives and I suspect you get the same problem here.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Actually, Peter, they are not used in many places and they are going away. The use of flash-based sites is in decline and has been so for a long time. It's mostly people in the design and photography world that still use them. The reason is two-fold, I believe: designers and the like know the importance of graphical design on one hand; and they are not technically savvy so they can be sold a bill of goods by web designers on the other. Fortunately more and more photographers are using normal sites nowadays. No point in wasting your time on those still making it hard to see their work.</p>

<p>Oh, and adjusting my browser would not help; it's my eyes that hurt from the typeface and size and I can't adjust them.</p>

<p>Hum, another flash site that doesn't fit my screen, and with a fiddly typeface too small for me to read properly. Better skipped.</p>

<p>Ask her. She knows; we can only guess, and do so badly.</p>

<p>The phone wires were there and are there in the image. Taking them out would really impact the historical value of the image. After all, people use that kind of thing to date images and the other way around. Say, for arguments sake, that there is a debate a century from now about exactly then that phone trunk was put in operation. People would use your image among other sources to verify when it was and was not built.</p>

<p>Selecting the sky is no problem. Forget automated tools. Instead, make a new layer with the image. Add a black (transparent) layer mask. Then use a small fuzzy brush to paint the sky areas in the mask white. Since the border between sky and buildings is mostly nice and sharp it's pretty easy and quick to do. Once there I would try making a difference layer using Grain Extract with the average sky color you want, then do Grain Extract again with the result on the original image.</p>

<p>Four sides, so four continents' cameras. With Japanese, European, American and Russian/Chinese sides. The Utilities would be major retailers at each continent (B&W for US, Yodobashi for Japan and so on), or film makers (Fuji, Kodak, Ilford?). The properties could go from phonecam/point and shoot to 35mm, medium format and up to view cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>They have stated in Japanese interviews that all manual lenses (and that includes 6x7 lenses with an adapter) will work the same as with the film 645 bodies. No AF of course, but metering and so on should work.</p>

<p>With that said, I have a Pentax 67 now, and I'm just not as keen on the digital 645 as I once was. I already get the resolution and dynamic range after all.</p>

<p>Pentax repairs them. I had my 67 in for service in Osaka recently; infinity focus was off a bit. They fixed it and did a complete overhaul, replaced worn out gears, cleaned and retuned the shutter and winding mechanisms, changed all light seals and so on. Took about two weeks and didn't cost an arm or a leg.</p>

<p>I use ND-76 - it's the same stuff as ID-11 and D-76 but almost half price. There's bound to be similar small-brand versions of it for cheap where you live too.</p>

<p>I like using it one shot, mixed 1:1. One-shot means I always get the same results, and the stuff is so cheap that I have no concern about the cost anyhow.</p>

<p>Paul is right. The high-contrast images are probably pushed film. You underexpose the film, then add development time to compensate for it. That tends to give you a rather abrubt tone curve, with lots of highlights, lots of shadow and few midtones.<br>

The other is veiling flare. The direct light bounces around in the lens and camera and blends with the surounding areas, reducing the contrast. Normally not something you want. You get it with cheaper lenses, and especially with old, uncoated lenses. You can also get it with a skylight (or "UV") filter on the lens, espaecially a cheap, uncoated one.</p>

<p>Kai, I got a complete overhaul of my Pentax 67 for about $300 by Pentax. That involved fixing a focusing issue I had, changing a couple of gears and other elements in the mirror and shutter assembly, replacing a deteriorating part in the film advance medchanism, replacing all the light seals and the mirror foam, adjusting shutter speeds and mirror timing and a general external and internal thourough cleaning. And as I sent the 90/2.8 lens along (since it was a focus issue) they checked the lens (it was fine) and cleaned it as well.</p>

<p>Sure, it was about $300 (just over 30k yen), but it's almost a new camera after the overhaul.</p>

<p>Dave, any of the options you consider will probably make you happy. The Pentax 645 (or the Pentax 67, don't forget), Mamiya RB/RZ, Hasselblad, Bronica - they're all basically good gear with very good lenses. The Pentaxes are the most portable and easy to use out and about among the SLR systems. The Mamiya 7 (or the Bronica RF645 - an often overlooked choice) are more compact of course, but they're rangefinders with a limited selection of lenses so that is a consideration.<br>

If you're going to scan - and most people do, and are happy with it, Mr. Bueh's seemingly endless complaints to the opposite notwithstanding - remember that larger negatives are easier to scan and will give you better results with a cheaper scanner. It's a tradeoff: smaller, lighter camera with more shots per roll on one hand, but need for higher-end scanner and less resolution on the other. Where your priorities lie is of course completely up to you.</p>

<p>But, if you're at all able to, try to use, or at least hold, each camera before you buy. The handling is very, very different from camera to camera, and hte subjective feel makes a major difference in how usable a camera is for you. This spring I walked into a camera store fully intending to try out and probably buy a Mamiya 7. By the time I was done I'd realized that the Mamiya - fine as it is - is not a camera for me. Meanwhile I checked out the Pentax 67 they had since I was there anyway; this is what I've ended up with. The shape, the handling and the feel of using it suits me very well. From an objective evaluation of each cameras' strengths the Mamiya should have clearly been the best camera for me. But handling and feel matters hugely, and I would never realized the Pentax was the better fit without playing with both cameras for a while.</p>

<p>As far as I understand, the P645 feels and handles very much like a normal SLR, with autofocus, metering, and so on. It's compact and light for an SRL MF. The rb67 is a lot larger and heavier, and really more at home on a tripod in a studio than out and about. It gives you substantially larger negatives than the p645. Either system's lenses are just fine.</p>

<p>I got a Pentax 67 as upgrade from my Yashica Mat, my first MF camera. As Bruce says, it's actually very compact and light for a 6x7 format MF camera, and even more so if you use the waist-level finder instead of the prism (which chould not be a problem if you're used to a Yashica Mat). That prism is almost a third of the entire camera weight...</p>

<p>X megapixels _is_ enough, with X varying from person to person, of course. For me, the 8mp is got from my first DSLR, a Canon Rebel, was already enough. My current K10D has 10mp, which is not create 2mp worth of happiness to me - though as Andrew points out, a newer sensor and other quality improvements do matter a lot.</p>

<p>I also shoot film, and a nicely sharp scanned frame from my Pentax 67 is typically 35mp (and I could improve on that with a higher-end scanner). The first thing I do, right along with the initial cropping and levels adjustment, is to scale it down to 20mp or so - more than enough for a second crop if I want to. 35-40mp is just a waste of space and time (no fun processing images that size, especially with slower operations) with no benefit for me.</p>

<p>So yes, X megapixels really is enough, with X around 8-10 in my case.</p>

<p>I use it, both for final wash and for the stop after development. Never had a problem. I do prefer 8-16-32, though; it's neater. But then, I'm a geek...</p>