dw1

December 16, 2009

Hi Stuart. I only wet print, no scanning. I know what you mean about grain-peeping, but

I can honestly state this is not the case here. At 16x20, for my test print, the grain in the

sky is visible from arms length. I use the Omega D6 XL, with a condensor head, through

Schneider optics. It's a very contrasty setup, as I rarely go past 1.5 with my contrast filters.

Anyway, I am going to repeat the tests with Acros and Delta 100 in perceptol. I don't think

the format (6x7) is the issue here, or the optics.

December 16, 2009

Thanks Stuart. I'm not a Rodinal user, I've standardized on Delta100/DDX for my 4x5.

The 6x7 tests were using the same combination. DDX is a, generally, fine grain developer

but I'll give Perceptol a shot. My own experience with Acros a few years ago was that it

was not finer grained that Delta 100 (all things being equal, of course). I will conduct a

more structed experiment between the two. If, as you observe, grain is minimal up to

20x24 then that certainly may be the incentive I need to move from my spoiled 4x5 ways.

December 14, 2009

Thanks Mike.

The original question was not how to get finer grain, rather to discern whether

better optics could enhance the apparent grain in a print. The consensus appears

to be that the negative size format is the 'limitation' - not the optics. So my question

is answered. The secondary question, about minimizing the 6x7 format's grain, means

using an even finer grained film - like Efke 25. Unfortunately, the specs suggest it

doesn't have the latitude I like for +2, N-2 so I'm going to stick with 4x5 for landscapes.

December 14, 2009

QG. Interesting thought. The Sekor-C shots, though perfectly in focus, were certainly

less sharp. Perhaps another meaningful test would be to shoot a blue sky at infinity

and print the grain.

Although I love everything about Delta 100 for landscape, perhaps I'll shoot a roll of

Efke 25. Again, if I can get to parity at 11x14 I'd make the move. I just don't shoot

enough to justify my 4x5 field gear anymore, so the GX680 seemed like a nice exit strategy.

December 14, 2009

Lynn, thank you. I have found the Delta100 in DDX combo extremely satisfactory on 4x5.

There are rare cases when I have used Perceptol for max grain performance. HC110-B is

also great for very low contrast scenes ... really bumps up the values nicely.

December 14, 2009

Gary, the KL glass is fine indeed. The RB67 just doesn't have the movements I prefer

for my landscape work. Thank you for your suggestion.

December 14, 2009

Thank you Thomas. I agree that negative grain is purely a function of the emulsion

and how it is exposed and developed.

The point I am trying to discern is whether the quality of the optical projection

(via the lens) onto that emulsion can be so significantly different between the Sekor-C

and the Fujinon that it would reduce apparent graininess on the print. I mean, the

Sekor-C is no slouch so perhaps I am encountering max performance for the 6x7 format.

I am also thinking back to my 35mm days when there was an apparent "grain difference"

when I upgraded 3rd party glass to the Canon L glass. That was clearly a case of

increased resolution being projected onto the emulsion.

Further case in point is, I shot the same landscape on 4x5, using Schneider glass. I

printed a cropped section from an equivelant surface area to the 6x7 format. The grain

was minimal compared to the Sekor-C 6x7 full frame. So again, the Schneider's optical

projected compared to the Sekor-C has me encouraged about the prospect of being

satisfied by switching to the Fujinon glass on 6x8 format. I don't want to be a grain

snob. Clearly 4x5 is the way to go for 16x20. If I can get parity at 8x10 or 11x14, I'd

be content to make the switch for my landscapes.

December 14, 2009

I will try my best to be specific, since this question could easily dive into a broader topic.

Here is some useful context, followed by my question at the end.

I shoot Delta 100 on 4x5, in DDX, for my landscapes. I use the RB67 Sekor-C

lenses for casual studio work. I have been wanting to consolidate and I've

been considering the Fujinon GX680, mainly because of the film size and

camera movements. It, allegedly, also has superior optics to the Sekor-C's.

I realize grain is subjective to a certain point, but I routinely wet print my landscapes

up to 16x20 and I simply prefer a less grainy print. I shot and printed a test

landscape to 16x20, taken with the 90mm Sekor-C (Delta100, DDX). My goal was

to see if the 6x7 film size would be 'acceptable' enough for me to sell the 4x5

I have clearly been spoiled by the 4x5 film as the 6x7 grain, even at 8x10 print,

just wasn't as fine as I expected.

So, no offense to the 90mm Sekor-C ... but I am wondering how much of the

grain was an optical limitation, rather than a film size limitation.

My Question: Would the, allegedly, superior optics of the Fujinon GX680

lenses give a finer grain compared to the RB67 Sekor-C lenses? I wish I could

rent a GX680 & Lens for comparison, but they are scarce enough as it is.

December 10, 2009

Jeff - It certainly is an interesting effect. Gives the whites a texture that is very appealing.

The effect on skin rendering, however, is quite unpleasant, as it makes it look diseased.

I'll be doing a snowy 4x5 adventure next month and might reticulate a couple sheets for

the fun of it. It should be very interesting to see the texture it adds to the snowy whites.

December 9, 2009

We've a cold spell where I live. Just measured the cold tap and it was like 45 degrees. The lead

is close to the main coming in from the outdoors. I have a hot water supply in the darkroom, so I

will be fine. So, the case history here is that a 28 degree drop induces severe reticulation. Anyway,

clearly an oversight on my part.

December 9, 2009

Thank you Lex.

It must have been the wash cycle. I have always washed using much cooler water, but it sounds

like I was just getting away with one on my previous film of choice. I'll take my knock on the

knuckles here and get the temps straight. Such a beautiful film. I am very happy to hear this.

December 9, 2009

Tri-X 320 - 6x7 frames on a fresh 220 roll. I shot this film for the first time over the weekend. I am getting some very obvious wormlike patterns on the negatives. This is not a grain issue, as the wormlike elements are not microscopic. When viewed through a simplye 4x loupe they appear to be part of the film base. Jump out at only 8x10 print. If this is just the nature of the film, then so be it. Though I would have a hard time time believing this is subjectively appealing to anyone. But if it is not typical of TriX320, then I'd like some thoughts on what might be going wrong on here. Processed as follows: Fresh D76 stock, distilled water, 68, N-1 (condensor head). All other baths fresh, distilled, within 1 degree. Hang dried in my usual dust-free area (never had a problem). The roll was1 week fresh from a major supplier. Please see the scan the 'worming' I'm observing. Thanks Dave<div>

</div>

November 6, 2009

I need to identify the model Calumet 45 that I bought.

I'm selling it and want to give an accurate description to

potential buyers.

I was told it was a 45N, but I don't think that's correct.

I have 4 pictures in my portfolio. The serial is 20948.

http://www.photo.net/photos/dw

I'm hoping somebody can identify the exact model and approximate its age.

September 24, 2009

Thanks Brian. I appreciate your effort. Best Regards.

September 24, 2009

I have 75 holders, so 150 negatives. I can deal with a 5% to 10% reduction since this is

my first 4x5 adventure -- ie., latency will likely be the least of my headaches. Nevertheless,

no use burning a strike if I don't have to so I'll keep the box in the trunk, away from windows.

Thanks

September 24, 2009

I've moved to 4x5. Shooting Delta 100. Kodak, for instance, recommends

development within 72 hours - or storing in an airtight, cool environment.

Well - I'm going on a road trip and won't be able to develop the negatives for

about 1 month after exposure. The exposed holders will be in a box in my car.

It is the "cool season" where I'm going, so the negatives won't get too hot.

Obviously the box is not airtight. I'm considering buying a small food sealer,

but obviously I prefer to avoid dragging that with me unless really needed.

My question is about what I can expect from waiting this long, in general.

Also, is the airtight storage critical or will the cool'ish temperatures suffice.

I'm using DDX,with the Delta 100 if that is of relevance.

THANKS

September 1, 2009

Addendum: I suppose I could always go the flourescent tube route. Easy to rig that up.

Any thoughts on the tube "wattage" or re-exposure time for this method.

September 1, 2009

I have developed my own BW negatives for 20 years.

I am now delving into the carcinogenic world of BW reversal processing.

As with any film development, consistency is key to getting repeatable results.

I will use the Ilford Reversal Process as published, with PanF 50.

My question is in regards to the Re-Exposure, ie., fogging, process.

It seems several folks favor just holding it up to a diffused window light source for a

minute per side. This seems a little inconsistent, so I'm just wondering if there is some

consumer-grade apparatus for re-exposing the film in a precise and consistent manner.

I have not been able to find such an apparatus by searching the internet.

So, ideally, somebody here is going to send me a link to a < $150 re-exposure apparatus ;)

Alternatively, I have a large softbox with a single baffle that gets little use. I was thinking

about adapting it to accept a 100watt bulb, and laying the film diagonal across the panel

for 60 seconds per side. My only concern with this is that there is a slight hot-spot in the

middle, by about 1/2 stop, which might lead to the middle frames being re-exposed

differently from the edges.

September 1, 2009

Hi Matthew. That's the perfect answer I was looking for, regarding the span.

Is your Lee soft that you are speaking of a .6 or .9 (2 stops or 3 stops). Yes, I

am mostly just looking for the "classic" effect. Nothing dramatic, just a pleasant

natural looking transition when the sky is metering hot. However, just wondering

whether the Lee/SR GND .9 soft might be a little more versatile.

August 31, 2009

My medium is 35mm slide film.

I currently use the Cokin A, 2 stop GND, which has a fairly hard transition.

I want a softer transition. 2 stops usually works well for my taste and journeys.

I've settle on the Singh-Ray GND. As all know, comes in soft or hard transition.

I will Only be using this on my Zeiss 35mm which is only a 58mm thread span.

The "effective span" for the actual front element is about 48mm.

The Singh-Ray GND area is 84x120mm.

My concern - before I buy the Singh-Ray (which I cannot return):

With the soft transion, will there be any actual graduation or is the effective span

of the front element much to small relative to the much larger SR filter. I am

wondering if I should get the hard transition, on the theory that it would perform

as a "soft" since the graduation is being scaled to a smaller thread.

If I could get my hands on one, great, but I can't.

Thanks. Hope this is clear.

August 28, 2009

Kevin, as I mentioned in my original posting, I'm using manual lenses,

slide film, landscape shots. Metering iwith a handheld. The F5 is even

overkill for this application. I'm Just looking for an inexpensive body

so I can shoot BW slides in compliment with the Kodachrome. I'll rarely

ever use it again and the whole buy-use-sell on ebay thing is a pain in

the rump.

August 27, 2009

I don't have an aversion to the F100. Just looking for a lesser investment. I

prefer the body controlled thirds rather than finessing the aperture ring. The

N90S looks to be the ticket. Thank you.

August 27, 2009

Can anyone list the Nikon consumer or semi-pro film bodies that

have 1/3 stops (not just 1/3 stop compensation, I shoot manual).

Don't care about ttl meter, a/f, etc. Just need the 1/3 stops.

I'm taking my 'once-in-a-lifetime' to Yellowstone in a couple weeks.

Primary body will be my F5, Zeiss 35mm and last of my Kodachrome :)

I just want a 2nd body to shoot some Scala B&W positives without

having to invest in another F5 ... or the F100.

Thanks.

August 25, 2009

I am purchasing the Zeiss 35mm f/2 ZF Distagon T*. Will be used on

my F5, film only. I'm debating which UV filter matches best with the Zeiss

optics, in terms of neutrality (ie., not affecting color, contrast, sharpness).

I use the Hoya MC's for my Nikon lenses and they seem to be fairly neutral,

but I've never compared it to any other filters. So, since Zeiss is optically

different than Nikon, I just wanted to gather some Observations on what

high-end lens owners are using:

Q - Which high-end UV filter is the most "NEUTRAL" for high-end optics?

Thanks.

May 6, 2009

I'm waiting for Jerry Springer to post on this!

Bea - This doesn't require a sociology degree to figure out. The obvious answer is that you need to go down the tough road and do the dirty.

You must talk to the Moh AND the bride. For you to go into this day knowing that you have a time bomb is cowardly and irresponsible.

For those who think the 'bride has enough to worry about ... I disagree. The bride WILL find out

about this and if she's as Catty as her Moh then I see the potential for high drama ... at the very

least, very few smiles.

WHEN you talk to the Bride and Moh Eat crow (it won't be the last time either, i assure you).

- Tell them you thought long and hard about how to handle this and that you personally struggled.

- Tell them you decided it was best that the bride not learn of this on her wedding day.

- Admit that you were immature back then, but that you are professional now (ie., eat crow).

- Assure them that you have no desire or intention for drama on the wedding day.

No matter what happens, no matter how great your shots are, you are not getting referrals here.

BUT you DO have a professional responsibility to Not knowingly bring a ticking time bomb into the day.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by dw1