andy_ly1

Background with a 20 degree grid, and a 16x22 softbox for the main.

http://www.vermillionstudios.com/cgi/wiki.pl?My_Film_Testing_Chart

E-6 Chemistry - Stabilizer

Modern films are MUCH less prone to reticulation, but its always nice to keep consistancy for that peice of mind. As for cold wash, there is no adverse effect. The only pitfall is, once it goes below 68 degrees, the wash becomes ineffective and requires a significantly longer wash time. It is not advisable to keep the negative in water for a long time since the emulsion swells up and becomes fragile. That is why a nominal temperature is recommended to maintain the effective wash for a given temperature without ruining the negative.

 

Keep in mind this is in reference only to colder temperatures, I wouldn't advise anything over 75F for reason of swelling and reticulation.

And its funny to see people push their slides without knowing what purpose it serves.

 

Slide film has a narrower range of light.. approximately 4 stops, so anything put on Zone III will pretty much be black. Zone VII is maximum white for slide film.

It's time to start testing out Arista EDU 100 or Classic Pan 100 from JandCphotography :)

 

For the price, Agfa APX 100 is still very good!

Don't forget to include the people who gaussian blurs or despeckle their image to death to make up for the lack of impact their image contains.

I've done testing with both Microdol-x and Perceptol. I recently lost all the data from my Palm Pilot, so I moved everything to my site.

 

http://www.vermillionstudios.com/cgi/wiki.pl?My_Film_Testing_Chart

 

I don't have the numbers for Microdol-x off-hand but I know it is very close to perceptol. For example, on the APX 100, I get 17.5 min using Perceptol, yet on Microdol-x, it would be 18.5 minutes (same dilution).

 

Hope that helps.

The only difference I can think of is the A/D converter is higher on the new one 16 bit. The 8000 was, I believe 12-bit? There are people who complain about streaks on the 8000, but I use Vuescan which forces 1 LED scan preventing that streak all together. If you can afford it, just go for the 9000, newer technology I suppose.. Even with the 8000, I am extremely happy with my scan.

 

What many fail to realize is that the quality of one's scan is also dependant on how well their negative/slide is exposed. People complain when their scans look bad when normally it's their negatives that looks like crap.

Wouldn't it be easier to properly light the subject to begin with?

There are other variables for this too.. When using Photo-Flo, you don't want it to make contact with the reels. The substance will gum up your reels and will be next to impossible to remove. So during development, the edges end up getting more development since the Photo-flo is accelerating development.

 

I learned this the hard way. Now I do my photo-flo process on a separate tray and no longer enounter this kind of problem.

 

Andy

Dense negative = overdeveloped

<div></div>

I recently sold my leafscan 45 and have a GPIB (PCI slot) card with wire for sale if you're interested. It's yours for $150. Shoot me an email if interested. As for using XP, it will not work. You are more than likely required to install Windows 2000. I beleive it's due to the Leafscan software not being compatible with the 32 bit kernel of XP.

 

Posting your question on the Leafscan forum will get you better help - good luck. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Leafscan/

 

Andy

<div></div>

Say you slap a green filter on, then you slap a red filter on top of that. The objective of the red filter has already done it's job, (darken blues, lighten whites, etc). The green filter sees everything as red, which is linear in all amounts, therefore the green filter simply acts as a neutral density filter.

The middle filter would be of no effect, the first filter converts the scene to one color where the second filter will only act as a neutral density since no color is further filtered out.

That site is such a joke!

 

"7. The film-based images have a higher contrast due to the limited range of the film used (4.5 stops). The digital cameras have approximately 5.5 stops with a rather long toe in the shadow range."

 

Last time I did a density test on digital, I only squeezed out 3 stops of range.

<div></div>

HA, ISO 50 is being generous. I've actually tested this film out to an EI of 32 in Microdol-X!!!! 75F 1:3 for 18.5 minutes.

 

Here are a few samples:

http://www.usefilm.com/image/295499.html

http://www.usefilm.com/image/283190.html

http://www.usefilm.com/image/281714.html

 

Andy

I don't understand why people separate the two.. There are plenty of technically proficient photographers who can create a highly emotional photograph. People who claim that technicality is not important are just too lazy to do so. And it's quite ironic the same people who claim that technicality is not important are the same people who are shooting SLR. Isn't an SLR too technical? Because in order to eliminate all technical aspects of photography, you're gonna have to be shooting with a P&S camera!!!

 

I personally beleive that people are willing to excuse what they don't want to have to learn. Sure you may know aperture, shutter, ISO, and the concepts of focus. YES, THOSE ARE TECHNICALs!!! Yet you're not willing to learn how to calibrate your own film, modify contrast through development, etc.

 

Think of it this way. What if you have someone who is absolutely new to photography and it was your job to teach them how to photograph. And you begin by teaching this person, aperture, shutter, focus, etc. And this person says "TECHNICALS BLAH BLAH BLAH, I shoot for emotions!". You would obviously feel offended since you know what you already know, therefore you feel it is important for the beginner to understand those concepts to make a basic image.

 

SAME THING for the technical photographer. They are the same person you are that is carring that mentality towards the NEW photographer. They know something that you may not, and feel that it is a vital role in making great images. Just like you are feeling towards that new person rejecting the concepts of even BASIC photography.

 

Hope you can relate.

 

Andy

I tested Agfa APX 100 on Microdol-X 75F 1:3 and I got ISO 32 for 17.5 minutes on a Jobo CPE-2+ I would shoot it at ISO 25, since the density reading was on the lower edge of the acceptable density for Zone I.

 

Andy<div></div>

I just want to add my findings for Pan F. I've done an EI test with this film and use it extensively. The EI I've come up with is ISO 20 developed in D-76 1:2 for 8.5 minutes. I've checked and double checked this with a densitometer. Hope this helps.