alex_hawley

Thanks for the good advice Joe. One thing I've discovered in the last few days is wiping down the glass with the anti-static cloth. This has improved results substantially.

It would be interesting to see if the published "design" of the film has changed over the decades. Rick, i don't think Kodak has ever advertised TX as being "designed" for pushing up to asa 6400 yet many photographers do just that. Don't put any limits on yourself by what Kodak says a film is "designed" for.

Thanks Donald. I live near Burlington, about 55 miles South of Topeka.

I'm looking for suggestions for a 4x5 contact print frame. This

would be used for making fine prints, not just proofing. My

disadvantage is that I've never seen nor used one so I have no first-

hand experience to draw from. I've been using the home-brew sheet

glass method but have decided to advance beyond since its nearly

impossible to make a print without dust specs that way.

I agree with your assessment Michael. This is another point I struggle with. Could you point to an example where the cloud and sky space is managed more like you mentioned?

 

This brings up another dilemma. In my example, the clouds were moving fast. Of the six frames I shot (actually, I was experimenting with f-stop, shutter speed combinations for the IR film, that was my overiding goal)they all have different cloud arrangements. Even if I were concentrating strictly on the entire image, I still would have compromised on the overall image due to the constraints of time, sun angle, and illumination of the landscape.

 

Yet, overall, even with printing, I'm too fixated on the clouds. Back to the darkroom!

Don't know of anything that can reverse selenium toning. A four minute wash is usually adequate for RC papers. If you want a good inexpensive RC (or FB) paper, try Adorama. Some say its relabled Ilford, but I've found slight differences. Its a good 1/2 stop faster and tones differently that Ilford does. Still very close though. I use it for trial prints. When I'm finally satisfied, I shift over to Ilford, usually only having to lengthen the exposure a few seconds.

Michael,

 

How did yoy know that was the other rut I was in? Oh, sorry. Its pretty evident isn't it?

 

Alex

Kelly, that makes some sense, your iris being made in 1920's Germany. I've heard of the same thing being possible with some Ilex shutters. Thankfully, my Ilex survived the lighter fluid test. You're right about the celluloid too. That's what the early plastics were derived from.

Kevin, what happened. I've used it, but thinking back, I followed it with lighter fluid.

Kelly makes a very important point. Many of the usual solvents will attack non-metalic blades. Personally, I have used Ronsonol lighter fluid or mineral spirits. I picked this up from the graflex.org forum. The main ingredient in the lighter fluid is naphtha which is an excellent degreaser and evaporates quickly. But it has just enough oil in it to leave behind a slight coating of lubricant. Mineral spirits are very similar to lighter fluid. I used lighter fluid to get the shutters and irisis working in the old graflex view kit that I bought.

 

If you have non-metalic blades, WD-40 might be a viable altermative, but I'm not 100% sure.

Thanks Mike. And thanks for you very generous contributions to this thread.

Thanks for the help guys. I'll try your tips.

Ed, here's an example of what we've been talking about in this thread and the one on clouds. I shot this a week ago and printed it

last night.

 

This scene is near my home. In fact, I work at the power plant from where the big transmission line originates. I first shot it three

years ago when I started photography again. That shot was made hand-held with a 35mm. No clouds in the sky, stood on the road in front (which is cropped off) and I lined up the towers so they were inline with each other. Purely a spontaneous, drive-by shot. I didn't have a darkroom at the time, so all the developing and printing was left to the graces of a Kodalux lab. The 8x10 that I received was nothing spectacular by photo.net standards but it placed in the company's photo contest. I was rewarded with a very nice professionally printed and framed 20"x30" enlargement that hung in the head office foyer for a year. That played a big part in hooking me on photography.

 

But, I had this pre-conceived notion that the scene would be more dramatic with big puffy clouds. Some of this was due to critiquers

saying it sucked because there were no clouds. So, I've returned several times, with several different cameras, films and filters, trying to do it better.

 

This was the latest attempt. The elusive clouds were abundant last Saturday! First time I've used the 4x5 on the shot (wanted to

eliminate convergence from previous trys). Also, it was the first time I had used the roll film back on the 4x5, and I wanted to do this with infrared film because of the new growth of short green grass and the dark sky effect. The short green grass comes a couple

weeks after the tall grass is burned off. The burning is done every few years to maintain a healthy eco system for the native prairie grass.

 

A red filter was mandatory for the IR film. I started setting up with the towers in line as usual, but then thought about using a slightly different composition for a change. I moved several feet left and came up with this view, which I was pleased with. Boy, the blood was up!!

 

This print was done totally by myself with my own choices of dodging/burning/cropping and printed on a paper of my choice.

 

Is this pre-conceived self-crafted shot with the 4x5 view camera better than the first shot with the hand-held 35mm? I think its a better composition. I like not having convergence on the big towers. I like the light values of the vegetation. What I don't like is the way the top of the foremost tower blends into the dark sky. Due to the orientation of everything, the towers are always backlit to some degree. I got better tonal separation between the tower top and sky with the 35mm and a polarizing filter (didn't know a thing about IR film, red filters, nor view cameras back then). Am I totally satisfied with this shot and print? No, I still think I could do better.

 

Like I said, this scene is a couple miles from the house and I drive by it every day I go to work. Here's what I have learned from my

experience with this scene and this wonderful forum. There are some scenes one can try numerous time trying to achieve one's perception of perfection. (Corollaries; St. Ansel litteraly LIVED in Yosemeti, and several examples cited in this thread.) There are others that one will see only once for a fleeting instant and one has to learn to make the best of the instant. (Corollaries; St Ansel's "Moonrise over Hernandez", Cartier-Bresson's work, and several examples cited in this thread).

 

Will I try this scene again? You bet I will. How will I do it next time? I haven't the foggiest notion.<div></div>

Michael,

You may have opened my eyes. Lately, I've been going out with some very pre-conceived ideas. Maybe that's causing the rut I'm in. Thanks.

Christian, I generally use a red, orange or yellow filter. Sometimes green depending on the vegetation. Overall, I think the orange gives the best results. I should use it more than I do.

 

For everyone that posted example photos, they are beautiful. The pilgramage to Monument Valley (I'm a huge fan of John Ford) is on my short list to do in this lifetime. Hope I have the luck of good clouds when I get there.

Lots of good advice and sympathy. I wondered what a blue filter would be good for, now I know. I guess the best thing is realize one has to shift conceptual gears when the scene doesn't meet the visualiztion that I had pre-formed in my mind. Sticking with familiar places is something I've been doing. After all, St. Ansel lived in Yosemeti.

Thanks for everyone's advice so far. Good to know I'm not alone with this dilemma. Bill, is you medicine kit more reliable than the Weather Service?

Yep, done that too David. My habit in that case is to reach for the red filter. Helps somewhat but can have other distracting effects.

Yeah, I can symapthise. Monument Valley is a 1000 miles (literally) from the house for me.

Seems a given that clouds add drama to the sky - at least, that's

what most critics and the public say. So there you are, a beautiful

scene, you're dying to photograph it, you may never be in this

location again, blah, blah, blah, and there's not a cloud to be seen

anywhere.

 

I've used red filters but often the effect appears overdone with a

cloudless sky. I read Uncle Ansel and he said keep some good cloud

negs handy. That's fine but it seems awful hard to to get the

composite print right and soon people start noticing the same clouds

in all your photos.

 

Bottom line - I spend a lot of days waiting for clouds. Gets

frustrating when you drive a hundred miles for a shot and the clouds

go away.

 

There's got to be a better way????

Gene, what's the minimum circle of confusion on the Stupfenheimer? Will it do soft focus????

Neil - thanks for asking this question. I had wondering about selective toning myself but hadn't gotten around to asking about it.

 

To add more concerning mixing the selenium with water instead of HCA, there was a good thread on this several weeks ago in the B&W Film forum. The concensus of the savvy lab techs was that selenium works just fine mixed with water. I've found this to be true toning FB prints. Haven't tried negatives yet but it shouldn't make any difference.

I'm having problems with my 550 back putting a broad streak down the

center of the print. Seems to be related to the rollers. I've

cleaned them per the instructions with no change. The

instructions/troubleshooting on the Polaroid website were of no help

in diagnosing or correcting the problem (or else I couldn't find the

right info there). Anyone have any suggestions?

Ken, its straight sepia toning using Kodak Sepia II toner. This particular print was about 1 stop overexposed, so I left it in the bleech until all the black was gone. Paper is Adorama RC which seems to be more receptive to toners than Ilford RC is.

Sounds like a camera problem. Try replicating your camera setup in a room where you can turn down the lights. First, check the back. Take the lens off, turn down the lights, and look through the front of the bellows while you shine a flashlight around the edges of the back. You can check the front in a similar way by installing the lensboard and looking through the rear bellows. If there are leaks, you should easily see the light from the flashlight coming through into the bellows.