scott_norville

<p>Trying out my new extension tubes on the Kiev 88:</p><div></div>

<p>St. Ansel used many different films, many different exposures, different developers and different developing processes, depending on the exposure and effect he wanted. You are off to a good start--looking for an specific look and working toward finding a way to get it.<br>

Most simply, to get the striking contrast in skies that people think of as "Ansel Adams", use a panchromatic film and a red or yellow filter, meter through the filter (or increase exposure by one stop), develop and print "normally". The vast repertoire of different films and processes are for fine tuning this.<br>

Also, what film format are you using? Tri-x on 35mm will show grain. (It's supposed to be there)<br>

A couple of samples, both are 35mm, normal development in D76:<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11586517-lg.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" /><br>

<img src="../photo/9705232&size=md" alt="" /></p>

<p>Nice analysis, but the news rolls on: she had more of Uncle Earls prints that are near match of several of the putative AA plates...not all images were released to the press.</p>

<p>Most economical way to dip your toe into LF: Speed or Crown Graphic. Many on this forum will deride their lack of movements, but be honest with yourselves--how often do you <em>really</em> use them? An old press camera offers everything else that LF can give: huge negative, lack of convenience and portability, focusing and composing on the ground glass, and most of the image quality coming from whatever glass you stick on the front, anyway.</p>

<p>Dredging an old thread, I know...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Let us say, you were walking in the forest, and happened upon a person (man or woman doesn't matter), who lived alone, had never had contact with another human being, and went about their daily rituals naked, and unaware that they were naked, further, not caring if they were or not.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I would extend the analogy, and have this "pure" uneffected and unaffected (used in the psychological sense) person find another, and take pictures.</p>

<p>No prurient interest, no lascivious intent. (I would have to assume some prior exposure to the image-making process on the part of the taker.)</p>

<p>This gives us a different spectrum: from the most blatant of naked-dead-child-in-lingerie pornography to the nude-without-concept-of-sex. Where do most fall in reality? Almost all would be somewhere in the middle, edging to one side or the other, a few going further one way or the other, and almost none reaching the ends. Typical gaussian curve, but the elements defined are the intent, practice and scope of both the taker and subject.</p>

<p>Back to an earlier response--these are defined culturally as well. If you need examples they are easily found.</p>

<p>So, yes, of course a chaste nude is possible. Not common, but possible. And my chaste nude will probably not be everyone's...</p>

<p>Editing and labeling are going to be the hard part...</p>

<p>Even if it jams occasionally you should find that you can move through a lot of slides rather quickly with the feeder, if you can keep it where you can keep and eye on it. I have only the lowly LS-1000 with feeder, and got all 12 rolls of vacation Kodachrome scanned yesterday (though I have never had it go so far without jamming before--must be the virgin cardboard) just by being around to change the slides frequently. I use Vuescan--it allows for sequential numbering and automatic feeding (but won't stop when the feeder is empty). I will be days organizing the images, though.</p>

<p>Both sets of parents have threatened me with slide collections, but none have materialized yet...</p>

<p>I have not been failed by Dwayne's yet--and I have sent them over thirty rolls of Kodachrome in the the last year or two.<br>

While prepaid mailers were still being accepted (last year) they used the original Kodak (but not "Kodachrome") cardboard mounts and boxes. If you mail them directly (or any way now) you get generic mounts and black plastic boxes.<br>

Dwayne's has various contractual deals--if you drop Kodachrome off at Walmart or mail it to Clark's it will get sent to Kansas (though nothing will say "Dwayne" on it). It will take much longer but cost MUCH less. I'm not sure who eats the difference. The other drawback is that it increases the amount of handling by the third parties, and you cannot order anything special (push processing, scanning, uncut film...).<br>

My last 12 rolls is sent via Clark, and four of the boxes came open on the way home--no damage but mountain goats, marmot and waterfalls were all mixed up. YMMV. $3/roll v. $10/roll.</p>

<p>1994? I though you said "very old" (he he)<br>

I agree with the testing idea, if you have any film left.<br>

Try Acufine (if you can find it), 6 minutes at 75°f<br>

(I use Acufine for all my sheet film now, as it's reusable)<br>

Or Tmax developer at 1:4, 11 minutes at 75°f.<br>

I just used the last of a bulk roll of Tmax 100 from 1996, pushed to 1600, with slightly longer times with these developers. It worked as well as I hoped. Tmax seems to be very stable, this was stored rather indifferently during much of that time.</p>

<p>Oops, here's the picture:</p><div></div>

<p>All good ideas, it all depends on what you want to do. Historically important film shot a long time ago? Have a lot of old film you want to use (more time than money to experiment...)?<br /> I have a box of Kodak Royal Ortho, "Use before April 1958", I've been experimenting with. I've just about found its sweet spot--iso 10 (or so), 15ml of benzotriazole stock/500ml of Dektol (stock is 10g/2l water), tray developed under red light produced usable negs. This took about 20 sheets of 4x5 though, but now I have the formula for the remainder of 80 sheets of fine-grain film with an authentic vintage look :0<br /> My point is that you can probably do it, but it is not quite a science as so many unknowns go into using really really post-dated film.<br /> BTW I have just tonight developed the last of a 10-year-old stock of Tmax 100, and this was pushed to 1600. Whatever else I don't like about Tmax, stability is not a problem. New Tri-X though, don't let it go a week past date...</p>

<p>I used the DigitalTruth guidlines for Efke with some 4x5 stock. Certainly close enough...</p>

<p>google.com -- lots of answers out there. Lots of scanners, too. High quality, high speed, low price; you can only have one :).<br>

If you are only doing 35mm there are <em>lots</em> of dedicated film scanners that will do a <em>good enough</em> job, that you can get used for cheap. Unless you need a 48mp scan--then you move up. I use a Nikon LS-1000 with a slide feeder, got the whole set-up on ebay for <$100. If you are limited to a new Mac you will need something with a USB or firewire interface, though. There are lots of those--search for Minoltas, and other stuff. <strong>Search</strong> here on photo.net.<br>

Don't get a flatbed for 35mm, though, unless all you want is fuzzy proof sheets.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How can you expect to pay for one of these.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Paypal, credit card, check or cash.</p>

<p>I'll try to do some catching up here:<br>

Looks like no one did David's picture: I love the vignetting of the circle, great colors, nice capture of the kid with the (?beer) bottle. I would have lowered the perspective a little, getting more of the roof and less of the ground.<br>

Steve's: nice perspective, just the right framing. This would almost work better in B&W, in color a bit more saturation of the blue of the coat and maroon of the umbrella would help.<br>

Just an idea--if everyone also posted the images to their galleries, further detailed discussion could take place there.</p>

<p>Here's mine:<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10506050-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /></p>

<p>Ilford Pan, FP-4 or good old Tri-X. Dependable, good and consistent. This also gives you a range of grain. For the price, now that I have found it again (used to use it in the '80s in Africa) I am happily surprised with the saturation and midtones of the Ilford Pans and am switching to that for my slower film.<br>

I have also had very good results with the T-max films but have found them inconsistent, even within the same batch and in the same developer tank, and much more finicky in development overall. (There's a good reason most photojournalists used tri-x till they switched to digital.) Other people have had better luck and may be better at being consistent.<br>

There are literally dozens of small run companies in various countries that make (or label) traditional B&W emulsions, usually "pan" variations: Negrapan, Perupan etc.<br>

Of course, within the great middle of the bell curve, more will depend on your own skill and technique.</p>