peter_thoshinsky

Link to a lab that uses a new process called ".dr5" that produces B&W slides from standard negative film. A variety of "looks" depending on the type of film used.

 

<p>

 

http://www.dr5.net/dr5main.html

The paper manufactuers optimize their own papers to work best with

their own films. Iford with Ilford, Kodak with Kodak. That can and

will account for differences. So think about combinations within the

same brands.

 

<p>

 

To be honest of all the things that go into making a good photograph,

the choice which type/brand of film to use within the same speed

category, probably ranks dead last. There are probably 100 things

that have a greater impact on the final image than the film brand.

.......sorry should have read: "By exposing for the shadows you

guarentee detail in the dark areas, but you are right, you are in

FACT overexposing the highlights".

By exposing for the shadows you guarentee detail in the dark areas,

but you are right you are in overexposing the highlights.

 

<p>

 

Just reduce the developement.

 

<p>

 

The shadow areas, having fewer grains of exopsed silver, don't take

too much time to be fully developed. They develope early on and

basically finish and sit around. The more exposed areas have a larger

volume of exposed silver to be developed. They need extra time to

develope to completion. Reduce the time in the developer and the less

volume of exposed silver gets built up. Thus less highlight density

and contrast. Usual amount is -20% for a one stop reduction, -15% for

T grain films. When in doubt overexpose and underdevelope !

 

<p>

 

Camera exposure for the shadows.

Develope (to control) the highlights.

I shoot a lot of city street stuff at night and go with TMAX 3200

rated at 1600, as do two other guys I know shooting the same style of

stuff. IMHO that seems to be the best compromise of film speed and

image quality. Most exposures ( city streetlights and sidewalks

ilumianted by stores) seem to fall right at 1/15th at f 2, maybe

1/30th if lucky. I would hate to lose that 2/3'rds - 1 full stop by

shooting at ISO 800-1000. That little bit of film speed is a BIG deal

when you are hanging on the edge of "handheld". I like 1/30th, 1/15th

is ok in a pinch, but 1/8th scares me.

Buy the foot pump to open the expert drums. When you use it keep your

chin out of the way or visit a dentist and an orthopedidic surgeon to

have your broken jaw fixed.

 

<p>

 

Refill the individual slots with water when done in order to "float"

out the film.

 

<p>

 

One idea to overcome the level problem is to use an extra amount of

chemestry because the real danger is one area not being touched by

the chemical.

 

<p>

 

I had excellent consistant results with TMAX 100 and the Jobo. Never

scratched a single one.

First half well explained as above. The second half is deciding if

the scene has too much, too little, or normal contrast and changing

the development time to swing things back to "noral" contrast. That

is accomplised by comparing your shadow reading to your highlight

reading. A 5 stop range is normal.

I just started a rather lengthy photo project (enviornmental portraits in San Francisco, TMAX 400). After throwing thirty fast rolls through the camera I can honestly say that it's a joy to use. Be forewarned, one needs to find a methodical system. The cameras linmitations force some careful steps everytime one takes out the camera. Once you fall into the routine it's pretty damn easy. I use one film speed. One. I always pull the camera out and IMMEDIATELY pull off the lens cap. This needs to be done everytime without fail as soon the camera clears the bag. I then take an immediate, right off the bat, incident reading which I set on the body , (after confirming the ISO is set to 400 ... that's why one film speed, it avoids meter/exposure errors). I immediately transfer that meter reading to the camera. Now all of that takes 30 seconds. 90% of the pitfalls are taken care of. Now just remember to focus, that's the last 10%( easy to forget) and fire away. You can't load or advance the film improperly. You can't shoot on an empty camera. You can't shoot after you have run out of film. The camera will not let you. Changing film is a bit tedious, but I get better each time. The camera is in a word "simple". As far as the lack of a "Time" feature, not a problem. Just toss on the lens cap and move the shutter dial. That took 12 seconds to learn to do. The images are stunning. I see no need for TMAX 100, as the grain of 6x9 is non existant. The tonality is not to be believed. Creamy is the word that comes to mind. Next purchase is a GW 690.....for a more head and shoulders approach. As for non interchangeable backs. Who cares. I shoot eight frames and switch, which is about my norm anyhow.

A contact sheet of 8 6x9's is very cool....easy to work from. Overall is really a great photographers tool. If you like "KISS" this is the camera for you.

Low contrast prints can be due to low scene contrast (ie; the

lighting), or printing on too low a contrast grade of paper. The

other factors that will result in poor contrast are related to

developing of the film, but we will assume it is processed properly

since most labs can do C-41 without huge errors.

 

<p>

 

Filters can help scene contrast but it's difficult to determine if in

your case it's an issue. Filters are most dramatic with sky and

clouds, less so with foilage, even less so with skin tones.

 

<p>

 

Kodak T400CN is no more a "low contrast" film than standard Tmax

films or any other negative film. I would bet (in fact I'm

virtyually certain) the low contrast prints are due to poor printing

. Rememeber that automated enlagers also aim for 18 % gray. Operator

overide can adjust print contrast and exposure if the lab/operator

knows what it is doing. Find a good lab, or have them printed on

graded black and white paper.

 

<p>

 

BTW: My local lab often prints T400CN too high in contrast. Kodak

isn't stupid....they spend millions and million before a product goes

to market. If there is a problem with film don't switch films switch

processing. Anything put out by Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, Agfa in any

speed or type, just like any modern camera and lens of any sort or

style, can outperform anyone reading this forum.

Has anyone even seen it yet ? :-)

I would like to use Scala as my primary film. The idea of being able to edit/view without proofing, and seeing the print enlarged by projecting, seems tempting. Add that it is suppossed to scan to photo CD extremelly well. I do not wish, however, to give up the option of fiber prints. I could of course go with Ciba's, but that's not for this thread.

Any suggestions for making internegatives from 35 mm Scala ? I have a 4x5 enlarger and film holders (Kodak readyload, Lisco, Polaroid 545). I thought of using an enlarger to project onto Tmax 100 film or Kodak Duplicating film, and printing from the 4x5 internegative. Or same idea but using Polaroid Type 55 P/N. Or should I just buy one of those Adorama Slide Duper things and make 35 mm internegatives onto (what) film ? Funny how when one tries to simplify things in the darkroom they grow more complicated. In that vain (simplicity) I'm leaning towards the slide duper that mounts on a camera. My volume would be low (20 or so per month). Don't want to spend a grand on a copy stand/duper setup. Brainstorming this out here, don't mind ideas and input.

Thanks in advance. Peter.

I could get you set up in one afternoon and have you printing the next day. It's all pretty straightfoward. You can get good results pretty quick, but it takes years to be a master at it. Of course that is just like anything.

 

<p>

 

Stay in touch. This is a good source.

..........that's "do" not "due". I'm not illiterate. The best spell check would know what I want to say not what I type

Black and white or color ? Negatives or slides ? What will the end result be used for, publishing or prints ? Due you prefer preloaded films or are you using standard (load 'em yourself) film holders ?