User_5888660

<p>Kodak made an Ektachrome <strong>paper</strong> for several years, as a way to compete with Cibachrome/Ifochrome. The paper came in two types, Ektachorme 2203 and Ektachrome 14. Both used the R-100 process. One paper was a reversal paper and one was a direct transfer paper. </p> <p>The Ektachrome papers were not very good and had very short life spans before they faded, especially in cyan. Cibachrome was more stable and therefor used by most photographers. </p>

<p>Read the book "Light: Science and Magic" and then use the lighting you find most effective for the result you want. </p> <p>Here is a pdf of the book:</p> <p>http://ken-gilbert.com/nsop/misc/photo%20books/Light.Science.and.Magic..pdf</p> <p> </p>

<p>Here are a few terms to get you going on google:</p> <p>Multiplying cameras</p> <p>carte-de-visite camera</p> <p>Bon Ton camera</p> <p> </p>

<p>Here's the website you want: </p> <p>http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/</p> <p>Here is where you can get the chemicals and kits for the differing processes:</p> <p>https://www.bostick-sullivan.com</p> <p>The people at B&S are very nice and will provide help if you have questions. Just give them a call.</p> <p>To me, one of the most interesting processes is the original photo process: the salt print. The only chemicals are silver nitrate, salt and fixer. You can expose using the sun or a UV unit. Most salt prints are POP, but I've seen some beautiful Develop Out Prints as well--which greatly speeds up the process. </p> <p>You might also check out APUG.org for references:</p> <p>http://www.apug.org/forums/forum13/</p> <p>Have fun with the project. </p> <p>Allen</p>

<p>Before investing in materials, you should read "Primitive Photography," by Greene. It is a nice guide to LF camera building and materials. </p> <p>http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Photography-Cameras-Calotypes-Alternative/dp/0240804619</p> <p> </p>

<p>Next time you develop some of the film, give it a 5 minute water pre-soak. Agitate like you do for fixer. For some reason, the anti-halation layer isn't coming off. Perhaps the film got very hot at some point, or you got a bad run of film (very unusual for Ilford.)</p> <p>I generally pre-soak my MF film. I stated when I began to use a JOBO. A pre-soak is recommended for Jobo processing. While not strictly necessary for hand processing, a pre-soak seems to cut back on development problems. </p> <p>It's worth a try on your next roll. </p> <p> </p>

<p>http://notesonphotographs.org/index.php?title=Osterman,_Mark._%22Photographic_Truth%3F%22</p> <p>The link has a photo of the retoucher in use. The desk is basically a light box for times before electric lights. The negative is put on the frosted glass and the light from a window (or artificial light in later time) was directed to the back of the negative. The photo retoucher works on the negative on the glass with pencils, dyes other tools. You can also cover the negative with onion paper and create a mask. </p>

<p>It's a UPA: unidentified photo artifact. </p>

<p> "Most items receive about one-tenth of a millirem of <a title="" href="http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/radiation-resources/glossary.html" rel="glossary-def/15">exposure</a> (about a tenth of a day’s worth of natural <a title="" href="http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/radiation-resources/glossary.html" rel="glossary-def/3">background radiation</a>)."<br> <br> http://www.radiationanswers.org/radiation-sources-uses/security-devices.html<br> <br> </p>

<p>This chart will get you started: </p> <p>http://xkcd.com/radiation/</p> <p> </p>

<p>If you are dong something special with wardrobe, you should provide it. </p> <p>If you buy things for the shoot, they are yours. If they are worn, even for a shoot, they are used and should not go back to the store. </p> <p>A lot of models stock wardrobe. Before buying anything special, talk to the model and see what the model has. </p>

<p>You might also check the classifieds at APUG and Large Format Photography Forum. There are a lot of large format photographers on the two sites. </p>

<p>A good flatbed scanner for prints from the darkroom is not expensive. </p>

<p>I shoot a lot of MF film with different cameras. My go to camera for travel/street/landscape is the Mamiya 7. The camera body and two or three lenses fit nicely in a small bag and are easy to carry all day long. While expensive, this camera certainly fits your bill. It is basically the size of a full feature DSLR. The rangefinder is quick to use and it has a very quiet shutter. </p> <p>I have an older 330, and it is a big box compared to the 7. Much more difficult to carry and to use in an unobtrusive manner. If you are coming from digital or SLRs, the adjustment can be daunting. </p> <p>I also have a Fuji GA645, which I use on occasion, when I am traveling and I want a smaller camera and don't need interchangeable lenses. The fuji is a nice compromise. It works similar to cameras you have already used. It is noisier than the Mamiya, but not so much so that it is distracting. I find the Fuji easier to use for portraits given the format and close focusing of the camera. Albeit, I haven't ever synced it with my strobes, so I can't comment on how it works in a studio. <br> I highly recommend the Mamiya 7. But they are expensive. The Fuji (or a similar 645) camera may just meet your present needs with out giving up too much. </p>

<p>We can all agree we don't want or need anymore SPAM from this poster!!!</p>

<p>Get a credit or debit card with a chip in it. The swipe cards we use in the US are a PITA to use in many places in Europe. Also, make sure the credit card doesn't charge a foreign transaction fee.</p> <p>I used very little cash the last time I was in Greece, even the stalls at markets accepted credit/debit cards.</p> <p>I just got back from the Baltic Region and the ship actually had a better exchange rate than we found through ATMS--surprised the heck out of me. That was not the case on earlier cruises. </p> <p> </p>

<p>The eyes tell the story. </p> <p>In the third photo, there is a mid-sized, circular or octagonal highlight on the top half of the eye. This makes me think the photographer use a soft box/umbrella (perhaps metal reflector on a strobe) at camera left above the subject. The highlight is not huge, so the light must be fairly far away--which would also explain the defined shows. The bottom half of the eye has a light band in them, which I assume is a reflector card/panel just out of the frame below the subject. The long shape suggests a trifold. This would help to even out the light and make it softer on the face. </p> <p>The first photo is similar, but the top highlight is smaller. Either the light is farther away or smaller. </p>

<p>Are you sure you're not confusing in your reading black & White film with color negative film? Many photographers will do tests of B&W film to determine an exposure index different from the stated ISO. It is pretty common with B&W film to cut the Iso in half. <br> It is not common to do so with color negative film. The processing of color negative film is standardized and changing the process is usually only done for some special effect. </p> <p>While some photographers find it helpful to adjust their exposure index slightly from the box speed with color film, it is rarely a full stop. </p> <p>You might try a simple shoot around. Pick a subject and expose a series of negatives of that subject. Start at box speed and make exposures giving 1/4 stop more exposure down to one stop exposure. Go back to box speed and give 1/4 stop less exposure up to one stop. do this for several different scenes under different lighting--bright sunlight, flat lighting, indoor, long exposure. There should be one exposure setting which gives you the best exposure for your working method. Albeit, given the different lighting on the scene, your best Exposure Index may be different in bright light to flat light. </p> <p>When the lab prints the negatives, have them print each negative the same--without compensation. If you have a negative with bad exposure, the lab will automatically try to adjust the print to cover the bad exposure. </p> <p> </p>

<p>One way to approach the topic is to visit the local law school and read the cases and texts that discuss admissibility of photographs in a court of law. (Google "admissibility of photographs in court" for a start). Central to the admissibility of the photograph is whether it is an accurate representation of the scene depicted in the photograph. By reading the discussions on when they are, and perhaps more importantly not admissible, the philosophical discussion is reduced to concrete examples. Such a discussion may be a good departure point for a broader discussion. </p>

<p>If you want inexpensive, you can convert an old Kodak Brownie to take 2 1/4 inch glass plates. The chemicals for wet plate can be bought ready to go from Bostick and Sullivan. You could then scan the small plates to make large prints. <br> https://www.bostick-sullivan.com</p> <p> </p>

<p>How about an iPad on an 8x10 enlarger? I may have to try it over the weekend.</p> <p> </p>

<p>After reading the OP, I thought it could be interesting. I went down to my darkroom and put my iPhone 6 in my enlarger on top of the 4x5 negative carrier. The phone casts quite a bright image on the paper below. I did not go ahead and print. Perhaps next time I am printing I may play around with it some. </p> <p>It could be fun to play with. I think I have an app that allows me to invert an image on the phone to a negative. </p>

<p>Nope. The guy who invented the self timer should get the blame. </p>

<p>http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/02/our-best-weapon-against-revenge-porn-copyright-law/283564/</p> <p>From The Atlantic. "Our best weapon against revenge porn copyright law."</p> <p> </p>

<p>Mamyia 7II. Light weight, fabulous lenses. Easy to hand hold. I can carry a very light weight tripod for night shots. </p> <p>The camera body and three lenses fit in a shoulder bag. No aching back at the end of the day. Plus the 6x7 negative is big enough to contact print for Jewel like prints. Fun for platinum. </p>