bernhard

The old version of the Leica laser confocal microscope (TCS SP1) would output multipage TIFs.

IrfanView views multipage ifs just fine and it's free.

What strikes me most is that these pics don't look too different from my visual memories of eastern Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall, so I'm not sure this place looked a lot better 20 years ago.

So in practical terms, for B&W development, what would you recommend:

 

1. No stop at all, going straight to the fix.

 

2. Acid stop prepared fresh all the time

 

3. Do what ever you want but agitate promptly and thoroughly

 

I'm asking because I use an alkaline fix (TF-4) and stopped using acid stop bath to prevent acid carry over to the fix. After developing I just fill the tank with plain water, agitate vigorously, dump the water (takes about 20-30 seconds alltogether) and start fixing.

 

Haven't had problems with streaking yet, so the question is somewhat academic, but if I can prevent running into problems in the future I'll change my routine.

Thanks Brian.

 

And Jacques is right, advertise things like these.

Yes I guess I could mail order NPZ from the channel islands or the dutch Calumet branch. The problem is that my local prolabs (Frontier w/ Crystal Archive) almost never see that film (as it is not available in 35mm in Germany) and did a less than stellar job printing two rolls I had left from the US. I talked to them and they see Press 800 very frequently and did a much better job with (pushed !) Press 800. So when I need proofs, I'll stick to Press 800.

But I'll put some NPZ in freezer for jobs where I'll scan only.

 

Shows again IMO that the whole imaging chain is important and that one weak link can more than offset the beneficial effects of a single component.

Hi thanks again to all of you. Fuji Press 800 turned out much better than I expected, proofs from a Pro Frontier Lab were very clean without much grain/noise. I just managed to upload a pic <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/2370248&size=lg>

http://www.photo.net/photo/2370248&size=lg</a>, it's a heavy crop and not my favourite shot, but the one the client selected to have 5000 flyers printed.

It is/was standard operating procedure in scientific labs to freeze X-ray film @-80°C when exposing it to weakly radioactive samples (autoradiographies). The reason is better latent image stability, which in conjunction with low exposure intensity and long exposure effectively works to decrease reciprocity failure and hence increases effective film speed.

 

I doubt though that for pictorial applications at temperature above -80°C this effect is big enough to be noticable.

 

Why not google for documents from NASA and their experience in imaging with Hasselblads on the moon in the 60s, I think it's pretty cold up there.

Funny, I had the same experience as Kelly. Just put a adaptec 29160 in the box, Win2K installed all the drivers without a hitch and my FS4000 worked right away. If its not switched on while booting you have to do a 'scan for hardware changes' in 'device manager' and it should be there. Sorry, no experience under Win98, but it's high time to dump it anyway.

"Well, of course, the Astia and Provia films are not on sale here in the consumer shops."

 

Just check around, a local shop here in Erlangen (NOT the old pro one) stocks everything from velvia 100F to Provia 400F and you can mail order from Mayr or Brenner.

Another vote for Superia/Press 800, best quality - price ratio in that speed class. NPZ will be better but printing can be erratic with labs who rarely see that film.

Although personally I'd like to use some higher contrast material in that lighting, I'd probably still stick to negtive films to avoid color balance problems (e.g. blue shadows with Provia) unless you want that. So my first choices would be Reala or NPH/Protra UC depending on the paper the shop prints on if you want proofs.

 

I have had good results in exactly this type of light with EPP and it's color accuracy would be good, but it's really old tech, rather grainy and doesn't scan too well. If color accuracy is not what you want but higher contrast and punchy/exaggerated colors probably even Velvia would work in that light (giving you very intesting greens), if the entire scene is in the shadow (NO sunlit parts). Maybe something to shoot for fun or experience when the gig is (almost) done.

Doesn't look mushy enough for HP5 and NPZ can get rather grainy in the shadows when underexposed, so I would guess it's NPZ.

<i>Seems like the main complain about Ilford XP2 is the flat tones in overcast or low contrast scenes. Hmm.. I have a humble suggestion. Will printing on a higher grade paper solve the problem? I have read somewhere in this forum suggesting the recommended grade to use for XP2 is 3 or 4. How about printing at grade 5 for low contrast frames?

</I><br><br>

 

It's not only contrast, but also the tone curve, just think of XP2's massive highlight roll off vs TMX straight curve. I don't think you will be able to get the same look form XP2 and TMX/TMY without drastic darkroom gymnastic. <br><br><br>

 

<I>I'm shooting at ISO 400 mostly, so I guess the hand-carry xray machine may pose a problem. Based on what I read I have two choices:

<br><br>

1) Put the films in clear plastic bag. Stick a sticker on the plastic bag that says "LAB INSTRUCTION, Push Process at ISO1600". Read this tip from the Outdoor Photograpy magazine. This is to convince the custom officers to let the films skip the x-ray.

<br><br>

2) Buy a x-ray protective pouch and put all films in there.</I>

<br><br>

2) is definitely bad. The guys will either crank up the x-ray exposure or just let you open the bag take out the film and x-ray it again.

 

1) might work, but I tried it once and it didn't. What has worked (inconsistently) was putting a few rolls in the pockets of my pants and walking through that metal detector gate. About half the time the alarm didn't go off.

 

Definitely don't put your film in the check-in luggage.

 

I recently shot a lot of 400TX in New York and developed back home in Germany without any problems.

<br><br><br>

<I>Will I be x-rayed when I go from country to country in coach in Europe? </I>

<br><br>

Definitely not. You/your stuff might get x-ray when entering possible prime terrorist targets like the Vatican or museums, but not at the borders.

100TMX and XP2/TCN400 are on different ends of the contrast spectrum and while both are fine grained, their character and tonality is totally different. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where I wouldn't have a strong preference for one these films. This not like a choice between McDonald's or Burger King, this more like choosing between spicy indian cuisine and baby food.

 

So before even considering shooting an entire vacation on a material you never used before, I would recommend shooting one of the C41 guys and see if you like the results. If you want the option of convential printing then XP2 is the only one worth trying. Both XP2 and TCN400 work well with digital minilabs and having both film printed in a conventional minilab most of the time is a waste of time and money bordering on stupidity.

 

If you decide to shoot conventional B&W film, why not check with a community darkroom whether they have bigger tanks where you can gang bang 5 or more rolls to ease the developing work, then make contact prints for proofing. XP2/minilab might be cheaper and faster, but if TMAX gives you the results you want and XP2 doesn't, then it's worth it.

Did a shot of a band recently (Jeez I need to get that negs scanned). Same problem as yours: wanted NPZ got only Press 800. Later found out that the dutch calumet website carries it.

I exposed @1250 and had it deved with a one stop push and printed on a Frontier in a Prolab. The quality was outstanding (even though they switched to Endura paper from Fuji CA) and careful printing was obviously a key factor. A roll of NPH exposed the same way but pushed 2 stops was not much worse except for less shadow detail. So a one stop push for Press 800 exposed @1250 is no problem, if contrast would be moderate I would even use a 2 stop push if that's what I needed to get the job done. But use pro level developing and printing.

getting 3200 out of HP5 or TX is doable. To tame the contrast I usually resort to dev'ing in dilute developers with infrequent agitation. Shadows are gone, sure, but there is still something left to work with. I remember Scott Eaton recommending Acufine/Diafine for pushing (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KtL). As I never used any of the developers you list all I can do is to show you how TX@3200 looks in my hands (dev'ing info included): http://www.photo.net/photo/1567156

A good lab can do a lot. I have gotten better results from pushed 800 film printed in a pro lab than normal exposed and developed 400 film from a 1h strip mall lab. Go with Scott's advice, find a lab where you can talk to someone who cares and can get the most out of these negs.

Push at least one stop.

 

Panda bears? You might consider making B&W prints, in this case 2 stops might work out, especially if the contrast was not too high.

If there was any need to proof that Max800 is not worth being touched by serious people, the three images above proof it. Big Time.

Did you know that Dan Sapper works/worked for Kodak in film emulsion development. Could you please, one time in your life admit, that someone knows more than you?

German old Astia = US old Astia = old Sensia 100

 

German Astia 100F = US Astia 100F = German new Sensia 100

Sensia 100 is very close to Astia, Sensia 400 is very close to Provia 400F, which means both Sensia films are vey close in quality to their pro counterparts. There is no pro counterpart for Sensia 200 so I would assume that it is some old/consumer technology film and and I would keep my hands off that film. As the mainstay of Astia/Sensia 100 is rather low contrast and accurate color, you should know that you are impairing this two assets by pushing, but 1 stop should give reasonable results. Give it a try with some non critical subject.

Sensia 100 (Fujifilm USA).

 

So to me the new sensia 100 in Germany is damn close to RAP100F. The new Sensia 100 I bought here in Germany is made in Japan, as (I think) all of Fuji's film.

 

So what's left would be to discuss whether Fuji keeps making old sensia for the US market, has a huge stockpile of that stuff or made a silent upgrade.<div></div>

Astia 100F (Fujifilm USA)<div></div>

Scott: "-As far as I know, the new Astia 100F technology hasn't trickled down into the amatuer market. Sensia 100 is still the old Astia until somebody confirm differently."

 

As I mentioned in another thread (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ML6) there is a new sensia 100 in Germany, which has a film structure that is identical to Astia 100F. I'll attach pictures of the various film structures from the datasheets.<div></div>