ted_kaufman

I made the move from F1's and breechlock FD lenses to digital a few years ago. I decided to get the 28-135mm IS zoom to give me something to use while I worked out the kinks of moving to digital.

 

I also have a Microtek i900 scanner that I use to convert transparencies of various formats to digital so I can present them to clients on my laptop.

 

First of all, I can tell you that no 35mm slide, no matter what lens or condition you shot it in, will compare to any sharp digital image from the 10D and any digital lens I've used on my 10D or 20Ds. Too much is lost in the transfer from 35mm slide to digital. 4x5 film to digital is another story, but that's not the issue here.

 

As for the comparison of the 28-135mm IS to other Canon L lenses, it fares very well compared to any of the L lenses I own, which includes the 17-40L and 70-200L F2.8 IS. The L lenses are built better, no doubt, and function more smoothly, but in terms of image making ability, I am often amazed at how good the 28-135 zoom is. I do not hesitate to use it for any assignment. I will say that I don't use it wide open, but I am a pro and shoot on a very solid tripod whenever there is even the slightest concern about camera movement.

 

For your needs, the 28-135 IS is a no brainer. The combination of relative light weight, macro capability and IS, as well as its focal length range, makes it the ideal single lens for your uses. Are the L lenses better? Of course they are, but the differences are not that dramatic. My one real caveat is the L lenses are better constructed and much better sealed against dust and moisture. But if you aren't going to use it in the harshest of conditions, I don't see the likelihood of problems. Image quality wise, you will be taking a very large step forward going from 35mm flatbed scans to the 10D with 28-135 IS.

Kirk, thanks. Those are good suggestions. I'll try a simple keyboard to see it the same problem persists. I don't get why Elements 2 works fine with the same <alt/click> stokes, though.

I'm having an odd problem with Photoshop CS. When I try to use

something like the clone tool, requireing <alt/click> to acquire a

sample, the program does not recognize that I pushed the ALT key and

gives me an error message saying I need to <alt/click>. I also have

Elements 2, and the same keystoke combination works fine. So,

apparently, the hardware is fine. Is there some kind of keyboard

mapping that Photoshop CS requires? My keyboard is a Maxi Switch

ProKey 124 w/ standard PS/2 connection. I'm using Windows XP Pro.

I wonder if you didn't inadvertantly select the Sensor Clean option? What you described is pretty much what happens when you select Sensor Clean (which by the way, does not actually clean the sensor, it only allows access for cleaning by locking the mirror up).

Actually, I think you should leave the shadows in there. They are not intrusive and actually add a pleasant texture.

 

On the other hand, it would be easy enough to retouch out all the blind's shadows, though I'm sure it will be fairly costly. Yet another alternative is to reshoot and pay closer attention to the light.

Doremus: That was a great post! You were spot on with your information and the advice was absolutely correct.

 

However, I shoot both roll and sheet film and while I certainly agree the Zone System is far more applicable to sheet film, it is still useful with roll films.

 

Tonal scale and grain will always present a problem with 35mm, but if 35mm is all one has (and that seems to be the case for the original poster), it makes sense to maximize the image quality by whatever means one has. Therefore, I certainly recommend using the Zone System principles, but with limitations. Obviously, it helps to have an extra camera body, but one can get by with the tedious process of rewinding and reloading rolls for "N" deviations.

 

I recommend limiting this to N and N-2 rolls. The reason for this is, N+ is seldom really necessary since one can achieve considerable contrast increase using selenium toning and higher contrast papers. Moreover, N+ development exacerbates the problems with 35mm's resolution of detail and grain. Besides, most of the severe printing problems one encounters deal with maintaining adequate shadow separation while preserving highlight detail. For this reason, N- development, along with adequate shadow exposure, is very useful for smaller formats.

 

For N- development, I recommend diluted developer (1/2 strength or more) and reduced agitation (2-3 minute intervals, after the initial 30-60 sec). Testing with one's preferred developer is required, of course, but this method offers considerable flexibility and stunning results in capturing wide tonal scale scenes. I do not recommend "pulling" for anything over N-1/2. It just produces murky, awful looking negatives, with miserable tonal separation, from my experience, no matter how one exposes. Diluted developer processing yields much better tonal separation, higher acutance and full speed.

 

Why a roll for N-2 instead of a more conservative N-1? It just allows for greater control in extreme constast situations and one can shoot N-1 scenes with N-2 processing and still get good results.

When using roll film, I seldom develop for plus exposures, unless the entire roll has been shot under the same light conditions. It's far move useful when using sheet film, however. I find that most needs of N+1 or N+2 can be served with increasing contrast in printing, or by selenium toning the negatives.

 

Incidentally, although it is a bit more work, selenium toning is a fantastic way to increase negative contrast without increasing grain or sacrificing contrast. It's almost like magic! Keep in mind, however, the effect cannot be reversed, so you are better off trying to print the negative first to see if you really must increase contrast on the negative.

 

If you are really sure a scene needs N+ development, I have found that staining developers work great for this purpose. I typically double the developer concentration and use my normal development times. This does two things: one, it increases the negative density; two, it increases the stain, which has the effect of increasing neg. contrast. The reason I like staining developers is you can achieve more effective contrast (through the combined effects of density and stain) while minimizing the effects of additional developing with the attendant loss of sharpness and increased grain.

I used Toyo G in 4x5 and 8x10 formats for many years for studio and location assignments. It's a very solid, well thought out camera with all the accessories available you are likely to need.

 

The GX model superseded the G model, so it is basically the same with a few refinements. One feature I particularly liked was the revolving back on the 4x5 models, which is very convenient. I don't think any of the other cameras you are considering offer that feature. Also, all the movements, except for swing and tilt, are geared, which means it is quick and precise for framing.

 

The other cameras you mentioned are certainly excellent and offer somewhat smoother movements and possibly the tiniest measure of added precision. The value of that added precision and smoothness is strictly subjective, however. It's rather like comparing a Nikon to a Leica: the Leica is silky, but does that silkiness actually help you take better pictures? I think not.

 

If you can get the Toyo 45GX at a good price, you'll have all the camera you'll ever need. Spend the extra money you saved on lenses, which WILL enhance your picture taking results.

Nikor tanks and reels are not in the same class as Kindermann tanks and Hewes reels. Not even close. Sure, the Nikor tanks will hold fluid, but turn them upside down and they leak, invariably. Morever, the lids often jam on requiring bashing the tank on sometime to dislodge them, or they don't seat securely enough.

 

The Kindermann tanks use much thicker guage SS. The tops are plastic and they fit water-tight everytime, perfectly. And you don't have to label your tanks and tops with dymotape when you find a combination that fits reasonable securely, as everyone must do with Nikors.

Hewes SS are much sturdier than most, but if you drop them on a hard floor, they will definitely deform.

 

The best tanks to go with your Hewes reels are made by Kindermann. These tanks are considerably heavier than most and have lids that fit absolutely water-tight. I've never seen another product that compares with them. Kindermann reels, however, are nothing special. Hewes reels in Kindermann tanks is the way to go.

The best white surface for most still lifes, certainly including flowers, is mat-finished white Formica. An excellent alternative is sand blasted white plexiglas. The advantage of plexiglas is it offers the option of popping light through it, although it is much more expensive and more difficult to maintain (it scratches easily).

 

With both surfaces you would typically set up two autopoles or similar upright posts, to which you clamp one end of the surface at its corners. The other end requires two sawhorses (add a 2x4 cross piece if using plexiglas). If using formica, get a 4x4 sheet of 3/8 or 1/2" plywood to lay across the horses. Then simply curve the formica and tape or clamp the formica over the plywood. Actually, the easiest way to set it up is lay the formica over the table top first, then pull it up the vertical poles and clamp.

 

Both these surfaces have distinct advantages over noseam paper. The are very easy to keep clean, do not suffer from moisture (perhaps you will want to mist your flowers) and they can be reused many times and always look good--no wrinkles, bumps or creases, which are troublesome with noseam.

Nothing will really do much with an underexposed negative. Selenium toning will add density proportionally to the mid and highlight values, which will make printing a flat negative easier. Unfortunately, nothing much will add detail to a negative that has received inadequate exposure. The best results with selenium comes from toning underdeveloped but properly exposed negatives; at that it is remarkably effective, typically yielding a negative with contrast increased by 1 to 1.5 grades with no penalty in terms of grain or sharpness.

Unicolor made a cylinder for developing 35mm and 120 film using their Uniroller. If you can't find one, you could make one easily enough out of ABS pipe. In The Book of Pyro, Gordon Hutchings gives plans for his design using these materials.

Regarding Bob Solomon's comments:

 

"As the fill and empty times are the same the processing cycle timing begins when you start to fill and nds when you finish draining.

 

The only time filling or emptying would be too slow would be when the instructions are not followed and the Light Tight Connectors are not partially turned to open the air path."

 

I don't care how you vent it, pouring over a liter of developer through an opening that is 1/2" in diameter takes so long it invites problems. No matter how you do it, air bubbles will form and adhere to the film; the areas where the air bubbles form will not develop at the same rate as the rest of the film and that disparity can never be recovered. Of course, this is true with any tank to which one pours developer over the film, but with most, the time it takes to fill is a matter of seconds, at which point it can be rapped to dislodge air bubbles, so the problem is not as acute. Moreover, it doesn't matter that the tank takes the same amount of time to fill as it does to drain. That sound good, but it doesn't hold up in fact. It is filling with fresh developer and draining exhausted developer. Obviously, the rate of development cannot be the same even if the time the film is exposed to the developer were the same, which is not the case. The tank fills from the bottom up and drains from the top down. So the film area at the top of the tank gets considerably less development time, no matter what you do. Therefore, the best way to use this tank is, as I said in my earlier post, to put the developer in the tank first, then add the film to the developer. Perhaps you recall, this is mentioned as an alternative in the instructions.

 

While I'm venting about the Combi tank, let me further state the materials used to make the major components are the cheapest, most poorly finished I've ever seen in a developing tank. The tank itself is made of brittle plastic and the flimsy flange at the top will snap off with the slightest mishandling. The film holder is also made of cheap, brittle plastic and it has so many unfinished sharp edges, it took me an hour of smoothing with an emery board before I dared put film in it.

 

With that said, I do think the CombiPlan tank has merit. It's the only tank that offers inverted agitation and the overall design is quite good. But it needs better materials, better finish and a much faster filling / draining system.

 

I think, Bob, you would better serve your clients by passing these facts along to them instead of telling us we don't use their inadequate products correctly.

I've never used TG-7 so I can't comment on it. In fact, I've never heard a comparison of TG-7 to FG-7, nor do I know anyone how uses it.

 

I haven't yet done direct comparisons with Gainer's vit-c formula and FG-7+SA. Both will certainly yield high acutance. Off the top of my head, though, I think FG-7 will produce a snappier looking image.

PMK and JOBO processors are not a good match. PMK will oxidize too quickly with constant agitation. There are a few ways to work with this. One is to use the Rollo Pyro formula instead of PMK. Another, using PMK, is to dump the developer 1/2 way through, then add fresh developer. Maybe the best alternative is to use Pyrocat-HD instead of PMK. This formula yields results that are similar to PMK and it was formulated by a guy who did his testing in a rotary processor.

 

Of course, if you wish to stick with PMK, you can always develop in trays or a Combi tank.

I have used Schneider loupes for year and can certainly vouche for their quality and performance. Of course for many years, Schneider made the only quality loupe. Now there are many choices. I've tried the Rodenstock loupes, as well as Cabin (Mamiya), Canon, Zeiss and a few others of that ilk. Honestly, they are all pretty good. Incidentally, Calumet's loupe probably is a Rodenstock since Rodenstock makes their LF lenses. Whichever one you get, make sure it has a barrel which will convert from slide viewing to contact viewing. Most of them have a sliding sleeve that slips up to reveal a translucent barrel for viewing contacts and an opaque barrel that slides down for viewing negatives and slides. Most of them may be adjusted for individual eyesight, and that is certainly an important consideration. Outside of that, field of view is the only other criteria I can think of. The 4x and 5x loupes will view a full 35mm slide, but will not cover a 6x4.5 neg. Cabin makes models that will view larger formats--even up to 4x5. I'm not sure if any other manufacturer offers that capability.

The answer is to get rid of your FR tank. None of those style tanks work well. The problem is with agitation, since there will always be more turbulence at the sides, so that area gets developed more.

 

The Combi tanks work okay, but they are not without problems. The filler spout is so small, the only way to use them is to fill the tank then put the film into the developer in the dark and put the top on. After that you can turn on the lights and use inverted agitation. I found it very awkward to use and I have since turned my Combi tank into a film washer, at which it works very well.

 

The best, cheapest and easiest solution is to buy a Unicolor PRINT drum and Unicolor roller. You can find these on _bay for less than you'd pay for a Combi tank. Look at the LF homepage on this site for an article which describes in excellent detail how to use this system. I highly recommend it.

First of all, digital photography has not taken over yet. And it will be a some time yet before it matches film quality, longevity and cost. The other thing, with respect to digital, that I have seldom heard discussed, is what happens in 5 years to the precious images you make now and store on Zip disks or CD-ROM when there are no more Zip disk or CD-ROM disk drives available? And will software 5 years from now even recognize TIFF or JPEG formats? Think that can't happen?

 

A research scientist friend of mine stored data on state of the art optical disks 10 years ago. The two drives he used to store the data have gone down and no one will fix them--the manufacturer is long since gone and parts are no longer available. No one makes a drive that will read his obsolete media. Mind you, this was state of the art only 10 years ago. Now he has a ton of data he wants to re-examine in light of new findings, and he can't access the data. Think about this dilemma all you folks who sing high praise of the wonderful world of digital. This problem will be yours to deal with. It is not the manufacturers' concern. They will forge ahead with new technology and tell you without a blink, "We don't support that format (or equipment or technology, etc.) any longer." Simple as that.

 

Sorry for the digression. Now, what camera should you buy? I would suggest a manual focus camera what has good manual metering capability. If it has automatic exposure, too, that's fine. But to learn with, you want good manual operation. An otherwise good camera that is annoying to use this way is the Canon AE-1. On manual mode, its finder shows what aperture the camera suggests, but does not show you the aperture you have selected. The Canon AT-1, while lacking automatic fuction, is a far better choice for manual operation. Even better, the Minolta X-370 is a great little camera and would suit your purposes perfectly. It's very well laid out, has an excellent viewfinder with full information on manual or automatic. It's also cheap, typically selling for < $100 in good condition w/ 50mm 1.7 lens (which, btw, is outstanding) on ?bay (the "?" is a wildcard for which you could substitute, say, an e).

 

The books the previous posters have recommended are certainly good, but the Zone System might be over your head at this stage. Fred Picker's book, if you can find it, is a good choice, now, however. And there are many other beginner's books that address the fundamental details you need.

 

Certainly a local photo class or workshop would be worthwhile and save you a lot of time and frustration. If you could find a local photographer who would guide you along, that would also help a lot. Another alternative is a local camera club. Many of them have darkrooms available for members that cost next to nothing. And you will be able to learn from the more experienced members there, as well. Quite often they conduct workshops for members.

 

If you are not opposed to diving in with both feet, then, by all means, get a bulk loader. They are great for a beginner because you can load short rolls for film/developer tests. And in the long run, they will save you considerable money. The best of them is the Alden 74. Everything else is second-rate. The Watson loader is a copy of the Alden; it works okay, but is made of cheaper materials.

 

What film? I recommend you begin with a 400 speed film, mainly because they are more forgiving of exposure and processing errors than slower films. Ilford's HP5+ is a fine general purpose film, and it has long since surpassed Tri-x as the preferred 400 speed conventional grain film. Fuji Neopan 400 is outstanding, too, but costs almost twice as much as HP5+ in bulk rolls; however, it is actually cheaper than HP5+ in factory packaging. Go figure. I have no idea why. Another great film is Delta 400. For my money it's the best 400 speed film on the market, but it's nearly double the cost of HP5+, in bulk and per roll. Which one should you use? In roll form, HP5+ or Fuji Neopan 400 (they are nearly identical in performance and almost the same price from B&H or Adorama). In bulk spools, HP5+, or Delta 400 if you don't mind spending the extra money ($24 vs. $40 / 100').

If you want to stay with Delta 100, I recommend using it in PMK. The combination yields the best balance of grain, acutance and tonality I've found. FG-7 w/ SS added is another good alternative for this film. Also, I've recently done some tests using FG-7 w/ 4g (1 tsp) of sodium ascorbate added. Use it 1:14 with water + 1 tsp SA; develop Delta 400 or 100 (they should require about the same time) for 9 min. @ 70 using 1 minute initial agitation, followed by 10"/min, thereafter. This combination show fine grain and tremendous acutance--eyepopping acutance!

 

You should be aware, though, that although Delta 100 is a great film, it is the grainiest of the modern grain 100 speed films. Both Acros and TMX have considerably finer grain. TMX has the finest grain and about a 1/3 stop more speed than Acros--roughly equal to Delta 100. I also find TMX slightly sharper when used in an acutance developer. However, Acros has fantastic reciprocity characteristics, and I like its tonal characteristics (slight bump at the shoulder, much like Delta films). Both films respond very well in catechol formulas like Pyrocat-HD. Acros in PMK is very good, too. I haven't gotten around to trying it yet, but both films will probably respond well to the FG-7+SA treatment I mentioned earlier.

I used FG-7 quite a bit many years ago. I recall when I switched from D-76 to FG-7 how pleased I was with the sharpness. It was too grainy for my tastes using Tri-x, but with SS added, grain was quite acceptable and it retained much of its acutance.

 

I didn't do any b&w processing for a long time, but when I returned to it several years ago, I took up with FG-7 again. This time I used it with Delta 100 after reading a comparison of several developers in combination with different films. The tests were done by Judy Davis (who owns a custom b&w lab) for a book by her (then) husband Phil Davis. The results used to be available on the web, but I couldn't find it last time I looked for it. In any case, most of the results were published in Phil Davis' _Beyond the Zone System_. To summarize, Judy Davis found FG-7 w/ SS the best developer for nearly every film except TMX and TMY, for which she recommended Tmax developer.

 

Very recently, after kicking the thought around with Pat Gainer, I tried FG-7 with sodium ascorbate. I have only done a few tests, but I can say unequivocally, this combination has tremendous potential. I used Delta 400, and the images were fine grained and showed remarkable acutance with very pleasing tonality. As a starting point, I suggest 1 oz. FG-7 to 14 oz. water w/ 4g (1 tsp) of sodium ascorbate added. Develop in tank for 9 min @ 70. Agitation for one minute, followed by 10 sec/ min.

I use water, too. Water doesn't strictly stop the development process, but it dilutes the water to such a great extent, I find very little, if any, development actually takes place once the water has been added. Stop bath does stop the development process faster and more thoroughly, but the net difference is negligable. And once the film hits the fixer, the development process does stop, no matter which method you use.

 

Many developers that use carbonate require a water bath instead of stop. This is to avoid the reaction of carbonate with the acid stop. Also, PMK and other staining-type developers yield better stain if the development process is kept alkaline from beginning to end by using a water "stop" and an alkaline fixer like Photographer's Formulary TF-4.

Ryuji, if you think something doesn't exist because you cannot quantify it, then you are right. It doesn't exist for you. In which case, I'm certain you will get all the tonality you will ever need using Perceptol.

I don't think most photographers who use "exotic" formulas arrive at their choice without exploring popular formulas. In the opening pages of The Book of Pyro, Gordon Hutchings details a story of trying repeatedly to make a satisfying print of a seashore scene. He had difficulty capturing the subtle luminence and sparkle of the breaking waves. This motivated him to perform a test in which he shot a series of pictures of clouds, which he developed in a variety of developers, including D-23, ID-11, D-76, FG7, HC-110, Rodinal and ABC Pyro, in search of something that would capture in a satisfying way the details he saw in the clouds. His experience with this experiment is what led to his development of PMK.

 

My own experience is somewhat similar. We all, at times, experience dissatifaction with our film and developer of choice. The result of that dissatisfaction moves us to experiment with ways of improving the look of our images. My first tests with PMK were an eye opener. Nothing I had ever seen had captured the smoothness and richness of tone I saw on those prints. But is it quantifiable in sensitometric terms? I don't know. But what I do know is nothing I'd ever seen before had elicited the response I had when I saw those prints.

 

I recall a similar experience when I became exposed to the world of highend audio some years ago. Now, everyone knows tubes are ancient technology; transistors, having superceded tubes, have orders of magnitude less distortion--and you can measure it and see the perfect waveforms captured on a oscilliscope. Transistors are more reliable, cheaper ... hell, they are better in every way. So when I heard my first comparison of fine tube electronics and the latest in transistor technology, why did I find the tube equipment obviously more real, more euphonic, more beautiful? At the time, no one could quantify the reason. The listening experience did not support the data, which clearly favored transistors.

 

My point is, you cannot always explain emotional response, and I think those who try to quantify sensitometric data miss this important point. If something looks beautiful--more beautiful than something else--it doesn't matter what a machine's readout says. One's response is what it is. A machine might say one thing, but our senses may tell us something else entirely. In terms of art, trust your senses, not the digital readout that tells you what your response *should* be.

I use Beseler's 35mm full frame film holder with my 45V-XL. I get a clean black border (if I choose to include it) with no signs of flare. I'm sure your result will be the same.