ken_burns1

Jane, you don't have to move any files "into Photoshop." The files can be stored anywhere you want on your hard drive and opened directly from PS. Nikon View can download the files from your D100 to any place you want on your hard drive. Just click on Tools>Launch Nikon Transfer and select whatever storage location you want. There is no need to download them to one place and then have to move them to another, though I personally prefer to download my images to a "holding folder." I then catalog them to a folder named "yy/mm/dd" and further cataloged within that folder into sub-folders named according to "location." These folders and sub-folders are later "archived" to CD or DVD.

 

Opening files in PS is easy, and there are several ways it can be done. If you are using a PC, you can associate the NEF, TIF, or JPG files with PS and open them in PS by clicking on the file icon in Windows Explorer. Most image management software, including Nikon View, allows you to select the image editing application you want to use. In NV, click on Edit>Preferences>Still Image>Change and select PS from the list. Then all you have to do is click on the thumbnail in NV and the image file is opened in the PS.

 

Of course, any image file can be opened directly from PS no matter where it is on your HD. You can use the PS CS File Browser or just double click any blank place in the PS window and then select the file you want to open.

 

If you are wanting to work on the files in PS by opening them directly from you D100, that is not the best way to do it. IMO, that should never be attempted. You are much better off downloading them to a working area, editing in PS, and storing in a finished area.

We need to keep in mind that today Tri-X sheet film is still available and is a different emulsion from that found on today's 35mm films and has a different speed rating. I have a 1939 edition of the American Annual of Photography in which can be found an advertisement for the "New" Tri-X sheet film. If it is correct to say that today's 35mm Tri-X is 50 years old, then it is equally correct to say that today's Tri-X sheet film is 65 years old.

I don't think they've made single curtain shutters since the days of the old Speed Graphics. There are definitely two curtains, as you can easily tell by operating the shutter with the camera back open. If you want to make absolutely sure, go into a darkened room with your camera and flash. Set the shutter to a speed faster than the sync speed. Using the flash as your only light source, when you trip the shutter, you will see the trailing edge of the front curtain and the leading edge of the rear curtain.

You might find this website somewhat useful: http://photographersindex.com/stockprice.htm. The amounts are USD, they definitely are not definitive, and I don't know how accurate they are for your market, but maybe you can get some idea of a starting point for negotiation.

If the bellows is extended one focal length, the lens is focussed at infinity and there is no exposure factor. If the bellows is extended 1.4 focal lengths, the image is half life size and the exposure must be increased one stop. If the bellows is extended 2 focal lengths, the image is full life size and the exposure must be increased 2 stops. Everything in between can be interpolated easily. This does not apply to telephoto lenses.

As a general rule-of-thumb, you should use as few filters as possible in front of or behind the lens. In the example you have given, there would probably be no need for the skylight filter, so remove it. If it is necessary to use more than one filter, then take every precaution you can to avoid lens flare problems (flare and ghosting are the main problems you will need to contend with). Use a good lens hood or at least shield the filters and lens from direct sunlight. If the filters are multi-coated, internal reflections should be minimized. If at all possible, do not include light sources in the image area. Elsewhere in one of the PN forums, someone asked some questions about a problem they were having getting ghost images when using multiple filters stacked in front of the lens. So, there can be problems.

 

Now, having said all that, by all means go ahead and give it a try. I have seen many photos by wedding and portrait photographers who used multiple filters quite successfully. A nice soft-focus filter combined with a star-burst filter can create a nice effect in some situations. As someone else said, experiment. That way you can find out what will work, what won't work, what creates the effects you want. Just make sure you take as many precautions as you can to avoid problems.

Could it be that the film is rubbing against the central uprights of the reel? This could create greater development in the contact areas that might resemble the effect of a light leak. Or could there possibly be some sort of excess turbulence around them during agitation that would create excess development?

My first guess would be that the aperture diaphragm in the lens was sticking. This could be a problem within the lens or related to the aperture linkage in the body. It could be caused by old and sticky lubricant, weak or broken springs, bent linkages, or something as simple as a small particle stuck between the aperture blades. There are probably other possibilities, but that's my first guess.

It's strange that you would find a Heliopan filter on ebay since HP Marketing does not allow this brand of used filter to be resold, especially on ebay. They hold the exclusive right to the name "Heliopan" and you can't use the name in your sale unless you can prove that HP Marketing was the actual importer. Since there are no serial numbers for the filters, you'll never be able to prove that it was imported by by HP Marketing. Therefore, you can't sell it using the Heliopan name. Maybe, if you were to remove the Heliopan name and did not disclose to a prospective buyer that it was originally a Heliopan product, you might be able to sell it used. Apparently Mr Solomon let his guard down a bit here, maybe he was busy at PMA. By all means, if you plan to ever sell your used equipment when it is no longer need, buy a brand other than Heliopan.

 

This issue has come up before in a number of forums and newsgroups on the internet. A number of years ago, I purchased a Heliopan center filter to be used on my Schneider 65mm Super Angulon lens. I guess I'll just have to accept the fact that I'm stuck with this filter forever and will not be able to include it if I ever elect to sell my Schneider lens. Play it safe and buy another brand.

This has been a common occurence throughout the history of photography. The recommended times are nothing more than a starting point to assist you in finding the time that works for you. So, use one or the other of the recommended times from the data sheets, modify as necessary, and forget about the discrepencies.

You will find that HC-110 is quite diverse when it comes to its ability to be used at many different dilutions. Not only do you have the recommended dilutions found on the bottle, but you can come up with you own dilutions if you care to. Many people dilute much more than Kodak recommends. I have worked at 1+15, 1+31, and 1+63 from stock solution many times. I have found that these higher dilutions can be quite useful when working with high-contrast scenes. You'll find that these higher dilutions will prevent the highlights from blowing out but will maintain or improve shadow detail. However, its important to realize that at the highest dilutions there can be a loss in film speed and the capacity of the developer working solution will be reduced. Also, at the higher dilutions, it sometimes can be advantageous to experiment with different agitation techniques such as agitating every 2 or 3 minutes or using the stand development routine. Of course, testing and experimentation is necessary to establish a workable routine.

I have had problems with excessive foaming caused by the wetting agent incorporated in Ilford HP5. I process the 4x5 sheet film in the earlier version of the Jobo tanks and agitate manually by inversion. I have found it necessary to pre-soak the film using several cycles of filling and dumping with plain water to remove the wetting agent adequately. I have never had any problems with uneven development using the presoak, but I did have problems with the sudsing of the incorporated wetting agent causing uneven development. I would advise you to test first before processing anything of value. By all means, do not presoak using borax or washing soda.

Usually a particular line of lenses (same basic optical configuration), eg APO Symmar, will all have the same angle of coverage. Lenses of the same focal length that are from different lines (different basic optical configurations), eg Super Angulon, will have a different angle of coverage. To be specific in comparisons here, a 150mm APO Symmar and a 210 APO Symmar will have the same angle of coverage while a 210 APO Symmar and a 210 Super Angulon will have different angles of coverage.

For many years I worked in a commercial photo studio that deep-tank processed Tri-X 8x10 daily. HC-110 was the "soup de jour" and was replenished religiously using HC-110R. Consistency was something we were proud of.

 

We had gotten a new darkroom assistant who had years of newspaper experience but had never before seen an 8x10 neg or deep tanks with hangers and racks. She had been taught to use D76 over and over without replenishment, just keep increasing dev times until the negs are so thin they can't be printed any more.

 

After working there for a month or so, we discovered that this new assistant had been mixing the HC-110 for the deep-tank line using HC-110 replenisher by mistake. Oddly, we had noticed no difference in print quality. The negs did look somewhat dense, but shadow detail and contrast were good. Of course, we returned to the regular HC-110 dev, but the difference in image quality was minimal.

Read this and you'll see why you don't want to buy Heliopan: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0063Dz

"ebay ethics" is an oxymoron.

I would suggest that you continue using the Patterson reels. After you have screwed up dozens of rolls of film, you will become so outraged that you will throw the Patterson reel on the floor, stomp on it until it has turned to dust, and used profane words that I cannot mention here. Then, get a stainless steel reel! You will really appreciate how easy they are to use.

At one time Beseler offered a 4x5 "back" for their 45M enlargers that was attached in place of the light source. I don't know if it is still available and I've never tried one myself, but that might be a possibility.

Mike, yes, back then the TriX 35mm and 4x5 sheet films were different emulsions with the same name. That was true then and is still true today!

There is an Eastman Kodak advertisement on the back cover of the 1940 edition of the American Annual of Photography telling us, " FOR TOP SPEED PLUS QUALITY USE TRI-X PANCHROMATIC SHEET FILM."

Where did you hear a thing like that?! They've announced that they will make no more long-term investments in film production, but that is far from an announcement of stopping production. Kodak has recently completed a very large investment in a B&W production facility in FL, and I find it highly questionable to conclude from this announcement that that facility is going to cease operation.

 

More than likely, IMO Kodak will continue producing films in their present facilities as long as it is profitable. However, there will probably be no new facilities built, no upgrades to present facilities, no further research in new or upgraded film products, and discontinuance of nonprofitable film-product lines.

 

What will happen as all this progresses is anyone's guess. Will Kodak mearly shutdown the facilities and totally stop production of the products? Or will they sell the facilities, products, patented formulae, and up-till-now trade secrets to others who can operate profitably on a smaller scale? Your guess is as good as mine.

Kenro makes (or made, are they still in business?) commercial camera equipment for shooting line negs, seperation negs, copy negs, etc. These cameras were used a lot by the printing and electronics industries as well as others, but have probably been replaced by the digital imaging technology of today. They are usually vertical cameras resembling very large enlarger equipment or horizontal cameras that take up a whole room. More than likely, the lenses you have were used for one of the purposes mentioned above, but, since there is no mention of their being apochromatic, I doubt they were used for color seps. Probably just copy camera work.

 

For years I worked in a photo studio that owned a Kenro 2500 that was used for shooting line negs for exposing type onto photos. It was a vertical camera with a vacuum plate to hold the litho film flat. Enlargement and focussing settings were cranked in according to a chart and exposure compensations for bellows extensions was automatically made according to the settings that were cranked in. The lenses on that camera were wide angle copy lenses, but were not apochromatic.

First, you need to contact individually each of the galleries you plan to submit your work to and find out what their accepted submission procedures are. Surprisingly, there are still many that require slides while others will accept CDs if they are formatted and organized in a specific manner. You need to ask them (not us) if CD presentations are accepted, and if so, what are the specifics of this presentation. We can't really offer any useful suggestions until you find out what the galleries require.

More than likely, because of the inaccuracies of the metering systems used in most cameras, there will be some frames that are underexposed, some that are overexposed, and (with luck) some that are correctly exposed, even though an error was made setting the film speed. Therefore, I would advise that no development compensations be made.

I use a Polaroid back on my Bronica ETRSi. With it, the film pack can be easily removed midway through the film pack. You will lose the top-most sheet of film, but the others will be fine. If the pack is removed in total darkness and placed in a light-tight film or paper bag, then no film will be lost at all. I would think that the same would be true for the Hasselblad back.