roger_urban3

http://www.fatali.com/giftstore/posters/pos_beyond.html

 

Is this a double exposure?

Two more that come to mind:

 

Photo Emporium

 

Central Camera

"I store fast films in my pants. If it's good enough for my testicles it's good enough for my film."

 

ROTFLMAO !!!

Chuck,

 

Although I have 5x7 Tri-X in the freezer, I haven't used any of it yet. But I have had the same problem you describe with 5x7 TMAX 400. Possibly, the type of film doesn't matter. The way I solved it was to ensure the edges of the film fit into the cylinder slot when I load it. Since then, no problems.

 

Too bad Jobo just didn't extend the depth of the 3006 Expert Tank so that we could insert the 5x7 film in length-wise, versus width-wise.

I guess I'm of a different camp, and just don't feel the jealously and indignation that other posters exhibit. Fatali's photographs are waaay better than any of my own. Can't criticize better work.

"if the client is paying a lot of money, he/she expects to see

"the

best" and will be put off by something grey and plasticky (however good

the

bits inside are)."

 

I sometimes wonder about how many clients can really tell the difference and if they really care. Aren't they more concerned in the final product...the print?

"6. Finally, B&H seems to have an inordinate number of 'demo' and 'refurbished' Contax 645 AF cameras. Is this a bad omen or indicitive of a real problem? "

 

If you walk into Helix Camera (Chicago) or Central Camera, you will see hundreds of used cameras for sale. By eyeball, I would estimate the top three (in numbers of bodies for sale on the used shelf) are:

1) Hasselblad

2) Mamiya

3) Rollei TLR

 

So, extrapolating the logic from your question, would this also mean that there is a problem with Hasselblad, Mamiya and/or Rollei TLR?

I process 4x5 Kodak HIE in a Jobo plastic Expert Tank and never had any problems.

 

Also, my 4x5 film holders are black plastic and they never let any infra-red light pass through.

For a small lightweight easy-to-pack and carry 4x5, for available accessories, for great support, for a nice selection of lenses in helical mounts, for a graflock back in case you wanted to do 6x12 or 6x9 or 6x7, and last but not least, SPEED of shooting:

 

Cambo Wide

 

My ultimate lens choices would probably end up more than 3 but since that's what you proposed, here's what I would start with:

 

58mmXL SA, 72mmXL SA(or 75mm SA), and 100mm APo-Symmar. Later, I'd add a 150 Apo-Symmar, and possibly a 47mmXL SA.

 

I sometimes tote mine in a small handbag to downtown Chicago to do some candid street photography during lunch. Loaded with TMAX 400 speed film, speed and focus are preset and I can literally just point'n'shoot and get big negs.

Look on http://www2.photosig.com

Select the Photo tab

Then, Browse by Camera

 

You will find thousands of pictures taken with Canon.

 

Alternately, you can Browse by Category, and I think Portraits is one listed, but it'll have portraits taken with a variety of equipment, not just Canon.

I own several Zeiss lenses for my Contax. Photodo trashed the 28-70, yet this site with MTFs for Zeiss lenses rated it much better:

 

http://www.geocities.com/ilprode/TestZ.htm

 

So, did Photodo botch the MTF test? Did Photodo drop the lens first or get a dog lens?

 

Since I own the lens and compared it with the 35-70, the 28-85 etc. It definitely holds it's own and has remarkable color. But, after reading Photodo I guess I'm supposed to throw the lens out. I've had people absolutely praise pictures taken with the 28-70 lens. Guess they didn't read PHotodo and know in advance that they are not supposed to think for themselves, but are supposed to follow what the self-elected authorities say.

 

As has been said before, take Photodo with a spoonful of salt.

I've purchased one of these lenses back in the mid-1980's. Never had a problem with it whatsoever. It's big heavy georgeous glass and one must be extra careful about the front lens element because it curves out beyond the metal rim. The case w leather/velvet lens cap that comes with it is a must to keep it dust free and protected.

 

You can get some increadible depth of field with it, and you'll get some amazing pictures using it stopped down. You'll want to test it at all aperatures, and I've found that the smaller aperatures are needed to reduce the center burn out.

 

In actual use, I find the newer 45mm more practical, and sharper, by the way.

I own the Pentax 67. Shooting hand held at 1/30th of a second has produced tack sharp pictures. On the other hand, I've had some shots at 1/125 that showed some movement. Whether or not it was from shutter shake, I have no idea. I rarely use a tripod, by the way, but share your concerns for cold weather photography. The battery pocket warmer gizmo is nice, and I have one, but never bothered to use it! There were a few times I was out in the snow shooting pictures, and changing film is a challange with freezing finger tips and trying to maneuver the camera and your position so that snow flakes don't land inside the camera. The Mamiya, with it's interchangeable backs, would be infintely easier for changing film. All it takes is deep pockets for extra film backs. The Mamiya lenses are very good and probably better than the Pentax but probably better means that you'd have to blow the picture up real huge 20x24" at least and have a picture from each camera side by side to compare it. Otherwise, you're liable to be just as happy from the prints you make from the Pentax.

 

In cold weather shooting, unless you are hunkered down in one spot waiting for the sun or your subject to be in the right postion or the clouds to move away, the Pentax gives you more mobility and freedom of movement and the ability to shoot faster. This may be important if you are doing any sports photography.

 

Both cameras are heavy. The Pentax, hanging from a strap around your neck, will leave you with a crease in your neck after a few hours.

 

There are other options available, as I'm sure you know. One that I'd consider is the Fuji, the one that shoots 6x9 negs. It's light, lens is very sharp, and you don't have to worry about shutter shake. Much lighter on the pocketbook too....

Scott,

What's the grain look like when you use Divided D76 ? Compared to Technidol, is it about the same, a little larger, a lot larger, etc.?

Try this site: http://www2.photosig.com

 

Click on PHOTOS and then select the link of photos by camera type

You may have several problems in front of you.

1) Compression of the bellows will make it harder to focus and harder to use the rise or shift movements

 

2) For 4x5, a 58mm lens = 17mm on 35mm film, likewise:

65mm is equivalent to 18mm on 35mm film and

75mm is about 21mm on 35mm film.

 

3) Vertical alignment will become increasingly more difficult for you is you use the shorter focal length lenses. It is more critical and you have a harder time seeing the corners due to the "hot spot" in the center of the frame.

 

4) Using any camera with a folding down bed means there is potential for the bed to show up in your picture, unless there are controls to move it out of the way. Bottom line is it's more work for you.

 

If I were you, I'd look at any of the 4x5 monorail cameras. There's a lot of used equipment available that you can get for a fraction of the price (new).

 

Another possible alternative: Investigate and/or invest in a Cambo Wide or a similar camera from GranView or maybe even a custom Hobo. The Cambo comes with a graflock back, so 6x12 is possible, besides 4x5 of course. Parallel alignment of the lens and negative plane is permanent, but you do have shift and rise movements available to you. The Cambo used, with lens, will cost you more than a monorail, but it is small and convenient and very quick to use. More info can be found at Calumet.

Boys and girls, I have a new one. Was out shooting trees (fall colors) this last weekend with 8x10 Provia film. Somehow a yellow Post-It sticky label found a home on my film (probably happened when I was loading the holder in the dark). Anyway, the shot was one of the best exposed and composed....with the exception of a big nice dark square.

http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm

Broke my handle too when doing 8x10 sheet film in an expert tank (3005 I think). The little plastic thingamajiggy that the metal handle slides over is very weak and a replacement will run you about $6.

 

Is it intentionally like that to teach us a lesson in not overfilling the expert tanks? Or, is it just plain old crappy design? I tend to think it's the latter, as even with the expert tanks for 4x5 and 5x7 you have to be careful.

 

Hey JOBO, if you're out there listening, how come you don't have any metal reinforcements embedded in the plastic in this too easily breakable part?

Ah, 'scuse me, but do we get any college credit for posting answers?

No one else that I know has heard anything about this, so I'm betting that it's not the case. At least I hope that's not the case, since I recently became enamored with XTOL.... 8-)

The film is thicker than the 4x5 version, and much easier to handle and load into a film holder, by the way.

 

So far I've only run some development tests (trying to determine a workable ASA/development time, so havent' made any prints yet. I plan on both contacts and enlargments. Eventually I'll have my wall vacuum easel built so murals will be possible. It's on about the 3rd page of my To-Do checklist. I've got some Cachete 16x20 at the moment but not anything larger than that. A stunning negative of a good subject would motivate me to go larger. Don't have any stunners, for now.

 

Of possible interest is this thread: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003xiN offering alternatives to Technidol developer.

 

Nevertheless, the Tech Pan 8x10 test shot negs have striking visual clarity and definition of line, and remind me of the way Delta 100 developed in XTOL looks. Obviously, the Tech Pan is about as close to grainless as you can imagine.

Other developers, like TD-3 and some others from Photographers Formulary, will be tried too. It's just that I've got a bunch of Technidol packets to use up first.

I finally got around to shooting some of my Technical Pan 8x10 negs.

Developed them with Technidol in a Jobo Expert tank, and it's a very

workable combination. My fears of rotational agitation being a

problem turned out to otherwise. There was no edge bleeding

whatsoever between highlights and shadow areas.

 

The film is dated from 1991, and I set the ASA at 25, with N and N+1

exposures. The light meter read 1 second at f22. Instead of opening

up to f16 for the N+1 shots, I increased the time to 2 seconds.

 

Developer used was Technidol, with one packet per sheet with water to

create 8 ounces. Since I did two sheets at a time in the expert tank,

it worked out to 16 ounces (approx 475ml) for 2 packets of Technidol.

At 68degrees.

 

The subject was a city intersection in the Chicago Loop (downtown,

amid tall buildings). The sun was completely hiding behind clouds,

and there was no defined shadows from street lamps, people, etc.

 

Dev temp = 68degrees

Rotation speed setting on Jobo CPP-2: P

Time: 11 minutes

 

Result: The N exposure was very thin in some of the darker shadow

areas (the dark north side of a black building). Some of the distant

highlights that were a few blocks away and not surrounded by

buildings were pretty decent, but a print made from this neg would

require some additional effort. Even then it would look too moody for

most folks, except some artists perhaps who like that sort of look.

 

The N+1 neg had improved shadow detail, but there is a slight blur

cause by wind against the camera bellow. Looking at blury negs hurts

my eyes. Overlooking that aspect, the improved density would make for

much less dodging and burning. The N+1 is normally what I would have

expected the N exposure to look like, but the outdated film probably

lost some of it's speed.

 

I then developed the other pair of negs with everything the same

except I increased the time to 13 minutes. The N+1 is the preferred

neg, and N is quite workable without much effort in the darkroom.

 

Had I a couple more shots I would have processed them for 15

minutes, just for comparison.

My Durst 184 has a filter drawer for 10x10 filters too, but I couldn't find any. Then I got some extra sets of Ilford 6x6 filters off of Ebay for real cheap and had enough sets that I could lay several of each type next to each other on a clear plastic sheet for photo albums and tape them together so they didn't move around. Sandwiched between a couple layers of plexiglass, it looks like it'll do the job. Now I have to make up the rest of the contrast grades in the same way.

 

The other option is to rig up some kind of filter holder for 6x6 filters beneath the glass, so that my hands are free for dodging and burning. Since I plan on doing wall projections, I figure the 10x10 sandwiched between plexiglass filter arrangement will be a little easier to work with.