the film
stick out a bit. I'll try it though. Maybe double stick tape would be flat
enough.
--shannon
On Friday, May 9, 2003, at 10:30 PM, Shannon Stoney wrote:
Hi, I am shooting 4x5 film in one of those Leonardo cameras that was
made
for 8x10 film. Therefore I am not using a film holder
pinhole. What do you
make that part out of? I have made pinholes in pieces of aluminum cans; do
you just cut a piece of aluminum can about the size of the hole and tape it
on there with black tape, or is there a better way? Is the shutter
difficult to remove?
--shannon
Don
--- Shannon
Hmmm... this feels like deja-vu, all over again!
Is there a searchable archive for the pinhole list?
--shannon
Guillermo wrote:
Reciprocity corrections as well as development adjustments are
just suggested starting values, pretty much as the ISO speed of the films is
(i.e.: 4x5 TRI-X works for me as EI-200, and not as ISO320 as Kodak suggest).
From that perspective, both Kodak and the
Hi. I have two reciprocity failure charts. One is from Kodak and the other
is from Steve Simmons' book, Using the View Camera. They give very
different adjusted times for Tri X, when you get to very long exposures.
For example, if the metered time is 30 seconds, Kodak says to expose for 200
Hello Shannon,
Taking into account all uncertainity concerning reciprocity failure and
relating it to the problems you're facing, are you sure these problems
aren't on the exposure side of the situation ? Rather than struggling so
much with development, haven't you thought trying to alter
John wrote:
I use the formula, y=.91x^1.51, where x is the metered time and y is the
corrected time. It approximates the reciprocity pretty closely, and has
worked for me for exposures up to 2 hours on FP4+, which shares the same
reciprocity failure as HP5+. I've always processed normally,
This has probably been discussed recently, but can anyone out there
recommend a good formula/rule of thumb for adjusting exposure for
reciprocity in Ilford films? The technical data on their webpage is merely
a chart, and I am hoping to get more specific information, based on the
Chris wrote:
While waiting for an appointment I pulled out my alt books for a little
reading. In Christopher James's book page 136 he says that a range of
1.8 is needed for Mike Ware's New Cyanotype formula. He say's Mike
advises extending from base+fog (0.2) to a D-maz of 2.0 or more. This
Hello Shannon, HP5 by it's nature has a fair bit of base density. If you
want/need a very thin base, you may be better off with another film. Using
it at 3200 is almost certainly going to harm your low end (shadow)
separation! I use it at 160 for alt. Also remember that with pinhole you (I)
Chris wrote:
How are you reading the densities? I sometimes see students of mine make
mistakes and zero out our old densitometer to straight white light from
the reading arm.
The directions that came with my densitometer said to zero it out exactly
this way.
--shannon
I am shooting HP5+ in the 8x10 format in a pinhole camera for cyanotypes. I
am having trouble getting the highlights dense enough. I am up to a 20
minute development time now, and still the highlights only have a density of
1.71. I would like a density range of about 1.6, starting at 0.35, say,
I have been testing with HP5+ film to see what film speed to shoot it at.
To my surprise, it seems as if its speed in my pinhole camera is about 1000!
It's rated at 400. The way I figure exposures is based on the fact that my
pinhole is f352. That's supposed to be 30 times whatever f64 is. So
I like this a lot too. I assume when you say Lith print, you mean you made
a lith negative to print it? What kind of print is it?
--shannon
--
From: Andy Schmitt aschm...@warwick.net
To: pinhole-discussion@p at ???
Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] [pinhole discussion] New Lith
Leonard wrote:
I know, from working years in a camera store and teaching photography
classes, the following: Lots and lots of picture takers talk and talk
techniques to death and never making any prints. The only way to find
something out is to TRY IT! In regards to reciprocity failure and
What causes negatives to get those little holes in them? Not literally
all the way through the film base, but holes in the emulsion, like little
clear or white specks? I think I heard some place that you can prevent
those by using water instead of stop, but I always use water and I get them
which I shoot could
change mid-roll.
gregg mcneill
I tried to send earlier today a message I got from a guy at Ilford about
this, but it bounced. I'll try again:
From: David A Carper david.car...@ilford.com
To: Shannon Stoney shannonsto...@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Reciprocity failure
Gord wrote:
If you have a light meter try metering and then putting the gel filter in
front of the meter to see it makes a difference in the reading. There is
likely some difference, whether or not its significant is the question.
I did this yesterday and the result seemed to be that
I have a chart that shows reciprocity failure adjustments for various
black and white films. This chart also suggests decreasing development
times as exposure times increase. The reasoning is that reciprocity failure
affects the shadow areas more than the highlight areas. Is this correct?
Gregg wrote:
I use a piece of plastic screening inside a tube to avoid the scratching
and also allow the chemicals to cover both sides. I think I got this idea
from someone's posting on the list a couple of years ago. It has worked
pretty well. You can buy the screening at a hardware store
I just made a tube for developing 8x10 film in, out of ABS black plastic
pipe. I did it according to the directions in the Beyond the Zone System
book. It worked pretty well, held liquid well, etc, but when I withdrew the
film from the tube it scratched the non-emulsion side pretty badly with
I am shooting the same film and the same format.
I would advise filtration of Red and Yellow.
How do you put a filter in front of the pinhole? With tape?
--shannon
I just developed a negative that I made in a cookie tin camera yesterday.
It looks sort of flat; that is , there are no good darks I suspect, just
looking at the negative. It looks like it might be fogged all over sort of
evenly. I wonder if that might be because the inside of the tin is still a
camera out of a cookie tin. But why
does it make a difference if the hole is made out of thin metal? Does the
thickness of the plastic make the image smaller?
--shannon
regards, ingo
- Original Message -
From: Shannon Stoney shannonsto...@earthlink.net
To: pinhole-discussion@p
--- Shannon Stoney shannonsto...@earthlink.net wrote:
How big is the image supposed to be with the film canister cameras? I made
an exposure today and it's about the size of a penny. Is that normal?
Well, it will be the size of your film cannister. Of course, you can enlarge
it instead
How big is the image supposed to be with the film canister cameras? I made
an exposure today and it's about the size of a penny. Is that normal?
--shannon
When I shoot with film in my film cannister pinhole camera, I develop, stop,
and fix within the container itself. Why now do this in the Altoids can?
How do you keep it from leaking out the pinhole? Or do you use a different
can
--shannon
Cheers -
george
=
Handmade Photographic
I have been thinking about making some tiny cameras with Altoids boxes and
35mm plastic film canisters. But, how do you develop the small piece of
film you have exposed with such a camera? It would seem awkward to try to
thread it onto a regular reel. Tiny tubes, as in BTZS tubes? Trays?
Leezy's 3 day class on Alternative Cameras, Aug. 23-25, is filling up.
This workshop will cover everything from Pinholes to Zone Plates to Diana's.
Leezy I will be bringing our respective collections of cameras for the
students to try as well as experimenting with what the students bring.
George wrote abouat using BTZS tubes to develop film. I am thinking
of getting some of these to develop 8x10 film. (I use the combiplan
for 4x5.) My question is, do you fix in trays or in the tubes? I
have heard of people developing in the tubes, as they show you on the
website where
30 matches
Mail list logo
