William, Thanks for all the suggestions. Remember, this is aerial COPY film. It doesn't actually go into an airplane. Makes no difference though, all your thoughts are just as valid. I had some time today to do some research, based on the suggestions given here. Interesting stuff out there. General consensus on use of a highly compensating developer and a lot of anectdotal evidence of success to keep me encouraged. I will try diluted Rodinal first, but really diluted. People used up to 1:200 for copy film. Usually with Sodium Sulfite added, and very little agitation. I will try this. I am also going to stick to fairly low contrast scenes at first. I never thought this was anything like an all purpose film. I also want to try some other developers. Diafine, POTA, Neofin, and others sound interesting. But like I said, I really need to finish my 4x5. It's getting closer. I'll post a picture of the Frankencamera soon. I may even steal the idea below for my bellows.
Gene William Nettles wrote: > > re: bellows chat, Aerial film contrast > > 1. Bellows support. Manufacturers have done it in one of two ways. a small > rigid support on the bottom that is attached to the rail, and a snap > connection that holds together several inches of bellows (basically the > amount your lens would require for close-up that you normally don't use.) > A bellows doesn't need much to support it. A little lift from the top or a > little push from the bottom. > > 2. Other possibilities: New materials. bungicord on the top between the > standards--just enough tension to lift the bellows sag without distorting > the standards. > > 3. The Deardorf bellows folding within bellows. It's not all that tricky and > its not a bag bellows. Its a bellows that has a bulge such that the smaller > cross section can squeeze past the larger dimension part. This gives it a > little more support. > > 4. Internal reflection and dryer vent. > A dryer vent type material might work. I think the idea has real merit. In > fact rather than try to tweak some existing materials just get some spring > wire wind it into a nice diameter and then glue two pieces of black fabric > inside and outside the 'spring' cylinder. An advanced design might square > off the corners. > > 5. Internal reflection. It should be added that it's not just light tight > matte black that is needed inside your camera. The folds in the bellows are > part of the 'light trap.' Even black fabric will reflect enough light to fog > film if it is stretched flat such that the angle of incidence from lens > spill equals the angle of refraction hitting your film plane. Real world? If > your bellows is always stretched straight out to the limit you risk this. > > 6. Lens Shade. 5x7 with a reducing back--interesting idea. With three 4x5s > it's a little late for me to change now and my Horseman 8x10 is too durned > heavy to be carting around on my shoulder. I've found that it is far more > important to keep stray light off the lens to keep light spill from fogging > the film. Get a lens shade or a bellows or at least shade your lens from the > sun or light source, or the sky with the dark slide while exposing. It > really does help. You might not even notice it until you shoot two sheets of > film of the same subject one with a shade and one without. > > 7. Aerial film and contrast. Sounds like the film test with detail-less > ground areas and dense skies is a problem caused by the 'solution' needed > for aerial photography. > One of the biggest problems in aerial photography is getting enough > contrast. Kodak trys to engineer increased contrast into the film. Try low > contrast developers, fogging the film (pre or post amount to the same > thing). > If I was playing with that film I would (1) try to establish an ISO for the > shadows and then (2) find what the minimum process time is for PMK Pyro > (that I use) and then (3) shoot a test & give it a minute or two over the > minimal PMK time. > > 8. Pre and post fogging can also help your shadows and lower the contrast of > your aerial film. For transparency film-the most critical test-I will keep > the camera focused on the subject or re-focus it at infinity and then shoot > a white card 3 1/2 to 4 stops underexposed. The card being too clase to > focus provides exposure without detail. I meter with a spot meter from the > camera position and then stop down. e.g. f8 at 1/60 shoot f16.5 at 1 1/125. > With negative film start here and then go farther until you fog it badly. > Pre/post fogging (also called 'flashing') adds density to the shadows > without affecting the highlights. With color transparency film it'll add > just enough exposure to the dark areas to pick up texture. Overall it also > lowers contrast. > > 9. Pre/Post fogging and B&W negative. Usually you don't need to do this with > negative film. Just fiddle with the contrast while printing. Sometimes I'll > post-flash the film if I've processed some film and the shadows are weak by > just a hair. Also I haven't seen a bit of difference between pre and post > fogging. The literature (adults like Ctein doing tests) supports this. I > would think that reciprocity sensitive films like Polaroid Type 55 would > show a problem with pre or post before any other type of film. With > transparency film I shoot of paintings--very critical color corrections--I > can post flash days later and use these numbers as pre & post flash exposure > the next time I shoot film with no change in results. > > As always your mileage may vary. > > Will > > ---William Nettles > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Nettles Photo / Imaging Site http://www.wgn.net/~nettles > > _______________________________________________ > Cameramakers mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers _______________________________________________ Cameramakers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://rmp.opusis.com/mailman/listinfo/cameramakers
