Re: [pinhole-discussion] Leonardo camera and taping film to back
> I suspect it will "work", if you find a problem simply put a piece of > black paper behind the film. A suggestion, watch ebay for some cheap > wooden 8x10 holders (or moderate priced modern plastic ones, depending > on your $$$ situation). You can then tape 4x5 film onto the center of > the holders and have a lot more shots per day without a darkroom. > Sometimes you see these, often older/unusable "plate" holders, sold > cheap in antique stores as well. I have some 8x10 holders, but I thought that if I taped 4x5 film into them, that the slide wouldn't slide correctly because of the tape making 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, but rather >> simply >> taping the film to the center of the wooden back that you usually >> remove in >> order to insert the film holder. Is there any problem with this method? >> The back is not flat black, but appears to be stained chip board. It's >> dark >> brown with little flecks in it. Will this cause any sort of weird >> reflection onto the film? >> > -- > Tom Ferguson > http://www.ferguson-photo-design.com > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] Leonardo camera and taping film to back
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, but rather simply taping the film to the center of the wooden back that you usually remove in order to insert the film holder. Is there any problem with this method? The back is not flat black, but appears to be stained chip board. It's dark brown with little flecks in it. Will this cause any sort of weird reflection onto the film? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Tests in different film formats
> Hi, > A questions for those of you who test films. > Speaking of the same film, if I make a test (exposure > or development, or whatever), say, in a 120 roll of > brand X, are the results still valid for the same film > in different formats (35mm, 4x5 sheets, etc.)? > Many thanks. My experience is: no. First, you shoot them in different cameras, and the shutters in those different cameras may vary, so that your 35mm camera shoots TriX at say 600 while your 4x5 shoots it at 320. (I have an old Lubitel that requires an ISO of 1600 for TriX!) But let's say all your shutters are perfectly timed. You process the film differently with different formats. Like, 120 you process on a reel in a canister of some sort, and maybe you process the 4x5 in a tray or tube. So that will make a difference. Unfortunately, it seems, you have to test each format separately. The exception perhaps being sheet film in tubes. Probably 4x5 TriX and 8x10 TriX in their respective tubes need about the same amount of time. --shannon > Marcelo > > Marcelo Mammana > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search.yahoo.com > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] medium format pinhole
> > All you need to do is pry off the lens/shutter > assembly with a flat metal implement(I use a kitchen > knife). Remove the underlying shutter and mount your > pinhole. I can send you a pic of one I did if you > need a bit of visual assistance. I think I can visualize everything except "mount your 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 Stoney > wrote: >> > >> > This may be blasphemy - but any of the diana >> variants >> > are easily converted. >> >> What's the best way to do this? >> >> --shannon >> >> ___ >> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >> unsubscribe or change your account at >> http://www.???/discussion/ > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. > http://search.yahoo.com > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] medium format pinhole
> Hmmm... this feels like deja-vu, all over again! Is there a searchable archive for the pinhole list? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] medium format pinhole
> > This may be blasphemy - but any of the diana variants > are easily converted. What's the best way to do this? --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] enlarging paper negatives
Hi, just wondered if people ever put paper negatives in the enlarger. If so, are there any problems with it? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] that old reciprocity failure question again
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 mentioned book are "correct". The > idea with any of this charts is to use them as starting point and make necessary > changes as experience/process you use requires. I think you are right, but it sure is frustrating at times! For now I'm using the Simmons times. The Kodak times don't seem long enough when you get into long exposures. Of course the other variable that I could have wrong is the film speed. Right now I'm shooting TXT at 3200 for my basic normal subject brightness range. --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] that old reciprocity failure question again
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 seconds, and Simmons says 290, almost half again as long. Also, the adjusted development percentages are very different. Kodak says 10% off even for an adjusted exposure of only 2 seconds, and 20% off if your adjusted exposure is 50 seconds, whereas Simmons doesn't even begin to decrease development until exposure reaches 13 seconds, and then only by 5%. If exposure is 50 seconds, he says to reduce development by about 9%. This is confusing. I wonder whose numbers are right? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] measuring density range
> 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 your exposure > times ? Does this make any sense ? There were problems with exposure at first, but I was able to nail down that quicker than I could the development thing. First I figured out how to stop over-exposing; then I had to figure out how to stop under-developing. Fortunately now both problems are solved, and I have two perfect negatives made with HP5+. Still, I don't think that film will work in low contrast situations, so I am switching to TriX, so more testing will be in order. Maybe it won't take so long to arrive at a solution this time. --shannon >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity
What do you call this sort of shareware and how would you find it on the internet? I did do some calculations manually and the exponent went down as the times went up. That is, for a metered time of 3 seconds, raising it to the 2.1 power gave you ten, which was what the chart said the adjusted time should be, but for four seconds the exponent was 1.95, for five seconds it was 1.85. I assumed it would keep going like that so I gave up. --shannon -- >From: "G.Penate" >To: >Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity >Date: Sat, Jul 20, 2002, 2:30 PM > > > - Original Message - > From: "Shannon Stoney" > >> This is interesting, a variation on the formula I was given. Where did you >> get this formula? I wonder if such formulas exist for all films? > >> I have been using this formula successfully for about a month. It seems to >> give good times. I have no idea why this "works" mathematically. > > The formula you use is known as "Best Curve Fit", it works by finding a formula > whose curve fit best to all the points in a graphic of "metered vrs reciprocity > corrected values". In other word, you first find by experimentation as many > values as possible and then apply the "Best Curve Fit" method of choice (there > are many, BTW) to find a formula that matches them best. Once you have a > formula, you can inter and extrapolate to find any other corrections you want. > > There are shareware programs available that allow you to find the formulas w/o > having to do it manually and w/o having to like or to be good at math. > > Guillermo > > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity
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, with pmk pyro. This is interesting, a variation on the formula I was given. Where did you get this formula? I wonder if such formulas exist for all films? Maybe if I used another factor, like your .91 above, with the Kodak chart, I could work out a similar formula. I was only looking for an exponent the first time I tried. --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity
> > 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 > experience of the other pinhole photographers on the list. I found something on the internet about HP5+ and reciprocity failure that had been posted by an Ilford technician. He said that you could figure the adjusted time by taking the metered time and raising it to the 1.48 power! I have been using this formula successfully for about a month. It seems to give good times. I have no idea why this "works" mathematically. I tried to find a similar number for Kodak films, using their chart, to see if there was any sort of consistent logarithmic relationship between the metered times and the adjusted time, but there didn't seem to be. However, I have to shoot HP5+ in my pinhole camera at 3200, for a scene of normal subject brightness range. Also, of course, my f stop is small so I multiply it by a factor of 30 times the f64 metered time. I also found out that there is no need to reduce development time for long exposures with HP5+, even though it's recommended for Kodak films like Tri-X. --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] measuring density range
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 is > achieved by "overdeveloping" the negative to the extent of 70% to 80%". > > Your development time is already beyond 100% but you only have a density > of 1.36. I would think this would tell me that there is something else > wrong. Its good to know how they are measuring their density range. I > didn't know if it was base+fog to D-max or shadow detail to highlight > detail. Looks like from this book its the former. Yes, I had never thought of measuring it that way. I always measure it from shadow density to highlight density, following Dick Arendtz. > > Now that I know this I wonder if your following zone system measurement > procedures and only reading shadows with detail and highlights with > details. If that's the case then you might have perfect negatives > already since it seems that alternative workers read everything not just > the details ;-) In the past my perfect negatives for cyanotype, made with a lens camera, had a density range of about 1.6. This was the difference between the "important" shadow areas and the highlights. So I have maintained that way of working. I guess it doesn't matter which way you measure the difference, as long as you know what works for you and you are consistent. What works for me is, a difference of 1.6 between the shadows and the highlights. I ignore the base+fog measurement. However it seems that it might be important to know what it is for different films, as a dense base+fog might explain why HP5+ for example is hard to get thin enough in the shadows. --shannon > -- > -- > Chris Peregoy | http://www.gl.umbc.edu/~peregoy | http://imda.umbc.edu/ > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5+ and LONG development times
> 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) > get a bit of flare, so truly thin base (shadow) values are difficult to get > with any film. OK, interesting. Where does the flare come from? The inside of my camera is pretty black. > > As for development, I find using a stronger than recommended developer > dilution the "trick" with HP5. I typically use HC-110 developer. It's > "normal" strength is 30ml per liter. For Cyanotype I use 40 or 50ml per > liter (depending on the scene, zone system normal or plus). OK, I will try that. I like HC-110 because there is no powder to mix up. --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5+ and LONG development times
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
[pinhole-discussion] HP5+ and LONG development times
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, in the shadows. (I have to shoot it at like 3200 to get the shadows this thin!) Should I keep increasing the development times? Is it "bad" to go over 20 minutes? I process in straight D-76 in a homemade BTZS-style tube, at 68 degrees. I am thinking maybe I should make the temperature warmer rather than making the times longer. But, then what will I do if I ever have to increase the development time further for a low-constrast scene? (Excuse the cross posting if you read the pinhole and alt-process lists.) --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinholes and film speed
Now I'm up to an ASA of 2100, and counting... I also had to increase development time to about 12 minutes. Not sure if this will be the final "normal" negative setting, but I think I'm getting close. This takes a lot of experimentation! --shannon -- >From: "G.Penate" >To: >Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinholes and film speed >Date: Fri, Jul 5, 2002, 3:05 PM > > > - Original Message - > From: "Shannon Stoney" > >> So, I guess it doesn't really matter WHY this is so, as long as I can figure >> out HOW to make a negative that works for me. > > That's correct! My intention was not to over analize the WHY but to just point > to you there are so many variables involved an a minor "deviation" from all or > several of them can easily account for the seeminly illogical at simple > inspection result (to me at least). > > Guillermo > > > > > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] pinholes and film speed
Guillermo wrote: > Shannon, > Numerically, an EI of 1000 may seem as a big jump from ISO-400, > but it is really just 1 1/3 stops faster, Oh. Hey, you're right! which probably can be accounted by a > combination of factors like: "how thin you want the negatives low zones to be", > a bit of anomalies in the reciprocity correction (I am not saying your method is > incorrect) and the pinhole actual diameter being a bit bigger than what you > think it is. I got this camera from Eric Renner, so I assumed it was "precision drilled," whereas nobody knows what size the pinholes I make with a sewing needle actually are. As for my shadow areas, I aim for around .35 density. Beside the above, 400 is the ISO speed of HP5 when processed as > per the ISO standards, but it could prove to be a bit faster with your specific > processing. An small contribution from all or several of the mentioned factors > could easily make your 400 film appear to be 1000 film, instead. Yes, I have to increase development time for cyanotype, but I do this for Tri X when I shoot it in my 4x5 camera, and it seems to be about what it is rated at: 320. So, I guess it doesn't really matter WHY this is so, as long as I can figure out HOW to make a negative that works for me. --shannon PS thanks for the link to the page about lith printing. That is very interesting.
[pinhole-discussion] pinholes and film speed
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 multiply the f64 time by 30 and then adjust for reciprocity failure, using a formula I found online from Ilford: raise the metered time to the 1.48 power. This accords with most reciprocity failure charts that I've seen. But to get my shadows thin enough, I have to shoot this at 1000. I have had a lot of old cameras with old shutters that required different speeds than the regular one because, I assume, the shutter is a bit slow. But a pinhole doesn't have a shutter really! So, I wonder why you end up having to shoot as if the film is much faster than it is? Has anybody else noticed this? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] [pinhole discussion] New Lith Print
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" >To: >Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] [pinhole discussion] New Lith Print >Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2002, 2:08 PM > > I second the motion..Great! > andy > > -Original Message- > From: pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ??? > [mailto:pinhole-discussion-admin@p at ???]On Behalf Of Andrew > Amundsen > Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 1:21 PM > To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? > Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] [pinhole discussion] New Lith Print > > >>From: "Christian Harkness" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just uploaded a new pinhole lith print. It's from a 35 mm negative done >> with a pinhole body cap. >> >> > http://www.???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=chri > sharkness >> .jpg >> >> chris > > > Chris, very nice shot. What kind of exposure/shutter speed are you > getting using a pinhole bodycap. Film speed and lighting conditions were > what this day? > > Andrew > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] keeping notes; photographing at dusk
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 >> development times, make a lot of negatives and TRY different combinations of >> times. Keep really good notes. Your memory isn't going to cut it. This >> way YOU'LL KNOW more than 90% of the other people out there. You'll know, >> you'll learn and you can put this small problem behind you forever! >> However, for those who love technical discussions, have fun while the rest >> of us make pictures. I have just started this practice of keeping notes on every exposure. I have a little black book that I keep with my camera stuff and I write down the date, the subject matter of the exposure (sort of), the subject brightness range, sometimes where I placed zone III and VII (like "bottom of tree trunk=III, white cow=VII"), and how many seconds or minutes I exposed it for. This really helped when I was trying to figure out the speed of HP5+ for me, and helped me close in on correct development times. One problem I ran into yesterday: I started an exposure around 6:30 pm and according to my calculations it was to be 20 minutes. When I came back 20 minutes later, the scene had changed a lot. I metered again and it was two stops darker in the shadows! So I figured a new time for that amount of light and averaged the two, which turned out to be 80 minutes. Went away and of course it got darker some more while I was gone. It was plumb thick dark when I came back. I developed that film tonight and sure enough, it was underexposed. I guess you could say the moral of the story is, don't try to make a picture when it's getting dark. But, that's when the wind dies down and leaves stop moving around. It would be nice if there was a way to figure exposure when the light is constantly changing. --shannon > > > > _ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] white holes in negatives
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 anyway. Maybe I'm handling the negatives too roughly? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure and development times
Gregg wrote: >> I, too have been noodling this. I've had sucess with taking care of all of >> the reciprocity corrections at the time of exposure. I process normal. >> >> The whole thing about overexpose and under develop, or underexpose to over >> develop never made sense to me as the conditions under 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" > To: "Shannon Stoney" > Subject: Re: Reciprocity failure and development times > Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 6:11 AM > > > Within the range of times which we have tested, ILFORD films do not exhibit > a sufficient change in contrast to warrant a recommended change in > development. > Obviously, if you are using longer times, or working with a very critical > situation, > you may find that you will need to modify the development time slightly > (usually > giving less development), but you will need to do some testing for your own > particular situation. > > Regards, > David Carper > ILFORD Technical Service I don't know what he means by "longer times." I guess he means longer than the 200 seconds or so on the Ilford chart. I downloaded a PDF file that has specs for HP5+ and it had a reciprocity failure graph chart. I shoot sheet film so I do pay attention to exposure vs development for each exposure, but as it turns out, it's unnecessary to make additional corrections with HP5+ in development times for long exposures. --shannon -- >From: "gregg b. mc neill" >To: pinhole-discussion@p at ??? >Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure and development times >Date: Mon, Jun 24, 2002, 6:55 AM > > > >>Sorry to have a one track mind, but I am still thinking about whether you >>need to change your development times when you make long exposures. The >>theory seems to be that highlights expose more than shadows during long >>exposures, so that you should under-develop. But, when I do this the >>highlights look too dull. I am wondering if this "rule" is really true. >>What do other people on this list do? Do you develop less as you make >>longer exposures? >> >>--shannon > > > _ > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure and development times
Sorry to have a one track mind, but I am still thinking about whether you need to change your development times when you make long exposures. The theory seems to be that highlights expose more than shadows during long exposures, so that you should under-develop. But, when I do this the highlights look too dull. I am wondering if this "rule" is really true. What do other people on this list do? Do you develop less as you make longer exposures? --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] reciprocity failure for HP5+
I came across something on the internet today about reciprocity failure, specifically about HP5+. It said that to calculate RF, all you have to do is raise the metered time to the 1.48 power. The formula was Ec=Em^1.48, where Ec is the corrected time and Em is the metered time. Is it really that simple? I went back to my RF chart and redid all the numbers, using a nifty calculator that I found online. It seems that this formula gave times that were slightly longer than what I had (from a book). Now all I need is a new calculator... --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] digital pinhole
I liked this a lot. I have been wondering if digital pinhole was possible. What did you mean that it was kind of a nothing experience? Do you mean compared with regular pinhole film photography? --shannon > Here is an image from a pinhole bodycap on a Nikon D1X digital camera. > www://???/discussion/upload/gallery2002.php?pic=digital_pinho > le.jpg > The camera allows exposure times up to 30 seconds. Compose and meter for F22 > (you can pre-set ISO and just use what you were otherwise using). Multiply > exposure time at F22 by 40, take the lens off, put on pinhole, change mode > setting to manual, set the calulated exposure time and shoot. Other than the > stunt of doing digital pinhole, it's kind of a nothing experience. Because > the CCP is smaller than a 35mm negative, you compound the effective focal > length by 50%, in effect you are shooting with a 75mm lens on 35 mm format. > On the other hand the D1X is an absolutely wonderful tool. > > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] No 8 gel filter
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 there was a third of a stop difference. So I think I will start adjusting by that amount. --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Marfa
Eric wrote: > Keeping it off topic... Marfa is now the playground of rich Houston > lawyers? Do tell! > > --Eric "seen the mystery lights" Theise I saw the mystery lights too! But I got a little bored at the Chinati foundation. All that neon. It got a little old after a while and seemed like another kind of mystery light. Why the same thing, over and over again? I guess that's minimalism for you. The boxes were cool though. I took a lot of pictures of them. My partner made a cool dyptich, though, of our digital pictures of the Dan Flavin neon installation. I liked Marfa. The bookstore is particularly good. If Van Horn can pull a "Marfa", more power to it. --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] No 8 gel filter
Hi. I have this #8 gel filter that I've been putting in my pinhole camera. At first I thought that it wouldn't make any difference as to exposure times, but now I think it does. I had read that you don't have to make any compensation for the #8, but I have noticed that it depresses the shadows a bit. I wonder if anybody else has noticed this and if you make an exposure compensation when you use it. --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] long exposures, reciprocity failure and development times
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? I also have a pinhole time calculator that suggests INCREASING development times as exposure times increase. Which is correct? (Excuse the cross-posting if you read alt-photo-process and pinhole-discussion.) --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] tube development and scratches
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 and just cut it > to fit inside the tube. This sounds like a good idea. Do you put the screen in before you put the film in, or sort of wrap it around the film before inserting it? I'll try it tomorrow, and also try sanding and steel wool as per John's suggestion. Thanks, --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] tube development
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 two long scratches. I felt around inside the tube but couldn't feel any big sharp places or anything. I had sanded some inside. Any clue as to what caused these scratches? maybe residual sand from the sandpaper? --shannon
[pinhole-discussion] filters with pinholes
> > 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
[pinhole-discussion] painting cookie tin cameras
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 bit shiny. It's as if the shininess of the tin is showing through the black although you can't see any unpainted tin. I gave it one coat of flat black; should I give it another coat? Also, I got rather cheap black enamel. Maybe I should have gotten a slightly better grade. --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] film canister cameras
> > What size negatives do you want to do and where are you located? > andy > I was using the film cannisters to make 35mm negatives, but usually I make 4x5 negatives with a regular view camera. Yesterday I made a 4x5 negative with a cookie tin pinhole camera, but I haven't developed it yet. I am fixing to order some 8x10 film. I make cyanotypes mostly. I am in middle TN. I printed the first film canister negative in cyanotype and it didn't make much of an image. It was very faint. Maybe I overexposed it. --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] film canister cameras
> Hi, > it´'s normal if the pinhole is direkt in the plastic of the can. Try a > greater opening -like your penny- in the film-cannister and put the pinhole > (from soda-can or each other thin material)in the middle of this greater > hole. > This will work great. OK. I did this when I made a pinhole 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" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 7:17 AM > Subject: [pinhole-discussion] film canister cameras > > >> 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 >> >> >> ___ >> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML >> Pinhole-Discussion mailing list >> Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? >> unsubscribe or change your account at >> http://www.???/discussion/ > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
Re: [pinhole-discussion] film canister cameras
> > --- Shannon Stoney 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 of contact printing it, so you can determine its final size. Do you mean, the image diameter will be the same as the diameter of the film cannister? I am looking for a used enlarger. I looked on ebay and the good ones are going for around $400-$500. I wonder if anybody on this list has a favorite place to buy used reconditioned enlargers? --shannon > > Cheers - > > george > > = > Handmade Photographic Images > http://GLSmyth.com > DRiP Investing > http://DRiPInvesting.org > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] film canister cameras
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
Re: [pinhole-discussion] developing little pieces of 35mm film
> > 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 Images > http://GLSmyth.com > DRiP Investing > http://DRiPInvesting.org > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] developing little pieces of 35mm film
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? --shannon
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Shameless advertisement for Peters Valley
> 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. Both > film & paper will be used for negatives. > > so, y'all come over now...y'hear! So where will y'all be doing this? --shannon > > end of shameless advertisement > thanks > andy > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/
[pinhole-discussion] fixing in tubes and trays
Does it have to be absolutely, plumb thick dark when you finish fixing in the tray after a short fix in the tubes? I don't have a completely dark ventilated place yet. --shannon --
[pinhole-discussion] BTZS tubes
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 they're sold, and then taking the film out of the tubes to fix in trays. Is that necessary? Can't you just fix in the tubes, in the same way that you develop? --shannon --
