You idiot, don't you know we have inkjet printers now!?

RooX · « **Reply #20 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 08:16 pm »

nathan,

that second picture is very nice indeed!

great subject, great aspect, great picture!

JohnR · « **Reply #21 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 08:19 pm »

Now that's TONE!

I'm not sure I see the effect of the water drops - or did you remove them already?

nathanm · « **Reply #22 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 09:04 pm »

The water drops are large, soft blotches. I retouched the worst ones on the building itself but there are a few areas of blur here and there. There's a blotch in the trees to the right of the "Thill" sign over the door for example. Overall not too noticeable, though.

Thanks RooX!

SET Man · « **Reply #23 on:** 3 Oct 2007, 09:13 pm »

Hey!

Very nice.

Personally taking cemetery is not my kind thing.

But the second pictures is excellent. There is a feel to it... a spooky feel to it

Yes, those water droplets on lens will give is some blur and softer image but I think this might actually enhance the feel of this picture.

Anyway, very nice nathanm.

Wish I had time to use my 4x5 now

Take care,
Buddy

nathanm · « **Reply #24 on:** 5 Oct 2007, 07:27 pm »

Here's another one.

RooX · « **Reply #25 on:** 5 Oct 2007, 09:09 pm »

another awesome one nathan! love that buttery texture.

what film are you using?

nathanm · « **Reply #26 on:** 5 Oct 2007, 09:14 pm »

Thanks!

Ilford Delta 100 Professional film
Ilford Perceptol developer

LadyDog · « **Reply #27 on:** 5 Oct 2007, 10:31 pm »

Nathan,
Love the pictures. Great timing too, since to me they have a "Halloween" feeling.

Regards,
Jeff

nathanm · « **Reply #28 on:** 5 Oct 2007, 10:43 pm »

Allright, this completes the set. This is now everything I shot on that day, making it probably the least wasteful shoots yet! Heh! That is, unless it says "This photo is currently unavailable". I dunno what its problem is, one of those webby things. Maybe it will correct itself. Server cache thingamajig maybe. ???

It works now

RooX · « **Reply #29 on:** 6 Oct 2007, 04:39 am »

showing that its unavailable

nathanm · « **Reply #30 on:** 7 Oct 2007, 01:16 am »

I redid the URLs, and for whatever reason it works now.

RooX · « **Reply #31 on:** 7 Oct 2007, 05:50 am »

works now!

what an awesome shoot, they are all excellent.

nathanm · « **Reply #32 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 05:14 am »

Quote from: SMc Audio on 28 Sep 2007, 05:56 am

...I came across a bunch of Ilford B&W paper in assorted sizes, and I didn't have the heart to throw it out. I was trying to figure out 1) if it was still good (it must be 12 or 15 years old)...

Steve - well I got the paper today, thanks much!

I first put some unexposed 5x7 in the developer and it turned black in a few seconds.

Then I tried some of the 8x10 and that just turned a medium grey.

So I guess Ilford wasn't kidding about those expiration dates. Still, I ran a few exposures for grins. Not bad I guess, might be useful for a very dark look.

Listens2tubes · « **Reply #33 on:** 6 Nov 2007, 02:28 am »

Superb photos, my kind of subject matter. This whole thread makes me want to print. I love the textures, fine details, and the feeling of the place/light of 4 x5.

Do you find your attention heightened with the slower pace of large format?

nathanm · « **Reply #34 on:** 6 Nov 2007, 06:57 am »

Quote from: Listens2tubes on 6 Nov 2007, 02:28 am

Superb photos, my kind of subject matter. This whole thread makes me want to print. I love the textures, fine details, and the feeling of the place/light of 4 x5. Do you find your attention heightened with the slower pace of large format?

Thanks! Yeah, your attention has to be heightened cause you just can't say, "Hmm that over there looks kinda cool" *click click click click* and one of them might be workable. I like it because you have to go out knowing you can only shoot so much and that's it. I only go out with eight sheets of film at a time and so far that's all I need. Usually I shoot less. Of course, that's just if I am shooting around town. Eight is about all that fits in one tank anyway. The limitation makes me want to at least TRY to take something I might still want to look at later.

The part I really stuggle with is that it's such a chore to move the camera around on the tripod. Once you plop it down it's not easy to reframe your shot. I do have a piece of matboard with a 4x5 hole cut in it as Ansel suggests in one of his books, but I should probably use it more. Even though I have a lot to learn yet the part I am totally sold on is the look of the film. Even with less-than-excellent compositions they still have the tone and texture which attracted me in the first place. I was getting pretty good at faking the filmic look digitally, but with 4x5 I don't have to!

drphoto · « **Reply #35 on:** 6 Nov 2007, 05:23 pm »

Nathan,

I don't know if Calumet still carries is, but my favorite traditional b/w paper (not inkjet) was from Zone VI. High quality paper base w/ a much higher silver content than Kodak or Ilford papers, giving very lush blacks and that oh so desirable 'glow' in the higher zones.

In fact, I loved a lot of Zone VI products, I had their compensating cold light head on my Besslar 45 enlarger, along w/ their modified lensboards (which allowed you to get the lens correctly aligned for best sharpness)

I've never considered myself much of a photographer, but I was a really good darkroom tech.

BTW: Not knocking Ilford, they make a very good product. Their FB MG was my go to paper for everyday stuff.

drphoto · « **Reply #36 on:** 8 Nov 2007, 12:28 am »

Got my Calumet newsletter/sales brochure in the mail today. They do still carry the Zone VI paper, which is called "Brilliant". I'd forgotten the name, but I haven't made a conventional print in over 10 years.

Do you selenium tone your prints?

nathanm · « **Reply #37 on:** 8 Nov 2007, 06:38 pm »

Nope, I haven't got as far as toning. Whereabouts do you do that? Is it after the stop bath and before the fixer or after the fixer? I've heard of people using coffee to tone prints. Sounds interesting.

Right now it's enough of an experiment getting the exposure and contrast right. Plus dodging and burning, which is sort of like using photoshop, except you have to wear big wool mittens. Crude, crude technology! We're talking buggy whips here! Holding your hand under the lens and swirling it around...are we SAVAGES!?

drphoto · « **Reply #38 on:** 8 Nov 2007, 07:59 pm »

Selenium toning is done after fixing, but before washing. Selenium can give prints a rich, more 3D look. It can tint the print somewhat reddish brown (not yellow brown like sepia) or have little change in the color. It's pretty dependent on the paper, and the time in toner solution. It does get rid of that slightly green cast some papers (like Ilford MG) has.

If you read Lord Ansel's book he talks about washing the hell out of the print before toning, but don't do it that way. Go straight from the fixer (and I recommend regular sodium thiosulphate hypo (fixer) over rapid fix) into the toner bath. Then wash the hell out of it.

The toner bath is 4 ounces of Kodak Rapid Selenium toner concentrate in one gallon of hypo clearing agent. (look on hypo clear bottle for dillution directions...I don't remember) Toning time is anywhere from 3 to 10 minutes depending on the effect you want. Agitate frequently. Prints w/ a lot of mid greys tone faster.

Selenium, like any heavy metal is toxic so put down that burrito while you're dunking your prints.

You may know this, so I hope I'm not insulting you, but one of biggest mistakes I see beginners make is to overexpose their print and then underdevelop it. You should keep it in the developer (and good 'ole Dektol is hard to beat) for at least 2 minutes. with constant agitation.(probably don't want to go more than 3 minutes, as you can get fogging)

Also early on, people tend to use paper that is too 'hard' or high contrast. You should try to get negs that print well on grade 2 or maybe grade 3 paper.

One other tip. Don't waste money on indicator stop bath. Just get 28% acetic acid and dilute it. You'll know it's exhausted when it won't cut the slimey feeling of the developer. (you can even get glacial acetic acid which 100% and dilute, but it's a bit nasty)

Oh one other thing, Fred Picker's "The Zone VI Workshop" is a concise overview of the zone system. Fred's a bit like me....not much of a photographer but good on the technical stuff. A former student made off w/ my copy, or I'd send it to you. I think Amazon may carry it.

nathanm · « **Reply #39 on:** 8 Nov 2007, 09:45 pm »

I am SO insulted you suggested following the directions!

Just kidding; yeah I do leave it in the developer for 2 minutes or so. Even when I look at it and say, yep, way too dark. I'm using variable contrast paper and Ilford filters. The timer I am using has a nice scale of tones so you can see where your measured points fall. Luckily its stock setting is for the paper I'm using so I can't cock it up TOO much. You have to run through this calibration thing for other papers which I probably should do.

It's complicated and makes my head hurt a little. It's not as maddening as computer color management, though. There's only so much technical stuff I can take before I snap.

My current washing procedure is probably bordering on blasphemy. I run it under the tap for however long I feel like and hang 'em up. Mainly because until such time as a print is made which is a true "keeper" I am forgoing the textbook procedures of a one hour wash or whatever. I doubt the stuff I've printed so far will have anyone a hundred years from now bemoaning my lack of archival competence! Heh!

Probably the biggest mistake I've made so far is trying too many papers at once. I guess it makes sense, I wanted to see what surface I liked. But ultimately it makes more sense to standardize as much as possible. The fiber-based papers are a real pain to dry flat. I'd have to a build a window screen sandwich contraption.