Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
On Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 09:35:32AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the original. That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the original file is discarded. What's lost? Nothing. The DNG retains *all* the information in the PEF, as long as you select the option to preserve an unmodified copy of the MakerNote tag. Without that you'll lose any metadata that's not in standard EXIF tags. I'm only aware of a couple of examples that most people might care about - a code identifying the actual lens in use (if known), and the cumulative frame count. Mind you, even if you do preserve the information, there isn't any software I know of at present that can display the saved values. When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and PEF originals) are about the same size, and I see no difference in the results obtained from either format. How is it that the DNG, which is about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when converted? DNG has good compression algorithms. As far as the image pixels are concerned, the results should be bit-for-bit identical between conversions from the DNG files and from the original PEFs. All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files, contain a lot of unnecessary information. Given that the results from a PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the PEF file? Given the cheapness of writable media (under 5c per gigabyte), is there really any reason *not* to save the original? While the Pentax software isn't really much good for RAW image conversion, it is the only program that knows how to show the lens description. As it doesn't handle DNGs, your better off saving a file in the format it expects. Once you've saved those archive copies, though, you might as well convert to DNG for working images. I keep promising I'm going to get round to doing that to save space (the size differences for a D are even greater than for a DS). I'd recommend: o Save copies of the files from the camera (PEFs, JPGs, etc.) to backup media immediately after copying to your hard drive (and before deleting the images from your SD cards). I try never to have an image in only one place, except for the unavoidable times after expusure and before downloading. o Convert to DNG (this is a good time to systematically rename files) o Save another copy of everything (to a second hard drive, and to write-once media).
Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
On Oct 31, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the original. That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the original file is discarded. What's lost? Nothing, with DNG Converter v3.1 and up. When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and PEF originals) are about the same size, and I see no difference in the results obtained from either format. How is it that the DNG, which is about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when converted? All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files, contain a lot of unnecessary information. Given that the results from a PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the PEF file? A Pentax RAW format file is essentially a Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) file with a Pentax specific data layout. TIFF is simply a container format standard which is generic and broad enough in definition to store all kinds of image data. Rendered RGB files stored in TIFF format follow a widely accepted protocol standard for what the tags and data elements mean in terms of data organization; PEF files use the format but use their own sets of tags to determine the component contents. What's in a PEF file? - All the image and camera metadata (exposure settings, EXIF format data, some image and camera identification data, and a few bits and pieces of other data in proprietary format that Pentax feels they want to stuff in there for present and future use). - The sensor data itself. - At least two JPEG renderings ... the thumbnail used for whole image display on the LCD, a JPEG preview rendering for sure, and (I think) a full resolution, high compression JPEG rendering used on the LCD for when you zoom and scroll around. DNG files also adhere to TIFF format protocol, but DNG is an openly distributed format so all the components have easily discoverable tags and organization. It was conceived of as a modifiable container format so developers can use and modify the contents easily. What does it contain? Well, pretty much the same thing that PEF files contain (metadata, JPEG preview and thumbnail, sensor data). It can also contain an encapsulated PEF file if you turn on that option. Why are DNG files smaller? - Pentax applies no compression to the sensor data. Because the compression is bit-for-bit lossless, no information is lost. - The DNG Converter applies lossless compression and can save up to 30-40% on size. - Pentax JPEG preview files are somewhat large, the DNG Converter produces a better quality JPEG at smaller size. All RAW format files contain some metadata that could be considered unnecessary, but the proportion of such unnecessary data to sensor data content makes that insignificant. They might have 100-500K worth of metadata, the sensor data is much much larger than that. Losslessly compressing the sensor data is the key to their smaller size. Why are PSD and TIFF RGB files the same size when made from PEF and DNG files? Should be obvious now, but basically since the DNG and PEF files contain the same information, the RGB rendering from either will also contain the same information and be the same size when constructed by Photoshop. Is there really a reason to save the PEF file? There are arguments for archiving one, the other or both. Some argument points to DNG being an open standard and therefore having a better chance at 'archival' usability than PEF files (which is true). Some arguments suggest that you can always derive a DNG from a PEF, but cannot do the opposite, so you should save the PEF (logical). DNG Converter includes the ability I mentioned to embed the PEF file INTO the DNG (and similar capability to extract it), so that's another way to archive both, but it makes the DNG files larger. Personally, since the DNG Converter is now in its third revision and I never use the Pentax tools for RAW conversion (which are the only tools that can use the Pentax private, proprietary data in the makernotes metadata), I'm beginning to move over to the notion that I should archive only the DNGs and to heck with the PEFs after I get them out of the camera. But I still linger on the notion that the PEF output is the actual original file that I can always go back to, so I am archiving PEFs as yet and working with DNGs. Godfrey
Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
Thanks, Godfrey ... Very useful information ... Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the original. That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the original file is discarded. What's lost? Nothing, with DNG Converter v3.1 and up. When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and PEF originals) are about the same size, and I see no difference in the results obtained from either format. How is it that the DNG, which is about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when converted? All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files, contain a lot of unnecessary information. Given that the results from a PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the PEF file? A Pentax RAW format file is essentially a Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) file with a Pentax specific data layout. TIFF is simply a container format standard which is generic and broad enough in definition to store all kinds of image data. Rendered RGB files stored in TIFF format follow a widely accepted protocol standard for what the tags and data elements mean in terms of data organization; PEF files use the format but use their own sets of tags to determine the component contents. What's in a PEF file? - All the image and camera metadata (exposure settings, EXIF format data, some image and camera identification data, and a few bits and pieces of other data in proprietary format that Pentax feels they want to stuff in there for present and future use). - The sensor data itself. - At least two JPEG renderings ... the thumbnail used for whole image display on the LCD, a JPEG preview rendering for sure, and (I think) a full resolution, high compression JPEG rendering used on the LCD for when you zoom and scroll around. DNG files also adhere to TIFF format protocol, but DNG is an openly distributed format so all the components have easily discoverable tags and organization. It was conceived of as a modifiable container format so developers can use and modify the contents easily. What does it contain? Well, pretty much the same thing that PEF files contain (metadata, JPEG preview and thumbnail, sensor data). It can also contain an encapsulated PEF file if you turn on that option. Why are DNG files smaller? - Pentax applies no compression to the sensor data. Because the compression is bit-for-bit lossless, no information is lost. - The DNG Converter applies lossless compression and can save up to 30-40% on size. - Pentax JPEG preview files are somewhat large, the DNG Converter produces a better quality JPEG at smaller size. All RAW format files contain some metadata that could be considered unnecessary, but the proportion of such unnecessary data to sensor data content makes that insignificant. They might have 100-500K worth of metadata, the sensor data is much much larger than that. Losslessly compressing the sensor data is the key to their smaller size. Why are PSD and TIFF RGB files the same size when made from PEF and DNG files? Should be obvious now, but basically since the DNG and PEF files contain the same information, the RGB rendering from either will also contain the same information and be the same size when constructed by Photoshop. Is there really a reason to save the PEF file? There are arguments for archiving one, the other or both. Some argument points to DNG being an open standard and therefore having a better chance at 'archival' usability than PEF files (which is true). Some arguments suggest that you can always derive a DNG from a PEF, but cannot do the opposite, so you should save the PEF (logical). DNG Converter includes the ability I mentioned to embed the PEF file INTO the DNG (and similar capability to extract it), so that's another way to archive both, but it makes the DNG files larger. Personally, since the DNG Converter is now in its third revision and I never use the Pentax tools for RAW conversion (which are the only tools that can use the Pentax private, proprietary data in the makernotes metadata), I'm beginning to move over to the notion that I should archive only the DNGs and to heck with the PEFs after I get them out of the camera. But I still linger on the notion that the PEF output is the actual original file that I can always go back to, so I am archiving PEFs as yet and working with DNGs. Godfrey
Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
Thanks John 'tween you and Godfrey I've learned a lot this morning. Time for lunch and to explore some DNG conversion options ;-)) Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: John Francis When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the original. That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the original file is discarded. What's lost? Nothing. The DNG retains *all* the information in the PEF, as long as you select the option to preserve an unmodified copy of the MakerNote tag. Without that you'll lose any metadata that's not in standard EXIF tags. I'm only aware of a couple of examples that most people might care about - a code identifying the actual lens in use (if known), and the cumulative frame count. Mind you, even if you do preserve the information, there isn't any software I know of at present that can display the saved values. When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and PEF originals) are about the same size, and I see no difference in the results obtained from either format. How is it that the DNG, which is about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when converted? DNG has good compression algorithms. As far as the image pixels are concerned, the results should be bit-for-bit identical between conversions from the DNG files and from the original PEFs. All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files, contain a lot of unnecessary information. Given that the results from a PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the PEF file? Given the cheapness of writable media (under 5c per gigabyte), is there really any reason *not* to save the original? While the Pentax software isn't really much good for RAW image conversion, it is the only program that knows how to show the lens description. As it doesn't handle DNGs, your better off saving a file in the format it expects. Once you've saved those archive copies, though, you might as well convert to DNG for working images. I keep promising I'm going to get round to doing that to save space (the size differences for a D are even greater than for a DS). I'd recommend: o Save copies of the files from the camera (PEFs, JPGs, etc.) to backup media immediately after copying to your hard drive (and before deleting the images from your SD cards). I try never to have an image in only one place, except for the unavoidable times after expusure and before downloading. o Convert to DNG (this is a good time to systematically rename files) o Save another copy of everything (to a second hard drive, and to write-once media).
Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
John Francis wrote: o Save copies of the files from the camera (PEFs, JPGs, etc.) to backup media immediately after copying to your hard drive (and before deleting the images from your SD cards). I try never to have an image in only one place, except for the unavoidable times after expusure and before downloading. o Convert to DNG (this is a good time to systematically rename files) o Save another copy of everything (to a second hard drive, and to write-once media). Pretty close to what I do. - transfer PEFs directly from storage card to backup drive 1 - run DNG Converter, put output onto working drive for further processing - update working directories to backup drive 1 every day - update backup drive 1 to backup drive 2 every day - replicate important data projects to DVD-R archives when appropriate I use very useful third-party utility for Mac OS X called ChronoSync which makes the archiving and replication to backup drives easy. It will synchronize a source and destination, and roll files deleted from the source into an archived folder on the destination. Very useful. See http://www.econtechnologies.com/site/Pages/ChronoSync/ chrono_overview.html for details. Godfrey
Re: Just Curious About Converting PEF to DNG
DNG files use some sort of loss less compression. No real data should be lost. Shel Belinkoff wrote: When converting PEF files to DNG, the converted file is roughly 50% of the original. That suggests that some, perhaps a lot, of information in the original file is discarded. What's lost? When working with DNG and PEF files, and converting them to PSD or TIFF files after going through the RAW converter, the file sizes (for DNG and PEF originals) are about the same size, and I see no difference in the results obtained from either format. How is it that the DNG, which is about 1/2 the size of a PEF, and the PEF, yield similar sized files when converted? All this suggests that the PEF, and I suppose other RAW format files, contain a lot of unnecessary information. Given that the results from a PEF and a DNG file are identical, is there really any reason to save the PEF file? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
graywolf wrote: Har! That would be telling. (grin) Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. annsan does 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? I just have to empty it out if I needed to use it - the enlarger and the trays are sitting there, but at the moment it reverted to a closet 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? I DID both at first. Then only BW - then... see below 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. For the nonce, I have , in terms of printing. I still develop BW myself when shooting it. It hurts my back a lot to work in the darkroom and my eyes have a hard time adjusting. But I'm not ready to say I've given it up totally. I miss it. annsan
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
I am almost embarrased to say that I am one of the ones that falls into the never category having never developed my own films in a darkroom. I did purchase all the gear to set one up a few years back, but sold it all again when I found that I was expecting our baby and would need the room as a nursery... tan.
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
No ... just as you won't end up with an exposure of a different contrast by adjusting f-stops and shutter speed in the camera. John Francis wrote: So if I've got my enlarger set up to make a 6x4 print, but then I cut down the intensity of the light (but increase the exposure time accordingly) I'll end up with a print with lower contrast?
RE: Just curious ...
I have not. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 8:20 AM To: PDML Subject:Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
no, but if you take a 35mm slide and enlarge to 40x60, you will. Galen Rowell wrote about this happening to his enlargements in a couple of columns in Outdoor Photographer as a side comment on why he abandoned optical enlargements of his prints. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 1:24 AM Subject: Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...) So if I've got my enlarger set up to make a 6x4 print, but then I cut down the intensity of the light (but increase the exposure time accordingly) I'll end up with a print with lower contrast?
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
On 29 Dec 2003 at 19:13, Herb Chong wrote: no, but if you take a 35mm slide and enlarge to 40x60, you will. Galen Rowell wrote about this happening to his enlargements in a couple of columns in Outdoor Photographer as a side comment on why he abandoned optical enlargements of his prints. The problem is probably due to the fact that the low light output would cause reciprocity failure in the paper. I guess a head with the appropriate light output would solve the problem. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
that was my speculation, but i have no way to test it. i did have the priviledge of walking inside an enlarger once. designed for 8 foot by 20 foot prints. Herb... - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 10:05 PM Subject: Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...) The problem is probably due to the fact that the low light output would cause reciprocity failure in the paper. I guess a head with the appropriate light output would solve the problem.
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? Yes, I use a former kitchen as wet darkroom for developping (only b/w) and printing and an other little room for dry working 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? Both, color only with CIBACHROME printing from KODACHROMES and EKTACHROMES 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. No PC is in the real darkroom Happy New Year to you all Kristian-Heinrich from Black Forrest / Germany - Original Message - From: George Sinos [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:04 PM Subject: Re: Just curious ... Related questions Graywolf asked related questions: Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. the real darkroom
Re: Just curious ...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:38:26 -0800, you wrote: I've used a process camera to shoot a lot of litho line film, which I developed in trays. I've also made contact prints, and also shot PMT paper which transfers to positive using a roller device. But I've never developed BW film shot in a camera smaller than four feet long. A couple of years ago I was frustrated both with the local color enlargements, and with my inkjet options, so I built a closet darkroom in the garage with a nice enlarger and neat Nova slot processor trays. I made a few color prints, but quickly got discouraged. I intended to produce better 8x10 color prints than the local Sam's club, but never actually succeeded in getting reliable, repeatable results. I've still got some darkroom gear, notably the Nova slot processor (a space-saving vertical tray device), plus a very good contact lamp and lamp timer, which I am willing to sell for a reasonable price to a PDMLer, email if interested. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Just curious ...
- Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: Re: Just curious ... Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and which enlarger/ lens combo)? One time when I was a lad, and didn't know better, I taped 4 20 x 24 sheets of paper to a peice of plywood to make 40 X 48 inch print. The film was Panatomic-X, The taking lens was a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, the enlarger was some sort of Omega 6x6 with condensors, and the lens was an EL Nikkor 50mm f/2. I recall that I leaned the plywood against the wall, about 10 feet or so from the enlarger, then adjusted the angles by measuring from the corners of the board to the lens to make sure everything was square. I don't recall the exposure time, but is was very long, I think close to an hour. Anyway, the resulting print was actually pretty good. William Robb
Re: Just curious ...
50 f/2.8 - Original Message - From: William Robb Subject: Re: Just curious ... and the lens was an EL Nikkor 50mm f/2.
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
At 10:40 PM 12/27/2003, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Someone said: Everything is on the computer now. Can't imagine using the real darkroom again. Other than e-bay or a garage sale, what are you guys going with your old darkroom equipment? No, everything is not on the computer now, at least not for everybody. My old darkroom equipment, for example, is used to make silver-based photographic BW prints, which can then be viewed by people who do everything on the computer, and which will cause them wonder and amazement as they look perplexed trying to understand how such a thing can be created without a software, profiles, electronic printing and recording devices, and how it is that the blacks are so black LOL -- Shel - When I said everything is on the computer now I was speaking for the way I do things today. Didn't mean to make a big blanket statement. I've had two permanent darkrooms over the years. I've also had several temporary darkrooms where I had to set everything up and take it down for each session. I just don't get along with the temporary situation. For me, the computer was a godsend. I could do color, I don't have any setup time. And I have way more control than I ever had before. I don't do Black and White much these days. When I do it's more of a duotone or simulated sepia. These seem to lookl fine on the Canon printer. I'm with you, it's hard to get the blacks and the subtle tonal gradations from an inkjet printer, but then I haven't been happy since RC papers took over. I'm encouraged by some of the specialized ink sets, and believe at some point I may begin to experiment with them. On the other hand so many more possibilities have arisen. Yesterday, I made prints from a couple of the nicer holiday snapshots. I put a several of those snapshots on my web site to share with family and friends that are scattered all over the country. And, I made a nice DVD of the same snapshots for my mom, who doesn't have a computer. I did all of this in the time it would have taken to set up and take down my darkroom equipment. So, for me, at least for now, everything is on the computer. See you later, gs www.georgesphotos.net the holiday snapshots were taken with the *istD. Take a look if you'd like. Look for Christmas 2003 in the featured galleries.
Re: Just curious ...
An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendipity? Any chance you have a scan of the image? Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 2:27 AM Subject: Re: Just curious ... One time when I was a lad, and didn't know better, I taped 4 20 x 24 sheets of paper to a peice of plywood to make 40 X 48 inch print. The film was Panatomic-X, The taking lens was a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4, the enlarger was some sort of Omega 6x6 with condensors, and the lens was an EL Nikkor 50mm f/2. I recall that I leaned the plywood against the wall, about 10 feet or so from the enlarger, then adjusted the angles by measuring from the corners of the board to the lens to make sure everything was square. I don't recall the exposure time, but is was very long, I think close to an hour. Anyway, the resulting print was actually pretty good. William Robb
Re: Just curious ...
- Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: Re: Just curious ... An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendipity? Any chance you have a scan of the image? No, it was a gift to the young lady who was the subject of it, and I never did make a print for myself. William Robb
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
Hello Ryan, If I'm understanding you, you are curious to know at what size moving to Medium or Large format is noticeable compared to 35mm film. Before I made the move to Pentax 67, I wondered the same thing. After making the move, and shooting a couple of hundred rolls of MF film, I can tell you that you can see the difference in a 4X5 print. At that small size, the difference you see is mostly a tonal one. The color/tone of the print just seems a bit richer. The point at which sharpness and details start to look better on medium format is probably about at 8X10. You have to keep in mind that MF has inherently less DOF than 35mm so you do have to take that into account. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, December 28, 2003, 3:00:36 AM, you wrote: RL Shel: I think I phrased the question wrongly. I should have added the tag RL 'all other things perfect'. I think the answer I was looking for was more on RL the lines of say, using 35mm Velvia 50 I've done this- big, and RL using Portra 800 around --so-- big using such and such lens on such and RL such enlarger, for such and such display. RL graywolf: I suppose I meant wall mounted in a gallery perhaps (which I RL should have said too). RL The issue I'm thinking about is sort of comparing formats, and trying to RL gauge just around when you'd be (noticeably) better off using a larger RL format. I added the bit about the enlarger/lens combo because it's detail I RL don't normally take into account, and would like to slowly learn more about. RL I understand the multiplicitous nature of the variables which go into the RL production of a picture, and most certainly do not expect a textbook answer- RL just other accounts which might help my own process. RL Rgds, RL Ryan RL PS. I sometimes forget other people aren't psychic and that I actually have RL to outwardly 'publish' my thoughts :-) Maybe more today than any other; RL since yesterday, I've watched about 9 hours of BBC's Coupling. A mate lent RL me a data DVD with 3 seasons on it! 4 more episodes to go- I might save it RL for tomorrow. Beginning to have conversations with Jane in my head.. worse RL still, they make sense! RL - Original Message - RL From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] RL To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] RL Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 3:08 PM RL Subject: Re: Just curious ... That's an unanswerable question in some ways. Far too many variables. However, I have seen exquisite prints made from Tri-X and that Kodak 3200 RL film that were larger than two feet on the short side. Here are some of the variables on the exposure side: Film Developer choice Developing technique and accuracy Camera/Lens combination Alignment and adjustment of camera components Hand held or tripod used Aperture, shutter speed Focusing accuracy Exposure accuracy On the enlarging side we have: Enlarger alignment Enlarging lens negative alignment and flatness Type of enlarging head Stability of enlarger (Wall mounted is good vbg) Focusing accuracy Exposure accuracy On the printing side: Paper choice Developer Time and temperature accuracy I'm sure I've forgotten a few things. You'll note that care and precision RL are the major contributors to sharp prints. Ryan Lee wrote: Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and which enlarger/ lens combo)?
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
Hello Ryan, If I'm understanding you, you are curious to know at what size moving to Medium or Large format is noticeable compared to 35mm film. Before I made the move to Pentax 67, I wondered the same thing. After making the move, and shooting a couple of hundred rolls of MF film, I can tell you that you can see the difference in a 4X5 print. At that small size, the difference you see is mostly a tonal one. I'm not for one moment trying to suggest this isn't true - I've heard the some thing said many times before. I can only assume that this is either because there is some significant difference between the film emulsions sold (under the same names) as 35mm and medium format film, or because the tone of the image changes as you change the enlargement. Any suggestions as to which is the actual reason?
Re[2]: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
Hello John, From what I've observed, it seems a bit more like the balloon concept. Before you blow up a balloon, the color is quite rich and dark. The more air you put in (enlarge), the color gets thinner. I would suspect that the same holds true to some degree with enlarging. Because you are not enlarging the big negative as much, it would appear a bit richer than the small negative. This is just an observation, rather than a known fact. -- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, December 28, 2003, 9:47:14 AM, you wrote: Hello Ryan, If I'm understanding you, you are curious to know at what size moving to Medium or Large format is noticeable compared to 35mm film. Before I made the move to Pentax 67, I wondered the same thing. After making the move, and shooting a couple of hundred rolls of MF film, I can tell you that you can see the difference in a 4X5 print. At that small size, the difference you see is mostly a tonal one. JF I'm not for one moment trying to suggest this isn't true - I've heard JF the some thing said many times before. I can only assume that this is JF either because there is some significant difference between the film JF emulsions sold (under the same names) as 35mm and medium format film, JF or because the tone of the image changes as you change the enlargement. JF Any suggestions as to which is the actual reason?
Re: Just curious ...
40x48 print? One would need a very large scanner to scan that one. ;-) cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] An hour! Yikes.. skipping the test strip + serendipity? Any chance you have a scan of the image? _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
Both, John some med format film is different from their 35mm counterparts, but really, the image quality and tone change with degrees of enlargement. You'd see about the same degradation of quality if a med format neg was enlarged to the same degree as a 35mm neg. A 35mm contact print has beautiful tonality, and by the time it reaches an 8x enlargement that beauty has degraded quite a bit. Make an 8X enlargement from 120 film and you'd see a similar degradation. However, an 8x 120 film enlargement is about 18 inches X whatever, and one doesn't usually see such large prints, and when they are viewed, they're viewed from a distance greater than when viewing an 8x10 print, and the degradation isn't as obvious. Move closer, to 8x10 viewing range, and you'll begin to see the image coming apart just like a print made from a 35mm negative. HTH shel John Francis wrote: I'm not for one moment trying to suggest this isn't true - I've heard the some thing said many times before. I can only assume that this is either because there is some significant difference between the film emulsions sold (under the same names) as 35mm and medium format film, or because the tone of the image changes as you change the enlargement. Any suggestions as to which is the actual reason?
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
Pretty darned good analogy Bruce. Perhaps somewhat more like a photograph, imagine putting an image on the deflated balloon (the balloon being much like the negative in this case) and then blow up the balloon. You'll see the image degrade as the balloon grows in size (like a print would degrade) Now, let's put an image on a partially inflated balloon, and then blow it up further. The image still degrades, but the balloon has to be blown up bigger to get the same degree of degradation you would with the image from the deflated balloon. HTH, Shel Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello John, From what I've observed, it seems a bit more like the balloon concept. Before you blow up a balloon, the color is quite rich and dark. The more air you put in (enlarge), the color gets thinner. I would suspect that the same holds true to some degree with enlarging. Because you are not enlarging the big negative as much, it would appear a bit richer than the small negative. This is just an observation, rather than a known fact.
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
at least half the reason is because there is less enlargement from medium format for a given image size and the film grain isn't as apparent. that is why digital sources can enlarge more than film. digital sensors have far less noise at usual ISO ratings than film of the same size. Herb - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...) I'm not for one moment trying to suggest this isn't true - I've heard the some thing said many times before. I can only assume that this is either because there is some significant difference between the film emulsions sold (under the same names) as 35mm and medium format film, or because the tone of the image changes as you change the enlargement.
Re: Re[2]: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
contrast tends to go down as you enlarge more. you end up compensating. Herb - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 1:48 PM Subject: Re[2]: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...) From what I've observed, it seems a bit more like the balloon concept. Before you blow up a balloon, the color is quite rich and dark. The more air you put in (enlarge), the color gets thinner. I would suspect that the same holds true to some degree with enlarging. Because you are not enlarging the big negative as much, it would appear a bit richer than the small negative. This is just an observation, rather than a known fact.
Re: Just curious ...
Hi, well, now you've put me on the spot! These numbers are useful for predicting how big you can go before you start to lose apparent sharpness, but they depend on what you as the photographer are trying to achieve. That's why they can't be treated as rules. In the end you decide how big you want your prints to be and that's that. Whether they are sharp or not is for the viewers (who include you) to decide for themselves. You probably want the critical parts to look sharp from about 15cm away because people peer closely at exhibition prints, instead of being good and looking from the regulation distance. People also typically want to look at quite large prints, but don't adjust their viewing distance, so you have to consider these human factors, rather than just relying on the numbers - you want it to look sharp from about 15cm away, but you want it blown up to about 60x40cm (24x16). You can't necessarily have both because if you shoot 35mm your CoC's too small. 0.009mm. Sorry. I suppose in theory you could measure some important points and scale them up to see if they would look sharp in a bigger print. More practically you could look at the depth-of-field in an existing proof print, say 15x10cm (6x4) and work out approximately how big you can reasonably go before it starts to look unsharp, or keep zooming in with the enlarger until the critical parts start to look unsharp. There's a nice simple explanation and diagram of CoC here: http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14209/css/14209_37.htm. You need to grasp this to understand depth-of-field, which depends on it. In your example below, you will have reduced depth-of-field in the prints compared to smaller versions, or the same size seen from a different viewing distance. This may or may not be important - only you can decide. At some magnification and distance nothing will look sharp; at others, everything will. 0.036mm is not a number you have to try and conform to, it's just a pragmatically useful reference point used as a constant in optical calcualtions. You probably could conform to it by shooting for a specific size of print, being very careful about your depth-of-field calculation, and controlling the viewing distance, but really this is only likely to be practical (if at all) if you're shooting for billboards or something. -- Cheers, Bob Sunday, December 28, 2003, 2:04:33 PM, you wrote: Thanks Bob. That more or less forced me to relook through old bookmarks which at the time, I looked at, cringed, then consciously decided to revisit sometime in the future :-) I can't say I more than vaguely grasp the concept of CoC. So say I've made an A1 sized print (594x820?) from 35mm- viewing from 1.5m to 2m would (I think) look like: c = (36 * 1500) / (1000 * 594) = 0.091mm. c = (36 * 2000) / (1000 * 594) = 0.121mm Now for the more ignorance-revealing bit: How then would I make use of those figures? Does it mean I need to readjust one of the variables to conform to 0.036mm? Like for 4x5 it'd be closer to 0.1 wouldn't it? Rgds, Ryan
Re: Just curious ...
Hi Bob, You can't necessarily have both because if you shoot 35mm your CoC's too small. Exactly, hence the original query! It's always useful to have other experience to draw from. I think we may have gone off a a bit of a tangent with DOF.. I mean, I know it's related knowledge, but I think I missed a stop somewhere back there and I'm now somewhere else. :-)? :-(? Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2003 9:15 AM Subject: Re: Just curious ... Hi, well, now you've put me on the spot! These numbers are useful for predicting how big you can go before you start to lose apparent sharpness, but they depend on what you as the photographer are trying to achieve. That's why they can't be treated as rules. In the end you decide how big you want your prints to be and that's that. Whether they are sharp or not is for the viewers (who include you) to decide for themselves. You probably want the critical parts to look sharp from about 15cm away because people peer closely at exhibition prints, instead of being good and looking from the regulation distance. People also typically want to look at quite large prints, but don't adjust their viewing distance, so you have to consider these human factors, rather than just relying on the numbers - you want it to look sharp from about 15cm away, but you want it blown up to about 60x40cm (24x16). You can't necessarily have both because if you shoot 35mm your CoC's too small. 0.009mm. Sorry. I suppose in theory you could measure some important points and scale them up to see if they would look sharp in a bigger print. More practically you could look at the depth-of-field in an existing proof print, say 15x10cm (6x4) and work out approximately how big you can reasonably go before it starts to look unsharp, or keep zooming in with the enlarger until the critical parts start to look unsharp. There's a nice simple explanation and diagram of CoC here: http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14209/css/14209_37.htm. You need to grasp this to understand depth-of-field, which depends on it. In your example below, you will have reduced depth-of-field in the prints compared to smaller versions, or the same size seen from a different viewing distance. This may or may not be important - only you can decide. At some magnification and distance nothing will look sharp; at others, everything will. 0.036mm is not a number you have to try and conform to, it's just a pragmatically useful reference point used as a constant in optical calcualtions. You probably could conform to it by shooting for a specific size of print, being very careful about your depth-of-field calculation, and controlling the viewing distance, but really this is only likely to be practical (if at all) if you're shooting for billboards or something. -- Cheers, Bob Sunday, December 28, 2003, 2:04:33 PM, you wrote: Thanks Bob. That more or less forced me to relook through old bookmarks which at the time, I looked at, cringed, then consciously decided to revisit sometime in the future :-) I can't say I more than vaguely grasp the concept of CoC. So say I've made an A1 sized print (594x820?) from 35mm- viewing from 1.5m to 2m would (I think) look like: c = (36 * 1500) / (1000 * 594) = 0.091mm. c = (36 * 2000) / (1000 * 594) = 0.121mm Now for the more ignorance-revealing bit: How then would I make use of those figures? Does it mean I need to readjust one of the variables to conform to 0.036mm? Like for 4x5 it'd be closer to 0.1 wouldn't it? Rgds, Ryan
Re: Format print-size (was Re: Just curious ...)
So if I've got my enlarger set up to make a 6x4 print, but then I cut down the intensity of the light (but increase the exposure time accordingly) I'll end up with a print with lower contrast? Pretty darned good analogy Bruce. Perhaps somewhat more like a photograph, imagine putting an image on the deflated balloon (the balloon being much like the negative in this case) and then blow up the balloon. You'll see the image degrade as the balloon grows in size (like a print would degrade) Now, let's put an image on a partially inflated balloon, and then blow it up further. The image still degrades, but the balloon has to be blown up bigger to get the same degree of degradation you would with the image from the deflated balloon. HTH, Shel Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello John, From what I've observed, it seems a bit more like the balloon concept. Before you blow up a balloon, the color is quite rich and dark. The more air you put in (enlarge), the color gets thinner. I would suspect that the same holds true to some degree with enlarging. Because you are not enlarging the big negative as much, it would appear a bit richer than the small negative. This is just an observation, rather than a known fact.
Re: Just curious ...
Hi! One over here. SB Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a SB darkroom? Are you going to stop talking to me after this? VBG Boris
Re: Just curious ...
No, Boris, I shan't ... Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! One over here. SB Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a SB darkroom? Are you going to stop talking to me after this? VBG Boris
RE: Just curious ...
Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? Me. *hangs head in shame* But I've only been shooting seriously for two years, and I haven't gotten around to taking a darkroom class yet.
RE: Just curious ...
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? Me too sadly, until I joined PDML I had never thought of it either. I've retained many of the posts which have discussed the subject and I have bought a couple of books as well. When the children are a bit older (and I'm happy to keep chemicals about) I'll definitely give it a go. I would really like to have the feeling of control over the whole process from loading the camera to holding the prints. As time goes on and processing companies become more digitally orientated, this knowledge may prove to be invaluable. Malcolm
Re: Just curious ...
Shel Belinkoff asked: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? I have developed black and white film and printed it and I've played with Cibachrome prints from slides (wow did that stuff smell bad). I've never developed ektachrome or color negatives. Tom Reese
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. I still have the stuff stored in the attic but I'm not set up to use it. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? I had a permanent darkroom in my other house and hope to have one again. 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? I did BW develop and print and Cibachrome prints. I never messed with color other than that. I never had the temperature control equipment. 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. Never! Give me a blindfold and a cigarette first! Unless I finally buy a film scanner... Tom Reese
Re: Just curious ...
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? I was going to say Me But then I remembered. I processed a film at school once and made one print. I also processed a roll of slide film using a kit. (Also many years ago!) As to Graywolf's questions 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. I bought some chemicals and tanks and stuff earlier in the year, intending to set up a darkroom in the as yet unfinished basement. Then I got the 10D and ditched the idea of a darkroom. Set up a gaggle of printers instead. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
On 27/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. Yes! 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? Each time I use it. 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? BW only. 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. It's all in a plastic box, been sitting in a dusty corner for over a year now. And to be fair, I only used to process the film. The last time I printed must be about 1978 in my father's darkroom (used for manufacturing processes involving printed circuit boards - I had a corner). Before that it was at art college. It was fun, but I don't miss it one bit. Smelly places and fixer always got into your sandwich no matter how many times you washed your hands. Slow, dark, torrid places. You can tell I'm big on instant gratification ;-) I have a deep admiration for good wet printers - just would rather not myself. I'd been waiting for digital since about 1992. Maybe l when I'm old and haggard (hang on, I *am* old and haggard) I'll want to have another go, after I've shot some sheet film in an ancient wooden plate camera :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: Just curious ... Related questions Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. Does a dozen boxes in the basement with good intentions of doing something with them again count? 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? It will be permanent, after I get it built. 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? I have done both, but I haven't done colour since the RA-4 process killed EP-2. 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. Not yet.. William Robb
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Graywolf asked related questions: Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. I can't believe I actually developed my own transparencies. Thank goodness that urge passed quickly. My darkroom equipment has been packed in boxes for several years. I enjoyed black and white printing, but no longer have the time or space for a darkroom. A few years ago I had the idea that one of my kids may want to use it someday. Can't see that happening these days. Everything is on the computer now. Can't imagine using the real darkroom again. Other than e-bay or a garage sale, what are you guys going with your old darkroom equipment? See you later, gs www.georgesphotos.net
RE: Just curious ... Related questions
1. I do. 2. Permanent. 3. Just BW. 4. Never (I don't think). -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: December 27, 2003 2:50 PM Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital.
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. 1.yes 2.permanent dry set up in a walk in closet 3.BW only I machine print color for a living 4. not yet. However when I set it up I had a MF camera and was hoping that shooting and printing BW would fire my creative juices and have me shoot more. I no longer have a MF camera and it didn't motivate me to shoot more. As I hardly ever use it I may sell it in the spring. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: Just curious ...
Hi, Shel, Sadly, me. :-( Unless you count high school, which I don't think you should, because that was over 30 years ago, and I only did it a few times (hmmm - that sounds like something else - oh never mind... vbg). Seriously, I was in the camera club in high school, and we had a darkroom, so I think I might have developed maybe 2 or 3 rolls, and did up a few prints. Luckily for me, at this time I use a lab that's inexpensive, and does great work for me. At about $6 Canadian for negs alone, I'd be hard pressed to do it cheaper on my own, I think. Contacts are $15Cdn including developing, so that's not bad (I'm talking BW here). But, if I had the room (which I didn't living in a bachelor, and currently don't, sharing a house that's not mine), I would love to set up a darkroom. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Just curious ... Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 08:19:39 -0800 Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Hi, Tom, 1. No 2. See #1 3. If (when) I set one up, it will be for bw 4. Never had one. Even if (when) I go digital, I don't think it'll replace my film bw stuff (but who the hell knows, eh?) cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Just curious ... Related questions Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:49:58 -0500 Har! That would be telling. (grin) Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
: graywolf wrote: Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? Yes, but I have to set it up in the kitchen 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? BW prints, colour slides 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. Surely that would be sacrilege? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...but who the hell knows, eh?... = Canadian linguistic trick for converting any statement into a rhetorical question. It's nifty and quaint, eh? Regards, Bob... They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Got one, and, by your definition, it's permanent. I do BW. I am, however, getting rid of some darkroom gear that I no longer need ... mostly redundant items - you've got an enlarging lens that i sold, for example, and I sold a couple of easels, donated some trays to a school, and might get back down to only one or two enlargers. Recently I thought I'd do very little work in the darkroom from now on, yet today I'm getting ready to straighten things up in there and get ready for some work. And since these things go in spurts for me, the d'room'll probably be getting a lot of use over the next few weeks ... shel graywolf wrote: Har! That would be telling. (grin) Related questions: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital.
Re: Just curious ...
Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? Wish I did. I have been dreaming to have my own darkroom for something like 10 years now, but never had the place nor the will to actually commit to it. I have been frustrated by poor lab prints for years and eventually shoot anything serious with slides. Since then, making my own prints make no sense. And now, the digital era has started... Yours regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
graywolf wrote: 1. who on the list currently has a darkroom. Don't have my own, but I have access to a fairly well-equipped one, with enlargers for BW up to 4x5, and a dichro head on one of the 35mm enlargers. My friend Bob keeps threatening to frame out a darkroom in his basement, and I've already drawn up floorplans for him for that... Living in an apartment set up like mine is, I'm lucky enough to have storage space for all the cameras and film and paper and supplies. 2. is it a permanent darkroom, or do you have to set it up each time you use it? Permanent, dedicated space. 3. do you do BW, or color, or both? For my own processing, I mostly do BW. I have done non-digital color printing, RA-4 process, using a Beseler processing machine, but never C41 or E6 film development. I've always paid someone else to do that. I've found color printing to be far more painstaking and frustrating than BW, but sometimes the result is worth it. 4. who besides TV has junked their darkroom for digital. I've actually gone in the opposite direction... and I think I'll stick with a wet darkroom for prints that really matter, until I get a digital camera, since scanning is such a PITA for me (that darn ADD again...) -Mat
Re: Just curious ...
And that means? Alan Chan wrote: Since then, making my own prints make no sense. And now, the digital era has started...
Re: Just curious ...
Because Actually, my curiosity was piqued by a comment made during a discussion of BW imaging made on the Photoshop list. The commentator suggested that those who have never made their own BW prints might be at a disadvantage when it comes to creating BW images in the digital workflow. That got me to thinking about the good folks on this list, and, partially to generate a little discussion wrt darkrooms and film, and partially to learn who has experience with darkroom work so I can put some of their comments into perspective if need be or so desired, I posed the question. Doug Brewer wrote: On Saturday, December 27, 2003, at 11:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom? Why?
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
Someone said: Everything is on the computer now. Can't imagine using the real darkroom again. Other than e-bay or a garage sale, what are you guys going with your old darkroom equipment? No, everything is not on the computer now, at least not for everybody. My old darkroom equipment, for example, is used to make silver-based photographic BW prints, which can then be viewed by people who do everything on the computer, and which will cause them wonder and amazement as they look perplexed trying to understand how such a thing can be created without a software, profiles, electronic printing and recording devices, and how it is that the blacks are so black LOL
Re: Just curious ...
Spent some time making some b/w prints, and framed one of my earliest attempts because one day I know I'll look back and see all the flaws in it that I don't see today- viva nostalgia.. (discovered framing cost more than I ever imagined it did too), but I haven't developed my own film yet (something wrong with my timeline). Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and which enlarger/ lens combo)? Rgds, Ryan - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 2:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?
Re: Just curious ... Related questions
And there's the pure enjoyment of the darkroom. With one's favorite music playing in the background, the image emerges under the developer bath. Drop it in the stop bath, then in the fix, and wait anxiously for that moment when the lights can be turned on. There's a lot of magic in the process, and a lot of beauty in the finished print. As of yet, it can't be duplicated on the computer. And, at the moment, I'm making prints on my computer. But these are two different things, and both of them are good. My enlarger lenses are as prized as my camera lenses and for the same reasons. It's all part of the game of making pictures. Paul On Dec 27, 2003, at 9:42 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Someone said: Everything is on the computer now. Can't imagine using the real darkroom again. Other than e-bay or a garage sale, what are you guys going with your old darkroom equipment? No, everything is not on the computer now, at least not for everybody. My old darkroom equipment, for example, is used to make silver-based photographic BW prints, which can then be viewed by people who do everything on the computer, and which will cause them wonder and amazement as they look perplexed trying to understand how such a thing can be created without a software, profiles, electronic printing and recording devices, and how it is that the blacks are so black LOL
Re: Just curious ...
i haven't. and now that i'm digital, i don't plan on. arnie - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?
Re: Just curious ...
i started in jr high in my father's darkroom, complete wet/dry and some no-name enlarger. did only BW because of cost of the hardware. experimented a lot with standard developers, push processing, and types of paper. read a lot about developer formulations but didn't try any of them. at college, i used the Art faculty's student access darkroom and did a lot of newpaper/yearbook type of photography for the campus papers. learned a lot about the printing process of turning images into printed pages. i did Cibrachromes of some of my slides, but never any slide processing. E-6 was new at the time and E-4 was too fussy for me to bother. left college and haven't done any since. i had a minor desire to try again about 10 years ago but didn't want to deal with the chemicals. i never liked that part of darkroom work. now, i farm out any slide processing to a professional lab. i sometimes shoot print film if the client insists on prints and negatives, but mostly i turn these down. i seriously started selling my images when people began to see them via word of mouth pointing to my web site. i have pictures from specific locations that aren't normally found in stock photo libraries. the vast majority of the images that started this were from digital sources. worked on a couple of books where my images made up a fair portion of the photos, but these are volunteer activities. it's time for a reprint for one of them and i need to update the text with various corrections. went 'round and 'round with the publisher trying to figure out a way to print the book in color without breaking the bank, but couldn't bring the costs down enough. there is a full Pagemaker layout of the book with the photos in color on a CD somewhere. it would cost about $50 to print a single copy on my Epson 1280 printer. Herb - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 11:19 AM Subject: Just curious ... Who on this list has never developed their own film and made prints in a darkroom?
Re: Just curious ...
Depends. How do you define sharp? You can do billboards with 35mm and they will look sharp. But if you mean putting your nose up against it sharp, probably 5x7. From 2 feet or so maybe 16x. That assumes medium speed film, with something like Techpan you can go bigger. These are pretty much grain limitations, you can get sharp grain with huge blowups. Good technique is more important than equipment, any decent lens and enlarger will give about the same results. -- Ryan Lee wrote: Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and which enlarger/ lens combo)? -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Just curious ...
That's an unanswerable question in some ways. Far too many variables. However, I have seen exquisite prints made from Tri-X and that Kodak 3200 film that were larger than two feet on the short side. Here are some of the variables on the exposure side: Film Developer choice Developing technique and accuracy Camera/Lens combination Alignment and adjustment of camera components Hand held or tripod used Aperture, shutter speed Focusing accuracy Exposure accuracy On the enlarging side we have: Enlarger alignment Enlarging lens negative alignment and flatness Type of enlarging head Stability of enlarger (Wall mounted is good vbg) Focusing accuracy Exposure accuracy On the printing side: Paper choice Developer Time and temperature accuracy I'm sure I've forgotten a few things. You'll note that care and precision are the major contributors to sharp prints. Ryan Lee wrote: Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and which enlarger/ lens combo)?
RE: Just curious ... Related questions
-Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone said: Everything is on the computer now. Can't imagine using the real darkroom again. Other than e-bay or a garage sale, what are you guys going with your old darkroom equipment? No, everything is not on the computer now, at least not for everybody. My old darkroom equipment, for example, is used to make silver-based photographic BW prints, Just for the record, I get silver-based photographic b/w prints from digital. tv
