[pinhole-discussion] ilford
In a message dated 9/8/2002 9:16:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kelca...@aol.com writes: what kind or brand of developer, stop bath, and fixer I should use in order to get the best results with ilford paper? I've had really good results in my home darkroom with Ilford Multigrade Developer, Ilfostop Odorless Stop Bath, and Rapid Fixer. Since my 'darkroom' also doubles as my hall bathroom, I didn't want the mess and fuss of trying to mix powdered chemicals. All of the ones that I've named may be a bit more expensive, but to me, the added convenience is definitely worth it (and Ilford's suggested time on the Rapid Fix for fiber paper at 1+4 dilution is just a minute, which means that I can be extremely productive in the darkroom in a short amount of time). M BIllingslea
Re: [pinhole-discussion] c-41 film
I've used C-41 process black and white film for 35mm (mainly for street photography and informal portrait work). Although I have a roll of 120 slated for use in my Zero multiformat pinhole camera, I haven't had a chance to try it out yet. That being said, I've tried Ilford's XP2, Kodak's Portra BW, and some really cheap Kodak BW film that I got at a drugstore. Of the three, I really prefer the Ilford film. The cheap BW film simply did not have enough contrast to print well (even at grade 4), was excessively grainy for enlargements of any size, and the film base was extremely thin. The Kodak Portra BW film was better, although the prints that I made from it were on the soft side. The Ilford film, though, printed well with just normal printing (grade 2- 2 1/2) and tolerated englargements up to 8x10 without noticeable grain. My experience is that it also has a fairly wide exposure latitude - it was very forgiving on a couple of shots I inadvertently overexposed by more than 3 stops, and it also tolerates changes in rating (the film is rated by Ilford at 400, but I've rated it at 250 with good results). All three films, by the way, were processed by the same vendor. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has had experience with the film after correcting for reciprocity failure. My only concern about using C-41 is that it doesn't have quite the same lifespan as regular film. However, while I don't think that I am going to give up my 'traditional' film (Ilford Delta 100 and 400) in favor of a C-41 process film, I can definitely see situations in which its use would be an advantage. It's nice to know that one is available that will work well. M Billingslea
Re: [pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity
In a message dated 7/21/2002 1:16:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ragowar...@btinternet.com writes: 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. Thanks for the formula! Just so that I can be sure that I understand, does the '.91x' mean that you multiply x by .91? And I am assuming correctly that ^1.51 is means 'to the 1.51 power'? Could you perhaps give an example, say, using the following: If my meter says that the exposure is f11 at 1/125, then the exposure scale for my camera says that approximate exposure is 3 sec. What would be the final exposure calculation, taking into account reciprocity? Does this formula work for Ilford Delta 100 or 400? M Billingslea
[pinhole-discussion] HP5, Delta films and reciprocity
OK, 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 normally use Delta 400, but occasionally use HP5 and Delta 100. I process in Ilfotec DDX (although I also occasionally use Ilfosol). Anyone out there with experience with these films? My camera is the Zero Image multiformat (which is at f235). Thanks! M Billingslea
Re: [pinhole-discussion] United States airline screening and film
I had a flight last September (shortly after 9-11), and found it easiest to run the (unloaded) cameras in their bag through the x-ray, but to ask them to hand-check the film. They weren't happy about it - they tried to tell me that their x-ray machines were safe for any film speeds up to greater than 400, but I insisted (very politely, I might add), so they went ahead and complied. They might tell you that the machines are safe, but you just never know. It's better not to take the chance. You may want to take all of your film out of the boxes and out of the plastic canisters - you can put the rolls into a clear plastic zip-lock bag. It won't hurt your film (you probably aren't travelling with infrared, now, are you?) and the guys at the security checkpoint may be more inclined to hand-check if they don't have to take too much time to do it. Alternatively, they do sell what are being billed as x-ray proof film bags - I've seen them at my local camera shop, but haven't tried one yet. M Billingslea
Re: [pinhole-discussion] oh Diana, If I could only love you the way others do!
In a message dated 12/7/01 1:16:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, ben...@qwest.net writes: Well, I paid $35 for my Diana, just to see what the fuss was about... And the only two pictures I've so far had in a show were taken with it. Go figure Well, I paid around fifteen bucks for a Holga, have taken lots of pictures with it, and the ones that end up in juried shows outnumber my other work about 2 to 1. I guess there's a lesson in there somewhere, but who knows . . . ;-) Maggie
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Film Holders and Zero Image 4x5
In a message dated 12/5/2001 9:18:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, aschm...@warwick.net writes: but what do you do when it's raining... 8o) Hey, developing and printing, of course! ;-) Maggie
Re: [pinhole-discussion] Film Holders and Zero Image 4x5
(snip) The Zero 4x5 is a beauty and it has to be the most simple 4x5 pinhole/zoneplate camera to use on the market. With its clever system of extension frames, you can increase the focal length from 25mm to whatever length you wish, in increments of 25mm. Sort of like having a zoom on your 4x5 camera! What is at issue then for users is how familiar they are with large-format film and film holders. Yes, I've been really impressed with what I've read about the Zero Image 4x5. That's why I've asked for one for Christmas. That's also why I don't want to build my own at this point - I really like the fact that it is a flexible system (not to mention the lack of time - I'd rather be out shooting than building a camera!) However, back to my original question - I mainly work in medium format, and some 35mm. While I understand the concept of cut sheet film, and the whole idea of a film holder, and darkslides, and loading it in darkness, I am still unsure as to the best type of film holder to use with this particular camera. I've seen tons and tons of them on Ebay, ranging in price from 5 bucks on up to much much more . . . and with (as is usual with stuff on Ebay) a wide variety of quality and age. What should I be looking for? Is there any particular make that would be better than any other? Also keep in mind that, just like many of us, I am on a budget - while it's not a very tight budget, I certainly don't want to be spending a hundred bucks if I can get away with much less. So. . . any specific suggestions? Especially of the non-Polaroid type? Maggie
[pinhole-discussion] film holder?
I am asking for a Zero Image 4 x 5 pinhole camera for Christmas - and I know that I'll need a film holder for it. My experience up until this point has been 35mm and medium format, and I don't have much knowledge of large format, so . . . Any suggestions on the best type of film holder to get? I've seen new ones on the vendor sites, and used ones of various makes and age on E-bay. There also appears to be a wide range of cost associated with these holders. Suggestions on what to look for? Preferences? Maggie
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 116 vs 616 film?
In a message dated 11/13/2001 10:21:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, geme...@hotmail.com writes: I do not think eather 116 or 616 film is made; only 120 today. Actually, it is still available through specialty film mail-order companies. It's pricey, though. Maggie
Re: [pinhole-discussion] 127 film?
In a message dated 11/8/2001 1:50:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, james...@aol.com writes: You bought a filmless classic. The 127 film was discontinued by Kodak in the mid-90s. It took 8 pictures with a negative tha gave a wallet sized contact print it could also take 12 square pictures again the dimensions I do not recall. It fell out of favor due to the 126 film cartridge. Actually, 127 film is available from a company in New York called Film for Classics. They have a webpage at http://www.photomall.com/ffc1.htm, and although the film's not exactly cheap, at least it is available in bw and ektachrome. Maggie
