================================================================================
FAQ or Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Section 36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please check "root" (faq$txt) file for acknowledgements.
This is a file containing answers, tips, hints and guidelines associated
with recurring questions asked by photographers. If you would like to
add a tidbit of knowledge to this list just send it to ANDPPH@rit.edu
who will gladly add it to this collection. For complete table of content
send message to ritphoto@rit.edu with FAQ$txt in the Subject: line
These files are available in SECTIONS.
This is Section 36 and its contents are listed below.
36.01 -< How do Filters and Variable Contrast papers work? >-
36.02 -< Partial Stop Push/Pull Small Batch processing times >-
36.03 -< Memorable Photographs and Photographers - partial list >-
36.04 -< Photographing a total solar eclipse >-
36.05 -< Photo Mailer (envelopes to mail photos in) Supplier >-
36.06 -< Minox film supplier >-
36.07 -< Two comments on Pricing Weddings >-
36.08 -< Basics of Unsharp Masking - what it is and how to do it >-
36.09 -< Reversal Procesing of B&W Infrared Film for Speed and Slides>-
36.10 -< Pellicle mirrors in fast motor drive cameras - disadvantages? >-
36.11 -< Setting up a basic B&W darkroom with color possibility >-
================================================================================
Note 36.01 -< How do Filters and Variable Contrast papers work? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> When using variable contrast paper do the filters on the enlarger only
> increase the contrast or do some of them decrease it as well. At what point
> do you choose to change the contrast of the negative. Do you first roughly
> establish the f-stop and time needed to expose the paper and then try and
> change the contrast to your liking?
Variable Contrast papers have two (or more) emulsions. A high contrast
emulsion that is sensitive to blue light and a low contrast emulsion that is
sensitive to green light. When exposed to white light, both emulsions get
the same exposure, resulting in an image equivalent to approximately grade 2
paper. The multigrade filter set has yellow and magenta filters. The lower
grades are yellow and when used block the blue light in the white source.
This causes the green sensitive (low contrast) emulsion to get greater
exposure and lowers the contrast of the print. When the magenta filters are
used the green light is blocked for the opposite effect. The intensity of
the filter determines how much is blocked and therefore you can get grades
from 0 to 5 from multigrade paper. Parenthetically, results may differ from
one enlarger to the next depending on the ratio of blue & green in the
"white" light source.
I print my contact sheets on multigrade paper without a filter and then based
on my examination of the negative and the contact sheet decide what filter to
use as a starting point. Once I have a test print I decide if the grade is
proper. If you are not sure, start with #2 and get the best print you can
get. Then decide if you need more or less contrast. As your printing skills
improve you can get into more esoteric stuff like burning in with a different
grade filter than the rest of the print.
Rich Lubitz (lubitz@alpha.fdu.edu)
================================================================================
Note 36.02 -< Partial Stop Push/Pull Small Batch processing times >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>What would be the times to achieve partial stop push/pull results when
>processing E-6 films?
S/B E-6 push/pull - Kodak gives time for 1, 2 and 3 stop push/pull.
1 stop push (1 stop underexposed)...+ 2 min/or adjust temp +8 deg F
2 stop push (2 " " )...+ 5 min/or adjust temp +12 deg F
3 stop push (3 " " )...+10 min/or adjust temp +16 deg F
1 stop pull (1 stop overexposed )...- 2 min/or adjust temp -6 deg F
2 stop pull (2 " " )...- 3 min/or adjust temp -13 deg F
I have not (as yet) had to try for a 1/3 stop change. I would imagine that you
sould try some experimentation to come within 1/3 stop variation in film
speed/exposure using a control strip and densitometer to evaluate degree of
success.
Ken, SINCLAIR@ABRSLE.AGR.CA
..............................................................................
We process our E6 on a Jobo ATL 2. The times shouldn't vary between an
automatic or hand process. It's a function of adjusting for film emulsions,
camera differences and personal preference. We use the following times for
all E6:
+3 stops - 16:15 min.
+2 - 11:15
+1-1/2 - 10:45
+1 - 8:15
+3/4 - 7:45
+2/3 - 7:35
+1/2 - 7:15
+1/3 - 6:55
+1/4 - 6:45
Normal - 6:15*
-1/4 - 5:45
-1/3 - 5:35
-1/2 - 5:15
-2/3 - 4:55
-3/4 - 4:45
-1 - 4:15
-1-1/4 - 4:05
-1-1/2 - 3:45
-2 - 3:15
Watch for colour shifts in any variance from normal process times. Pushing
has a tendency to add yellow. We use Kodak's 1gal. E6 kits, mixing 5 kits
at a time. They've shown to be the most stable for shelf life, giving us a
good month before any shifts start happening. Trust that this gets you on
your way.
Steve Grimes, grimes@serix.com, Grimes Photography Inc.
127 Albert Street, London ON Canada N6A 1L9
================================================================================
Note 36.03 -< Memorable Photographs and Photographers - partial list >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M E M O R A B L E I M A G E S
the "short" list!
Mark Murray asked: "Our state photography teachers association is updating a
multiple choice test that we use as one of our on-site contests for high
school students at our state conference. We were talking about some possible
additions to the test and the idea came up that we include some images that we
thought students ought to recognize - both the image and the photographer who
took it.
We have started a list, with such images as:
Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother
Yousuf Karsh's Winston Churchill
Weegee's The Critic
Adams' Moonrise
Joe Rosenthal's Iwo Jima
I realize the list is almost endless, but if you could identify 10 specific
images that you think high school photography students should recognize
(whether art, advertising or photojournalism), what would they be?"
..............................................................................
Eisenstaedt, VJ Day
A Weston pepper
and something by Cartier-Bresson
Eddie Adams' shot (no pun) of the execution of the Viet Cong officer
Anything by William Wegman with Man or Fay Wray
Roy,
...............................................................................
Ansel Adams...Moonrise
Eisenstaedt...Sailor kissing a nurse(Don't know the real title)
Robert Capa...D-day
W. Eugene Smith...Spanish Village
Haas...Tulips
and the photograph of the death camp survivers.
P.F. Clemente, Imagepoint Photography, Imagepoint@eworld.com
................................................................................
I'd like to add Eisenstadt's absolutely riveting picture of Josef Goebbels
(1936?) and the Walker Evans shot in Pennsylvania through a graveyard, over
workmens houses toward a steel mill.
Ed Lukacs, eml@gate.net
............................................................................
Some of the photographers you should include (several at least of who should
be represented by at least 2 or 3 pictures):
Hill & Adamson
P H Emerson
Bill Brandt
Eugene Atget
August Sander
Edward Muybridge
Henri Cartier Bresson
Andre Kertesz
Robert Capa
Then there are a few US (or adopted US) photographers you might care to
include, such as:
Robert Frank
Edward Weston
Lewis Hine
Paul Strand
Alfred Steiglitz
Diane Arbus
Walker Evans
Lee Friedlander
Gary Winogrand
Gene Smith
Peter, petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk
..........................................................................
"What are all these children laughing at" Bill Brandt
"Ellen Terry" Julia Margaret Cameron
"Pepper No. 30" Edward Weston
"Sleepy day of August" Y.M Kumagawa
"Saut Dans Le Vide" Yves Klein/Harry Shunk
"Stockholm" Laszlo Moholy-Nagy
"Bibi au Restaurant d'Eden Roc" Jacques Henri Lartigue
"Front Street Portland, Oregon" Minor White
"East 100th Street" Bruce Davidson
Any thing (not a title) by John Heartfield
I could go on and on Wyn Bullock, Robert Adams, Cindy Sherman, Helmut Newton,
Joel peter Witkin, not forgetting "Old Ansell"
Graeme Webb, graeme@zone5.demon.co.uk
...............................................................................
milk splash by Harold Doc Edgerton
the critic by Weegee
10,000 soldiers (+/-) panoramic "cirkut" pix by E.O. Goldbeck
Running Horses and such by Muybridge
Death of a Spaniard by Capa
war pictures by Duncan
Churchill by Karsh
Marilyn Monroe by Eisenstaedt
1st picture on moon by Armstrong (actually who took it?)
fashion photographers Avedon
Andy Davidhazy, andpph@rit.edu
........................................................................
Edward Weston's Pepper
John Kennedy Jr. saluting his father's casket
Gene Smith, Minimata
Marilyn Monroe with her dress flying
Any Civil War photo (Gardner & O'Sullivan)
The photos of Hiroshima after the bomb
The Kent State Shooting photo
The Vietnam photo of the girl running with Agent Orange burns
Man on the Moon and Earth from the Moon
NASA Hubble photos of Comet smashing into Jupiter
Muybridge's motion studies (particularly horse studies)
Stieglitz's Steerage photo
Arbus' twins photo
Margaret Bourke White's Louisville Flood and Buchenwald photos
Anything from Robert Frank's The Americans
Anything by Lartigue, Atget, Brassai, Friedlander, Lewis Hine, Man Ray,
Robert Capa, William Klein, Lisette Model, Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans.
Substitute any photo of the American West by Timothy O'Sullivan or Carleton
Watkins or William Henry Jackson for Moonrise.
K. G. Zaboroskie, kgz@aol.com
............................................................................
A Daguerreotype
A Brady Print
An Edward Muybridge...take your pick
"The Steerage", Alfred Stieglitz...or one of his O'Keeffes
"Migrant Mother", Dorothea Lange
Margret Bourke-White
"The American Way of Life"
Man Ray
Rosanne Stutts, rosanne@csranet.com
.......................................................................
I frankly think that some of the pictures listed by Graeme Webb are not
"iconic" enough to be on the list of ten which the original request seemed to
imply--some are a little too obscure and simply have not been reproduced
enough to warrant instant recognition by high school students. Some of the
other suggestions by other folks also were not specific enough. "Anything"
by Robert Frank or John Heartfield wouldn't quite fill the bill. I believe
the most frequently reproduced Robert Frank image would have to be the cover
picture from "The Americans." Also, "East 100th Street" by Bruce Davidson
isn't specific, as that's a whole exhibition and book, not just a single
image. As important as Friedlander and Winogrand are, I can't think of an
individual image by either of them that I would expect someone at the high
school level to recognize instantly. I would suggest that the single most
memorable and most frequently reproduced photograph of all time would have to
be the Lincoln portrait translated into an engraving for the five-dollar
bill! Talk about the "currency" of a photograph!
David Haberstich, DavidH5994@aol.com
...........................................................................
For high school students.... shooters, or historians? Photo or photographer?
1. Walk into Paradise Garden
2. Moonrise over Hernandez NM
3. Lartigue's brother (cousin?) leaning into airplane backwash
4. Rothstein's Dustbowl
5. Wynn Bullock's Child in Forest
6. Capa: Death of a Spanish Nationalist
7. Brady's Lincoln
8. Nadar's Mime
9. River Scene, France
10. Pepper #35
For a contest... Could they, for example tell if "Satiric Dancer" was Kertesz
or Brassai? How about "La Mome Bijoux"? Distinguish between Walker Evans or
Dorothea Lange? (Not surprised there's little ad or fashion stuff represented
-- it's DESIGNED to be disposable)
Jeez, I just realized, NO COLOR!
(How about Paul Fusco's couple peering over a car door, then?
Or Hiro's jeweled hoof?)
Kevin Bjorke, Space Ranger, bjorke@pixar.com
.........................................................................
The suggestions on this topic have been conservative and expected. I couldn't
help thinking over and over about the target audience (today's teenagers) and
what would be memorable images for them. This is somewhat off target but in
response to my musing I come up with items like:
ET and company flying bicycles into the sky.
Pamela Anderson looking wistfully out over the ocean.
Jaba the Hut (spelling) with Princes Leah in chains.
Darth Vader with light saber.
Michael Jackson dancing.
Fire at Waco compound.
etc.
This raises questions about comparing still images with moving images. I
suspect the memorable "images" that are burned into the pysche's of today's
teenagers are movie and TV clips.
As for that conservative list, let me add:
Assasination of Oswald.
Planting American flag on moon.
The Challenger explosion.
As I continued to scan the messages on this topic I noticed that someone called
to the group's attention the lack of images from the commercial advertising
industry. This suggestion was made with the implication that such images were
not present as they are not worthy.
I agree they are generally less worthy, but they may not be less important. I
submit that a collection of all the memorable images offerred by this group,
when placed on a scale that measures only weight and not value, would fail to
shift the balance against just one image drawn from commercial advertising. I
give you: The Energizer Bunny.
Joe Angert, St. Louis Community College, <0007372155@mcimail.com>
........................................................................
I would like to add to this list the following:
Niepce (sp?)'s first photo image
One of Avedon's Coal Miner Images
Mary Ellen Mark's portrait of the young female runaway in Seattle
(her name is Tiny?)
Cartier-Bresson's shot of a huge hole in a rock wall (assuming having
been done by a mortar shell) with children playing
about.
In reiteration of other posts, let me also vote for:
One of Weston's peppers
An early Wegman, of Man Ray the dog
Chico Seay, cseay@TUblue.pa.utulsa.edu (Chico Seay)
================================================================================
Note 36.04 -< Photographing a total solar eclipse >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>There will be a full eclipse of the sun in Thailand on Oct 24. I want to take
>eclipse photographs but I'm not prepared. As I know the aperture must be kept
>constant and the shutter speed changed while taking picture. Before totality
>a ND 400 filter is required. What material can I use as ND filter ?
You can still make a test for the uneclipsed pictures by simply photographing
the full disc of the sun this week. Your statement about using f11 (probably
with 100 speed film) and a ND 4.0 filter is reasonable IMO and you'll probably
be using a shutter speed of something like 1/500 second.
Note that the ND filter is 4.0 and not 400 - 4.0 means that 1/10,000 of the
light falling on the filter makes it through BUT BEWARE OF THE Infrared that
gets through in much larger and invisible quantities ... if you get a
photographic quality gelatin ND filter DO NOT use this filter to look at the
sun with ... use itONLY in front of camera lens and then looking at image on
camera viewfinder is generally safe. When totality happens the filter is
removed from the lens.
Negative film is more forgiving in terms of exposure but you can't beat the
brilliance of a transparency in terms separating the fiery red prominences
from the corona and reproducing the pearly white outer corona which is visible
and should be evident in the pictures receiving fuller exposures.
>Is a 300 mm lens too small for this?
No. A 300mm lens will give you an image of the sun which is about 3mm on the
film or about 1/10 the size of any full frame enlargement made from the film.
In fact interesting photographs of the partial stages of the eclipse can be
made with much shorter lenses. For example you could use a 50mm lens and then
take several photographs on the same frame (with multiple exposure) showing the
several stages in the approach and receding stages at either side of a frame
showing the full eclipse. Pictures like this are common but in spite of the
fact that I've seen two eclipses I don't have one (and it is one I dearly would
like to have made!)
>For instance Before full eclips, using f11 meter light by camera meter and
>speed is 1/125. I must do a compensate using 1/125, 1/60, 1/30 , 1/250, 1/500
>and 1/1000, is this right?
I don't think that bracketing during the partial stages does anything other
than waste good film. If you wanted to assemble a "series" or make a flipbook
or such I would spend the film on making many exposures rather than bracketing
wildly. Making a test beforehand (as suggested above) would still be a good
thing to do to reduce the need for bracketing.
>When eclips is full, take off ND filter, use f11 and take photo with all
>shutter speed, is this right? Any more suggestion would be appreciate,
Well, I think that exposures in the 1/250 - 1/1000 second area are really too
short during totality. You will probably want to bracket from 1/60 second to
about a second or so. Due to the small size of the sun it will be impractical
to make a light meter reading either during partial or total stages. Exposure
times beyond 1 second may exhibit significant blur due to rotation of earth. I
would suggest you open up a stop or two if you are trying to get an extended
picture of the corona.
You may have difficulty getting a ND 4.0 filter in your location. There are
Mylar filters that will probably be sold in your area to view the partial
stages. If I recall correctly these can be also used for photography. BTW ...
use a good tripod and tape the lens barrel so that you don't change the
position of the lens from infinity focus.
finally ... here is a wish that you have a nice clear sky!
andy, andpph@rit.edu
================================================================================
Note 36.05 -< Photo Mailer Supplier >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Does anyone have a good supplier for heavy cardstock mailers for photos? I
>need some in 5x7 and 8x10 sizes for mailing photos to customers safely. I'm
>tired of stuffing cardboard in manila envelopes.
I get mine from Calumet Carton Co., 16920 State St., P.O. Box 405, South
Holland, IL 60473. Phone: 708-333-6521. Ask for their catalog. You can
order by phone, they ship UPS, and you have 'em in a couple of days.
They're great! Hope this helps.
Michael Tappin Northeastern Illinois University
umtappin@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu 5500 N. St. Louis Ave., Chicago, Illinois 60625
================================================================================
Note 36.06 -< Minox film supplier >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Minox lab and the service station is: Minox USA, 250 Meachem Ave.,
Elmont, NY 11003, 516 437-5750.
This is the only factory approved and authorized processing lab in the U.S.
Any dealer can order film from us and supply you with it or you can buy it
from the lab. They also sell processing mailers.
Bob Salomon, HP Marketing Corp., Giottos, Gepe, Heliopan, Kaiser
Fototechnik, Linhof, Minox, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Rollei, Silvestri
================================================================================
Note 36.07 -< Two comments on Pricing Weddings >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I'm just curious about some wedding pricing. Our photographer was telling me
>that he only made about $50 dollars profit on our wedding. Does this sound
>right? He took about 200 to 250 pictures. Our package included: 1 11x14, 8
>8x10, 7 5x7, 10 wallets and 100 4x5 proofs in padded album. We paid about $800
>for this package. This just doesn't seem right to me.
Basis of my information is that I have done wedding photogaphy since 1984 in
both 35mm and medium format (6x6). I have worked all levels of the market.
I am going to have to make some assumptions, since you have not given complete
information. The 4x5 as a proof size indicates that the origination format was
6x4.5 cm, the smallest of the medium formats. Had the pictures been 3.5 x 5 or
4x6, that would indicate 35mm format. The original posting went on to say that
the photographer in question was part time, however that doesn't mean a full
time photographer is always better. Professionalism - and lack thereof - know
no bounds.
Format makes only a slight difference in cost of enlargments - some labs
actually charge more for prints from 35mm than they do from medium format!
So, on to the estimate of costs this photographer probably faced:
Film: 240 shots/(30 sh/roll in 6x4.5) = 8 rolls @ $7 = $56
Proofing: 240 shots @ .70 (pro lab) = $168
Enlargments: 10 + 8x4 + 7x2 + 5 = $61
Album: Spiral bound, celluloid page type = $25
Misc. Expense: Batteries, car travel, shipping t/f lab = $35
Total Direct Expense = $345, say $350
There are also indirect, or overhead expenses that are part of any business
operation, whether or not the proprietor or client recognizes them. These
include phone, business liability and equipment insurance, office supplies,
equipment repair and maintenance, and advertising. I assume the photographer
under discussion here works from his house and has no office rent expense. He
may or may not be in a pro association. Assuming he does 15-30 wedding jobs
per year, his overhead is probably running at about 70% so his total costs on
the job are $245, say $250.
So his real cost of doing this job, per my estimate, is probably around $600.
If he does far fewer jobs per year his per job or has a lot tied up in
expensive equipment, than his overhead cost may be up to $400 per job, which
could conceivably make his so-called profit = $50. If he shot 35mm instead of
medium format, the only saving would be the per shot cost of the film and
possible less amoritzed equipment expense.
So we know he made between $50 and $200 on this job. Consider the time to do
it: 2 hours for booking the job and planning the shoot, 3 hours for charging
batteries and preparing equipment, 7 hours on location for photographing the
event, and an additional 8 hours for working with the lab, filing negs,
assembling the proof book, and meeting with client; total time estimate is 20
hours. Realize that no bridal album design is in this job; such would add
another 10 hours of work. So, he grossed between $2.50 and $10 per hour.
>We went through a lot of hassle with this guy. He even threatened to not give
>us our pictures because he claims he ran into one of our friends who told him
>the pictures stank.
Not a pleasant experience for a photographer, but still, no excuse. How did
this friend get to see the pictures before you - the client? If he had held
them back, you'd have the basis for a lawsuit, probably in Small Claims Court.
>He was very unorganized. I had to sort through the proofs for 4 hours when
>we decided which ones we wanted because he had no ordering system. We still
>don't have our pictures after 2 months.
Wedding labs take a few weeks to turn orders around. They do more with the
pictures than do consumer labs. The more sizes there are in an order, the
longer the time takes. It is not unusual to have a 4-8 week photographer
turnaround for enlargements and 10-16 week production time for albums. Much of
the time is due to the fact that the studio doensn't drop all other work to do
your thing. However, I do not condone the lack of organization and sloppiness
of this one in question.
>Maybe I'm wrong and this is just how it works. It just doesn't make sense
>that someone would go through all the hassle for a lousy 50 bucks.
Chances are, he earned more that 50, but not a whole lot more (see above
calculations). What would your job attitude be if your pay were set equal to
that level?
>PS: This wasn't a professional studio, just someone who does photography "on
>the side."
I very strongly agree that the studio as described, based on statements and
actions, was very unprofessional in its conduct. Unfortunately, the original
poster said nothing about how the pictures looked and how the photographer
behaved at the wedding - both are VERY IMPORTANT considerations. Whether the
phtographer is full or part time has nothing to do with the problems discussed.
Two failings occured in this account. (1) The photographer has succumbed to
serious price competition and has let the low per/hour take affect his
attitude. IMHO, it is wrong to accept a job and have a nasty attitude; better
off raising prices and being courteous to clients and their guests. (2) This
probably looked like a good deal, pricewise, to the people who booked the
photographer. I think they put too much priority on price, or for some other
reason, did not fully check out this guy's past performace.
/|/| /||)|/ /~ /\| |\|)[~|)/~ | Everyone's entitled to MY opinion.
/ | |/ ||\|\ \_|\/|_|/|)[_|\\_| | goldberg@oasys.dt.navy.mil
========Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein=======
..............................................................................
>So what *is/are* the *average* price for a standard size 8x10 wedding print
>with and without touching up any blemishes, etc.? I use mainly the machine
>prints without touch ups and charge about 1/2 the price that most pros in
>town charge. At the pro lab that I go to, they have the option of pro machine
>prints and custom prints (the custom prints of course costs about 3 times that
>of the pro machine prints). Do the "pro" wedding photographers normally do the
>"custom" prints (which includes dodging, etc. but no touch ups) for their
>standard prints or are the pro machine prints sufficient? Also, with regards
>to touch-ups, do most wedding photographers have all the prints touched-up?
>or does the client have to specifically request it and pay extra for it?
The retail price charged varies from market to market and from photographer to
photographer. In general, you should ensure that you mark up your work a
*minimum* of 200%, with 300% to 400% or more being realistic. If you are
selling your wedding packages at 1/2 of what "most professionals in town
charge", then you are probably undervaluing your work.
Contact your local Better Business Bureau or Chamber of Commerce and find out
what the average wedding package costs in your area. You will find
photographers who charge three or four times the average, but you should try to
price your services so that your average sale is *at least* at the average.
I look at "low end shooters" kind of like a chef who pees in his stew.
Eventually, no one else wants to eat out of the pot, but what is he left with?
A boiling kettle of piss.
Remember that as soon as you charge people to photograph their wedding (or
their baby, or their family, or their highschool kid) you *are* one of the
professionals in town. You are also in business, whether you like it or not,
and have an obligation to conform to your state or provinces tax regulations.
You also have an obligation to conform your work to contemporary professional
practices.
If you are serious about selling your work, my recommendation is to
*immediately* contact your local chapter of the Professional Photographers of
Canada. You can find the chapter by calling any of the photographers listed in
the Yellow Pages, especially those with letters behind their names like "M.
Photog." or "CPP". Join your local chapter and, as you become established, the
Professional Photographers of British Columbia.
Don't try to build a business "on the cheap". If you don't already have one,
invest in a good, professional-quality, rollfilm camera. It doesn't have to be
a Hasselblad with six lenses, an old Rollei or Mamiya C330 will work just as
well. It is impossible or *very* expensive to have negative retouching done
on 35mm originals. On the other hand, most professional color labs have
retouching services available for a nominal charge. My lab charges $6US per
negative to correct for zits, eyebags, glasses glare, etc. _on the negative_.
Find a good professional lab close enough that you can drive to it. Ask about
portrait package services as well as autoprinting. A professional lab offers a
range of services that no minilab can provide, including negative retouching,
lacquer spraying, dry mounting, canvas tranfers, transvue proofing, etc. A
good lab will save your skin every time, but expect to pay 10% to 30% more than
you will at a minilab.
As for your specific questions, most wedding albums are produced using auto
prints. Each print should be finished, however, with a spray lacquer,
especially if the album, like Art Leather and Renaisance, has open pages. The
lacquer protects the prints against finger prints, water spills, etc.
Custom printing services are typically reserved for special cases like
competition prints, "premium" portrait services, or to fix a screw up. Again,
it varies from photographer to photographer. People like Monte Zuker retouch
each negative, before the customer ever sees a paper proof, but Monte offers a
*very* high-end premium service at a premium price. Most of us don't have
that luxury.
With practice, as you learn the craft, you will learn to use things like
vignetters and diffusion filters that give you the appearance (edge burning,
montages, etc.) of a "custom" print directly from a negative. It is *always*
preferable to create special effects in the camera. This ensures that no
matter who prints that negative, or when that negative is printed, the effect
*you* desired is always rendered.
My own policy on retouching is flexible. My wedding price list indicates a
$10 per negative charge for retouching, but in practice I will voluntarily have
a limited number of negatives fixed, especially if it's to correct glasses
glare or a shadow on the face. If the bride wants to have 40 negatives
retouched because she had a zit on her wedding day, well, that's another
story. It has never happened to me.
For portraits, I include the retouching with any display sized print 8x10 or
larger, but charge $10 extra per negative for smaller prints. I simply don't
have enough profit margin on the small prints to eat the retouching charge.
I learned about my profit margin, by the way, the hard way from a highschool
girl with a bad complexion who ordered 16 5x7 prints, all from different
negatives. Her order grossed around $400US, but my lab charges were almost
$300, with almost $100 *just in negative retouching*. This was an isolated
case, but I changed my policy almost immediately afterwards. Fool me once,
shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Of course, if the smaller prints are made from the same negative as a display
print, the retouching is included at no charge. The nice thing about negative
retouching is that once it is done, *all* prints made from that negative are
corrected.
Hope this helps.
-fred
From: fcollins@gonix.com (Fred Collins)
Organization: The Light Fantastic Fine Photography
================================================================================
Note 36.08 -< Basics of Unsharp Masking - what it is and how to do it >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Being somewhat of a novice to Photography, i am quite unfamilar with what
> technique you are referring to. What is being done using this technique and
> what is the desired outcome? Please e-mail me if you have the time. Also:
Unsharp masking for black an white negatives "is a method of reducing overall
contrast (or density range) of a negative so that it can be printed on a
higher contrast paper. Because the mask is unsharp, the DETAILS RETAIN LOTS
OF CONTRAST! That's the really neat part that I have never found another way
to achieve besides dodging and burning (let me add that I am just beginning
to try out the technique).
To explain the summarize the process, I will assume a glossary...
mask - a negative specifically designed to be set on top of another negative
during the print exposure.
unsharp - "out of focus", "soft", etc.
density range - the difference in units of density between the thinnest part
of a negative and the thickest part
gamma - slope at any given point of a curve (function) plotted of density as
a function of exposure
So, given these terms:
The technique involves measuring the density range of the negative you want to
print, deciding what the optimum range should be, to print on the paper that
you are interested in, and then the creation of a mask. The mask is created
by exposing B&W film while it is in "contact" with the negative that you are
interested in printing. The reason "contact" is in quotes is because in order
to make the mask unsharp, a clear piece of plastic of predetermined thickness
is inserted between the negative and the masking material. Once the exposure
is made, the mask is developed according to -plan- (i.e. the planned density
range for the mask) and then it is available to use during printing. To print
the "corrected" negative / mask combination, the sandwich is placed into the
enlarger, and exposed.
The results are that since the mask is "unsharp", the details retain the gamma
(local contrast) of the original negative, but the large areas take on the
contrast of the sandwich of mask and negative. The degree of unsharpness will
also cause some interesting "edge effects" between light and dark areas,
actually making them appear sharper.
-hal kraft- kraft@dt.wdc.com
..............................................................................
Basic Instructions for Making Unsharp Masks
CHEMISTRY: SET UP 7 TRAYS. The first two are for developer, the third for
water, fifth is a rinse sixth hypo clear and ths seventh for washing.
DEVELOPER: Use HC110, mix 1-3 with water then dilute this solution 1-9 for one
tray and 1-15 for another. You should end up with 1/2 inch of solution in each
tray. Temperature of all solution should be 68 degrees F.
Exposure Approx 2 footcandles of light at film. (Suggested exposure with
Chromega Head @ 60 cm from film use f/8 for 3 secs.)
Description of film/glass/diffusion placement for exposure
Glass **********
original ++++++++ (emulsion up)
Diffusion material $$$$$$$$ (emulsion up)
Masking Film &&&&&&&& (emulsion up)
surfaces must be spotless!!
PROCESSING: Process two sheets (exposed the same) one in each of the trays of
developer. This gives you two differant contrasts. Fix and wash as you would
normal BxW film.
Do not use heat to dry film as this could cause slight skrinkage ,making it
difficult to register the film. Keep your wet time to a minium by using hypo
clear. This will keep your grain to a minimum.
REGISTER THE MASK: I use a loupe, light table, silver tape and a little
patience. Diagram:
Glass ++++++++
mask &&&&&&& (emulsion up)
original ######### (emulsion down)
Glass ++++++++
A more complete discription can be found in Exploring Color Photography by
Robert Hirsch. I would also like to thank Scott Vlaun of Santa Fe for his
premission to post this info to the Photforum List.
Shaun, Camera Graphics Photolab, ALbq NM 87106, CDrisc9308@aol.com
================================================================================
Note 36.09 -< Reversal Procesing of B&W Infrared Film for Speed and Slides>-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>For the IR-freaks: In the German magazine Foto & Labor 4/95 (July/August)
>there was an article about _reversal processing_ of Kodak High Speed IR film
>resulting in a slide film with 1600 ASA! YES, _SIXTEEN HUNDRED_ ASA, without
>any losses in the IR and highlights characteristics! The author of the article
>used a selfmade equivalent of the Kodak reversal process D-67.
Since other persons have convinced me to send them a summary of the article,
it is only fair that I send it in this list also:
Since most of you probably can't read German, the original article (copy or
back issue) would not help you much. You might first try to run the origina
lD-67 Kodak reversal process 'by the book'. If that fails, you can use the
following translation, but be warned: I have no technical/chemical
German/English dictionary, so there might be errors in it! You might want to
use the Kodak manual anyway, to understand my poor translation better. If
there are strange things in my list, please tell! And if things work out ok:
promise to send me a note! I am very curious! (I have no darkroom experience,
I am still looking for someone who will perform this process for me....;-))
D-67 homemade *equivalent*
First developer D-67
distilled water 250 ml
Metol 1 g
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 45 g
Hydroquinone 4 g
Sodium Carbonate (anhydrous) 23 g
Potassiuom Bromide 2.5 g
Potassium Kaliumrhodanid solvent (50%) 2.5 ml
Potassium Iodide solvent (1%) 2.5 ml
Bleach R-9
distilled water 980 ml
Potassium Dichromate 9.5 g
Sulfuric acid (98%) 20 ml
Clearing Bath (CB-1)
Distilled water 1000 ml
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 90 g
Second Developer - any vigorous developer like Dektol, Neutol, Eukobrom Fixer
any ordinary Film fixer
TIMING (all in minutes, at 24 degrees C)
first developer 12
stop 3
bleach 3
rinse 3
clear 5
rinse and 2nd exposure 3-5 (continuous agitation under water, while exposing
film to intense light is recommended)
second developer 4
stop 1
fix 3
final wash 10
Total time 47-49 minutes
From: Willem-Jan Markerink
================================================================================
Note 36.10 -< Pellicle mirrors in fast motor drive cameras - disadvantages? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Re: pellicle mirrors built into cameras capable of 10 frames per second it
>seems few mention mention light loss. It seems obvious that if light is
>diverted away from the film, i.e. to the viewfinder, your exposure has to be
>compensated with a wider aperture or slower shutter speed as the film is
>receiving less light. The question: 1) is this in fact true and 2) how do
>people feel about the advantages over the disadvantages?
This was essentially one of the major reasons that the first SLR camera to
sport a pellicle mirror failed in the marketplace. The Canon Pellix. This and
the fact that photo purists panned the presence of a mirror between the lens
and the film plane as a cause of less then optimum sharpness photographs.
The current situation is a bit different. Today many cameras have inherently
long time delay between activation and actual picture making ... or as Norman
Goldberg (I believe ... or maybe it was Bennet Sherman) called it they suffer
from extreme "time parallax". So having a fast-acting camera around is handy.
To get 10 fps and higher the presence of a flopping mirror is a hindrance to
high framing rates. So the pellicle alternative is one worth looking into. You
are obviously not going to be using long exposure times or shooting in dimly
lit interiors if you are going to exploit the 10 fps and higher framing rate
range. To get this you may just choose to give up on the light transmission
potential of the optical system.
Maybe a camera system could be designed that would give you a top framing rate
of let's say 5 fps with the mirror flopping but which could be set to mirror
lock-up position and in which case the camera then might be capable of 15
frames per second ... at the expense of through-the-lens viewing and focusing.
You'd track your subject through a separate optical finder much like a
rangefinder camera does. Something has to give.
andy, andpph@rit.edu
================================================================================
Note 36.11 -< Setting up a basic B&W darkroom with color possibility >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Is there such a thing as a simple darkroom? I'm in college (still living at
>home and i want to set up a simple darkroom. How can i go about doing this?
>Please be as specific as possible and remember i'm still new to all this.
>I now that there will be chemicals, enlargers etc, but what are the bare bone
>essentials to develop 35mm film and make 3x5 and 4x7 prints?
You can put together a simple darkroom very frugally. First you need a dark
room! Bathrooms will do, but I prefer cellars, as you can print during daytime.
Find a cheap 35mm enlarger such a s a BOGEN. You can find these at yard sales
for as little as 20 dollars. You will need an enlarging lens and negative
holder, but these should come with the enlarger. For Black & white you need a
red or yellow-orange safety light. Try the red fireball types which screw into
a regular light socket
It helps to get a timer to make your exposures accurate, get a nice old
fashioned Gray-Lab which is built like a tank and can be used to time film
also. You will need trays to process paper. Get liquid chemicals as they are
simpler & safer to mix. You can get trays pretty cheap from the photo store or
yard sales.
For washing I would locate a used Kodak Tray Siphon or one which can convert a
sink. For drying just use a clothes line and pins. When you move up to fiber
make drying screens from the hardware store.
That's it! If you want to spend money, spend it on a good enlarging lens.
Russ Rosener
.............................................................................
A simple darkroom can be set up anywhere that light can be excluded. If you
limit yourself to 35mm then the enlarger is much less expensive. Often you can
find the equipment in the want ads when someone who set up a darkroom has
either moved on to bigger and better or lost interest. Although running water
in the darkroom is helpful, it is not absolutely necessary. A tray can be used
to keep prints in to be carried to the running water. For film processing, a
changing bag is all the darkroom necessary, the rest can be done at the
kitchen sink. Kodak has a pamphlet about setting up a darkroom. I think it is
a freebee. try http://www.kodak.com
Rich Lubitz (lubitz@alpha.fdu.edu)
...............................................................................
Ok...here is a pretty bare bones list. I would recommend you check your
library to see if there aren't some books on the topic to give you some better
ideas about the process and what is needed.
For film:
Developing Tank (approximately $25 new)
Bottle cap opener (to pop the top off of the film canisters)
Scissors
film clips (Clothes pins will work here)
Thermometer
Timer (Your watch should work.)
Chemicals: Developer, Stop Bath, Fixer (Assuming Black-and-White)
Bottles for chemistry (Plastic liter pop bottles work OK if washed,
re-labeled, and stored so noone might mistake them
for bottles of pop.)
For the prints: (In addition to what you need for the film)
Safelight
Easel (or something to hold the paper on the enlarger stand - tape?)
Enlarger (lens, negative holder) {Approximately $200}
Trays (Pretty much any non-metal tray should work)
Print tongs (about $3 for bamboo tongs)
Printing Paper
Chemicals: Paper developer
Bottles for Chemistry
Most any room will work at night with just a dark cloth over the windows for
printing, but you need total darkness for loading the film into the developing
tank.
>Find a cheap 35mm enlarger such a s a BOGEN. You can find these at yard sales
>for as little as 20 dollars. You will need an enlarging lens and negative
>holder, but these should come with the enlarger.
I agree, but don't compromise too much here or you will be dissapointed. I
believe that Omega makes a beginners enlarger that sells new for around $200
that should be OK. Used would certainly be the way to go though. Just make
sure it is sturdy, and has good optics.
Just use your watch or a kitchen timer and Trays aren't that expensive, but
most anything non-metal should work here.
As for liquid vs. dry chemicals ) I think that there is a lot of personal
preference in this. Powders are not hard to mix. Liquids might be safer to mix
due to less dust.
Just wash your prints in the sink. Open the drain a bit at the bottom to let
the fixer drain, and keep a stream of fresh water flowing.
For drying just lay the prints on pieces of paper towels.
Wayde Allen,
..............................................................................
Speaking of reasonable used enlargers, try to get the Omega A2 35mm or the
great little F 30 made by Durst. The Durst is excellent because the film
carrier and lens housing can be tilted to 90 degrees for making huge
enlargements. Invest in a good lens -- like a Nikkor for it -- and you have a
lifetime+ system at very little cost.
The Omega A2 came with a fine compact Wollensak lens that still gives me
service for my personal B&W work. The Omega is a condenser type that produces
very good contrast while the Durst is more diffuse in effect, but for that it
minimizes negative imperfections. Both enlargers are rugged. The Omega is
very precise. The Durst is convenient and versatile. Both take B&W and color
filters. Both are compact and easy to store.
I've seen Time-O-Lite timers at yard sales. These are indestructible and
electrically time exposures with absolute consistency. No digital timer can
compare with them for hands-on response. Even if they've been neglected on
the outside, the action inside is almost indestructable. They're industrial
grade instruments and are still being made, I think. They're built like
tanks.
As for easels, my favorites turned out to be metal Sped-e-zels for the basic
size prints: 3-1/2 x 5, 4 x 5, 4 x 6, 5 x 7, 8 x 10. They're reasonable and
are still available. Low cost adjustable easels, like the Bogen, are great
for fancier compositions.
If you use Kodak RC papers, fixing and drying are very fast. A simple rack
(used for dishes) will do the drying job up to 5 x 7.
Safelights are still very low in cost. Kodak made splendid little plastic
dome units that used C 7 clear lamps. One is all I ever needed. It easily lit
an 8' x 10' room.
Now, with the availability of cheap individually switched electrical outlet
power centers for computer use, it's easy to operate all units from one
convenient location. The illuminated rocker switches may be a problem, tho.
A 12" paper trimmer will also be helpful. I've seen these at yard sales from
time to time. Avoid any trimmer that has plastic in its construction.
I hope the above will be of some help.
BR, From: Afterswift@aol.com
.............................................................................
Re: a print washer, I have used the old Rubbermaid, or similar, dish washing
tray for years with great success. But one thing, drill about a half dozen 1/4
inch holes along the bottom of one "end" (NOT the bottom itself) so the fixer
can drain, too. Fixer, I believe, is heavier than water.
Can't use the tray for draining crankcase oil anymore with the holes, but you
can't have a fire on a boat. Wait...... Oh! Now I remember,,,,,,, "You can't
have your kayak and heat it, too".
John Thompson, Canton, Ohio
..............................................................................
I simply cannot resist commenting. I remember from my begiinner days years ago
that far less than this was actually necessary. Developing Tank (approximately
$25 new) but Film can be processed in a tray and a pyrex baking dish is what I
used from Mom's kitchen
To pop the top off of the film canisters I have used screwdrivers and even
teeth for this. Even an old nail will do
Use Clothes pins instead of film clips they will work here, they do
beautifully! Thermometer is as necessary as breathing and it should be fairly
accurate. It does not need to be a laboratory type.
Timer ... your watch should work. (The inventors of Kodachrome film used violin
music for a timer.
Safelight ... Total darkness works. Is anyone old enough to remember VELITE
paper processed in subdued room light?
Easel... The easel I use to this day is two 1X2 pieces of wood nailed together
to form a right angle and stapeled to a piece of matt board to which the
correct paper dimensions have been drawn. I have bought many easels through the
years, but none I likes as wll as my homemade easel.
Enlarger ... use piece of glass for contact frame?!?
Print tongs ... B/W photochemistry will not bother most people. I have used
fingers all my 54 years of life.
Use these things and, in your simple darkroom you can be like me: a simple
darkroom worker! :-)
Charles Knight, wi5s@mail.startext.net
..............................................................................
There are a lot of books that are very cheap (under $10) that will not only give
you a guide to developing/printing, but also give you everything you need to s
tart a darkroom, and also suggestions on how to physically construct it & ideal
locations for all the things you'll need.
The Kodak Guide to B&W printing is a good example. Its a thin booklet, very inf
ormative, and about $8.00
...........................................................................
>one more thing: How is B&W different from color in the processing and
>darkroom area? I know that B&W is easier (i think) than color but what is the
>real differance?
Many books have been written on this. First, temperature control is a whole lot
more critical, there are four things to deal with, the exposure and then the
individual exposure of each of the three emulsion layers. Then there is the
processing. It is all more difficult. With color, to have consistent and
repeatable results and yet not expend an amount of time that only a dedicated
hobbyist would spend, some form of automated processing, though not absolutely
essential, is so desirable as to be almost so. Yes, it's harder, but it is also
much more rewarding. As far as processing color slides is concerned, it is only
a little more difficult, but the temperatire control will need to be within
about a half a defree F. I know the books call for closer, but 1/2 degree will
bget you starteed with good results. In fact, even one degree is okay for the
first few rolls, but you won't be happy with that in the long run. By the way,
temp control to that degree is ONLY impotant in the developer. In the other
steps the process essentially goes to completion and can vary by much more than
the books say. Of course, when you get colder, you have to leave it in a bit
longer, but then I am not writing a book. When you are a beginner, you will be
surprised how far you can deviate from the spec sheet and get good results.
After you have done a few rolls, your standards naturally grow higher and what
once satisfied, no longer does. Color is incredibly rewarding, though. I
remember once that I had a friend who worked for Kodak many years ago. He
"stole" some used developers and I processed several rolls of Kodachrome in a
small tank. The results were surprisingly good for the poor equipment I had. I
would not want to repeat the experience, but then I am glad I did it that one
time. It makes all other color processes look like Sunday school!
Charles Knight, wi5s@mail.startext.net
=========================== end of section 36 ==============================
PhotoForum (Internet)
by the way ... if you want to subscribe to the PhotoForum list for photo and
imaging educators, students and others interested in the topics that might be
discussed by such a group you can do so by sending mail to:
listserv@listserver.isc.rit.edu
with this text in the BODY of the mail:
subscribe photoforum your-name-here
where it says your-name-here substitute your real name and then send message.
Also, there are a number of articles available from this server. Get to them
at the following URL: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/articles.html
For info on a global databank of schools offering photography instruction go
to: http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/database.html
FTP: You can also obtain most of these files also by Anonymous FTP from
vmsftp.rit.edu under pub/ritphoto/photoforum
WWW: You can access the PhotoForum Home Page on the WWW at the this address:
http://www.rit.edu/photoforum
|
![[PhotoForum logo]](http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/pf-logo.jpg){kind=logo}