================================================================================
FAQ or Answers to Frequently Asked Questions Section 39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 39 and its contents are listed below.
39.01 -< Recommendation on Photo Journalism schools? >-
39.02 -< Brief description of Panoramic camera systems >-
39.03 -< Photographing of a whole train using a Cirkut camera >-
39.04 -< Where to catch romantic moods in Paris >-
39.05 -< How do you make good pictures of reluctant models? >-
39.06 -< Is digital imaging art? Can it be art? >-
39.07 -< Comments on Electronic/Digital wedding/portrait proofs >-
39.08 -< How do focal length doublers/triplers work? >-
39.09 -< Developing film in sheet film tanks >-
39.10 -< Making reticulation and grain happen >-
39.11 -< Who makes 3D prints from Nimslo or Nishika negs? >-
39.12 -< Home made print washer instructions >-
39.13 -< Making positive B&W slides from B&W negatives >-
39.14 -< What is a good place to have light meters repaired? >-
39.15 -< 35mm film without perforations >-
=============================================================================
39.01 -< Recommendation on Photo Journalism schools? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Can you tell me which universities have a good PhotoJournalism program?
I heard that the University of AZ. has a good program. That's where i'm
planning on attending ... (rest of post edited out for brevity)
From: ejones@primenet.com
..............................................................................
The University of Missouri - Columbia has one of the best photojournalism
programs in th U.S. It's more than being a good "shooter", you learn to write
also.
From: caldwell@MO.NET
..............................................................................
You might try East Texas State, Commerce Tx 75428
From: CDrisc9308@aol.com
..............................................................................
There are probably many but among the most "visible" I believe the University
of Missouri is right up there. I hope I have it right since it seems to me
that they sponsor the annual Pictures of the Year competition along with
sponsorship by most major camera and film manufacturers.
From: Andrew Davidhazy, andpph@rit.edu
..............................................................................
Also take a look at western KY University. They have had several students
who won the student POY competition in recent years. Its a good program.
Less expensive than Columbia.
From: tillman@midcoast.com (Tillman Crane)
..............................................................................
Indiana University has a very fine journalism program (or at least it did
back in the early 80's when I was at IU. Good Luck.
From: PScudder@aol.com
..............................................................................
San Francisco State has an excellent reputation, as does U of Missouri.
From: Jmbirong@aol.com
=============================================================================
39.02 -< Brief description of Panoramic camera systems >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I would like to take panoramic scenic pictures for its "wide screen" visual
>impact, and am thinking about getting such a camera. My questions are:
>1) what have been your experience with 120 size panoramic cameras?
>2) which width do you prefer: 6x12, 6x17, 6x??
>3) are cameras with interchangeable lens preferred over fixed focal length
>4) is the ability to focus and shift preferred over fixed.
>5) ......
There are at least 5 different types of panoramic cameras.
1) Conventional - Fixed lens - fixed film. Use any lens on any camera. Kodak
stretch, 6x12, 6x17, 8”x20”, etc. all work the same. They crop a long and
skinny portion from the image circle of the lens. The maxim angle of view is
determined by the size of the masked area and the angle of view of the lens.
You can get the exact same results by shooting with a regular camera, having
standard prints made, and cutting the prints to the long and skinny format.
2) Segmented Panoram - 360 degree+ field of views are possible. Use any
camera with any lens. A series of prints taken with any camera that are
mounted next to each other or combined (as with Apple’s Quick time VR) to
show an extended field of view. I shoot segmented panorams with a 70mm lens
on my Nikon. This camera is mounted on my “panorama tripod head” in the
vertical position. I turn the head 15 degrees between shots. I then have 4x6
prints made at the local 1 hour lab. When mounted next to each other the
resulting panoram is over five feet long! An other neat trick is to set the
camera horizontally and turn the camera clockwise. The resulting film strip
show the 360 degree+ field of view in one continuos strip with only the
spaces between the frames missing. Using this method you can get negatives
that are 35mm by 5 and a half feet long.
3) Swing lens - The film is held in a curved plane. The lens is not
interchangable. The image is wiped on the film as the lens is turned. These
cameras typically show a 140 to 150 degree field of view. The commercially
produced 35mm versions produce a negative that is 2.25 inches wide. Most
commercially produced 120mm roll film cameras produce a negative that is five
inches wide. Noblex sells one model that produces a 7 inch long negative.
4) Rotational - Many rotational cameras have interchangable lenses. The
camera turns in a circle and the film is moved through the camera at the came
time. These cameras produce negatives of any field of view, Some
photographers may use then to take 90 degree photos of groups, others shoot
360 degree+. The formats for commercially produced cameras range from 35mm x
9.25 inches for the Roundshot to 16 inches by 20 feet for Cirkuts. Lars
Larsen developed the design for making a home built rotational camera from an
old 120 folding camera using a wide angle lens from a 35mm camera. These
cameras shoot negatives of excellent quality from a camera that you can build
from spare and obsolete parts.
5) Moving Film Panorams - Fixed camera and lens - moving film. The most
popular use for this type of camera is the old horse race photo finish
camera. The camera is stationary. The film moves through the camera at a
speed that is equal to the movement of the image. These are great for
photographing race cars, bicycle races, foot races, etc., any where that a
traveling object will be moving through a predictable area at a predictable
speed. These photos can be identified by having a streaked background without
any detail what so ever. The format is the width of the film by the length of
the stock. 100 foot long photos are just as easy to take as shorter one
From: IAPPprez@aol.com
=============================================================================
39.03 -< Photographing of a whole train using a Cirkut camera >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>How does one set-up and use a Cirkut camera to make "linear strip photographs"
>of a passing train resulting in a long photograph presumably showing the train
>from engine to caboose including several acrs in between.
You first need to calibrate the camera to determine how fast the film moves
through it using a particular gear and a particular fan or at a particular
voltage if using a powered model.
I suspect you only need to do this with one "average" gear or setting knowing
that you can easily double or halve the film speed by proper changes in the
gearing or voltage ... fan may be less predicatable.
Anyway, after devising a method for holding the camera (it need only be the
motorized back if using a camera with separate back and front components) off
the pivot, load with film (scrap) and operate at chosen (or various) settings.
To determine the rate at which the film moves in the camera you can proceed
various ways. One is to reach in through the slot from the front and with a
marker place a mark onto the passing film and let's say 10 seconds later, place
another, and so on. Eventually you then look at the film and measure the
distance between marks (this will change slightly since the take-up drum
diameter changes as film builds up on it). From this then you can figure out
the amount of film that passes by in 10 seconds and thus also on a per second
basis:
Film Rate of Motion ("/sec) = amount film between marks/10 seconds
Or, if you have an indicator visible that tells you that the take up drum has
made a revolution, you simply need to time how long it takes the drum to make
one (or more) full turn. Then, estimating the diamter of the take-up drum and
multiplying time 3.14 you get its circumference and thus determine that the
average rate of film motion throught he camera is:
Film Rate of Motion ("/sec) = Circumference of Drum/time for 1 drum turn
Let's say for the sake of argument that the film moves at 1 inch per second.
Now if you have an exposure slot (measure it!) that is about 1/4 inch wide it
would deliver an exposure time of 1/4 second. This is determined from:
Exposure time in seconds = slot size/rate of film motion
Now eventually you will be taking the camera out to make your photograph.
Assuming that the train will be moving at 10 miles per hour, you'd best
translate this to feet/sec by mutiplying mph times 1.5 (rough conversion).
So, in this case the subject is moving 15 feet per second.
The moving image of the train's image at the slot is controlled by
Magnification but in our case Reduction is a more appropriate term. That is,
the image moves as many times slower than the real train as the size of the
real train is compared to the size of the image of the train on your
groundglass. (Measured in a vertical direction, of course)
So, if you are using a given lens and the image of a train's feature which in
reality is 10 feet tall gets reproduced at your groundglass as a distance of
about 1" it means you are talking about a reduction of about 120 times thus:
Reduction = Subject size/Image size in this case 10 feet or 120"/1" = 120x
Another way to approxinmately determine Reduction is this (using same units):
Reduction = Distance from lens to train/focal length of camera lens
OK, now what to do. Well, since the train will be traveling at 15 feet per
second, this is 15x12 or 180 inches per second. At the distance you happen to
be at this will therefore will give an _image_ speed of the train which is:
Train Image Rate of Motion = Real Train Rate divided by Reduction
or, in this case: Image Rate = 180"/sec divided by 120 = 1.5 inches/sec
But you know that with the particular gearing or whatever you have, the camera
moves the film at 1" per second which is too slow. You have several options
now.
1. You can find/determine what kind of gearing adjustment you need to make to
make the film move faster ... smaller fan, higher voltage or appropriate
adjustment in gearing. This will also reduce the exposure time since that will
now be 1/4 inch divided by 1.5 inches/sec. or about 1/6th second.
2. You can change the focal length of the camera's lens to one which is 2/3 the
original focal length. This will make the image of the train a bit smaller (in
fact reduce its size to 66% original) Since reduction is greater than before
the image moves slower. To figure out the factor by which you need to multiply
the focal length of the lens you have on the camera to determine the focal
length of the new lens you do this:
New Focal Length = Old Focal Length x Available Film Rate/Given Image Rate
From this you can see that if the film rate you "have" is equal to the image
rate you "have", then the lens focal length you "have" is just the right focal
length. Otherwise you take the focal length you have and "adjust" it as shown
above.
3. You could also simply change the position of the camera and move it father
away (in this case). The new distance should be 1.5 times further away from
the train than the distance that the camera was from the train at the time you
determined the rate of its image motion. Essentially this has the same effect
as changing the focal length and you make the image smaller and thus it moves
slower as well.
New Camera Position=Old Camera Position x Available Film Rate/Given Film Rate
One other item of importance is that you should make sure the train is moving
from right to left in front of the camera as I believe inside the camera the
film moves from left to right. The optics reverses image motion and thus both
the image of the moving train and the film willl be in the same direction.
Now you just load your camera, adjust the aperture for ambient conditions and
film speed and wait for train to approach. As it gets close to the location on
the track that the slot on your camera is aimed at you star 'er up and wait for
the film to run out and then you process it and exclaim: WOW!
hope this helps, make sure to not hesitate if any part of these instructions
is not clear, etc. I look forward to hearing of a complete success story!
Andy, andpph@rit.edu
=============================================================================
39.04 -< Catching romantic moods in Paris >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I have planed to spend one week vacation in Paris in the second week of June.
>My intention is to take pictures relating the "romantic aspects" of Paris
>life in order to prepare a photo exhibition on my return. Since I don't know
>the town, I really would appreciate any suggestion, expecially on which
>places are more indicated under the "romantic aspect".
Finding romantic images in Paris won't be a problem. Basically, anything along
the Seine will be good for a photo. Lovers, people walking hand and hand, all
the cliche Paris in Spring kind of photos. One place I would suggest visiting,
if not not for romantic pictures but beautiful ones would be Monet's gardens at
Giverney. If you have access to models, you could probably create some
beautiful romantic images there.
Sharon, NY Institute of Photography, nyi@soho.ios.com
............................................................................
In addition to the Seine and where my wife & I like to roam is in this huge
park that runs from the Louve to the Pitite Palace. Its full of couples
hand-in-hand and in the fall its beautiful. During June it will be green and
it should be alive with people and you would probably can get your best
shots close to sun down.
Ron Faria, r4afari@popper.PacBell.COM
............................................................................
Here are some "romantic" ideas off the top of my head:
1. The twisted, narrow streets on the Left Bank around the Blvd St. Michel
2. The Luxembourg Gardens (one of the most beautiful parks in a city filled
with beautiful parks)
3. Parc Monceau (another beautiful, relatively unknown and quiet park)
4. The quais along the Seine
5. The area around the Eiffel Tower at sunset
6. Montmartre at sunset
Someone posted suggested the Tuilleries (the park between the Louvre and the
Place de la Concorde). Although the Tuilleries is wonderful and filled with
couples in love, you have to be careful here. The park is popular with
pickpockets and hoodlum gangs who target tourists.
David Hall, sasdmh@unx.sas.com, SAS Institute, Cary, NC
=============================================================================
39.05 -< How do you make good pictures of reluctant models? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Can you give me any advice on dealing with people (especially those you know)
>who don't really like having their pictures taken?
Allen R. Johnson, Jr. wrote: "I -- and other portrait artists -- make a good
living "enhancing" the positive features of an individual's personality and
features. Judicious use of soft focus filtering, clever use of lighting etc.
effectively render an image that people recognize as that person, but in their
best light. And what's wrong with that? Truthfully, most people don't come to
me to have rendered the bald, graphic unvarnished truth a camera is capable of
depicting -- they do that every day with their point and shoots well enough,
thanks."
I will tell you my approach to people. I do alot of portrait work mostly on
location at weddings, family portraits and in business offices. In these
situations I run into a lot of people who don't really want their picture
taken. My approach is to first observe their behavior. If they look shy, I
try to flatter them by telling them how nice they look, (this especially
works well with women). But men are generally more notorious for not wanting
their pictures taken. With men I try to give them a masculine look, strong &
direct. I do this with the pose I put them in and how I light their face. I
joke with them to give the session a light side. I just finished a session
where one women looked very stern and I couldn't get her to relax until
someone came behind me and made a face that got her to laugh. And I usually
work as quickly as possible because they want to move on. What Allen wrote
is very true, we try to capture the best of a person, thru lighting, posing,
filters,etc. But you can only do this by first making them feel relaxed!
With people you know you have the advantage of being able to make the
session fun. Try to set up a time convenient for him where he will have time
to devote to a photo session. And the really important part is to stress a
"fun exercise". I've taken people out for environmentals and afterward they
said they really enjoyed the time. What I try to do is to get them to be
themselves. Tell them to wear casual cloths that they feel comfortable in.
Take him to a park, the beach, in the hills, anywhere were it invites a
relaxed atmosphere.
Good Luck
Ron Faria, Picture of Silver, r4afari@popper.PacBell.COM (Ron Faria)
=============================================================================
39.06 -< Is digital imaging art? Can it be art? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A discussion on this topic prepared by
Terence McGovern
>>Is digital art? Can it be art?
Define "Art Work". Is what Pete Turner did in a darkroom for many years,
and then on a high-end Scitex later, "Art"? According to some, it was art as
long as it was done the old fashioned way, but when it went into the Mac, it
was no longer real. Here's a clue: It never was real, it always was and
always will be, art. Is Kai Krause an artist? You betcha. Is he
Cartier-Bresson? Not likely. Is Cartier-Bresson Michelangelo? Gaugin? Ansel
Adams? Al Kapp? No. So what?
>>Digital imaging is not photography in the domain of field art photography.
I don't even know what that means. All I see there is the part that says
it's not photography. Photography. Writing with light. Using light sensitive
materials to create an expression of what our senses brought to us and share
our vision with others. Cameras, film, chemicals, paper, water, stainless
steel drums and sinks, high tech plastic processors, temperature control
valves, electronic strobes, infrared sensors, multisegmented matrix
metering... now THAT'S PHOTOGRAPHY! Take a picture and correct the color in
Photoshop?
Well, how can you believe that? If you'd do that, you'd do anything, even use
a built in spot meter.
>>I couldn't imagine Cartier-Bresson using a digital. I wouldn't believe him.
I can't imagine Rembrandt doing it, but what difference does it make? If
Bach had composed on a Yamaha, I suppose it wouldn't have been music, either.
>>I equate AF with digital to a degree in this area of photography.
With what do you equate advancements in metering (or indeed, the invention
of the light meter), improvements in film and chemical processes, computerized
lens design and electronic enlargers?
Computer imaging is just another step up in our technological progression,
just another tool we use to communicate our thoughts and feelings to others.
It will not immediately replace traditional photographic processes, nor render
film obsolete. It will, I believe, continue to make a difference and to change
the way we do photography. There will always be room for those who wish to
express themselves another way, just as many people still paint and sculpt.
Go back to my first sentence. Define art. It took many, many years to even
have photography recognized as an art form. In fact, some still will argue
that it is not art. If you mean fine art, refer to the last sentence. If there
is such a thing as "Fine Art Photography" then it is surely only 8X10 B/W and
contact printed on fine paper with an emulsion of your own design. Anything
else, I don't believe.
Terry McGovern
...............................................................................
I am a member of three Photography lists and Terry's was one of the longest
and well expressed postings with which I COMPLETELY agreed--in spirit and
in substance! Nice going, and thanks for saving me the trouble. Actually
we, including Bob, have discussed this to some extent on the Photoart list.
I will follow up briefly by saying that I, like Bob, at least at this point
am not interested in making art using, in part, digital means. Where Bob
and I may differ perhaps, is my strong belief that digital has as much
potential for "high art" (as some would say) as any medium. My last point,
which has been dealt with to some extent on the other list is--there is no
need to labor over whether "digital" is or isn't photography. It
absolutely doesn't matter. What matters is the strength of the work, not
the medium or our efforts to protect the definitions of "Photography".
Thanks again, and as always also for Bob's sincere and thoughtful comments.
Ray Spicer, spicer@uwosh.edu
...........................................................................
I have long said that photography is one of the most immediately rewarding
forms of art, specially for begginers. And as I taught photography and other
subjects, I realized that the most important thing at the begining of learning
is that the pupil reaches a goal, no matter how. This will ensure him that he
can do it and get a general sense of the purpose of his learning.
If a digital camera or a daguerrotype serves this first purpose, then I will
definitely use it.
After that, you either drop the learning or start using assorted and advanced
tools and learn to dominate a range of situations and to create new, controlled
ones. You put Make-up on your model or arrange a group of fruits.
Finally, and I think this is very appart, there is Fine Art photography.
>>>I couldn't imagine Cartier-Bresson using a digital. I wouldn't believe him.
>I can't imagine Rembrandt doing it, but what difference does it make? If
>Bach had composed on a Yamaha, I suppose it wouldn't have been music, either.
Very clever observation. Still, the controversy it's around the tool.
>Computer imaging is just another step up in our technological progression,
>just another tool we use to communicate our thoughts and feelings to others.
>It will not immediately replace traditional photographic processes, nor render
>film obsolete. It will, I believe, continue to make a difference and to change
>the way we do photography. There will always be room for those who wish to
>express themselves another way, just as many people still paint and sculpt.
I don't think one excludes the other. I have never done IR photography. I am
affraid the heat of Guaymas will ruin everything. But when I read I could do
it with a digital 4x5 plate (well, I still need the camera) I started to
dream. Yo just "switch" the sensibility for the correct wavelenght and... there!
I could really do some Fine Art with that gadget!
>Go back to my first sentence. Define art. If there is such a thing as
>"Fine Art Photography" then it is surely only 8X10 B/W and contact printed on
>fine paper with an emulsion of your own design. Anything else, I don't believe.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I see Fine Art as any process
taken to the highest point of dedication, quality control, durability and,
of course, communication. And tools remain tools.
Digital is here to stay. We already discussed this. Why it has to be bad?
Have you seen Grafica Obscura or Suza Scalora's pictures? (does it show I
like her?).
Alberto Tirado, atirado@enlace.gym.itesm.mx
=============================================================================
39.07 -< Comments on Electronic/Digital wedding/portrait proofs >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>What do _you- use for digital/electronic proofing purposes with customers?
I use a flatbed color scanner with a transparency adapter to do my previews
from rollfilm originals. I place each roll into PrintFile pages and write the
roll and frame number across the face of the image with a laundry pen, then
flop the whole page down on the scanner, set up a batch scan in my TWAIN
driver, and leave it alone for twenty minutes.
When I come back I have 12 images, each approximately 650x650 pixels (300dpi)
that are reversed in the scanning but still have a strong cyan cast. I use the
AutoLevels command in PhotoShop to correct the colors, then the Variations
command to do a digital ringaround to correct each image before I save it as a
JPEG.
I use ThumbsPlus to present portrait clients with a 'digital slide show' of
their images and they order directly from the screen. I have two monitors, one
here on my desk and the other on the coffee table in my sales area.
I use a multimedia presentation package called Compel to prototype the wedding
albums and show the couples a digital multimedia presentation that incorporates
music, text, and the images and allows them to see exactly what their album
will look like before I ever have a paper print made.
I put this system together over a year ago and have talked about it at length
in PhotoPro, on CompuServe, and in rec.photo.*. The reaction from other
professionals is mixed.
I have a friend who inspired me. He uses a FotoVix and spends literally all day
Tuesday digitizing wedding images. Neither he nor his assistant can do anything
else besides sit, press the button, and move the film up.
My solution produces higher quality scans (the scanner can interpolate out to
9600dpi, the FotoVix is limited to 640x480) with much less operator (me)
intervention. After I set up a batch, I go away, play with the Puppy Girl, go
to the lab, call customers, work in the camera room, whatever. I can even watch
TV and save the image during the commercial breaks!
-fred
Fred Collins, The Light Fantastic, Fine Photography, Omaha, NE (402) 571-5337
fcollins@gonix.com * fcollins@delphi.com * 73311.2466@compuserve.com
.............................................................................
I am currently using a Tamron Fotovix IIX for all of my portrait proofing. My
overall concern before using this was the quality of the image. I shoot high
quality, low volume portraits and weddings. I decided that if the client can
walk into the studio and see excellent work being displayed, that they would
not notice the lack of image resolution. Well after three months of using the
Fotovix, I can say that the clients "are amazed". They love the quick turn
around. Not one person has mentioned lack of quality in the image being shown.
FYI..The Tamron Fotovix IIX is the older model that accepts film size up to 6x7
but does not have S Video out. The newer model IIXS does have S Video out
($2000). The IIIDS, I believe is strickly 35mm with RCA, S Video out along with
SCSI for connection to a computer.
Greg Patterson Studio: (409) 468-2257
.............................................................................
>If using Digital proofing. Do your clients still like to have proofs made?
No proofs are necessary. Every image is viewed with the Fotovix rather
than traditional paper proofs. If a client EVER had a question about
quality and wanted to see paper proofs, sure we would be glad to order a
set for that client. Usually, they view the proofs on a large TV set (not
sure on the exact size) and choose exactally what they want.
...
(We use) No Epix, nor hi res VCR. We are just getting started with showing
our wedding clients their albums using Montage. I am a Mac user, and would
hate to have two platforms in our studio. I'm not quite sure how the
Montage software will work out with our clients, but I do think that they
will love seeing the completed album, page by page.
Greg Patterson Studio: (409) 468-2257
............................................................................
Can't answer your question directly, but I have used a 400 dpi flatbed
scanner with a transparency adapter on 35mm transparencies to give pretty
good on-screen results (approximately 600x400 pixels).
Certainly the results with medium format would be better - and it does
pretty well with 8x10 if you have the memory to handle the files.
I've proofed these 35mm scans and got pretty good results on a Epson Stylus
Pro. You can also use black and white negs and make prints on a laser
printer. Be warned that you need more than 24 bit if you want to scan colour
neg and get good results.
Peter, petermarshall@cix.compulink.co.uk (Peter Marshall)
=============================================================================
39.08 -< How do focal length doublers/triplers work? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telextenders, Focal length doublers and Barlow lenses - a brief discussion.
A Barlow lens is a negative lens element placed near the focal plane of a prime
lens with the purpose of changing the path of light rays so they appear to be
coming from a further distance than they normally would appear to come from.
Barlow lenses are typically used for astronomical applications to apparently
increase the focal length of the instrument (telescope).
In photographic applications (and in astronomical ones as well) effectively I
believe what this scheme does is to make it look like the exit pupil of the
lens is farther from the image plane than it really is. So, the focal length of
the lens is apparently increased.
In photography these Barlow lenses are called Tele-extenders or similar names.
They are made in strengths of 1.4x, 2x and 3x thus multiplying the focal length
of the prime lens by a corresponding factor. A 100mm lens becomes a 140, 200 or
300 mm focal length lens that is only slightly physically longer than the 100
mm lens itself.
Unfortunately the apparent (and effective) increase in focal length does not
come without a price. That is, since the diameter of the lens does not change,
just the focal length, the effective f number changes by a factor
corresponding to the strength of the extender. At maximum aperture, then, a f/4
lens becomes a 5.6 with a 1.4x extender, and an f/8 or f/11 with a 2x and 3x
extender respectively.
Looking at ASCII "ray traces" for 1/2 the lens axis:
(prime 100mm f/2) (prime 200mm f/4 - same diameter as 100mm f/2
. . - compared to 100mm plus 2x)
| * |*
| * | * # v 2x Tele-extender (or Barlow)
| * | * #
| * | * #
| * | * | #
| * | + #
| * | | + #
| * | | + #
|-------------------------* |---------------|-----------------+--------------#
^ ^ ^
* is 100mm f/2 FP # is 200mm f/4 FP FP
(plain 100) (100 + Barlow) (plain 200)
* and then + is 100mm f/4 plus 2x Barlow = 200mm f/8
Notice how the addition of the 2x telextender made a 200mm lens that was
physically shorter than a simple 200mm lens and only slightly longer than the
original 100mm lens.
Actually, all lenses with a "telephoto" design incorporate a "Barlow" lens in
their design. Telephoto lenses being shorter in physical length than lenses of
equivalent focal length but "normal" construction or "simple" lenses.
Andy, andpph@rit.edu
=============================================================================
39.09 -< Developing film in sheet film tanks >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...Lately, I have switched to tank development, but have found the
> development to be uneven and unreliable (at least in my hands). I am
> thinking about investing in either a processing drum or the Kostiner 4x5
> processing tanks. Is either is a worthwhile investment?
Previously and sporadically, there has been some discussion of sheet film
developing methods which you might want to check on. Most of it has centered on
alternatives to traditional tray or hangers/tank processing. As well, I have
been reading up on this preparing for my dabbling with pyro, which seems to be
very sensitive to agitation. Gordon Hutchings' book on the subject suggests
that if your method provides even development with pyro, you should have no
problems with other developers. My previous experiments with various methods
indicate that many of us sheet film users have been living with more uneven
development than we would like.
The top of the heap seems to be the tube type processors (Jobo Expert/3000
drums or Beyond the Zone System (BTZS) style tubes). Although the Jobo tanks
are designed for Jobo and other processing machines, I have had excellent
results using one on a print drum motor base. The drums must be filled while
rotating horizontally. This can be taken care of by a small funnel with about
8" of flexible plastic tubing attached. The possible hindrances: the drums are
expensive ($200+); hand rolling, especially the largest size, is cumbersome, as
is trying to fill the tank while rolling it with one hand; all sheets get the
same processing time; and the limit is 10 sheets per run for the largest drum.
The BTZS tubes can be purchased from Darkroom Innovations (about $100 for six)
or made from 1 1/2" PVC pipe for much less. Each capped tube holds one sheet;
after loading, processing can take place in room light. It basically consists
of rolling the tubes back-and-forth. I have not used this method, but it
apparently provides excellent evenness. David Kachel has come up with a
variation (see "Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques," July/August '95) that
uses just the plain tubes (about as inexpensive as possible), no end caps,
rolled in 11"x14" trays. You can wear gloves to roll the tubes, so chemical
contact with your hands can be minimal. Both methods make development
variations for individual sheets within a batch fairly easy. Hindrances: you
still have to process in the dark and the limit is six (maybe eight) tubes per
run. [I am about to experiment with the Kachel variation, using 1 3/4" or 2"
diameter tubes (9" long) to hold two 4"x5" sheets. This would make batches of
twelve (maybe sixteen?) possible.
Several people use print drums. Some 8"x10" models can hold four individual
sheets of 4"x5". I have used this technique with a Unicolor drum and motor base
and had very good results. Used drums and motor bases may be easily found; hand
rolling is certainly feasible. Hindrances: runs are limited to 4 sheets,
although the cost makes it reasonable to have several drums loaded and run in
quick succession; all sheets get the same processing.
Jobo also makes a series 2500 (1500 currently?) tank and reel system. Each reel
holds six sheets and you can get tanks and extenders to hold as many reels as
you might like, although three reels may be a practical limit. Although the
tanks can be used for inversion agitation, they are really designed for rotary
agitation. I have used this system for several years (on a print drum motor
base). It can provide good results, but I had to fiddle with various agitation
variations (as did some others using Jobo processors) to get rid of a tendency
towards streaking. Jobo apparently recognized the problem, introducing a
modified reel a few years ago; I am not sure if this eliminated the development
streaking. I can only gaurdedly recommend this system. Hand rolling is not much
of a problem. Hindrances: a two reel set with tank will run about $150, not
much less than an Expert drum; again, all sheets receive the same processing;
and there may be some uneven development, depending on your technique.
Over the years I have tried various tanks and hangers for sheet film
(admittedly, not the Kostiner). Only one hanger gave me decent results: a
plastic sheet with little pegs that held the film in place along each side.
Unfortunately, it is no longer being made and only fits in large tanks.
One note--all of the tube/drum systems, except the Jobo 2500, really require
that the film be removed for washing after fixing.
*************************************************
* Nathan Prichard * Kentucky Historical Society *
* npric1@ukcc.uky.edu * Box 1792 *
* Frankfort, KY 40602 U.S.A. *
*************************************************
=============================================================================
39.10 -< Making reticulation and grain happen >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a recipe for reticulation as follows:
1) Mix 30g of Sodium Carbonate with 500ml of water at 60_65 deg C
2) Immerse negative in this solution for several minutes
3) Rinse negative thoroughly in cold water
To get a grain effect without affecting the negative is to print through
non-reflective glass as used in picture frames. Place the glass on top of
the printing paper to get a good coarse pattern.
From: Ian Aldcroft
............................................................................
To get intentionally large grain I have done it by using T-Max 3200 rated at
1600. Then develop in Dektol - 1:14 for 5 1/2 min. at 68 degrees. It's been
awhile since I did this and I can't put my hands on the info ... but this is
it to the best of my memory.
Janet Lindholm, jllphoto@evansville.net
=============================================================================
39.11 -< Who makes 3D prints from Nimslo or Nishika negs? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is one lab in the US for processing Nimslo/Nishika exposed film and
making 3D lenticular prints from four-lens cameras such as the Nimslo. They
are the Orasee Corporation, makers lenticular material, who apparently bought
i3-Dx and does this. They have a website at:
http://www.orasee.com/home.html
or try:
Image-Tech Laboratories
5172-G Brook Hollow Parkway
Norcross, GA 30071
404-416-8848
(not sure if they are in business still)
or
There is a lab in the UK that will process and print 3D photographs made with
either 3-lens or 4-lens stereo cameras.
They say they can can print from the NIMSLO, NISHIKA, WIZARD, 3D MAGIC, RITTAI
and most similar cameras of this type. As an example of print costs: 18 prints
derived from the standard 36 exposure roll used to cost US$22.40 plus postage
(in 1998). Payment can be in US in dollars if necessary as they hold a dollar
account.
You can also get a subscription to their 8-page newsletter STEREO NEWS and a
12-page Price List free of charge.
Contact: Tony Shapps, Widescreen Centre in London
48, Dorset Street, London W1H 3FH, United Kingdom
phone: 0171-935 2580
good luck,
Andrew Davidhazy, Professor
School of Photo Arts and Sciences/RIT
andpph@rit.edu www.rit.edu/~andpph
=============================================================================
39.12 -< Home made print washer instructions >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My washer is homebuilt. I started with a plastic tray designed originally
for bussing dirty dishes in a restaurant - I think I paid about $3.50 in a
restaurant supply house. It's large enough for 11x14 prints to move about
some, and about 6 inches deep.
I made a rectangular array of 1/2 inch PVC pipe with a nipple and garden
hose fitting at the top - this is mounted on one side of the tray using hose
clamps. I drilled a series of small holes in the pipe ar various angles so
that water would jet out of the pipe in a random pattern. Then, I drilled
another series of holes long the opposite edge of the tray about 1/2 inch
below the top edge.
In use, I place the tray in the laundry basin and connect a short length of
hose between the faucet and the hose fitting on the PVC pipe. I let the
water run for a few minutes to start filling the tray, and then take my
prints out of the hypo-clear (I use rapid fix, followed by a holding bath,
followed by hypoclear, followed by selenium toner 1:32 in hypoclear,
followed by a second brief rinse in hypoclear) and place them in the tray.
I try to place the larger prints at the bottom of the tray and the smaller
ones at the top just for convenience. I wash the prints for 30-45 minutes
with the water flowing fast enough to stream out of the small holes at the
edge of the tray, but no so fast that the water fills beyond the line of
holes and spills over the edge of the tray. The random streams of water
inside the tray keep the prints separated. Periodically -say every 10
minutes or so - I leaf through the prints to make sure than none are
sticking together. Total cost - about $15.
Louie J. Powell, LJPowell@ix.netcom.com
=============================================================================
39.13 -< Making positive B&W slides from B&W negatives >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those interested, I have even another choice for creating B&W slides. I
teach photography and regularly copy students work to show in the classroom.
Our class size is about 50 students, so showing students "prints" is just not
feasible.
Criteria for using my method:
If you need to copy a B&W or Color print and you plan to use a copy stand and
you have access to a darkroom, then using Kodak's Direct Duplicating film is
the EASY way to go. I understand that this film is no longer being produced by
Kodak. But, you can order a 100ft. bulk roll from Freestyle out of California
(800-292-6137)
The film is rated at ASA 0.5, so you can see why you need a copy stand. On my
copy stand (2000 watts), reproducing B&W prints that are 7.5x9.5", my exposure
is 8 seconds @ F8. I then process in DEKTOL 1:1 at 75 degrees for 4:30
minutes. Yes I did say DEKTOL.
I have had excellent results using this process. Cost is low, and the process
is fast. What more could you ask for? OH, quality, well it's pretty good. At
least for the classroom situation.
Greg Patterson
=============================================================================
39.14 -< What is a good place to have light meters repaired? >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
One place to get your old Weston and other light meters repaired:
Quality Light-Metric Co.
6922 Hollywood Blvd. (Max Factor Bldg.)
Hollywood, CA 90028
(213) 467-2265
Kevin Bjorke, bjorke@pixar.com, Pixar Animation Studios
=============================================================================
39.15 -< 35mm film without perforations >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to find 35 mm film without perforations. Any available?
We own a RoundShot 35mm camera whose optics extend the image well into the
sprocket area. In order to take advantage of this "extra" image area, we've
been researching the rumor of 35mm films available without perforations. This
is what I have found (from Kodak's information number 800-242-2424, x19):
100' rolls. (Note, most bulk film loaders require a plastic core, NOT the
metal spool):
CONFIG TYPE ASA PRICE CAT# REMARKS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
414 Tri-X 400 $50.45 8584443 fine grain, high speed B&W film,
on metal spool
426W Tri-X 400 $50.45 1472802 " " ", on a plastic core
426W VPS 160 ?? 1520949 low contrast negative color film,
on a plastic core (wedding film)
426W PMC 400 $64.40 8467532 low contrast, fine grain (less
than VPS), color negative film,
on a plastic core
Hope this helps. If you have other information, please pass it on!
Mike Sinclair, Interactive Media Technology Center
msinclai@maryann.oip.gatech.edu
=========================== end of section 39 ==============================
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}