I'll try to make some photos tonight. It's very simple, monorail design made in 90% of plywood.
Still not finished, needs blackening of the interior, I have to add focusing gear, etc.
Printable View
I'll try to make some photos tonight. It's very simple, monorail design made in 90% of plywood.
Still not finished, needs blackening of the interior, I have to add focusing gear, etc.
Thank you, I am also exploring options to make a DIY 8x10 as I also want to shoot X-ray film which is cheap and easily available here, and then contact print since I don't have an 8x10 or for that matter a 4x5 enlarger. That is the reason I want to move away from 4x5 for the moment. Thank you for sharing.
That's what I wanted LF camera for: making kallitypes straight from negative. I'll try do test tonight to see how it works from real negative, not digital one.
there is number of threads on DIY LF cameras in section of forum that is about DIY btwQuote:
Originally Posted by Raffay
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5478/1...ac935661_b.jpg
12Dag_Xray_f16_2.5_020214 by ScottPhoto.co, on Flickr
Doing some testing of Kodak X-Ray Film Ektascan B/RA. Metered at 80 iso.
Jobo 3005 + Continuous agitation (6m @ 68) + Rodinal 40mL/1L
What do you think? Do you like the results?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottPhotoCo
Scott, I like the concept. The image is a bit contrasty, though. I think it needed a tad more exposure. Did you shoot under natural light? Was bellows ext. required? Reciprocity? That is one of the films that I use, and I shoot it at 80 outdoors. I've not tried it indoors.
A little underexposed, perhaps? I've had pretty good results at 50iso. I'll also still usually rate it at 50iso even outdoors, where I think it tends to be somewhat faster. At any rate, it's cheap enough I can shoot an extra sheet if I'm in doubt (but I usually don't bother). I think the ideal would be to develop by inspection under an orange safelight. That's my eventual plan for 11x14 (just waiting for the camera to come back from upgrades).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Thanks for the comments. Here are the details and my thoughts:Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl J
This was shot indoors with natural back light. It was a really difficult light to meter for and that's why I wanted to try it. I metered for the shadows on the inside of the typewriter as I just wanted to see detail where the arms sit at rest. If you look closely, it's there. There was approximately a 7-8 stop difference (guessing) between the black typewriter and the open window behind. I was hoping to save some detail on the top of the cabinet. If you look closely you can just see wood grain on the cabinet on the right. But, not enough. I may try this shot again this weekend, shoot it the same way (2.5 seconds at f16) and modify my Rodinal mix to 25mL to 1L of water and process for the same 6 minutes to see if the concentrate of developer was a bit too strong. I am processing 4 sheets at a time so this is 6.25mL of developer per sheet. Thoughts?
Here's where I get really confused. Ektascan has the same insane density as the double-sided stuff, so how does increasing exposure cut down on the contrast? I've shot Ektascan at ISO 200 (studio lights), and only get something approaching controlability with a 2-bath d23 mix; pulling the neg only after the highs start to show up in bath-A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew O'Neill
Ugh. It's really hard stuff to shoot (Ektascan).
Incidently, I found that a yellow filter really helps tame the density.
George