I'm in Europe, Hungary...
Printable View
I'm in Europe, Hungary...
Thanks, yes it is rebadged Carestream. I just bought a packet - I was told it was green sensistive.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
It has generic packaging here(of Carestream), but none of the extensive labelling I see on this thread.
Mine just writes out "TMX", then emulsion no and size/expiry date (till 2016).
Where is here, analoguey? It is not "re-badged", it is re-named. In the United States, the name for this kind of marketing is "It's the same old whore, but in a new dress". Crude, but very descriptive. If you read my post #727 and 728, it will give all the info on the film, through the courtesy of Z&Z Medical, where I get the stuff. What I wrote in 727 was a direct quote from Kodak, Rochester's description. Ektascan is an orthochromatic film, which means it does not "see" red light. This affects exposure. It is quite slow in the early morning, and late afternoon. It is fastest between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM at my latitude (44 degrees). You should keep an eye out for a medium yellow filter. I can't reccomend a specific filter, because I'm sure you could never find what I use, which is a Burke&James Ingento 2X yellow filter. 2X means two times the exposure. The fact that this film has an anti-halation backing is a big plus, and, combined with the fact it is a single sided emulsion is why I use it. I would not start using this film with a home brewed developer. You will have to learn it's ideocincracies, so using a common developer simplifies the learning curve. I don't shoot enough film these days to use a short life developer, which is why I use Rodinal. I used to use D-72, 24-1, but it doesn't keep that long. Rodinal keeps for years in the bottle it comes in.Quote:
Originally Posted by analoguey
Two new ones:
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3847/...ee14c2fd_b.jpg
Eric by michael.darnton, on Flickr
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3839/...b09c6a89_b.jpg
Roberta by michael.darnton, on Flickr
Attachment 119711
This is Ektascan cut down to 4X5, shot with an RB Graflex D, with a Wollensak 15 in. tele 5.6 at 1/5th of a second at f 8, in a dark back yard late in the day. I processed the film in D-23 with an afterbath of water and sodium Carbonate and printed on Oriental Seagull G-3. Print's too big for the scanner. It was much easier to print than to scan.
My Super D has a baffle under the mirror that shades off the lower 1/2" or so of the top of the photo on vertical shots with the 15" tele on closer shots like yours. Is yours a Series D, and do you not have this problem?
I don't have this problem. I get a clear image on the ground glass top to bottom and a fully exposed negative. I have mounted the lens on the very front of the standard, using a bottom slider from a defunct Speed and some hardware store parts to tighten it up top. It focuses at infinity just fine by racking out maybe an inch and I can focus to about 6-8 feet; I haven't measured but will tomorrow. If you like I'll grab a cell phone shot of the mounting to show you. This lens is my favorite for the D. It is an early D I think, maybe manufactured in 1928.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdarnton
Bill
Why the sodium carbonate wash?Quote:
Originally Posted by blueribbontea
I just held the negative under running water and played around with bleach. The emulsion comes of very quick. A little bit got to the other side though but not much. So taping it down will be a better idea. Just try it out on a worthless negative and have some fun. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by StoneNYC
I've been playing around with some x-ray in preparation for some salt prints. This was one that I shot recently and just scanned. Any idea what might be creating the artefacts in the sky area. I develop in a ziplock bag...could these be as a result of holding the bag too close to the safe light when inspecting? It was quite a short development time (5 mins)...could it be too short a development and as a result should I dilute my developer (PMK by the way) to allow for longer development?
Attachment 119718