You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371
I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.
Printable View
You can make a 3d print from this site: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6666371
I haven't use it yet, but i'm planning to do.
That's v handy thanks. I have access to 3D printing at my Uni library.Quote:
Originally Posted by wouthazel
The sample you posted shows good shadow detail, but could you please provide some data in support of your 160asa claim for the UM-MA?Quote:
Originally Posted by arri
Preferably sensitometric data of your development, along with the average subject brightness range of the subjects you are shooting at 160asa?
Alternatively, a picture of a negative exposed at 160asa (shot on a light table or a backlit window), along with a picture of the actual scene taken with a cell phone?
The reason for this request is that my own testing with RO9 (1+200) for a gamma of ~0.65 rates UM-MA at 16asa.
I find it hard to believe that HC110 (1+79) could give a 3+ stop speed boost, but I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong.
I use your parameter with R09 1/100
but it does vary with Sun
and I find it dies at 20 minutes
I use RO9 only for years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thodoris Tzalavras
Sorry, I cannot find it. Possibly the numbering has changed somehow?
it's easy to make inserts from paper..... I do that for whatever sizes.Quote:
Originally Posted by dimento
18x24 sheet inside 8x10 holder:
https://i.imgur.com/GkFCwae.jpg
left and top edges is a L insert made with a regular office paper (~ 80g) and canson ~170g (could be some more) glued over it. The edges of the underlaying regular paper slides into the holder, the thicker canson is stiffer and holds the film sheet. I put a matching mask on the focusing glass.
In the case of 18x24-8x10 I keep couple holders with the insert on all time, because insertion must be done carefully slowly.
here it shows better. It's a 6x9 adapter for 4x5 holders. When I want for instance to test a developer or a lens with few shots only, and don't want to waste 4x5 sheets, I cut chunks of 120 roll in 6x9 and insert them in a 4x5:
https://i.imgur.com/Z0euEgc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ngwRH1a.jpg
the trick is in the gluing, I'd have probably to provide shots to show how. Simple but have to be careful:. do it with a developed sheet of film in place, and a glue stick, not liquid glue. The point is that the glue must be linear all along without gaps nor overflood, Regular office glue stick will bind the paper but has bad adherence on plastic, so you pull carefully the sheet of film.
I would make the underlying paper also black to avoid reflecting scattered light back into the film.
Will the L/U made of the thicker paper not put the film slightly out of focus? (By its thickness.)
9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.
Consider the stack up of allowable variation
It is more than you think
I will not post the plus/minus tolerances
it also varies by film size
holders bend
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugen Mezei
notice in the picture of the 18x24 insert that there is no underlayer, just the L-shaped insert itself. The reason for the underlying sheet shown for the 6x9 insert to 4x5 cassette, is twofold: easy to slide the insert in/out and I use these only for testings cuts of 120, and the norm for 120 roll film that I cut into 6x9 for theses is different: it's thinner than sheet film. If it was for permanent use, with small 2x3 sheets still produced by FOMA and ADOX, and not cuts of 120 roll I would not use the underlying paper. I have the norms somewhere but I think they are floating in the open web anyway.
First tries when I tough of these way I used regular white paper, then I made with black, but for illustration here I picked one with white.
That said, 120 or sheet, there may be a significant variation, ORWO sheets for instance were on the thick side of the norm's tolerance. But that's not the case of current film nor x-ray.
In case of aerial like Aviphot, itīs the other way around: an underlayer is required because very thin film. Actually I cut aerial to the adhoc size of the holder I will use, and I insert same sized cut of office paper under.
yes, until not very long ago 18x24 were cheap but it seems Central European and German cellars and lofts have become emptier and now it's very expensive, for my taste.Quote:
9x12 and 13x18 cm holders are plenty and cheap in Europe. 18x24 are expensive but a bit cheaper than 8x10".
Still what you showed here gave me a good idea. It is how I will now, if you tell me it does not put the film out of the focus plane, use the panoramic dental film I have. (It comes in the European size 15x30 cm and the US size 5x7".) I intended to buid casettes for it, but making an insert as yours is the easier way.
Canson-type paper works well in my hack. I tried with cuts of developed sheet film but gluing is a problem.
Happy tinkering!
Cement used by moviemakers to split (glue) together pieces of film after editing should work.Quote:
Originally Posted by landstrykere