Printable View
One good reason to have a sliding back if you only want to use half the film is that 8x10 Grafmatic holders seem uncommonly rare, and regular holders are ungodly bulky and heavy. If I were shooting half-frame I certainly wouldn't mind carrying 50% as many film holders!
X-ray shooters may be interested in my simple Android app which helps you to visualize how the scene will look using orthochromatic film.
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...48#post1175348
Having grown up with ortho films in the 40's effective film speed is more intuitive than scientific. It is simple enough to take a reading with a good meter and do some interpolation based on the height of the sun above the horizon whether AM or PM. of course a lot of this comes from over 70 years of exposing film of all types and sizes. Also I find selenium cell meters of more use to me when using this film than the more "modern" ones I use with current pan films.
i am in minority of people who just shoot it. I found that iso 100 is about right, i might wiggle it a bit if there is too much UV out (outdoors) to pretend its like 125-150. But then i also don't do whole premature stopping of development, don't truly care if i leave film in tube for few extra minutes if i have to answer the phone and such. Its much much less stressful this way and leaves me more concentrating doing what i like - making pictures ;) Even dilution for development - i would vary around 1:100 and 1:200 all the time, just depending on how i feel about it. Great thing about X-ray - it seems to not care all that much (unlike Arista 100 that is seriously fussy), kinda like Fuji's Acros.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
But then of course i am sticking with Kodak CSG, and not looking around much for other types.
Here is CSG in somewhat green forest, btw. No filters
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3924/...ffedd0fc_c.jpgScan-140927-0010www by Sergei Rodionov, on Flickr
Sergei,
This is one of your best!
Your comments are right on. Some of us get to uptight about the details and end up making technically correct images with no feeling or emotion. The object is to make images, not spend all day planning them.
Jim
Thanks, Jim. I am trying ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
For those of us who didn't grow up with ortho film (I was in my twenties before I knew there was a difference between Verichrome and Verichrome Pan, never mind knew that ortho film had still been widely available after I was born), it's a lot more comfortable to meter to an actual tested value and have a pretty high confidence level relative to what results you're going to get. Even at 35 cents a sheet, I don't see anything to be gained by wasting film with exposure errors that could turn a top-notch image into "could have been", on subjects I may never be able to photograph again. As noted above, those 8x10 film holders are big and heavy, too, so shooting multiple frames ("bracketing", as we called it when I was learning on 35 mm) just to validate a guess on exposure is an even bigger sin when I can only carry perhaps a dozen exposures of film in addition to camera, tripod, and lenses, compared to hundreds in miniature format. Shooting two for insurance is a lot different from shooting ten because you aren't sure what your meter is really telling you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Noel
The two meters I use are a spot meter (I've forgotten the brand, but it's got a battery boost for low light) and a silicon cell averaging/incident unit; the spot meter, especially, seems likely to be adaptable to use a filter over its lens. I plan to set it up that way when using x-ray film, and when testing that film for speed.
I do not and never have bracketed. My belief has always been that the Great Yellow Father invented the idea in order to sell more film. Knowledge of materials and equipment is far more valuable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
I don't bracket either. When I started in LF 20 years ago, I only had 2 holders. The same with 8x10. That forced me to be very careful with my exposures. I do however, shoot a backup if on a trip miles from home and I may not ever get back there again...
Shooting xray film is not rocket science. I shoot blue and green at 80. I use light yellow or green filters and apply the same factor as if I'm shooting conventional film. If exposures are longer than 1 second, I'll apply reciprocity compensation. I am perhaps more careful developing it than conventional film, especially with the double-sided stuff.
That's a beautiful image, Sergei.
I just use compensating development (since xray was so contrasty), so exact timing of development doesn't matter anyway, by the fundamental nature of compensating development.
Weirdly, d-76 diluted 1:4 for ~1 hour works better than other developers actually designed for compensating for my Fuji xray film. I tried obsidian aqua and HC-110, and they performed worse than the dilute D-76. No idea why.