Of course, but I lost track in your explanation.
Not a criticism, just a restatement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
Printable View
Of course, but I lost track in your explanation.
Not a criticism, just a restatement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
It's hard to explain things from my phone. Haha.
If it was criticism that's okay! I kinda miss it. I thrived off of it in grad school.
We are done with Grad school...
I was told, that one is ready to graduate when you physically throw your advisors out of your studio.
While it was not that physical, I was definitely done with them.
No regrets!
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoevangelist
More from yesterday's developing session: #3 and #4.
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3688/9...35f1ebd4_b.jpg
Adams Building #02 by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2878/9...5d934b91_b.jpg
Near Front Gate by Lee Smathers, on Flickr
Both with 7x17 F&S, 260mm Konica Hexanon GRII, Fuji HR-U (Green Sensitive Xray) @160, in Rodinal 1:50 - developed in trays (3000 ml + 60 ml chemistry), non-stripped, Epson v750 double scanned and stitched.
Observations:
• The 260mm Hexanon can cover 7x17 (depending on movements?, or lack there of), but when it misses, it's just by a tiny bit which can be cropped from a scan. It's possible that a professionally made lens board might correct the lens being more centered on the lens board.
• I may in fact have light leaks in my holders - drats!
• Love my Rodinal 1:50 dilutions, but I may have to reevaluate the 1:50 for such a large negative. My developing times are around 3min. Trying dilutions of 1:100 or 1:200 should give me the longer times I want to have more consistent development, but at the loss of contrast?
• May just convert to jobo development and become a stripper myself (look out world!) if the above solution doesn't pan out.
Why is the second one so messed up? The first looks almost perfect.
Bummer about the light leaks...but they are new? Sounds like something they should be fixing...
Any advice for using PMK with large sheet xray film? (I have Gordon Hutching's book - but haven't read it and it got taken into storage for the summer). I've got enough PMK to play with if it's better than Rodinal. I prefer methods where I won't have to agitate too much.
I tried it once with HP5+ and wasn't successful:
Attachment 98571
HP5+ Pyro PMK 1:2:100
For the second one I didn't agitate and I pulled it out of the chemistry at 2 min instead of 3 min. I accidentally exposed the negative at F9 instead of F45. I was trying to develop accordingly... Interestingly we can see that the image circle is most likely the same at F9 and F45.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
Bryan, look at the sky on the far right in the first one. Does that look right? Looks a bit strange to me. I'm not using any lens filters yet.
Yes, the S&S holders are new.... I would have hoped that they would have been light tight before coming across the Pacific...
I looked at the bigger image on Flickr, and that sky on the right side looks okay to me. It's definitely just blown out a bit as this film commonly does in bright areas. You can burn it in when you wet print but scans get crazy grainy if you try to pull it down. Of course at this size, maybe not!
You'd be kicking yourself if that was a sheet of Tri-X and you forgot to stop the lens down! Ha!
Thanks for looking, Bryan. How much do you charge for scans? :) I'm not looking to scan yet, but within a year or so I'm probably going to need to find a better way to get good scans from my Epson v750 via stitching or send it off for drum scans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
You're absolutely right. I would be drowning myself down with Korean rice wine if it was Kodak film. This box of x-ray was part of two boxes that I scored for free because it expired in 2012. I was kicking myself for not loading more holders. :)
Yeah...I'm jealous! I'll PM you in a minute RE: scans.