Ralph, welcome back!!! Good to see you around here again.
Re paper negs, they are fun indeed, but not very practical outdoors. You have to carry a changing bag and reload after each exposure.
I tried paper negs after reading an article by Andrew Sanderson. But that was at home only.
Originally Posted by ooze
you can cut strips of RC paper and hand spool them ... and shoot in a regular camera instead of film ..
i have been doing that with 122 format ( post card format ) for quite some time ...
with a 120 format camera you might need 1/2 spools because of the (winder-)tension.
Thanks for all replies. I clearly understood , I cant change ASA of film , thank you for clearing this.
ic racer ,
Cine gels are good , I was thinking they were expensive for me , may be I can figure a gel or glass filter for the narrow back of the lens.
But I have to stay in one digit expense like EDU, 120, 100 ASA, BW Film costs less than 3 dollars. Paper is difficult to store and Ilford Positive 4x5 ,25 Sheet paper cost me 18 dollars and makes 50 positives , not possible to roll as John said , and for same price Arista edu makes 70 bigger negatives and as a roll.
I will use Gustaf route for Cosina SLR.
Thank you all,
What would happen to film if you fixed it. Really short time in weak fixer, then washed and dried it. Would it lose speed but still hold some imaging ability? Is there a more appropriate way to desensitize film in a controlled way?
i would just test film exposed at a low asa and developed in a dilute developer
if you can find instant coffee, sodium carbonate ( or bi carbonate to heat- force the water out of and covert to carbonate ) and vit c.
spike it with a few ( 10-15cc/100cc of coffee developer) of your favorite print developer
you can make a low contrast developer that you can stand ( 30-40mins? ) develop your over exposed film in, and it will turn out fine.
have fun !
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Would it not be easier (and cheaper) to make a diaphram? A fixed one anyway. The F number should be straight forward math, I believe it's the ratio between the focal length and the diameter of the aperture of the lens. (http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm) You are making a camera, you can drill a hole. This will insure detail on the image, predictable results on the film and a whole lot less screwing around.
Just a thought........
I know Weston and Adams did what you suggested but f:1.5 Ektar is famous for its bokeh and as Ian Grant warned it is only corrected for green and this blurs the not focused area even more.
I love these qualities and want to protect it , if I can not do this , I would not use that lens as a ultra sharp f:64 lens because it doesnt qualify also.
Look at Ian's link at the post. And hole or slit discusses lot at large format forum and they add abberations. I love some lenses as they are designed for .
Just a suggestion for a really low cost ND filter: what about underexposed slide film? Take a few pictures of a gray surface with varying exposure and develop normally. This should give you a range of ND filters which cover up to 6cm diameter if you use 120 roll film.
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.