Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,692   Posts: 1,548,952   Online: 800
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    North of Calgary, Alberta. Canada
    Posts
    166
    Thanks for your ULF suggestions and sharing your knowledge.

    I would like to start out by thanking everyone who has offered help in my quest for the proper ULF camera. I started out in another thread seeking advice on whether to go directly to an 11x14 camera or to start with an 8x10 model. Your experience and advice could not have come at a better time or been more helpful. I was on the verge of bidding on a 8x10 last week but held my fingers away from the keyboard during the last minutes of the auction. The wealth of knowledge that you shared has caused me to carefully rethink about my needs, desires and photographic vision.

    You all aptly pointed out that an 11x14 is a BIG camera to be toting around and that possibly a 7x11, 7x17 or perhaps a 8x20 might fit my vision and needs better. I believe that you may be correct so I’ll be looking in the future to learn about possibly aquiring a 7x11 model. Once again my concern was film availability but a couple of you demonstrated that the film can be obtained. Baring that, because of size, film availability and cost of accessories like film holders the 8x10 has gone back to the top of the list.

    Now to change gears…. :upsidedo:

    My real desire is to be able to create Pt/Pd prints. I would like to do this in a more panoramic fashion. This is the driving force for a bigger camera. I started out investigating the possibility of making digital enlarged negatives before I tried to acquire a larger camera. I guess I am back to the digital negative option. The advantage hopefully will be that I can tailor the size of the contact negative a bit more to my liking.

    Another distinct advantage is as William Blunt pointed out to me, I can practice making Pt/Pd prints from my original 4x5 negatives until I learn the basics about the process. This will help to keep my start up costs reasonable. (Please watch for another new thread seeking some starting advice on Pt/PD).

    After my long winded explaining of what I will do before Christmas, I actually do have a question. I have purchased Dan Burkholder’s book for making digital negatives but I see he has additional information on his web site. This is called the “Inkjet Negative Companion”.

    Has anybody actually acquired this update? If so does it really work in helping a relative beginner to actually be able to make a “very good” digital negative for the Pt/Pd process?

    I am quite willing to pay his asking price but I do wish to be successful in my endeavors and the book itself only served to confuse me. In fairness I did learn a great deal in general from his book (after many re-reads) about how these types of procedures work but not quite enough to get me doing it successfully.

    Dan's Site

    If you are interested I have an Epson Expression flat bed scanner with the transparency unit that will do a true 1600 dpi scan. I have bought and tried to use VueScan for my scanning software. I also have very recently purchased the Epson 2200 printer. As you can see I spent enough money trying to do this when I perhaps should have just gone to an 8x10 camera. Well there is no going back now so hopefully I can figure all of this stuff out and make digital negatives.

    Kind Regards,
    Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.

  2. #2
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North York, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    101
    At the risk of being shunned for replying to a 'digital' question on an 'analogue' board.......

    I've been playing around with making negs on the inkjet printer. I wanted to see if I could make a neg to replace the small format (ie. 8x10).

    Here's what I've found for MY situation (2200+OHP):

    - Burkholder's curves are a good starting point but will more than likely need to be fine tuned for your working methods in pt/pd. Keep in mind he uses a specific mix of pt/pd metals, contrast agent, UV lightsource, paper, and developer.

    - Right now I use a 4mp digicam and make 6"x8" negs. I've also scanned a 4x5 neg on a 2450. While many have recommended programs like GF I find that moderate upsizing in 110% increments yields results that are more than sharp enough for alt processes printed on 'art' papers (like Arches, Somerset, Whatman, etc).

    - I'm at the point where the final print is *almost* there. Tonally speaking it is. The problem, at least to my eyes, is that there is a certain amount of 'graining' in the image - and no it's not from over sharpening, etc. I can take an untouched image, make a neg then print it and the 'grain' is still present. It's most noticeable in areas of even tone. This probably would not bother those who are use to working in 35mm and 'old emulsion' high speed films but for LF users who are use to the smoothness that the bigger formats yield it's a bit disconcerting.

    - Because there's no base fog your print times can be short. It's easy to over expose at first which seems to exasperate the grain.

    So that's it - I'm still sitting on the fence until the 'graining' problem can be solved.

    Cheers,
    Roger...

  4. #4
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  5. #5
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    The 4MP camera may be the weak link in your setup. We use the Pictorico Photo Gallery Hi-Gloss White Film with the 2200 (as does Dan) and get great results. You aren't going to get largeformat results from a 4mp file, no matter what kind of software you use to enlarge it. The details aren't captured. Our digital negatives are typically from scanned film files upwards of 100 megs each.
    hi!

  6. #6
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  7. #7
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,305
    [quote="Aggie"]genuine fractuals gets rid of all grain.


    There must be something to it as I see that Amateur Photographer magazine this week has a free CD with an intro to this.

  8. #8
    roy
    roy is offline
    roy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    West Sussex
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    . When I get the program, I intend to go to San Jose and learn from both you and alp. I will bring the progam down and you can judge.
    There has been such a lot of talk about making negs by other means recently, I am sure there would be a fair bit of interest in how you get on.

  9. #9
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    ..

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    North York, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggie
    genuine fractuals gets rid of all grain. It is amazing. This from the resident curmudgeon when it comes to digital thingys.
    Using GF has no effect. I really think it's a function of the limitations of both the inkjet printer and the medium (OHP) used.

    Cheers,
    Roger...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin