As I mentioned in another thread that you (or someone else using welder's glass) started on this issue, you can use the digital camera to test the effect of the glass (to find the required exposure compensation when using the glass), but I would not use it to decide exposure itself, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam in other threads.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Film Cameras currently used:
Large/Stort-format: Ebony 45SU (field camera), Medium/Medlem-format: Mamiya 7, Hasselblad 503CW
35mm/Små format: Nikon: F4, D800 (yes digital, I know)
Hey 2F/2F. I didn't actually use the digital camera for metering, I used my light meter and applied the ND stops + the reciprocity failure.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
I don't know what could have been a problem with the agitation. Every 2nd minute I would do a slight agitation by bringing the holders up to the top of the box and letting them sit back down. Pretty much as we've been instructed to do.
Originally Posted by Bdial
Hey guys. So I finally did my prints today of the 4x5 shots. For some reason they look much better on full size prints than they do on the contact sheets. There is still what looks blotchy in the sky, although it's not terrible. The scan is pretty bad, just quick and full of dust, but here's is a shot of Vancouver from Granville Island:
What do you guys think?
Looks good - I take it you are local .
The blotchy look in the sky might be related to the long exposure - moisture/mist in the air or something similar.
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
In regard to squiggly artifacts, they are definitely not from the filters, especially if you did indeed shoot at f5.6 on a 4X5. Here is a test you can try, take a piece of clear plastic and write something on it with a sharpie. Put it in front of your lens and focus on something in the distance. You might see some indistinct darkening in the area of the lines, but likely you will not see anything at all. The area right in front of the lens is way too far from the plane of focus to resolve at all when you are focusing in the distance like you are, and with a pretty wide open aperture.
Originally Posted by Treymac
Dust with large format is a massive issue compared to roll film. It will probably take a while for you to track it all down. It was a major issue for me when I started with 4X5, but I did eventually get it down to a dull roar. Squiggly lines are likely from fibers from the bellows. When you pull out the dark slide, they can get on the film, so they are absolutely perfectly in focus. I would first very carefully clean the inside of your bellows with compressed air and perhaps very gently with a microfiber cloth or something similar. Also, clean the heck out of your holders and treat them like they are your most precious belongings. I used to keep mine in ziplock antistat bags, but I was in Denver at the time and the climate was very dry.
The sky thing looks exactly to me like insufficient agitation. You might start of with 30 seconds constant agitation, and then agitate for 10 seconds every minute... make sure you shake the sheet around some, don't just raise it up and drop it. You won't likely be "over-agitating" by doing this and the "penalty" of slight "over-agitation" is simply a bit more density and contrast, something IMO your subject matter would benefit from anyway.
That's just, like, my opinion, man...
Ok, thanks. I've always done that agitation method for 35mm and 120, but for large format my instructor said that it doesn't need as much agitation and only requires an up and down every 2 minutes.
Originally Posted by JBrunner
I actually wanted a soft lack of contrast, but I think the scanning has further eliminated some contrast as it's less than the actual print.
And, my shots were all done at either f22 or f32, this one was done at f32.
I'm going to go out with medium format and use my Yashica Mat to get some 6x6 shots, using the filters, plus a red filter. And maybe also a polarizer, no idea what this combo will do but it sounds interesting. But that won't be for the project, I've already got 3 that I like quite a bit from the 4x5 camera, just have to play with them some before I do the final prints at 16x20.
I've found that when doing 4x5's they acctually need more agitation than the 35mm. I'm guessing, due to your explanation of how you agitate, that your using the deep tank system. if so, try using a little more agitation. The artifacts are most likely from that, as many have said. And if you want a lower contrast, you might consider cutting down development (only a little), and using a grade 1 paper or VC filter when at the enlarger. Personally, i try to get pretty dense negatives, and lower the contrast at the enlarger if i desire. But that's just me. Anyways, good luck. Im excited to see the outcome.