why would I want to fill in the cracks? Lights leaks are cool. No I don't want to do any of that. I would have to open my M&P book and find the formula for what size pen hole I think I might want. OR I could just do this.
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 5:50 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Listen, just get out the Wisner, pull a Ziplok 1-quart bag out of your kitchen drawer, cut one of the layers of plastic off, and make a sort of Cokin frame to hold it flattish OR just get brutal and tape it on with gaffer tape. Shoot through that and you’ll probably have about the same as the Titan. As the ad for the Titan points out, if you’re gonna shoot 810, you probably already own a few film holders, and have an idea of what kind of film you’ll be shooting.IF you’re really feeling randy (get it?), find a wooden crate from the 1950’s or 60’s, have a carpenter make the fourth side out of 1/4 inch plywood and buy a couple of Graflok locks, you can make a camera by cannibalizing anybody’s old 8xo10 back and fitting it to your new wood side. Screw it onto the box. You can’t use glue as it doesn’t hold in the long run. Liquid Nails will be OK for a while, but then one day when you’re looking at a great scene and you’ve just slid the film holder in it will loosen and &$^*TIN&%^$%&HU%. Oh yeah, and you have to paint the whole interior flat black with a brush to really fill all the cracks. Spray paint doesn’t do it.On Sep 1, 2013, at 6:40 PM, Randy Little wrote:BUt thats the point. If I wanted that type of quality I would take out the Wisner. This is the Holga/Diana of 8x10 4x5. I guess what I should do is find the min focus distance for my phone and build a mount for it to take a pictures of my ground glass so I can use Instagram.On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:For my money, I would just shoot with my Arca-Piss or Dorff as if you’re going to make the effort to shoot 810, then you should be able to get something useful from your efforts. The real problem with the Titan is the images are slightly OOF as if the camera is not on a VERY heavy and sturdy tripod, having any kind of wind blowing on that big body will blur the shots at 1/15th. Lest we forget, it is made from plastic and unlike hard woods and metal, plastic deforms fairly easily.From my work with Polaroid in the 80’s, I had to put my A-S on a 30kg Tele-Studex, hang a bag of sand under it, and park my VW in such a way that I could open the back hatch and block any wind, build a sturdy Shoji screen, or use my Foba tube set to build a wind wall. Shooting 810 Pol with a 10R and a 15Y added for exposure correction for daylight vs. studio flash was a nightmare. I spent almost as much time metering and color checking as I did lining up the shots. It was a drag and I’ll bet this camera would be similar if one shot color.They only gave me a case of Pol810 and the boxes had 15 sheets which had to be cool up until half an hour prior to exposure. IT was bizarre to be out in the field shooting 559 to test for the 810 I was about to expose and run through a processor powered by hand. It was fun and interesting, but I’m surprised I still have hair.On Sep 1, 2013, at 5:53 PM, Randy Little wrote:Well I would be fine at iso 3 for paper or I would just load film probably. Never tired hypersensitised paper could be interesting.
On Sep 1, 2013 2:46 PM, <wpettit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Have you considered hypersensitizing the paper? I remember doing something involving presoaking litho film in a silver bromide (?) solution in grad school, and then exposing it in a process camera at a small aperature under fairly dim lights--we were told it was a progcess that was useful in copying very fragile documents.
Bill-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Little
Sent: Sep 1, 2013 5:26 PM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: ilford positive paper3 or something. BUT I AM TRYING to be cool or I would just use my Wisner 8x10 sheesh. No of course film but paper, Man paper is like Instagram but without and iphone. Crazy I know.
Does anyone own a Harman Titan camera?On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:For my money, I would shoot Tri-X. At f288, you’re looking at some very long exposures even with Tri-X. Their direct positive is very slow by comparison. I haven’t used it in some time but I think it ah an ISO of 8.On Sep 1, 2013, at 3:58 PM, Randy Little wrote:Yes Jan ilford (Harman) paper for like 35 years (I loved Kodak fineart :-( ) but I have never used the direct positive and I would love to stick that in my 8x10 wisner or even the Harman titan 8x10 Pen hole camera. But is is any good and what is its behavior like? Dlog curve Dmax dmin extra. I;m sure I will try some when I get done with this stupid movie but if anyone has experience with it.On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Jan Faul <jan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Inkjet or darkroom? Their darkroom papers are great and their inkjet papers are too. I normally do not print on Epson, but use Ilford.On Sep 1, 2013, at 2:45 PM, Randy Little wrote:Has anyone used the ilford positive papers?
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
Art FaulThe Artist Formerly Known as Prints------Art for Cars: art4carz.comStills That Move: http://www.artfaul.comGreens: http://www.inkjetprince.comCamera Works - The Washington Post.
