Recent content by Jarin Blaschke

Indeed - for diffraction I usually don't like to stop beyond /45 whenever possible, so that seems to put me at /16 to /22, pretty shallow depth of field in 14x17. I suppose if Karsh used a 14" Commercial Ektar it can't be that bad for close-ups. If the picture is any good, I'll drop the small...

Hello Hive: Out of curiosity, I recently mounted my so far unused 14" Commercial Ektar on my new 14x17 camera to find that there was an image over the entire ground glass at infinity! There was even room for rise. I know that just because there is image, doesn't mean there is useable sharp...

I happen to be, yes. I often have to match a dozen or more HMIs by eye. At any intensity level, the flash will appear in the large glass front of the building, although to be fair, maybe large movements on the camera can fix this, with other consequences. Flash is also very much a taste thing...

Nah, it’ll show up in the glass. Even if it didn’t, unless it’s at a very low level (-4), it’s ugly light to look at besides. Even uglier than the indigenous street lighting. But we can agree on Ektar. My advice is to pick the right time to shoot. J

I have a “newer” deardorff (1980s) in fantastic shape but would never call it “rock solid” by any imaginative stretch. It bounces and wiggles a lot compared to my Lotus. The front extensions are very thin. Definitely wait for wind to settle completely when using it. I find the weight very...

Hi there: Do you have a spot meter? That way, you can set up early and wait for the right lighting ratios to materialise. The issue seems to be the time in the evening you shot it, rather than the film or format. 15-20 minutes later could make all the difference. The best time also depends on...

I’ve had Dearforff (in very good condition), Canham and Lotus. The Lotus is definitely the sturdiest and best built of the 3, almost a luxury item compared to the others. You can also buy it with a fresnel screen, which now is a non-negotiable must for me. The Canham is the lightest, but I...

FP4. It makes no sense because there is no magnification but the images on Lodima had more detail and sharpness than Galerie, for reasons I can’t understand. To a blatant degree.

If you find it, post it! There are no more optical steps in motion picture cinematography. Everything is scanned from the start although Chris Nolan is a mainstream exception. Even if some purely analog show prints are made, these days they will be few enough (<20) to warrant a direct contact...

At the time I did the comparison test, Galerie was actually my usual paper and I had never used MGWT. Lodima G4 and Galerie G3 were not that different in contrast. But the sharpness and "dimensionality" of the Chloride paper led me to walk away from Galerie forever. What would curve shape have...

I actually tested a tiny sample of Bergger warm tone alongside MGWT. It flattened the highlights even more than the Ilford, so I didn’t pursue further that day.

Testing Galerie versus Lodima and Lupex some years ago (chronicled here) is what committed me to chloride papers. There was no comparison. Galerie showed much less detail, looked much less dimensional and had weak blacks next to Lodima. It almost looked like a newspaper reproduction by...

I agree, the compensation in the highlights is a “look” and a question of personal taste rather than a problem. Personally I need to print more images before I can decide where I stand with that look. It seems that more restrainer will help a little bit, but will never match the curve of a...

This is all interesting to ponder in regards to pyro stain and contrast and what to do about shadows and highlights having different contrasts on VC paper.

So confirming that citric acid has no visual effect, it is solely a preservative? The HQ is low but at stock dilution matches the overall contrast of Amidol very well. It’s just a cooler color. I’m using WD2D+ and WD2H, not Pyrocat. As stated, extremely happy with the tonality overall. It’s...