pinhole-discussion:: Re:pinhole-discussion-digest V1 #63

From: denisewand <denisewand_at_domain.name.suppressed>
Date: Tue 01 Jun 2004 - 05:34:29 PDT

Hi, I´d like to have my name out of this list. Thanks

>
> pinhole-discussion-digest Friday, May 28
2004 Volume 01 : Number 063
>
>
>
> Please DO NOT QUOTE the entire digest when replying
to a posting,
> only quote the message you are replying to.
>
> Included in this issue:
> RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film
> RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film
> RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film
> RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film
> Re: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
-----------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:00:09 -0400
> From: "Andy - Warwick" <aschmitt@warwick.net>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> it's tough to be rich... 8o)
> now all you have to do is store it
> good for you !
> andy
>
> - -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> [mailto:owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org]On
Behalf Of George L
> Smyth
> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:42 PM
> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
>
>
> Gord -
>
> You are right - cost is indeed a factor. I've got a
roll of 9.5"X100' ortho
> film and just the other day received another roll of
something rather
> similar from a friend who is going digital (he also
gave me several hundred
> sheets of 4X5, about 600 rolls of film, and a stack
of paper about four feet
> high - I am set for life <g>).
>
> The nice thing with working with inexpensive
materials is that it allows one
> to do a bit more experimenting than would be the
case with cost
> considerations.
>
> Cheers -
>
> george
>
> - -----
> http://www.GLSmyth.com
> http://DRiPInvesting.org
>
> --- On Wed 05/26, Gordon J. Holtslander <
holtsg@duke.usask.ca > wrote:
> From: Gordon J. Holtslander [mailto:
holtsg@duke.usask.ca]
> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:46:14 -0600
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> Hi: Excuse the very late reply. I use
ortho film because its
> available in very large sizes. I use 8x10 and
occasionaly 12
> x18.(inches) This lets me do nice big contact
prints - which works very
> well with the alternative printing processes I
use. Comes in rolls
> to. If I ever get a few days in a row free I want
to build something
> like an 10 by 14 inch roll film
camera. Conventional film this size
> is prohibitively expensive. Ortho is at least 1/4
the
> cost. Gord On Wed, 5 May 2004, George
L Smyth
> wrote: > > Brad - > > "Regular"
sheet film has the advantage
> of rendering the scene properly, whereas ortho film
will not properly
> reproduce the reds and oranges. OTOH, ortho film
can be handles with the
> darkroom lights on and is less expensive than
panchromatic film. > >
> Personally, I use panchromatic film when shooting in
the 4X5 size, but when
> I increase to a larger size I go with orthochromatic
film, prima!
> rily because of the cost. With ortho film in the
larger sizes you will not
> need any special equipment, as you can just use the
pans you use to process
> your paper. > > BTW, if you do go the ortho
route, toss the
> development instructions you get from the box.
Ortho film is meant to be
> developed to black/clear with no gray gradations.
I've used dilute Dektol
> (1+10 - 1+20) and Rodinal with success, and there
are numerous formulas out
> there that will work just fine. > > Cheers -
 > >
> george > > ----- >
http://www.GLSmyth.com >
> http://DRiPInvesting.org > > --- On Sun
05/02, brad isaacs <
> p_bateman27@yahoo.ca > wrote: > From: brad isaacs
[mailto:
> p_bateman27@yahoo.ca] > To: pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org > Date:
> Sun, 2 May 2004 11:47:11 -0400 (EDT) > Subject:
[pinhole-discussion]
> sheet film v. ortho film > >
hi, regarding my last post
> regarding sheet film developing tanks, my real
dilemma is whether i
> should go into<!
> br>working with sheet film or ortho film. they both
seem to have their
> pros and cons but i don't have the experience to
really know. ortho film
> would be very easy to cut, load and process but
is more difficult
> to get. sheet film is easy to get but a little
more complicated to
> use, plus i'd need to get a tank. would one
produce better images than
> the other? i guess that would be my deciding
> factor... brad 
>
 ___________________________________________
_____________________
> ______ Post your free ad now!
>
http://personals.yahoo.ca __________________________
_____________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no
HTML pinhole-discussion
> mailing list pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > >
> _______________________________________________ >
No banners. No pop-ups.
> No kidding. > Make My Way your home on the Web -
> http://www.myway.com > _____________!
> __________________________________ > Post to the
list as PLAIN TEXT
> only - no HTML > pinhole-discussion mailing
list >
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > FAQ at
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > ---------------
> - ------------------------------------------
 Gordon J. Holtslander Dept.
> of Biology holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112
Science
> Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg University of
Saskatchewan Tel
> (306) 966-4433 Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan Fax (306) 966-4461
 Canada S7N
> 5E2 ----------------------------------------------
----------- ________
> _______________________________________ Post to
the list as PLAIN TEXT
> only - no HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
> list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html 
>
> _______________________________________________
> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> pinhole-discussion mailing list
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> pinhole-discussion mailing list
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 16:50:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "George L Smyth" <glsmyth@myway.com>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> andy -
>
> Storage is the key. I actually received much more
than I mentioned, but some of it was bad.
Exceptionally strange and not understood by me - for
the most part, the "regular" film was good and the
ortho film was fogged. My friend kept everything in a
freezer for years, and unbeknownst to him, at some
point in time the freezer gave up the ghost. Some
stuff was obviously no good (Kodak Mechanical Film -
never heard of it - Expires June 1969 <g>), but my
testing showed that the TMax and Ilford sheet film is
just fine, but the ortho (with the exception of what I
mentioned) was somewhat to unacceptably fogged. I
have no clue as to why this would be the case - he
told me that he stored everything together. I would
have thought the exact opposite would have been the
case.
>
> I now have the B&W film in the freezer (he gave me
about 500' of Velvia and about 50 rolls of assorted
chome film) and am trying to figure out how to store
the rest. I have not tossed the idea of buying an
apartment-sized refrigerator (I would buy a small
freezer of that size, if I knew where to get one).
>
> BTW, if anyone wants a box or two of the partially
fogged stuff (should be good for non-critical and
experimental mussings), send me a note
(GLSmyth@Yahoo.com). I have two 4X5" boxes of Kodak
Ortho and four boxes of 4X5" Duplicating film. I've
also got a 100' roll of 35mm Kodak ortho which I have
not tested for giveaway. I will pay the shipping if
the recipient promises to send me a small print made
from the film (or a note saying that it was no good).
>
> Cheers -
>
> george
>
> - -----
> http://www.GLSmyth.com
> http://DRiPInvesting.org
>
> --- On Fri 05/28, Andy - Warwick <
aschmitt@warwick.net > wrote:
> From: Andy - Warwick [mailto: aschmitt@warwick.net]
> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:00:09 -0400
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> it's tough to be rich... 8o) now all you have to
do is store it good for you ! andy -----
Original Message----- From: owner-pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org [mailto:owner-pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org]On Behalf Of George
L Smyth Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:42
PM To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org Subject:
RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho
film Gord - You are right - cost
is indeed a factor. I've got a roll of 9.5"X100'
ortho film and just the other day received another
roll of something rather similar from a friend who
is going digital (he also gave me several
hundred sheets of 4X5, about 600 rolls of film, and
a stack of paper about four feet high - I am set
for life <g>). The nice thing with working with
inexpensive materials is that it allows one to do a
bit more experimenting than would be the case with
cost considerations. Cheers -
 george ----- http://
> w!
> ww.GLSmyth.com http://DRiPInvesting.org --
- On Wed 05/26, Gordon J. Holtslander <
holtsg@duke.usask.ca > wrote: From: Gordon J.
Holtslander [mailto: holtsg@duke.usask.ca] To:
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org Date: Tue, 25 May
2004 22:46:14 -0600 Subject: RE: [pinhole-
discussion] sheet film v. ortho
film Hi: Excuse the very late
reply. I use ortho film because
its available in very large sizes. I use
8x10 and occasionaly 12 x18.(inches) This lets
me do nice big contact prints - which works
very well with the alternative printing processes I
use. Comes in rolls to. If I ever get a few
days in a row free I want to
build something like an 10 by 14 inch roll film
camera. Conventional film this size is
prohibitively expensive. Ortho is at least 1/4
the cost. Gord On Wed, 5 May 2004,
George L Smyth wrote: > > Brad -
 > > "Regular" sheet film has the advantage<
> b!
> r>of rendering the scene properly, whereas ortho
film will not properly reproduce the reds and
oranges. OTOH, ortho film can be handles with
the darkroom lights on and is less expensive than
panchromatic film. > > Personally, I use
panchromatic film when shooting in the 4X5 size, but
when I increase to a larger size I go with
orthochromatic film, prima! rily because of the
cost. With ortho film in the larger sizes you will
not need any special equipment, as you can just use
the pans you use to process your paper. > >
BTW, if you do go the ortho route, toss
the development instructions you get from the box.
Ortho film is meant to be developed to black/clear
with no gray gradations. I've used dilute Dektol 
(1+10 - 1+20) and Rodinal with success, and there are
numerous formulas out there that will work just
fine. > > Cheers -
 > > george > > ----- >
http://www.GLSmyth.com > http://DRiPInvesting.org
 
> >!
> > --- On Sun 05/02, brad isaacs
< p_bateman27@yahoo.ca > wrote: > From: brad
isaacs [mailto: p_bateman27@yahoo.ca] > To:
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > Date: Sun, 2
May 2004 11:47:11 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: [pinhole-
discussion] sheet film v. ortho film > >
hi, regarding my last post regarding sheet
film developing tanks, my real dilemma is whether
i should go into<! br>working with sheet film or
ortho film. they both seem to have their pros
and cons but i don't have the experience to really
know. ortho film would be very easy to cut, load
and process but is more difficult to get. sheet
film is easy to get but a little more complicated
to use, plus i'd need to get a tank. would one
produce better images than the other? i guess
that would be my
deciding factor... brad _____________________________________________________
___________ ______ Post your
> !
> free ad now!
 http://personals.yahoo.ca ______________________
_________________________ Post to the list as
PLAIN TEXT o
> nly - no HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ
at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > > _________________
______________________________ > No banners. No pop-
ups. No kidding. > Make My Way your home on the
Web - http://www.myway.com > _____________!
 __________________________________ > Post to
the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > pinhole-
discussion mailing list > pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org > FAQ
at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > --------------- ---
--------------------------------------- Gordon J.
Holtslander Dept. of
Biology holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112
Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg
 University of Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-
4433 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax (306)
966-4461 Canada S7N 5E2 ---------
------------------------------------------------
 ________ _____________________
> _!
> _________________ Post to the list as PLAIN
TEXT only - no HTML pinhole-discussion
mailing list pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org FAQ
at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html _______________________
________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No
kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com _______________________________
________________ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT
only - no HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html ___________________________
____________________ Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT
only - no HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html 
>
> _______________________________________________
> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> pinhole-discussion mailing list
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:40:50 -0700
> From: Pinhole Blender <chris@pinholeblender.com>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> George,
>
> Have you ever tried an anti fog solution in your
developer like Edwals Antifog. Its basiclly a chemical
named
> Benzotriazole. Its helped me salvage old film in the
past. It sounds like you have too much film to even try
> it. If your interested I have some in my lab, let me
know if you need any.
>
> Chris
>
> - --
> Pinhole Blender
> chris@pinholeblender.com
> http://www.pinholeblender.com
>
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
> > From: "George L Smyth" <glsmyth@myway.com>
> > Date: Fri, May 28, 2004 1:50 pm
> > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> >
> > andy -
> >
> > Storage is the key. I actually received much more
than I mentioned,
> > but some of it was bad. Exceptionally strange and
not understood by me
> > - for the most part, the "regular" film was good
and the ortho film was
> > fogged. My friend kept everything in a freezer
for years, and
> > unbeknownst to him, at some point in time the
freezer gave up the
> > ghost. Some stuff was obviously no good (Kodak
Mechanical Film - never
> > heard of it - Expires June 1969 <g>), but my
testing showed that the
> > TMax and Ilford sheet film is just fine, but the
ortho (with the
> > exception of what I mentioned) was somewhat to
unacceptably fogged. I
> > have no clue as to why this would be the case - he
told me that he
> > stored everything together. I would have thought
the exact opposite
> > would have been the case.
> >
> > I now have the B&W film in the freezer (he gave me
about 500' of Velvia
> > and about 50 rolls of assorted chome film) and am
trying to figure out
> > how to store the rest. I have not tossed the idea
of buying an
> > apartment-sized refrigerator (I would buy a small
freezer of that size,
> > if I knew where to get one).
> >
> > BTW, if anyone wants a box or two of the partially
fogged stuff (should
> > be good for non-critical and experimental
mussings), send me a note
> > (GLSmyth@Yahoo.com). I have two 4X5" boxes of
Kodak Ortho and four
> > boxes of 4X5" Duplicating film. I've also got a
100' roll of 35mm
> > Kodak ortho which I have not tested for giveaway.
I will pay the
> > shipping if the recipient promises to send me a
small print made from
> > the film (or a note saying that it was no good).
> >
> > Cheers -
> >
> > george
> >
> > -----
> > http://www.GLSmyth.com
> > http://DRiPInvesting.org
> >
> > --- On Fri 05/28, Andy - Warwick <
aschmitt@warwick.net > wrote:
> > From: Andy - Warwick [mailto: aschmitt@warwick.net]
> > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> > Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 07:00:09 -0400
> > Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
> >
> > it's tough to be rich... 8o) now all you have
to do is store
> > it good for you ! andy -----Original
Message----- From:
> > owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org 
[mailto:owner-pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org]On
> > Behalf Of George L Smyth Sent: Thursday, May
27, 2004 8:42
> > PM To: pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org Subject: RE:
> > [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho
film Gord
> > - You are right - cost is indeed a factor.
I've got a roll of
> > 9.5"X100' ortho film and just the other day
received another roll of
> > something rather similar from a friend who is
going digital (he also
> > gave me several hundred sheets of 4X5, about
600 rolls of film, and
> > a stack of paper about four feet high - I am
set for life
> > <g>). The nice thing with working with
inexpensive materials is
> > that it allows one to do a bit more
experimenting than would be the
> > case with cost considerations. Cheers
> > - george ----- http://w!
> >
ww.GLSmyth.com http://DRiPInvesting.org ---
On Wed 05/26,
> > Gordon J. Holtslander < holtsg@duke.usask.ca >
wrote: From: Gordon
> > J. Holtslander [mailto: holtsg@duke.usask.ca]
 To:
> > pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org Date: Tue, 25
May 2004 22:46:14
> > -0600 Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet
film v. ortho
> > film Hi: Excuse the very late
reply. I use ortho
> > film because its available in very large
sizes. I use 8x10 and
> > occasionaly 12 x18.(inches) This lets me do
nice big contact prints
> > - which works very well with the alternative
printing processes I
> > use. Comes in rolls to. If I ever get a
few days in a row
> > free I want to build something like an 10 by
14 inch roll film
> > camera. Conventional film this size is
prohibitively
> > expensive. Ortho is at least 1/4
the cost. Gord On
> > Wed, 5 May 2004, George L
Smyth wrote: > > Brad
> > - > > "Regular" sheet film has the
advantage<b!
> > r>of rendering the scene properly, whereas ortho
film will not
> > properly reproduce the reds and oranges. OTOH,
ortho film can be
> > handles with the darkroom lights on and is less
expensive than
> > panchromatic film. > > Personally, I use
panchromatic film
> > when shooting in the 4X5 size, but when I
increase to a larger size
> > I go with orthochromatic film, prima! rily
because of the cost.
> > With ortho film in the larger sizes you will
not need any special
> > equipment, as you can just use the pans you use to
process your
> > paper. > > BTW, if you do go the ortho
route, toss
> > the development instructions you get from the
box. Ortho film is
> > meant to be developed to black/clear with no
gray gradations. I've
> > used dilute Dektol (1+10 - 1+20) and Rodinal
with success, and there
> > are numerous formulas out there that will work
just fine. > >
> > Cheers - > > george > > ----- >
> >
http://www.GLSmyth.com > http://DRiPInvesting.org
 >!
> > > --- On Sun 05/02, brad isaacs
< p_bateman27@yahoo.ca >
> > wrote: > From: brad isaacs
[mailto: p_bateman27@yahoo.ca] >
> > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org >
Date: Sun, 2 May 2004
> > 11:47:11 -0400 (EDT) > Subject: [pinhole-
discussion] sheet film
> > v. ortho film > > hi, regarding my
last post regarding
> > sheet film developing tanks, my real dilemma is
whether i should
> > go into<! br>working with sheet film or ortho
film. they both
> > seem to have their pros and cons but i don't
have
> > the experience to really know. ortho
film would be very easy
> > to cut, load and process but is more
difficult to get. sheet film
> > is easy to get but a little more complicated
to use, plus i'd
> > need to get a tank. would one produce better
images than the
> > other? i guess that would be my
> >
>
deciding factor... brad _____________________________________________________
___________ ______
> > Post your !
> > free ad
> > now!
 http://personals.yahoo.ca ______________________
_________________________ Post
> > to the list as PLAIN TEXT o
> > nly - no HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
> > list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ
> >
> at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > > _________________
______________________________ >
> > No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. > Make
My Way your home on
> > the Web - http://www.myway.com >
> > _____________!
 __________________________________ > Post to the
> > list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > pinhole-
discussion mailing
> > list > pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org >
FAQ
> >
> at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html > --------------- ---
--------------------------------------- Gordon
> > J. Holtslander Dept. of
Biology holtsg@duke.usask.ca 112
> > Science Place http://duke.usask.ca/~holtsg
 University of
> > Saskatchewan Tel (306) 966-4433
 Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Fax
> > (306) 966-4461 Canada
> >
> S7N 5E2 ---------------------------------------
------------------
 ________ ______________________!
> > _________________ Post to the list as PLAIN
TEXT only - no
> > HTML pinhole-discussion
> > mailing list pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org FAQ
> >
> at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html _______________________
________________________ No
> > banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way
your home on the Web -
> >
http://www.myway.com _______________________________
________________ Post
> > to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no
HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
> > list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
> >
> http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html ___________________________
____________________ Post
> > to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no
HTML pinhole-discussion mailing
> > list pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org FAQ at
> > http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html 
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> > Make My Way your home on the Web -
http://www.myway.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> > pinhole-discussion mailing list
> > pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> > FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html
> _______________________________________________
> Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
> pinhole-discussion mailing list
> pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-
discussion/list.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 22:55:24 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "George L Smyth" <glsmyth@myway.com>
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> Chris -
>
> Good to hear form you. I had thought of that (never
done it, not sure how), but it looks like I do have
enough film to last quite some time (I've also got
500' of Tech Pan - gave away another roll of 500' to a
place on the Eastern Shore that teaches pinhole to
kids - and 2 400' rolls of Kodak Infrared).
>
> BTW, I've got some Portrigo film and a line on a
pigment printer, so I will probably be able to start
trying to work with digital negatives sometime soon.
>
> Cheers -
>
> george
>
> - -----
> http://www.GLSmyth.com
> http://DRiPInvesting.org
>
> --- On Fri 05/28, Pinhole Blender <
chris@pinholeblender.com > wrote:
> From: Pinhole Blender [mailto:
chris@pinholeblender.com]
> To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
> Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:40:50 -0700
> Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v.
ortho film
>
> George, Have you ever tried an anti fog
solution in your developer like Edwals Antifog. Its
basiclly a chemical named Benzotriazole. Its helped
me salvage old film in the past. It sounds like you
have too much film to even try it. If your
interested I have some in my lab, let me know if you
need any. Chris -- Pinhole
Blender chris_at_pinholeblender.com http://www.pinho
leblender.com > -------- Original Message --
------ > Subject: RE: [pinhole-discussion] sheet
film v. ortho film > From: "George L Smyth"
<glsmyth@myway.com> > Date: Fri, May 28, 2004 1:50
pm > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > >
andy - > > Storage is the key. I actually
received much more than I mentioned, > but some of
it was bad. Exceptionally strange and not understood
by me > - for the most part, the "regular" film was
good and the ortho film was > fogged. My friend
kept everything in a freezer for years, and >
unbeknown
> s!
> t to him, at some point in time the freezer gave up
the > ghost. Some stuff was obviously no good
(Kodak Mechanical Film - never > heard of it -
Expires June 1969 <g>), but my testing showed that
the > TMax and Ilford sheet film is just fine, but
the ortho (with the > exception of what I
mentioned) was somewhat to unacceptably fogged.
I > have no clue as to why this would be the case -
he told me that he > stored everything together. I
would have thought the exact opposite > would have
been the case. > > I now have the B&W film in
the freezer (he gave me about 500' of Velvia > and
about 50 rolls of assorted chome film) and am trying
to figure out > how to store the rest. I have not
tossed the idea of buying an > apartment-sized
refrigerator (I would buy a small freezer of that
size, > if I knew where to get one). > >
BTW, if anyone wants a box or two of the partially
fogged stuff (should > be good for non-critical and
expe
> r!
> imental mussings), send me a note >
(GLSmyth@Yahoo.com). I have two 4X5" boxes of Kodak
Ortho and four > boxes of 4X5" Duplicating film.
I've also got a 100' roll of 35mm > Kodak ortho
which I have not tested for giveaway. I will pay
the > shipping if the recipient promises to send me
a small print made from > the film (or a note
saying that it was no good). > > Cheers - >
 > george > > ----- >
http://www.GLSmyth.com >
http://DRiPInvesting.org > > --- On Fri 05/28,
Andy - Warwick < aschmitt@warwick.net > wrote: >
From: Andy - Warwick [mailto: aschmitt@warwick.net]
 > To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org > Date:
Fri, 28 May 2004 07:00:09 -0400 > Subject: RE:
[pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho film >
 > it's tough to be rich... 8o) now all you have
to do is store > it good for you !
 andy -----Original Message-----
 From: > owner-pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org [mailto:owner-pinh
> o!
> le-discussion@spitbite.org]On > Behalf Of George
L Smyth Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 8:42 >
PM To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org Subject:
RE: > [pinhole-discussion] sheet film v. ortho
film Gord > - You are right -
cost is indeed a factor. I've got a roll of >
9.5"X100' ortho film and just the other day
received another roll of > something
rather similar from a friend who is going digital
(he also > gave me several hundred sheets of
4X5, about 600 rolls of film, and > a stack of
paper about four feet high - I am set for life >
<g>). The nice thing with working with
inexpensive materials is > that it allows one to
do a bit more experimenting than would be the >
case with cost considerations. Cheers > -
 george ----- http://w! >
ww.GLSmyth.com http://DRiPInvesting.org ---
On Wed 05/26, > Gordon J. Holtslander <
holtsg@duke.usask.ca > wrote:<
> b!
> r>From: Gordon > J. Holtslander [mailto:
holtsg@duke.usask.ca] To: > pinhole-
discussion@spitbite.org Date: Tue, 25 May 2
> 004 22:46:14 > -0600 Subject: RE: [pinhole-
discussion] sheet film v. ortho >
film Hi: Excuse the very late
reply. I use ortho > film because
its available in very large sizes. I use
8x10 and > occasionaly 12 x18.(inches) This
lets me do nice big contact prints > - which
works very well with the alternative printing
processes I > use. Comes in rolls to. If
I ever get a few days in a row > free I want to
build something like an 10 by 14 inch roll
film > camera. Conventional film this
size is prohibitively > expensive. Ortho is at
least 1/4 the cost. Gord On >
Wed, 5 May 2004, George L
Smyth wrote: > > Brad > -
 > > "Regular" sheet film has the advantage<b!
 > r>of rendering the scene properly, whereas ortho
film will not > properly reproduce the reds and
oranges. OTOH, ortho film can be > handles with
the darkroom lights on a
> n!
> d is less expensive than > panchromatic
film. > > Personally, I use panchromatic
film > when shooting in the 4X5 size, but when I
increase to a larger size > I go with
orthochromatic film, prima! rily because of the
cost. > With ortho film in the larger sizes you
will not need any special > equipment, as you
can just use the pans you use to process your >
paper. > > BTW, if

__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/

_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Tue Jun 1 05:36:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon 03 Jan 2005 - 02:00:21 PST