|
Rangefinder Magazine
Departments/January 2002
Problems and Solutions
Please accompany your questions with a self-addressed
stamped envelope if you wish an immediate reply. Alternatively, you can
e-mail me at: bhurter@rfpublishing.com.
From: Donald Norton
San Diego, CA
I’m writing you in the hope that you may be of some help to me
in my search for negative retouching fluid, otherwise known in the business
as “dope.” It is used in negative retouching to add substance
to the film so that the retouching leads can be used to work the negative.
Eastman Kodak in Rochester advised me to contact the Calumet Camera people
as they once were in the view camera and portraiture business. But I can’t
find a location on them. For your part, you may have a resident expert
on portraiture who can help me out.
I could not find this product anywhere, and from the looks of things,
it has been discontinued. However, I spoke with the folks at Veronica
Cass Academy and they have a small quantity of bottles left that they
would be willing to part with on an individual basis. For more information,
contact Veronica Cass Academy, www.veronicacass.com; e-mail: veronicacass
inc@worldnet.att.net, (800) 472-9336.
From: Edwin Hahn, CPP, Sr.
Photographer, Argonne National
Idaho Falls, ID
Labedwin.hahn@anlw.anl.gov
In the RF October issue, Wendell Franks inquired about digital cameras
that he could use with studio strobes. Wein makes a “Safe Sync”
hot-shoe with a built-in 6-volt regulator so you won’t fry the camera.
Connect it to the digital camera’s hot-shoe. Calumet sells it for
$49.99.
You’re right. Safe Sync is in the current Wein product listing. There
are several versions available, but the one with the hot-shoe connector
is catalog number 990-550. For more information, see Wein’s website
at Saunders Company: www.saundersphoto.com/html/body_wein.htm.
From: Steve Kovacs
31@qcnet.net
In the mid-1960’s I took many photographs on Kodachrome 35mm slide
film that have been in storage ever since. The slides were inserted into
clear, sleeved pages, placed inside a ring binder, and—unfortunately—stored
upright on an open bookshelf. When I had occasion to review these slides
recently I was dismayed to discover that a fine coating of 35 years of
household dust had found its way down into the sleeves and settled onto
the slides. I tried both compressed air and a very delicate touch with
a soft cloth to no avail. The dust particles will not come off and have
thereby rendered the slides useless for publication.
Is there still hope? Can you recommend a cleaning solution that will bring
these slides back to life without harming the emulsion or causing the
colors to fade? If such a solution is readily available, can I confidently
do the cleaning myself or is it a job for a photo lab? Likewise, can I
remain confident in the work of any photo lab or is there a trick to the
procedure that only long experience can best accomplish? The subject matter
on these slides is long gone and the photos have become irreplaceable.
Who knew? I eagerly await your advice.
According to a Kodak advice bulletin I ran across on the Internet, the
active ingredient of film cleaner, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane, was banned from
manufacture because it is listed as an ozone-depleting chemical. This
was the most popular solvent for many years and is relatively safe for
hand-cleaning. You may still find stocks of it around, but it is apparently
no longer made. Such solvents as perchlorethylene are not recommended
because they are “quite toxic,” according to the report. Isopropanol
seems to be a popular solution hand-cleaning and is also relatively safe,
although flammable. Good ventilation should always be used with any solvents
used for hand-cleaning and the Material Safety Data Sheet should be obtained
from the supplier and read carefully before using a solvent. I suggest
you go to the Kodak page and review the information there on solvents.
The address is:http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/hse/solvent.shtml.
If it seems too time consuming for you personally, try contacting your
local pro lab and see if they offer the service.
The Direct Marketing Association (The DMA) said recently that film and
photographs can still safely be mailed through the United States Postal
Service (USPS), even though postal officials are in the process of implementing
a new sanitation system to protect workers and customers from anthrax
exposure. In 2000, more than four million Americans used the mail to process
their pictures.
DMA president and CEO, H. Robert Wientzen, commented that “We have
heard concerns from direct marketers and consumers that sensitive items,
such as film and photographs, are being damaged in the mail. This is classic
overreaction at this point in time.”
The Postal Service is testing new sanitation technology on a wide range
of film products, digital and magnetic storage devices, laboratory samples,
food and plant products, and “smart” credit cards with embedded
chips. Postal officials say all of these items can be safely processed
through the postal system.
The DMA’s Web Site is www.the-dma.org.
From: Allan Speevak
aspeevak@telus.net
As a relatively new user of the Fuji S-1, I have found contradictory
information pertaining to the digital settings on the camera, to accomplish
saleable photographic portraits, (outdoors and under studio lights). This
question is intended to reduce my time in experimentation, as I am already
using the camera on assignments. Specifically, the second set of function
settings are for color, tone and sharpness (settings are Standard and
Hard). I find I must use “hard” to get satisfactory sharpness
on prints 8x10 or larger. But these, while sharp with the hard setting,
often generate “hard” lines around the edge of people, their
limbs, etc. depending on lighting. The contradictory advice includes some
pros who agree you must use the Hard setting on sharpness to get satisfactory
enlargements/portraits, versus other advice to turn sharpness off, and
rely on the unsharp mask in Photoshop. But repeated using of the unsharp
mask in Photoshop as one edits and re-edits digital photos, appears to
produce some unsatisfactory patterns within photos and other aberrations?
Any advice to shorten the learning curve would be appreciated.
I have my suspicions about “over sharpening” with Unsharp Mask
in PS, but I have forwarded your e-mail to Michael Campbell, who reviewed
the Fuji S-1 for us a while back. He uses the camera frequently so stay
tuned.
|
