Many thanks for the specific remarks- about both topics

Back in September 13 a post mentioned "need to have a camera with a good dynamic range".

Which of the present Nikon SLR's would be able to accommodate the range in the attached photograph (taken on Kodachrome film) Our subjects have a range from zone 7 to 9 on an 11 step scale. At present we have Nikon D 7100.

Do upscale digital cameras really vary in their ability to accommodate wide dynamic ranges? Is one Nikon DSLR superior to others?

Sorry, I could not get the photo to attach. It was a white brain slice on a black background.

There is a lot in favor of manual focusing in close-up and macrophotography. At a Ratio of Reproduction of RR=1:4 (field size of 4x6 inches for full frame 35mm camera) the DoF at F-16 is only a 1/2 an inch. Thus it is not desirable to focus on the surface but approx. 1/4 inch below it to maximize the available DoF for a thick specimen-unless you use stacking. As I understand it, auto focusing focuses on the surface nearest to the camera.

Interestingly, the term "macrophotography" seems to have changed over the years. It used to mean an RR (magnification) of 1:10 and less i.e. extending down to life size.
Look at lenses marked "macro" such as the 50mm Nikon and the older model's maximum magnification is 1/2 i.e. RR=1:2

I also put the chemicals in a tub on a shelf in an air-conditioned room. For a temperature between 65°F and 72°F there are no problems unless the chemicals are at different temperatures. There are plenty of a good tables giving the development time for a specific film in that temperature range. There are different charts or graphs for each developer and film - in other words the change in development with temperature is not universal.

In addition to all the chemicals, I have 1-2 gallon jugs of water with them ( milk jug), use a neutralizer to the fixative and then fill and empty the tank four- five times, usually including a drop of a detergent as a wetting agent. I can't remember the name of the photographic one.

A point mentioned in other posts is to be aware of agitation after the tank is inverted. Developers with high acutance need that quite time between inversion to cause the "adjacency effect" which accentuates the junction of light and dark areas. Some call for inversion every 30 seconds, other specify a minute.

One of the easiest tanks to load is a Patterson. I have used one for 50 years . Only rarely will they fail to load and accept the film. That is often due to the film being cut across a sprocket hole. No problem. Even in the dark it is possible to round off the corners, not through a sprocket hole.

It was interesting to see the fidelity of the color. The blue of the Jacaranda flower was one pigment that would not record as blue on the original Kodachrome (ASA=10).

Thanks to all who responded with suggestions regarding the use of off-the-camera flash in autopsy room photography. There were many suggestions but for this type of photography, the whole camera and flash unit has to be compact and essentially consist of the camera, flash bracket and an off-the-camera flash. It is necessary for the off-the-camera flash unit to be the main or key light, providing the modeling lighting and the bulk of the illumination and that the built in flash on the camera provide the fill light. Lighting does need to produce modeling to reveal the contours and textures of the surface and one that mimics the standard portrait lighting works quite well. For this the main light is from the left and above and the fill light along the cameras axis with a ratio of approximately 1.5: 1 or 2:1.

For close-up photography (up to 2x3 inch field) the flash unit mounted on the flash bracket to the side works very well but as the field of view becomes larger the flash has to be removed from the bracket and hand held in order to cast shadows to record modeling. Ring lights which produce no shadows or modeling are contraindicated except for very small fields e.g. 2x3 inch and smaller for a 35mm camera where the working distance (lens-subject distance) is so small.
Thus the optimal would be a camera which would support off-the-camera flash, use the built in flash of the camera as a fill light and be able to dial in the ratio of the main to fill light into the camera. Was it Pentax that had something like this 20 years ago?
I have looked at the different models of Canon and Nikon and see that some of them, including my Nikon D50, have the flash shoe on top of the cover for the built-in flash and thus it is impossible to use both the off-the-camera flash and the built-in flash simultaneously. The question is-"with which Canon and Nikon cameras is it possible to use both the off the camera flash and the built in camera flash simultaneously.”
I have enclosed a photograph of an operator using an off-the-camera flash (without any fill flash from the camera’s flash) to photograph and isolated organ and two photographs-cirrhosis and a nasal tumor. This type of photography is done far better under studio type lighting but there are occasions when speed is of the essence or the subject is too large. The photograph of the operator shows why the whole unit must be compact. This arrangement works very well except, when the flash unit is remounted on the flash bracket, excess synchronizer cable which can drop down and be contaminated by a specimen.
I realize that it is unlikely that any of the cameras offer the option for them to control the main to fill light ratio. However if there are some cameras which accept two flashes, it may be possible to control this ratio by altering the power output of the off-the-camera flash. I presume that none of the cameras offer any control over the output of the built-in flash. A major problem seems to be that the output of the off-the-camera flash is not powerful enough to produce a main to fill light ratio of 3:1 when it is held 4-5 feet off the camera and the camera and its flash are only a couple of feet from the specimen.
I would appreciate any suggestions that could help in this matter.
Donald McGavin

Thanks to all who responded with suggestions regarding the use of off-the-camera flash in autopsy room photography. There were many suggestions but for this type of photography, the whole camera and flash unit has to be compact and essentially consist of the camera, flash bracket and an off-the-camera flash. It is necessary for the off-the-camera flash unit to be the main or key light, providing the modeling lighting and the bulk of the illumination and that the built in flash on the camera provide the fill light. Lighting does need to produce modeling to reveal the contours and textures of the surface and one that mimics the standard portrait lighting works quite well. For this the main light is from the left and above and the fill light along the cameras axis with a ratio of approximately 1.5: 1 or 2:1.

For close-up photography (up to 2x3 inch field) the flash unit mounted on the flash bracket to the side works very well but as the field of view becomes larger the flash has to be removed from the bracket and hand held in order to cast shadows to record modeling. Ring lights which produce no shadows or modeling are contraindicated except for very small fields e.g. 2x3 inch and smaller for a 35mm camera where the working distance (lens-subject distance) is so small.
Thus the optimal would be a camera which would support off-the-camera flash, use the built in flash of the camera as a fill light and be able to dial in the ratio of the main to fill light into the camera. Was it Pentax that had something like this 20 years ago?
I have looked at the different models of Canon and Nikon and see that some of them, including my Nikon D50, have the flash shoe on top of the cover for the built-in flash and thus it is impossible to use both the off-the-camera flash and the built-in flash simultaneously. The question is-"with which Canon and Nikon cameras is it possible to use both the off the camera flash and the built in camera flash simultaneously.”
I have enclosed a photograph of an operator using an off-the-camera flash (without any fill flash from the camera’s flash) to photograph and isolated organ and two photographs-cirrhosis and a nasal tumor. This type of photography is done far better under studio type lighting but there are occasions when speed is of the essence or the subject is too large. The photograph of the operator shows why the whole unit must be compact. This arrangement works very well except, when the flash unit is remounted on the flash bracket, excess synchronizer cable which can drop down and be contaminated by a specimen.
I realize that it is unlikely that any of the cameras offer the option for them to control the main to fill light ratio. However if there are some cameras which accept two flashes, it may be possible to control this ratio by altering the power output of the off-the-camera flash. I presume that none of the cameras offer any control over the output of the built-in flash. A major problem seems to be that the output of the off-the-camera flash is not powerful enough to produce a main to fill light ratio of 3:1 when it is held 4-5 feet off the camera and the camera and its flash are only a couple of feet from the specimen.
I would appreciate any suggestions that could help in this matter.
Donald McGavin

PS I could not find the procedure to add the illustrations. Any advice? The message does not make much sense without them.Do I have to go back to New Topic?

I think that I have failed to describe the situation with the Minolta system adequately.

It had the usual special synchronizer cable from the camera to the off the camera flash unit. This flash was used as the Main or Key light and then the flash on the camera became the fill light. It was possible to dial in the amount of fill-as a half or a quarter of that of the Main light. The way that the built in flash was activated was to flip it up on the camera.

The advantage of all this was that a very small portable system was able to give a Main light and a controlled fill light over a field of up to approximately 24 x 18". The main light was positioned manually at the top left to cast shadows down and to the right as with routine portrait lighting, and then the flash on the camera put some detail into the shadows.
Alternatively the flash could be mounted on the small bracket to the side of the lens axis and for very small fields of 4 x 6 and less, with the flash on top of the flash bracket and pointing down, it still gave good modeling or texture.

The Nikon D80 was a bit of a disappointment because the so-called "fill" light was so intense it wiped out any modeling or texture and removed any "mood" in ambient lighting.
I do use the off the camera flash unit to the side and above the lens axis but at no more than 30° from the camera's lens axis, otherwise there are big empty shadows.

Perhaps I should explain that this equipment is used for autopsy photography where it is essential to keep equipment compact and relatively simple and away from contamination. There is no question that an OCF and on-camera fill light, the latter with controlled fill, gives excellent results, as my old Minolta did.

I must admit that I thought that this simple arrangement, available 15 years ago would now be incorporated in modern SLR cameras.

Perhaps it is and I don't know. If it is available as a simple system as on the Minolta would you please let me know which models have this.

I am using a Nikon D-80.Previously I had a Minolta which had metering for an off the camera flash unit, at the same time as using the on camera flash fulfill in. It really was fill-in and it was possible to dial what percentage of the OTC light one wanted as the fill light. Frankly it was great for small objects at close distances where one wanted to maintain texture lighting.

After Minorca went bust, I figured it was just a matter of time before one of the manufacturers offered the same option.
Could you please tell me if an DSLR's cameras have this ability.