|
HPL posted:What's the easiest fast B&W film to develop? I want to shoot at ISO1600 and maybe even push develop to 3200 (The Pentax MX maxes out at ISO1600). From what I can tell, there's Fuji Neopan 1600, T-Max P3200 and Ilford Delta 3200. They all cost around the same, so that's not a huge factor, I'm just talking about which film is the most tolerant to developing errors and general newbness? Tri-X is amazing. Push it as far as you want. 3200 is no problem.
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2009 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
Reichstag posted:Tri-X is a great, versatile film, buy it cheaply as Arita Premium 400 at freestyle photo. Sorry that you don't like the camera. I felt the same way for a while. I still carried my F100 for like a year after I bought a D70.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2009 00:58
|
|
|
Gnomad posted:
Sell it to some one for two dollars! Profit!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
That is ugly as sin but drat cool.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2009 11:59
|
|
|
HPL posted:Quick question: Does it matter what kind of stop and fixer I use or will any kind do? Right now I use Ilfostop and Ilford Rapid Fixer with HC-110, but I'm tearing through the rapid fixer at a rapid rate since it's 1:9. Would be nice to explore cheaper or more plentiful options. Stop with water. It's cheap and works just fine, plus you will never accidently forget to dilute the stop bath and let it eat a roll of film. Reuse fix. I do a clip test at the beginning of every development session. It's quick and easy. Just take the film leader throw it in a shot glass, splash in some fix and time it. Then double what ever time it takes for the film to become clear and there you have an accurate fix time. Throw out the fix when It starts taking twice as long to clear the film as when you started. I keep a note book in my box o' B&W stuff and right out all my times and temps for every roll I do that way I have records of what works for me and what doesn't. Developing B&w film is an art unto it's self, especially if you are doing crazy long pushes and experimenting with agitation/time to reduce contrast. Record keeping is what will allow you to repeat a perfect roll.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2009 04:26
|
|
|
drat you guys and your russian rangefinders. Now I really want a zorki 6.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2009 00:20
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:How about one of those Nokton 50mm f/1.1 lenses on an Epson R-D1? If you are doing the developing yourself stay away from the T-max film unless you are using T-max developer as it tends to get muddy in other soups. Tri-x is your best bet. Lots of latitude and very versatile push/pull wise.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 22:09
|
|
Oops, wrong thread. 
v
|
I have always found HP5+ to have less contrast than Tri-X. Tri-X seems to hold up better with crazy pushes as well(like EI 25600).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 22:32
|
|
|
HPL posted:
Depends on how you develop it. Diluted HC-110 and semi stand development is the way to go. Although I used see a guy at Photosig that pushed his Tri-X in rodinal and drat was it beautiful at 3200 and 6400. This is a medium rez lab scan of Tri-X at 3200. Edit: drat it I didn't think it was that wide. That's what I get for not bothering to open it in photoshop before I post it. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Jul 21, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2009 22:51
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I've no time to scan them again, and seriously, re-splinching everything together would take me another day or two. This one took a ridiculous amount of time in itself. This is it. All I can do is clean it up. Also, #2 is a single photo, with probably some distortion towards the edges, but that's it really. And yes, climbing electrical towers is illegal, and I think you'll find I did it all in Photoshop and from angles and with lenses that mean I don't have to actually climb the tower in question. Why is there weird blue/yellow splotches in the shadow areas?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 23, 2009 00:06
|
|
|
I want a Leica so bad I can taste it. I have just never been able to justify one considering I have 2 Nikon F100s that I never use. Someday...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2009 01:19
|
|
|
Dr. Cogwerks posted:Argh. I'm borrowing a Yashica 124G for a few days and just managed to gently caress up half a roll of T-Max because the film advance is being finicky. Some of my best shots taken with my Yashica 635 have been double exposures because I picked the camera up and had forgotten to wind the film. So if they are double exposures take a second look and see if there's anything cool in there.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2009 01:24
|
|
|
So I just moved to Seattle. I was hoping for some recommendations on where to get 120 developed. I would prefer scans but also need to find a decent place to get prints. For the record I live in Northgate.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2009 19:24
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:What's the consensus on Kodak P3200? I used to shoot a lot of Tmax 3200 before I switched to home developing and mostly Tri-x. It's really only about an ISO 1000 film, it just gets pushed by default. It's grainier with more contrast than Delta 3200. It has less contrast at higher EIs than Tri-x but more grain. It pushed well up to about EI 12800. Bear in mind that I wasn't home developing it. My old lab uses T-max developer exclusively, so I have no idea what this film will do in something else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2009 19:04
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Really? Delta 400 is the one film I've tried and absolutely hated. Much prefer HP5 or Tri-x. That is because T grained film looks awful.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 04:33
|
|
|
I just picked up an original Olympus Stylus at goodwill for 2 dollars. So far lots of fun.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2009 07:09
|
|
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again HC-110 4lyfe
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2009 08:08
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:http://www.photoness.de/yodo_analog/ Well I am punching the very next japanese person I meet in the face. I want a supermarket produce section full of film.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2009 07:34
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:I'm looking at the Massive Dev Chart here. What does it mean when the time for 120 is 3+3 minutes? 3 minutes agitation, 3 minutes standing? I've seen 1+63 used for dilution info, but never for this (newbie). Diafine is a two part developer. 3+3 means 3 minutes in part A and 3 minutes in part B.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2009 00:56
|
|
|
Stregone posted:So someone donated a bunch of stuff to my school, and most of it was stuff that the classes don't need, so they were letting students take anything they wanted. Among the stuff was a couple cases of Microdol-X and Polydol powder developer. They are in cans kinda like soup. They look pretty old. Should they still be good? Shaking them it feels and sounds like it is not clumped at all, its like a can full of sand. I grabbed a couple cans to play with in case they were. Throw that squeegee out. It will scratch your negs, almost guaranteed.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2009 09:56
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Does anyone have experience pushing Tmax 400? Normally I prefer Tri-X, but my local shop only had Tmax, which I understand isn't as good for push/pull processing. I may be able to shoot it at box speed, but wondering what my options are if 400 comes up a bit short. I have shot tmax 400 at 1600 and it's kinda meh. I didn't like what push processing did to the tonality of the film (which I never liked to begin with) and the highlights seemed to block up badly. I was souping in HC-110 so YMMV if you use Tamx developer. Also you might be okay if you are shooting low contrast scenes. At the time I was shooting high contrast low light stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2009 18:17
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Fix for at least 6 minutes, 8 if you can spare the time, you can't really overfix film. You can over fix film. A few extra minutes probably won't do much damage but leaving it too long in the fix will wash out some silver bleaching the highlights. One time I took a phone call while fixing some Tri-X and lost track of what I was doing messed them up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 09:06
|
|
|
Score another one for goodwill. I just picked up a functional Durst M600 enlarger for 13 bucks. No lens or board but I can grab those easily enough.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2009 06:59
|
|
|
HPL posted:Um... who said anything about a digital point and shoot? The Olympus Stylus Epic is the perfect pocket film camera for party shots. And under 5 bucks at Goodwill. Seriously awesome camera for the money. Bonus points if you can find a limited one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2009 10:07
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:Howdy guys, quick question. I am pushing Tri-x 400 to ISO1000 (highest my camera goes to). When pushing, do I use the development times for iso800 push, or do I try to bump up the time to account for the discrepancy? If so, how much time? Just use Diafine.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2009 04:32
|
|
|
The best resource for mixing up HC-110 :http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/index.html It rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2009 06:16
|
|
|
I like Delta 3200 in 120. In 35mm you get tighter grain pushing Tri-X than shooting TMZ at box speed. Shadow detail is pretty much dependent on the scenes contrast. I used to shoot a lot of TMZ until I learned to process my own film.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 07:41
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I have only read about TMZ TMZ's actual ISO is around 1000 and Delta 3200's is 1600 so yes a smidge more shadow detail in theory. Once again that will depend on how you develop them and the contrast of the scene you are shooting. A high contrast scene with deep shadows and bright highlights will be pretty much a wash on shadow detail with both film stocks shot and developed identically.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2009 06:00
|
|
|
notlodar posted:I hear delta 3200 is closer to 1000/1200 as well. The point is that step or two makes a world of difference, not a smidge. It's not a step or two, it's a quarter to a half a step. Which is not a lot when most of the scene is zone 0. It will if you are shooting something that is lower contrast and gives you some developer wiggle room. Real world though people shoot TMZ and Delta 3200 in low light high contrast situations where you will be sacrificing more shadow detail than saving (highlights too). Once again not trying to be a jerk, just to spread around some of the things I learned shooting high speed B&W.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2009 07:20
|
|
|
notlodar posted:400 to 1200/1600? The problem is that it isn't zone 0. In a high contrast situation there are less midtones, thus, more zones in the shadows, but the zone system is only really a guide, and in practice, 11 zones aren't enough. I thought we were talking TMZ versus Delta 3200? TMZ's true ISO is roughly 1000 and Delta 3200's is roughly 1600 (or 1200 depending upon who you talk to). That's not a lot of difference certainly not enough to see a real world shadow detail increase. I know because I have shot both. That third (quarter?) stop won't net you enough shadow detail to to make a visible difference in most situations. Tri-X or any ISO 400 film will have less shadow detail than either of those film stocks. I prefer to push Tri-X because I prefer the look of an old style film to a T grain film in those situations. That being said I have shot Tri-X at EIs as high as 6400 with decent results. Personally I use HC-110 with a high dilution and stand development at high EIs. That and a no agitation water bath stop can rescue some shadow detail. The developer burns out first in the highlights, giving it some extra time can open up your shadows a bit. The problem is that film can only record so many stops of information. You need to sacrifice either shadow detail or highlight detail in anything over roughly 7 stops of contrast to get your midtones where you want them. The zone system just gives you a frame work to judge highlight, shadow, and midtone values and relate them to your development plans. I'm not one of those rabid zoners that obsessively chart every value in a scene.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2009 10:43
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Ohh, I really don't know much about TMZ besides what I have read, I mostly use Delta 3200. I thought we were comparing Delta 3200 to Tri X, my bad Oh that makes more sense now.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2009 03:08
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:words...cool camera... I recommend Kodak Porta 400NC. Fast(ish) tight grain, and natural colors.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 05:05
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:That was taken at Natural Bridges on the west side of Santa Cruz, ca. Same location of that surf shot at the top, one of the best waves we have! If you want tack sharp macro go with either slide film or Kodak Ektar 100. Those will have the tightest grain. I use Porta 400 mostly for people stuff but I really like the color palette.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 05:32
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:I've been looking through some sample photos of the Porta 400. I quite like the tightness of the grain, but I find the colors to be a little too subtle..also read that this film is not very forgiving. All print film is fairly forgiving compared to digital/slide. Take a look at the VC version if you are looking for more saturated colors. Fuji makes some nice film but I mostly shoot stuff made but the great yellow father.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2009 09:41
|
|
|
Google Butt posted:Interesting. Verbatim from the dude at Bayphoto "NC has been discontinued for like 5 years", I asked him if he carried an equivalent to nc/vc and he pointed me to the Portra UC. He is an idiot. Porta "UC" has been discontinued for years. NC and VC are still going strong. Hell I bought 70 bucks worth of 400NC last weekend. Reala is nice if you can get away with 100 film. I used to shoot it a bit in 35mm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 04:41
|
|
|
I light fires posted:Sounds like a plan though that particular auctions buy it now option is in the price range I'm looking to stay around (100-200). Would that be considered a fair price for that particular model. keh has a yashica 635 for $140 which sounds okay but by the time it got up here it would be pushing my budget for something I'm not entirely sure is worth 140 in the first place. I like my Yashica 635. It's pretty soft wide open but the view finder is ok as long as you can put up with the weird red marks to frame 35mm film.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 23:56
|
|
|
I light fires posted:The body is pretty dirty and I just want to clean it up before I start using it but I don't want to get too carried away and break something or miss something important. Q-tips, paper towels and lighter fluid. That should remove any weird gunk.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2009 04:47
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I have a random question. Most developers don't smell very much. You can get odorless fix but I have never had a room mate complain about the smell of the regular stuff. Just use water stop baths so that she doesn't have to smell the acid.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2010 21:05
|
|
|
unSavory posted:
Pushing and pulling. Well first things first the difference between 400 and 800 might be enough enough to get you a high enough shutter speed to avoid camera shake. The other important thing it provides is pushing increases contrast and pulling reduces it. This is useful with b&w film. If you find yourself in a high contrast lighting situation pulling a few stops might make things a bit less harsh. Pushing on the other hand can provide some contrast.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2010 06:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 8, 2024 05:39 |
|
|
penneydude posted:How far can you push Tri-X with Diafine before it just doesn't work anymore? I have a roll of Tri-X I shot at 3200 and one at 6400 and I'm not all too sure how to develop them. I'm thinking Diafine isn't going to be able to go that far, but for future reference it would be good to know. There is a shop around here that says they will do them for like $13 a piece, but clearly I could do it cheaper if I could just figure out wtf to do... Tri-X has a speed of about 1250 in Diafine. If you need 3200 and 6400 you need to use something else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2010 05:56
|
|