Discussion of current 35mm film & processing?

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Al Dykes, May 30, 2010.

  1. Al Dykes

    Al Dykes Guest

    A recommendation of Costco for film developing and scanning has made
    me dust off my Nikon FE-2 kit. A look at film choices at B&H tells me
    that everything I knew about film is probably obsolete. I see lots of
    brands that I assume are made in China and fill gaps as the major
    brands drop products.

    Is there a Usenet group or web forum where film is discussed?
     
    Al Dykes, May 30, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Al Dykes

    Tim Conway Guest

    There are several film aficionados here to discuss it from time to time.
    Other groups, I'm not sure of.
     
    Tim Conway, May 30, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Dykes

    Jeff R. Guest

    I bought a (small) joblot of 125ASA B/W film on eBay, branded "Lucky" - made
    in China.

    Self-processed, it came out grainier than 1600ASA and about two stops too
    thin.
    I processed it as per regular plus-x with brand new chemistry.

    I think the "Lucky" means: "you're lucky if the images are usable."

    Now consigned to the bin, and I am happy to pay three times as much for
    genuine Kodak.
     
    Jeff R., May 30, 2010
    #3

  4. I'd love to get my hands on it. It's exactly what I want. It's basicaly the
    lower grade films produced before WWII (when Agfa developed gold doping) and
    antihalation coating was invented.

    The perfect match for my Keiv pre-war Contax clone.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, May 30, 2010
    #4
  5. Al Dykes

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest


    I use Lucky 100 (not 125, if it exists) and find it a quite decent to
    good film.
    Maybe, just maybe, perhaps and possibly you f*§&%d up developing it?
    ;-)

    To the O.P.:
    http://www.apug.org
    There you'll find many people who are *actually competent* in the use of
    film...
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 30, 2010
    #5
  6. ....and photography in general (unlike the many brand bigots found here).
     
    Christopher Loffredo, May 30, 2010
    #6
  7. If you want a "legacy" film, I suggest you try FomaPan from the
    Czech Republic.
     
    Michael Benveniste, May 30, 2010
    #7
  8. Al Dykes

    K W Hart Guest

    I've used the Lucky brand film,, but only for testing purposes. IMHO, it's
    quality is variable. It does have reuseable film cassettes.

    It you want consistantly good results, use the major manufacturer's
    products. They have the experience to make a good product consistently.

    Ken Hart
     
    K W Hart, May 30, 2010
    #8
  9. Al Dykes

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest

    Except that Fomapan 200 is a T-Grain film...
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 31, 2010
    #9
  10. Al Dykes

    Jeff R. Guest

    [groan]
    ....gets up off fat behind and staggers out to the darkroom.
    Yes... you're right. It's 100, not 125.
    Specifically: "Lucky *NEW* SHD100"
    (seems they can't spell "shit")

    As to f*&%ing up the developing - possible but unlikely.
    Last time I did that was in 1974, when I badly reticulated a roll of Tri-X.
    Since then I have been positively OCD about temperatures (and dilutions,
    freshness of solutions) etc. FP4 developed side-by-side (practically) is
    infinitely better.
     
    Jeff R., May 31, 2010
    #10
  11. Al Dykes

    Jeff R. Guest

    Seriously? You want it?
    I've still got 4 rolls of 36 I don't want. Dev before 2012.
    (Haven't emptied my bin yet)

    Mind you - others may disagree with my review of "Lucky's" quality.


    You pay postage from Australia.... oh crap... just send me your snail-mail
    address and I'll zing 'em off to you.
    A few bucks won't kill me.

    Email to [coins at mendosus dot com]
     
    Jeff R., May 31, 2010
    #11
  12. Al Dykes

    Rol_Lei Nut Guest


    I meant more along the lines of:
    Lucky 100 in D-76 1:1... 12 minutes
    Plus-X in D-76 1:1... 7 minutes

    That might possibly explain negatives which are two stops too thin... ;-)
     
    Rol_Lei Nut, May 31, 2010
    #12
  13. Al Dykes

    Jeff R. Guest

    yes - that would account for a fair bit of it... :-|


    I didn't have (couldn't find) any figures for development time, so used
    Plus-x plus a bit.
    Also, I developed a small section of the leader simultaneously -outside the
    tank- and noticed that it was nowhere near full density after the required
    time had elapsed, so I kept going for a bit longer. I forget how much.

    The thinness of the negs wasn't the main problem, though - the extraordinary
    grain was.
    I can PP out some of the lightness, but the grain?

    Anyways - academic now. My remaining Luckies are winging away from me, and
    I'm sticking to the tried and true.

    I've got a couple of rolls of 100TMAX waiting for a bath, and then I've
    inherited a couple of hundred metres of FP4 & HP5 from a school photography
    class gone digital. Sacrilege I s'pose, for a Kodak user to settle for
    Ilford but -hey- the price is right.
     
    Jeff R., May 31, 2010
    #13
  14. Al Dykes

    Noons Guest

    Al Dykes wrote,on my timestamp of 30/05/2010 9:52 PM:
    www.apug.org

    ignore the Usenet
     
    Noons, May 31, 2010
    #14
  15. The Ilford films are pretty good. The FP4 is a lot like the old Plus-X.

    T-Max is one of those films you have to "get it right", or you will be
    disapointed. Both the FP4 and HP5 are much more forgiving.

    Good luck. (and Thanks)

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, May 31, 2010
    #15
  16. Al Dykes

    Peter Irwin Guest

    While I would agree that the old style films are more forgiving. TMAX-100
    is worth the effort.

    My first mistake was to believe what seemed to be the recommendation
    in the data sheet to expose at 200 for a condenser enlarger. TMAX-100
    does not take underexposure well. A bit of overexposure is no problem,
    and actual pathological overexposure is practically impossible, but
    underexposure is no good at all.

    I have also made the mistake of developing it in straight Microdol-X.
    The grain is very fine indeed, and actual resolution seems fine too,
    but the acutance was poor.

    But I have had great luck with regular exposure and regular development
    in XTol 1:1. If I am out of Xtol, then Microphen also works well,
    but still with exposure at ISO 100 or 80. D-76 seems to give lower
    acutance, but not to the same extent as my disappointment with
    Microdol-X.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, May 31, 2010
    #16
  17. Al Dykes

    Pete Guest

    T-MAX 100 with straight Microdol-X drops the ISO rating to 50 and the
    contrast is reduced (leading to the poor acutance), but extreme
    highlight detail is very well preserved.

    The linearity and fine grain of T-MAX make it very suitable for both
    copy work and high contrast scenes. Its linearity led many users to be
    dissatisfied with it for "normal" scenes, probably because they didn't
    bother to experiment with developers as you have done. Thanks for
    sharing you experience. I echo your finding: it does not underexpose
    well at all, so I always set the camera/meter to half the T-MAX film
    ISO speed.

    The person who developed and printed my films switched to T-MAX
    developer, which gave superb results, but I can't remember if it was
    the RS version or not.
     
    Pete, May 31, 2010
    #17
  18. I had really good results when it first came out (late 1980's) using Edwal
    FG-7 1:15 in water. Unfortunately I can no longer get FG-7, no one imports it,
    and the post 9/11 rules make it illegal to carry on an airplane.
    :-(

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, May 31, 2010
    #18
  19. Al Dykes

    Bruce Guest


    To those who would like to try a rather easier entry to the world of
    black and white film, I strongly recommend trying one of the
    chromogenic films such as Ilford XP2 Super or Kodak Professional
    BW400CN. Both these films, plus a FujiFilm equivalent which is
    repackaged XP2 Super, can be developed in the same C-41 chemistry as
    any colour negative film.

    Anyone who has a nearby minilab that still offers film processing and
    printing will find it easy to get a 1-hour D&P with proof prints on
    colour paper. They generally have a slight colour cast but that's OK
    for proofing. You can then select which ones you want enlarged and
    either scan and print them yourself, or use a traditional darkroom.

    I don't want to negate anything that has been said in this thread
    about the more traditional black and white films and the later T-grain
    emulsions. I have used many of them and obtained good results.

    However, I shoot black and white film professionally, and I always use
    Kodak Professional BW400CN. The easy availability of an excellent
    local minilab is a factor, but the main reason for my choice of film
    is that I strongly prefer the results from BW400CN.

    Bit whatever black and white film you choose, you can be confident
    that the results are likely to be significantly more pleasing than
    those obtained by converting (to monochrome) colour images that were
    shot with a Bayer-pattern digital sensor.
     
    Bruce, May 31, 2010
    #19
  20. So let me ask both you and Peter what a guy would want to do, if that
    guy was to shoot a roll of T-Max 100. Guy has a choice of D-76 or HC-110
    (well, guy also has Microdol-X but doesn't want to use it after reading
    this thread). Which would you recommend?

    Guy also has Rodinal, but doesn't think that would be a very good choice
    either.
     
    David Nebenzahl, May 31, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.