Discussion of current 35mm film & processing?

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

  1. [Ahem] Yes, the proper Usenet group is *this one*, despite the BS you'll
    get from the digital-heads who have commandeered this group.

    Unfortunately, film *is* rarely discussed here. But let the discussions
    flourish!
     
    David Nebenzahl, May 31, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Oh, forgot to mention regarding processing: rec.photo.darkroom.
    Virtually no noise from the digiNazis there.
     
    David Nebenzahl, May 31, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Al Dykes

    Bruce Guest


    Godwin's Law applies, and the discussion ends here. :-(
     
    Bruce, May 31, 2010
    #23
  4. Al Dykes

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I'd really recommend obtaining a packet of XTOL and a five litre
    mixing jug. Before I tried TMX with XTOL, Pan-F was my favourite
    fine grain film. Now I have around 40 rolls of PAN-F in my freezer
    left from when I was afraid Ilford was going under. The PAN-F is
    still good, and I expect to use all of it eventually, but it is
    no longer my favourite fine grain film.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, May 31, 2010
    #24
  5. Al Dykes

    Pete Guest

    D-76 1:1 would be my first choice and I'd expose the film at ISO 50
    according to a Gossen meter. I hope you have some
    multigrade/variable-contrast printing paper.
     
    Pete, May 31, 2010
    #25
  6. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    : On 5/30/2010 4:52 AM Al Dykes spake thus:
    :
    : > 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?
    :
    : [Ahem] Yes, the proper Usenet group is *this one*, despite the BS you'll
    : get from the digital-heads who have commandeered this group.

    Most of that BS is in Nebenzahl's imagination. His beef is that we
    ("digital-heads") dare to post here at all.

    : Unfortunately, film *is* rarely discussed here. But let the discussions
    : flourish!

    I don't think even Nebenzahl would claim that it's our fault that film is
    rarely discussed here. We know and he knows that it's because there are far
    fewer film users than there used to be. But if you (Dykes) can stimulate, and
    participate in, discussions of film-related topics, everybody gains.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 1, 2010
    #26
  7. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 10-05-31 21:35 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:35:42 -0700, David Nebenzahl<>
    : > wrote:
    : > : On 5/30/2010 4:52 AM Al Dykes spake thus:
    : > :
    : > :> 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?
    : > :
    : > : [Ahem] Yes, the proper Usenet group is *this one*, despite the BS you'll
    : > : get from the digital-heads who have commandeered this group.
    :
    : It's not that it's been commandeered by digital users but all but
    : abandoned by film users - who in the main have gone digital.
    :
    : IAC, there is nothing about rpe35mm that limits it to film - as shown to
    : Nebenzal-Scheisskopf many times in the past.

    I guess I have to point out that, despite the impression given by the
    attribution lines, nothing that I wrote was quoted above.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 2, 2010
    #27
  8. Hi all,

    I've just been doing a bit of a course on black-and-white film
    photography and developing, so I'm something of an enthusiastic newby. I
    thought I'd start by "trying them all", or at least a fair range. I've
    only shot one or two rolls of TMax 400 and quite liked the results.
    What's there to hate about it?
    Not tried PlusX, but TriX is definitely nice. Grainier than the TMax
    though.
    I've tried FP4+, HP5+, PanF50, and Delta400. All seemed to work as
    described. I shot a roll of FP4+125 as though 400, by mistake (forgot to
    change the ISO setting on my camera) and pushed accordingly in Rodinal
    and the results were great, so there's clearly lots of lattitude.
    Haven't really looked at the Delta400 results yet.
    I've tried Neopan400 and a 1600ISO.
    That's my plan for the next step. I just wanted to get a feel for which
    to settle on for a while. I was thinking that it could be TMax400, which
    is why I was concerned about your first comment...
    Ditto, but only one roll so far. I've also had a go with Velvia 50
    (which I tended to over-expose, I think) and I have a roll of Provia 400X
    in the camera at the moment. Colour has the disadvantage that there's no
    hope of developing it myself. The local photo developing shop seems to
    develop the colour slide film I've given them in-house in a couple of
    hours, so perhaps that isn't such a worry.
    Thanks for your comments!

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Jun 2, 2010
    #28
  9. Al Dykes

    Peter Irwin Guest

    I don't hate it, but film companies (especially Kodak) did a lot
    of research work in the early to mid 20th century on how to optimise
    the subjective qualities of film. For instance, they worked rather hard
    to figure out what made film give sharp looking pictures, a property
    Kodak called "acutance". They also worked out what sort of intentional
    nonlinearities in response to light would work out best for various
    types of photography. The design of the TMAX films essentially ignores
    these things. The TMAX films certainly have higher resolution and less
    graininess than the older technology films, but they don't have as much
    of that "sharpness" or acutance that many of like B&W photos to have,
    and they don't have the friendly nonlinearities that made it easier
    to translate a scene to tones on paper.

    Many photographers actually like the new films very much, but I hope
    this explains a bit about why some are not at all happy.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Jun 2, 2010
    #29
  10. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 10-06-01 20:23 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:06:45 -0400, Alan Browne
    : > : On 10-05-31 21:35 , Robert Coe wrote:
    : > :> On Mon, 31 May 2010 11:35:42 -0700, David Nebenzahl<>
    : > :> wrote:
    : > :> : On 5/30/2010 4:52 AM Al Dykes spake thus:
    : > :> :
    : > :> :> 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?
    : > :> :
    : > :> : [Ahem] Yes, the proper Usenet group is *this one*, despite the BS you'll
    : > :> : get from the digital-heads who have commandeered this group.
    : > :
    : > : It's not that it's been commandeered by digital users but all but
    : > : abandoned by film users - who in the main have gone digital.
    : > :
    : > : IAC, there is nothing about rpe35mm that limits it to film - as shown to
    : > : Nebenzal-Scheisskopf many times in the past.
    : >
    : > I guess I have to point out that, despite the impression given by the
    : > attribution lines, nothing that I wrote was quoted above.
    :
    : The double attribution marks were left in place. However, I did neglect
    : to remove your name at the top, apologies for that, but most people can
    : read a broken reply chain easily enough.

    True. But some don't. Usenet wars have been started over less. Just keeping
    the record straight, not criticizing you. No
    defense/explanation/rejoinder/apology required.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 3, 2010
    #30
  11. Aah, that makes a lot of sense, thanks! Despite liking the fine grain
    and smoothness of tone that TMax seemed to be giving me, it is also
    noticably flatter/duller and didn't really have that "black-and-white
    look". More of a "digital" look, really. I'm mostly interested in
    scanning to digital, rather than printing directly, so I've been able to
    get some of that non-linearity back in post processing on the computer,
    so the results are, again, nice and punchy, but it's work that one
    clearly doesn't have to do with, say, TriX.
    It does indeed, and has given me something to think about. Thanks!

    Cheers,
     
    Andrew Reilly, Jun 3, 2010
    #31
  12. Actually more of a color film look. the T-Grain technology was developed
    to improve film, which had basicly been unchanged from the invention of
    silver photography. It all worked on the concept of random grains of silver
    compounds being exposed to light. Within limits, the grains of silver were
    randomly placed and of random size.

    Being grains they were round, which made them vary in thickness, which affected
    sharpness, etc.

    T-Grains are a different story. They are basicaly flat slivers of the same
    material, but they are all the same size, all the same shape, and if properly
    laid on the film, all horizontal. This makes them thinner in comparison to
    older films, which gives a more consistent sharpness, etc.

    The downside of this is the smaller grains were less sensitive to light, so the
    range of light intensities that could be captured is much less.

    This is why you get a "flat" look, and many people complained about the poor
    results with T-Max when it fist came out.

    It's much less forgiving of exposure and processing.

    Now for some unpleasant reality. If you were to take an older film, such as
    the original Plus-X, FP4, Panatomic-X, Pan-F, Tri-X, and even older films
    such as the original Adox KB-14, and develop them properly, you get a much
    wider range of grays than any paper ever made could print.

    There were many techniques printers used to accomodate this, from just plain
    ignoring it (and ending up with black shadows, solid highlight or both), to
    adjsting the contrast range of the paper, controlled development, dodging
    (controlled reduction in exposure in small areas), burning in (controlled
    over exposure in small areas) and so on.

    This was extremely noticable in digital representations of photographs because
    the then standard 24 bit color, is really only 8 bits (256 levels) of each
    color.

    Modern digital scanners and cameras can record more levels of gray, but still
    generally available equipment can not record anywhere near what film can.

    Note that properly exposed and processed T-Max can do well, but most processing
    is not going to.

    IMHO you would be better off using a chromogenic film and having proceesed
    and scanned by the lab. Probably not the 1 hour lab at the grocery store,
    but a decent lab which offers this service to professionals.

    While film scanners have improved over the years, cheap ones are still cheap
    and produce poor results. Expensive ones do better, but they require
    higher quality computers to record the scans, skill in operation, etc.

    On the other hand, 35mm cameras with their long rolls of film, cheap processing
    and digital scanning lead to "blitz" type photography. There is still a lot
    to be said for slowly and carefully planing each shot, processing the negatives
    with care, choosing the ones to print with discrimination and lovingly
    printing them.

    While photos of you kid's baseball game are not going to benefit from this
    care, and may actually lose something, many subjects lend themselves to it.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 3, 2010
    #32
  13. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    : Hi all,
    :
    : On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 18:53:17 -0400, Michael wrote:
    :
    : > I hate TMAX.
    :
    : I've just been doing a bit of a course on black-and-white film
    : photography and developing, so I'm something of an enthusiastic newby. I
    : thought I'd start by "trying them all", or at least a fair range. I've
    : only shot one or two rolls of TMax 400 and quite liked the results.
    : What's there to hate about it?
    :
    : > I like TriX and PlusX
    :
    : Not tried PlusX, but TriX is definitely nice. Grainier than the TMax
    : though.

    Does Kodak still make Panatomic-X? I used to rather like that, half a lifetime
    ago.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 4, 2010
    #33
  14. No, more's the pity. Long gone.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jun 4, 2010
    #34
  15. Sort of. Maybe. Last time I looked Panatomic-X Aerocon II is still
    in Kodak's current product list.

    Alas, the minimum order is something like 500 feet of 5-inch wide
    film.

    http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/1e/0900688a802b091e/ti1172.pdf
     
    Michael Benveniste, Jun 4, 2010
    #35
  16. Now *that* I didn't know. I wonder how hard it would be for someone to
    re-slit and perforate it to make 35mm film? And how much they'd have to
    charge us to do so.
     
    David Nebenzahl, Jun 4, 2010
    #36
  17. Is'nt 5 inch twice 70mm? I expect at this point you can find a film
    Hasselblad relatively cheap, and they had cassettes that took 15 feet of
    unperfed 70mm.

    You could even buy a bulk loader for them I think they were sold under
    then name Alden.

    If you were a little more adventurous, but less able to buy things, there
    were lots of 220 cameras and you could make a reasonable roll of 220
    by saving and reusing the end papers. In a pinch you could make them from
    120 backing paper, but you might have to play around to get the correct
    brand so they were the correct thickness.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jun 5, 2010
    #37
  18. Al Dykes

    Robert Coe Guest

    :
    : : > On 10-06-05 17:29 , Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
    : >> David Nebenzahl wrote:
    : >>> Now *that* I didn't know. I wonder how hard it would be for someone to
    : >>> re-slit and perforate it to make 35mm film? And how much they'd have to
    : >>> charge us to do so.
    : >>
    : >> Is'nt 5 inch twice 70mm?
    : >
    : > 1 in = 25.4 mm.
    :
    : 5 x 25.4 is 125 + 2, or 127.

    Yes, but 127 film was nowhere near 5 inches wide.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Jun 10, 2010
    #38
    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.