follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" Part II (or III)

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Well,

    dev'd the first roll of Tmax-100 at home.

    Began mixing chems and developing at end of first period MTL-at-BOS
    (game 7 of best of 7).

    Film hanging to dry by 5 minutes into scoreless third period.

    Habs score midway to take it 1-0.

    Habe score on the empty net at end of period.... Boston eliminated...

    Film looks good... more scanning tomorrow...

    http://www.aliasimages.com/images/BW_chair0003.jpg
    (This shot is a little over x...).

    So, screw the C-41. Get the chems and do it at home, then select the
    better ones for scanning/printing.

    For the Boston fans ... well maybe the Sox will do it this year and you
    _did_ get the Super Bore...

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" Part II (or III)
    Good work (shot and development), Alan. The slight over-exposure doesn't bother
    me as the main part/majority of the chair is perfectly exposed and only the
    raw/direct light hilights are blowing out a bit. Nice chair, sharp image and
    nice lighting, looks exactly like Ilford XP-2 Super or TC400N (or whatever its
    called) ;-). 100/2.8 Maxxum macro?
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 20, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Good call on the lens, Lewis. Dev is Kodak Tmax.

    That was scanned pretty low res (1800 dpi ), even there the wood grain
    is great. I only snipped the first 6 frames (boo-boo there, I thought I
    had my 6 frame sleeves...they're only made for 5...) Left the rest for
    today...

    The whole roll was shot to relocate how I want to expose that film (EI'd
    it at 50, I think I may back out to 64 or 80).

    But now I remember how much I really hate the smell, esp. the stop bath.

    Cheers,
    Alan


    --e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2004
    #3
  4. Alan Browne

    Mike Guest

    Congrats. You are also developing one of the more sensitive films (T-Max),
    but still ain't that hard!

    About the smell of stop: I don't bother with stop bath for film
    developing....just several rinses of water. Or you can use citric acid
    instead for stop. Hell, I use distilled vinegar, from the grocery store,
    for stop when doing prints.
     
    Mike, Apr 20, 2004
    #4
  5. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    The first darkroom course I took (age 10 in primary school) doing
    shaddow graphs, we used white vinegar as the stop.

    When I visited the photo store I just asked for the chems w/o being
    specific. The owner sold me her old darkroom beakers, thermometer, stir
    stick, film clip and squeegee for $10. She was supposed to sell me an
    old dev tank, but couldn't find it ... I had to buy a new one at another
    store... so first layout was CAD$30 for chems, CAD$30 for the tank, $10
    for the doohickeys... and I bought a $1.00 syringe to measure the
    photoflo and $2.25 for 11 litres of distilled water (at a wine making
    supplier).

    I had bought 15 rolls of expired Tmax 100 for CAD$1.00 / roll and the
    chems should cover that...

    Total: CAD $88.25
    15 rolls: CAD $5.88 / roll dev'd at home (no prints) which is a lot
    cheaper than new film + dev.
    Well a hair more, I'll have to buy more water at some point.

    Next time, assuming I replace the chems (except the photoflo, got tons
    of that) and that I get $1.00 / roll of film, should come to about $3.50
    a roll dev'd.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2004
    #5
  6. Alan Browne

    Dallas Guest

    Alan Browne said:
    Kodak T400CN don't smell at all when you get it processed at the minilab.
    :)
     
    Dallas, Apr 20, 2004
    #6
  7. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    But the results stink.

    ;-)
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 20, 2004
    #7
  8. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" Part II (or III)
    The chemicals get to me too, one of themany reasons, though I love it, why I
    don't process/do my own B&W photography anymore. I used to rate all my b&w
    films (C-41 and conventional) at + 2/3 stop exposure compensation (on bodies
    that did 1/3 intervals) and +1/2 to +1 stop on bodies that only did 1/2 stop
    compensation increments. (I prefer to adjust exposure comp instead of I.S.O.
    because I can forget to reset I.S.O. when I need to and that could get me in
    big trouble when I change film I.S.O.s - with exposure comp all I do is either
    look in the viewfinder or on the dials on top of my 600si/Contax 167MT to tell
    if I have it set and what amount I have it set to). Of course, my
    quipment/taste is my own and everyone must find an individual E.I. that they
    are happy with. TMax 100 is fun and works out nicely to about 16x20"? with
    little grain. Even TMax 400, though contrasty and more grain, works out nice up
    to 16x20".
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 20, 2004
    #8
  9. Congrats, the first few rolls are fun.... ;)

    Once you get the feel of your developing setup it no longer feels like chore to do.

    And if you try E6 you dont have to worry about the stink.

    Cheers
     
    Martin Riddle, Apr 21, 2004
    #9
  10. Alan Browne

    Dallas Guest

    Alan Browne said:
    Pah! Only poor photographers blame their equipment and media, eh? ;-)
     
    Dallas, Apr 21, 2004
    #10
  11. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest


    I'll defer to your experience in the matter .... ;-)



    (Sorry Dallas, you left the door wide open on that one...)
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2004
    #11
  12. I'm interested in knowing what scanner you used...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Apr 22, 2004
    #12
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest


    Minolta DSE 5400. That shot was scanned at 1800 dpi (without ICE,
    GrainDisolve or PixelPolish) and then resized and USM'd for the web
    (also a minor bright/contrast adjustment before resize).

    Another image of the same subject on that film at 5400 dpi yields
    wonderful detail (as well as micro specs of dust) and the grain of the
    film. Would certainly print very well up to 18x12 or even better (which
    is more due to the Maxxum 100 f/2.8 lens).

    Cheers,
    Alan.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2004
    #13
  14. Cool - thanks. I've got the Scan Dual III, so hopefully I'd be able
    to extract close to the same detail.

    Also, your post encouraged me to try this myself. I think I'll go to
    the lab today and get the supplies. Woo!

    I also found this great link on E6 processing:

    http://www.code-a-text.co.uk/e6_processing.htm
     
    Jim Hutchison, Apr 22, 2004
    #14
  15. Alan Browne

    Joseph Kewfi Guest

    Joseph Kewfi, Apr 22, 2004
    #15
  16. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    The Scan Dual III should do fine.

    Thanks for the link.

    PS: top posting is not a kind thing.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2004
    #16
  17. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" Part II (or III)
    Hi Alan:

    How would you rate the 50/1.4 D (new version) or 50/2.8 Maxxum macro (at f/2.8
    and f/5.6 on all lenses) against the quality of both each other and your
    100/2.8 Macro. I have a 50/1.8 Series E that is wickedly sharp from wide open
    to stopped down and with wonderful color and bokeh and I have tried the 50/1.4
    (new version) only wide open where its sharpness/etc. were only OK wide open
    but I never tested it stopped down (it was at a Photo Show I tested it and at
    the time I was only looking for itsbokeh/quality wide open, that's why I'm
    curious about your opinions, plus the fact that I'd need an adapter, if one is
    even available, in order to fit my Nikon 50 on my Maxxum ;-)).
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 22, 2004
    #17
  18. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    Hi Lewis,

    I can't rate them myself, I have no experience with them. My 50 f/1.7
    is pretty sharp in the shots I take with it (and the shots my girlfriend
    took with it recently are _amazing_ in all respects including
    sharpness), but from all reports it is not as sharp as the corresponding
    Nikon or Canon.

    I think we've discussed the merits/dismerrits of the 50 f/2.8 in the
    recent past (my decision to go with the 100 was simply "dual use" (macro
    and portrait).

    If there is a way to adapt your Nikon 50 to your Maxxum, I'd at least
    test it out. (will you lose metering?).

    For the Minolta 50 1.4 (non D) the curves at
    http://www.photodo.com/pix/lens/mtf/MIAF5014.gif
    suggest pretty good bokeh when stopped down, but a little harsh wide
    open. There is no corresponding curve for the "D". Chasseur D'Images
    have tested the new lens, so maybe you can join me and Bill in buying
    the Minolta test charts (see other post).

    The sharpness of the Minolta 100 f/2.8 as I smugly mention from time to
    time is better than all other lenses (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sigma,
    Tamron) and is equal to the Leica (or is it Zeiss?) lens in that FL for
    sharpness.

    Sorry I can't really "compare" them all.

    Cheers,
    Alan
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 22, 2004
    #18
  19. Alan Browne

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: follow up to "Kodak B&W C-41 process?" Part II (or III)
    That's OK, ALan, thanks for trying. Geuss I might have to start saving for an
    adapter ;-).
     
    Lewis Lang, Apr 23, 2004
    #19
  20. Alan Browne

    Dallas Guest

    Alan Browne said:
    Well, I don't know any rich photographers.
     
    Dallas, Apr 23, 2004
    #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.