Fed-2 and Tri-X 400

<p>I'm a color photographer who loves what you guys do in B&W. So at the recommendation of people in this forum, I tried Tri-X. I had a roll of T-Max a while back which I liked, and the Ilford XP-2 has not yet been developed.</p>

<p>My $25 Fed-2 / Industar 26 was quite finicky when I first got it, with the shutter sticking open a bit over half the time, and the rangefinder completely out of calibration. I used lighter fluid "solvent" on the shutter rails, which as my partner says, "solves" many camera problems. The shutter fires well now, with all 36 shots coming in exposed properly. I left it at 1/250th for the whole roll, knowing that with ASA 400 I'd have lots of light.</p>

<p>The rangefinder I re-calibrated per some articles out on the 'net, digging under the top screw, fiddling with the internal flange that recalibrates, and aiming at all sorts of things to get infinity set right. Then there's the bit about the roller (?) inside the lens mount area to work with until 1 Meter is set. Back and forth a few times, and I got it. All exposures on the roll were focused as planned.</p>

<p>Tri-X is a bit grainy for my taste. But it does give quite a retro look. </p>

<p>My favorite shot is the gentleman and his dog. This was a "snap" shot, in that I spotted him waiting for the crosswalk while riding my bike home from work. I had to ditch the bike, negotiate a photo, guess an exposure (f/5.6 in bright shade on a black guy?), frame, focus and shoot, ALL BEFORE THE LIGHT CHANGED. That's "snap" in my book; I usually take a few minutes per shot. The error in the shot is the framing, which if I could do it again would allow more margins left and bottom. </p>

<p>Anyhow, here are some results. NCPS processing and scanning. Very little post-processing, mainly cropping and bit more contrast in some shots.</p>

<p>I think my perception of the world is so tainted by my color photography that I fail to "see" the world well in B&W. If anyone has advice on how to improve in that area, please do give me a few pointers.</p>

<p>Thanks for the inspiration, and I hope you enjoy something below.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18037675-lg.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1024" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038736-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="612" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038740-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="614" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038738-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="711" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038737-lg.jpg" alt="" width="768" height="973" /></p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18038734-lg.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="1024" /></p>

<p>Great job reviving your Fed-2 and nice images. Tri-X, btw, can have reasonably fine grain depending upon the developer. I generally use Kodak HC-110 dilution B and am happy with the grain.</p>

<p>Love that first photo of the fellow with the dog stroller!</p>

<p>BTW, that's not grain. That's flavor.</p>

<p>Nice first try. Depending on the developer & development Tri-X can be grainy, or not...but it has been the chief b&W tool in photojournalist's bags for over half a century. As far as "seeing" in B&W, I disabused myself of that a long time ago, in spite of most of my work being B&W,...and just concentrated on the technical issues in achieving what I saw as great photo opportunities.</p>

<p>Looks to me as if you're "seeing" the world pretty well in B&W, <strong>Brad</strong>; the pic of the man and his dog is a classic, and I like the image of the foxgloves. It's true that B&W demands more of the photographer, in that colour adds another powerful dimension to an image, "making the picture", like the woods in the Fall, for instance. In monochrome the limited tones push the photographer into considering the play of light, and texture, and stronger composition. All <em>my</em> opinion, of course... Nice work with the Fed, a good rugged camera; I use Tri-X regularly in Medium Format, but prefer something a little finer-grained for 35mm. Ilford FP4 is an excellent compromise at 125 ISO.</p>

<p>Thanks for the post!</p>

<p>The Fed 2 is one of the best Soviet Era cameras form Kharkhov. I have restored a few of them. The N26 is a very good lens [said to be of Zeiss Tessar Design]; it does well with even portraits and close ups, as it does with landscape shots. Easy to dismantle and clean too. Nice work with them in B&W. Thanks for the post. sp.</p>

<p>Love those early feds and zorkis. Having just replaced the curtains i can say I know something about them but nothing about any other camera. They are almost fun to work on. I used lighter fluid initially but found the benefits transient. Then I tried another lubricant suggested on this site. Empty a can of WD 40 in a jar and let is sit for a couple of days. It seperates quite nicely and the top 2/3 is a clear lubricant and the bottom is the gummy parafins. Seems okay so far but there are many stronlgy held opinions about it.</p>

<p>As Rick said, I see no problem at all in your 'seeing in B&W'; it looks natural B&W work to me. One of the reasons why I started shooting film (coming from digital, I'm one of those) is to improve seeing in B&W...in the sense of intentionally having to shoot for it, with no 'safety net' like digital has. It helped me think and wonder before making the photo, which does help as a 'training exercise'. So, to quote a sports brand: just do it. Landscape/nature sure isn't the easiest, I think, as shades of green all land fairly subtle in the middle if you're not using colour filters.</p>

<p>I think in many aspects the B&Ws we see most these days tend to be quite 'pumped up': lots of sharpness, relatively high contrast, tending towards the harsh. The people in this forum, your photos included, show the kind of B&W work that -in my opinion- is longer-lasting, prettier but less "catchy": richer tonality, subtler, more greyscale and less black and white. seeing tonality is actually harder than seeing a contrast-rich B&W, in my limited experience.</p>

<p>"Seeing in B&W" is possible only in certain kinds of photography: of objects, buildings, landscapes, and so on, where there is ample time to compose the picture, because it's a matter of seeing dominant shapes and differences of light and shade. For pictures of people, in my experience (about 30 years mainly with monochrome and about 25 with colour), there is no great difference. The rules of physics -- chiefly optics -- are the same. The way to really see in B&W is through a P.V. -- panchromatic vision -- filter. I do not know if they are still made. The FED-2, I might add, was among my favourites: utter simplicity and an accurate range-finder.</p>

<p>I also didn't particularly like the graininess of Tri-X; when I used mail order photo labs for the processing. Now that I've started doing the developing myself, it's a whole new ballgame. It's possible to get a nice smooth look to it (ok, not Delta 100/TMax100 smooth, but...). In any case, I like the pics just the way they are!</p>

<p>Nice one Brad. The gentleman with the dog is very cool, well worth the stop. Old Russian cameras can be fun, and the quality can also be excellent...if you get the right one!<br>

Good to see you trying B&W, it is very rewarding to phtograph for tones and textures, a whole new way of seeing. The best way to improve is to keep shooting and see what works...it will soon come to you.<br>

When I photograph in either colour or B&W I concentrate on just one to keep my mindset in the correct place. It helps that I mostly see in B&W!</p>

<p>Very nice pictures. I've shot literally thousands of rolls of Tri-X going back to my newspaper days. In fact I like it so much I've shot very little of anything else in B&W. I highly recommend doing your own developing -- you never know what you're going to get from a lab these days, and you can save a bundle of money.</p>

<p>good work on the Fed 2. I am thinking of doing the same thing getting a Fed and get back into film. Your post is very encouraging for me.</p>