The Nikon F2 captures Parkour acrobatics!

[capitalq]

<p>Peter - Ok, you found me out. I actually shot these with a dSLR and went grayscale....</p>

<p>I've always found APX 100 and 400 film to be among the more inexpensive films (hence the reason I use it). My negs will never win prizes but being able to push the film 2 stops by only increasing development time by an additional 6 minutes allows me a lot more freedom to shoot in handheld/low light situations (and thus, use slower lenses on classic gear).</p>

<p>You mentioned that they "reformulated" APX film. When was that? Back in the late 90s I used to unintentionally reticulate the negs if I rinsed the developed negs using too hot water. Now, when I try to duplicate the results, I have no luck even if I use sodium carbonate. Any thoughts? </p>

[capitalq]

<p>Here's an example of the happy reticulation accident I've been trying to replicate with APX film. I really like the effect it has on portraits. </p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>Another one. I guess I could always get a Photoshop filter to duplicate this effect but I'm not really into that...</p><div></div>

[capitalq]

<p>By way of explanation, the reason I accidentally used too hot water to rinse the negs was I was rushing to see what had been captured in this session...Can anyone blame me? Alas, since I've married, the wife seems to frown on this type of subject matter. I just don't understand why. </p>

[gnashings]

<p>I</p>

<p>I believe the "new" formula came out in 2003, and apparently making it more "stable and uniform" was among the aims of the changes. This could be a reason why the reticulation has been eluding you, although that is just a guess. Seeing the results, I can certainly see why you would like to replicate the "happy accident" - lovely images and a very graphic look that just somehow works!</p>

[gnashings]

<p>I had the lot number somewhere that delineated the change, but I can't find that info - if I do I'll be sure to let you know, perhaps some old APX is still floating around there that would be more conducive to your experiments...</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>although the original F is still my favourite</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mine too, but I can still admire the F2 for what it was back in the day. I own a couple Nikon F's (one a nice chrome with standard prism and my father's 1969 black Nikon F with FTn meter prism, currently being completely overhauled). But mostly I like the F3HP as it is the last manual focus Nikon F body ever produced, and in my opinion, the finest "modern" manual focus 35mm SLR ever made.</p>

<p>Fuji NEOPAN 1600 was my favorite black and white film for a while, it can produce simply gorgeous results if shot and processed carefully. I used to expose it at ISO 1000 and process it for 3 minutes in replenished D-76 and got fabulous results.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>2003 makes sense. These accidents occurred in 2000 or earlier. Thanks, Peter.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Dave - Curious on your developing technique (and always interested in saving money on this expensive hobby). How did you 'replenish' the D-76? </p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<blockquote>

<p> What do you think of the Series E lenses? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the 50mm. Cheaply made, flimsy feel, super light and optically wonderful.<br>

The French may have given the name <em>Parkour, </em>but that style of travel has been around a long time. As a kid in Jersey City we called it "running from the cops" </p>

[capitalq]

<p>that's hilarious, louis. yes, i can now see where these acrobatic skills would have practical application.</p>

<p>good to know the Series E glass has your seal of approval. i guess 'cheaply made' is relative. it certainly feels a lot more substantial than the kit lenses shipped with typical dSLRs.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I really like my 35mm 2.5 series E. Same light weight feel but I find it works well. I also have the 75-150 E it is a good lens but does not get so much use since a I got the 105 2.5. I do think the 35 F2.5 and the 75-150 F3.5 would make a great travel combo though.</p>

[LMar]

<p>Excellent shots! I have an F2A with the same type of 50mm Series E lens --- no complaints from me about the image quality from the lens, and it's built as well or better than most modern AF lenses . . .</p><div></div>

[starvy]

<p>Wonderful, wonderful pictures!</p>

[capitalq]

<p>great shot, L Mar. and thanks very much, starvy.</p>

[photo5]

<blockquote>

<p>Dave - Curious on your developing technique (and always interested in saving money on this expensive hobby). How did you 'replenish' the D-76?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I was in school, working through a 2 year Commercial Photography degree (graduated in 1999). In our first year, we shot black and white. As a economical measure, the lab tech had us mix our own gallon jug of D-76, and then gave each of us a small bottle of D-76 Replenisher to use as we developed our film over the year. Each bottle had an eyedropper and for every sheet of 4x5 film, or every roll of 35mm film (or 120), we would add a drop of replenisher back into the jug of developer. We would use our developer and then return it to the bottle. I did this from mid-October until mid-March with terrific results. I hadn't known before that that D-76 could be re-used, I'd always used it once and thrown it out. We used it straight, of course. </p>

<p>Developing Fuji Neopan 1600 with straight D-76 took some testing, and I arrived on exposing it at ISO 1000 and developing it for 3 minutes with replenished D-76, with 5 seconds agitation every 30 seconds. Results came out gorgeous. Don't have any of it scanned yet but will someday get to that. I loved that film and I think I still have a roll or two left in the freezer somewhere.</p>

[capitalq]

<p>Thanks, Dave. </p>

<p>A couple of questions: (1) how often could you replenish your jug of D-76 before it fully exhausted? (2) Where do you buy the D76 replenisher? Does it have a trade name?</p>