doug_bennett

I ordered 10 rolls of Classic 400 from J&C. I've shot three, developed in Pyrocat HD, water stop, TF-4 alkaline fixer. Every roll has pinholes, but not in every frame. The holes in mine are easily seen by the naked eye. The prints look great, but....

 

I've had similar problems with scratches on Efke 25. However, I also got some Efke 100 from J&C. Developed in Rodinal, very nice, no problems at all.

<a href="http://www.jandcphoto.com">J and C Photo </a>. They specialize in niche analog photo products. Great folks, great stuff.

I'm not a Tri-X user, but with HP-5 rated at ISO 200, I use dil. H for 7 minutes.

A blurred background is nice, but more important: make sure your background is a couple of stops darker than your subject. This may be the most common mistake that I see in outdoor portraiture.

 

After gathering dust for a few years while I only shot with my TLRs, I've been using my Nettar 571/16 lately. Great portrait camera. It just has a certain "something."

For APX100, Rodinal is a great choice. Grainy, but very sharp.

 

I tried APX400, but it didn't appeal to me. I prefer HP5/HC-110 dil. H.

I've bought some Classic 400 and Efke 100 from J and C to try out, but am also still buying Ilford. I'm not a T-grain devotee, but I'd sure hate to see HP5 go away. HP5 in HC-110 dil H. is one of my standards.

Until you do more experimenting and/or do personal exposure speed tests, I'd recommend the following: I've found that you can hardly go wrong by overexposing by one stop (i.e. shoot 400 speed film at 200) and reducing development time by 20-25%.

 

This is somewhat dependant on the type of enlarger that you have. I'm a diehard condenser guy, and find that this method yields a slightly thinner negative, which prints like a champ on my enlarger. My thicker, denser negatives are notoriously hard to print.

The biggest difference between C41 B&W films: Ilford's XP-2 will print in the darkroom, while the Kodak variants won't (or at least don't print well). XP-2, in fact, it prints very nicely. To me, this tips the scale towards XP-2.

Jeff,

 

You touched on something that I've been curious about: will the market not support higher film prices? B&W film seems like an incredible bargain: APX 100, for example, is $2.09/roll for 120. If it was $3.09/roll, it wouldn't affect me that much. And if APX 25 came back..........

 

For pro shooters that use a lot of film, maybe it's a different story.

Pan F in Rodinal 1:50 is pretty good. Pan F is very contrasty, so I've found that the 1:50 mix, with minimal agitation, works best.

 

Efke is nice, depending on what you shoot. It's orthopanchromatic nature makes it superb for skin tones and greenery, but I find that with landscapes with rock and wood (which have red components), it lacks a certain "bite".

 

I'm down to 6 rolls of APX25, and sadly, it seems that nothing else is a real replacement. It truly is/was a superb film.

It's frustrating sometimes...... I've spent the last 3-4 in an intense effort to get up to speed with B&W photography and darkroom work. I shoot with a couple of very fine TLRs and a Canon AE-1 system. I sweat different developers and techniques.

 

Yet some of the best stuff I've got was taken with my 517/16 (which was my first medium format camera, $30.00 thanks very much), Tri-X, and Rodinal.

 

I'm glad this thread came along. I'm gonna get the Nettar off the shelf and run a few rolls through it.

Fred,

 

You've gotten some good advice above. I too am a Dilution H guy, the only difference being that I shoot HP5 at ISO 200 (a one stop "pull"), then reduce dev time by 25%. So, dev time of 7.5 minutes instead of 10 minutes. You'll get better shadow detail, and your highlights won't be blown out.

I second Jim Vanson: TF-4 fixer is the stuff to use.

What is your source for this news?

 

I did notice at agfaphoto.com that if you click on "Products", the either "Film" or "Chemicals", the link is dead. If you click on various digital products, those links take you somewhere. Does this mean anything? I dunno...

 

Daniel, I hope you're wrong. I like the APX 100, and of course loved the APX 25. In fsct, I was just out shooting with one of my last 1/2 dozen rolls of APX 25. People talk about Efke and some others, but IMHO there's just no substitute for it.

"I like my print to be very contrasty ..."

 

Then this may not be the film for you. I've had decent results using XP2 for portraiture, and the C-41 negs print quite well in the darkroom. But it is decidedly a lower contrast, less sharp film than, for example, Tri-X.

They're hit and miss. I had a Yashica brand set of both the wide angle and the telephoto, and they were terrible. I picked up a Kalimar (I think) telephoto at a yard sale, and it's not bad at all.

Jeff,

 

I wasn't aware that considering something carefully and deciding you don't like it constitutes a closed mind. My bad.

 

S. Liu did ask, after all, "what is your opinion?" I should have asked you what my opinion was before I posted.

"It doesn't suck enough to be interesting..."

 

Oh, I disagree. It sucks plenty, and still isn't interesting. But in general, I just don't get Holga, just as I don't get pinhole photography. I'm definitely in the sharpness camp.

 

I know David Burnett is a big dog, and I respect his work. But the Gore shot does nothing for me but make me wish it was shot with a good camera.

 

Merely my opinion.

I like liquid concentrate developers, and I like one-shot developers, so I use HC-110, Rodinal, and WD2D+.

 

I have less experience with HC-110 than with the other two, but so far it seems to be a great developer to use it you are shooting a high contrast scene. With FP4, I use the unofficial Dilution H (which is 1/2 Dilution B, see the Covington page), pull the film to ISO 64, and give it 8 minutes developing time. Unlike Rodinal, it's hard to blow out highlights with this mix. In lower contrast situations, or with really slow films like Efke, Rodinal still rules.

I just used some that is probably 18 months old; no problems.

APX 100 or FP4 in Rodinal 1:50. Efke 25 in Rodinal is very nice, but because of its different spectral response, has a very different look from Tri-X.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1552033">This one</a> is with Delta 3200 in Microphen. Decent highlights and shadow detail. It should be said, however, that this was under typical outdoor festival lighting, so there are probably 2-4 1000 watt PAR fixtures coming in from above, and a followspot from front. Club lighting is much, much tougher. But all in all, I've found Microphen best for finest grain, and Rodinal interesting for a highly grainy, but very sharp,look.

Buy a Bay 1-to-52mm adaptor on Ebay, then pick up an easily available 52mm polarizer.

"So, should I shoot the 35mm, with delta 3200, souped in microphen?"<p>The question is: do you like the way Allan's wedding and reception shots look? If yes, then 3200 should work for you. If no, well...... And I'm not knocking Allan's work; he does some nice stuff ("Bay Bridge" is amazing). More important: if you're getting paid for this, is it what your customer will want? I like <a href="http://www.pbase.com/image/23089849">this one</a> a lot (love the chandeliers), but I know people who wouldn't care for it at all.

Allan,

 

It's a Sunpak Auto 800, a cheapie, with a Stofen diffuser attached with gaffer's tape. I also have a Vivitar 215, even smaller, even cheaper, that's also great with the QL-17. As you can see from Lex's shot, it's amazing what the Canonet is capable of.