alessandro serrao

<p>Change developer. <br>

The base+fog is dependent to the specific developer used.</p>

<p>This is what you'd get from storing films in fridge and freezer.<br>

Sorry but probably all your remaining films are ruined.</p>

<p>Just today I was thinking about it. Film is not dead but is shrinking in sales volumes with Kodak and Fuji gradually disappearing. Efke is out. The remaining manufacturers include Rollei (which rebrands emulsions from Agra Gevaert), Adox (with its in house productions), Ilford and Foma in the foreseeable future.<br /> So, film is still available, at least where I live (Italy). But digital is undoubtly cheaper in any way.<br /> I don't want to delve into which is better: digital or analog. I feel that both are good, it depends on what you're after. Art is art and it's independent of the medium. No one ever wondered how Michelangelo grabbed his chisel when he was creating his Mosé.<br /> Art Blakey is Art Blakey whether he's playing Gretsch or Tama or Pearl or you name it.<br /> Sebastião Salgado now uses digital in his workflow. So what. Do his works are better or worse? Neither. <br /> So, personally I'm phasing out film (I have to use my last 92 rolls and then I'll sell my Nikon outfit) in favor of digital.<br /> For example: a 10x15 colour print made on Fuji Crystal Archive from a digital file is 0.09€. A 10x15 print on the same paper but from a 35mm negative is 0.4€.<br /> Where on earth analogue is on par with digital?</p>

<p>@Bonanno: Adox Rodinal is called Adonal and is EXACTLY the same Rodinal as was produced by Agfa.</p>

<p>If you go to Flickr you can make a search with "Plustek 8100" as keywords and see by yourself...</p>

<p>"Since a small amount of vapor leakage through the closure of a taped can is unavoidable..." this is what Kodak says.<br>

So, "in metal or plastic cans with an air-tight tape seal around them. So condensation is not going to happen, so long as you give the can 24 hours to come to room temperature after taking it out of the freezer" it's not true.</p>

<p>Condensation occurs in freezers all the time. In the fridge is even worse. The 35mm rolls aren't vacuum-sealed in their plastic containers. Putting them in the freezer does much more harm than storing them at ambient temperatur imho.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Can you post some examples please?</p>

<p>Probably a Scala clone or old stock.</p>

<p>Of course, any potent oxidant cannot come in contact with concentrated acids (amongst many other chemical components). It would be extremely dangerous, risk of fire.<br /> Permanganate doesn't have the toxic profile dichromate has, i.e. it's not carcinogenic at all.<br /> The emulsion swelling problem I feel is due to the high pH shift between the developer and the bleach, not because of permanganate <em>per se </em>(of course - dichromate "counteracts" the swelling by hardening the gelatin, a thing that permanganate is unable to do). I get perfectly usable results halving the permanganate concentration in the bleach and trying to use the developer much more diluited than usual, to lower that pH shift.</p>

<p>Of course, Robert.<br>

But the average photo enthusiast does his works in poorly ventilated basements, without chemical fume hoods and with an average knowledge of basic chemistry (sometimes without it), if not directly in the kitchen.<br>

I feel the responsibility to inform and warn about potential dangerous chemistry, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>I would:<br /> 1) use distilled water with the bleach; tap water is no good: too many impurities will shorten the useful life of the bleach (to be prepared right before use).<br /> 2) develop 1 roll at a time: the bleach needs a lot of agitation, I use 1 inversion every 5 seconds.<br>

3) don't use dichromate: it's carcinogenic and virtually all tanks leak sometime. Even if you use latex gloves you will not be protected from absorbing some dichromate through the skin. Permanganate works equally well.</p>

<p>Hi folks, long time no see!<br>

It's been quite a while since I last reversed a b&w emulsion. I almost forgot everything. You guys re-ignited my interest again in trying once more.<br>

I've found by trials and errors that 18°C works best with a permanganate bleach though probably it's because other parameters and the 18°C finding was a mere coincidence. Who knows? I'm not a chemist at all, I like to play with various chemicals, though I'm a little worried experimenting with dichromate and thiocyanate, the latter because of the potential cyanide gas release (thiocyanate + acid).<br>

So I opted for hypo as the silver halide solvent.<br>

@John: I didn't know that was actually the fixer to cause emulsion shrinkage and peeling off. I always pinpointed this problem to the huge pH shift from a very alkaline first developer to the very acidic bleach. <br>

I'd like to shorten as much as possible the process because more than 10 steps are a bit akward to do in my basement :-))<br>

I had the same problems John reported with PanF+. Emulsion very fragile.</p>

<p>Can I safely use a Nikon Sb26 on an Olympus Trip 35 via hotshoe?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Considering that Ilford chemicals is nowadays made by Tetenal, I'd opt for Tetenal counterparts. Excellent line of chemicals.</p>

<p><strong>Subbarayan</strong> wow, that what I call CHEAP!<br />I'll manage to contact ORWO in Germany as soon as possible to see if they can send me some rolls.</p>

<p><strong>Subbarayan Prasanna</strong> how much did you pay for the film?</p>

<p>Sometimes I wonder about the usefulness of all this...</p>

<p>No one?</p>

<p>Hi everybody, I've got a problem with my Olympus p&s camera. One month ago I purchased a VR310 little cheap camera that I payed 134€ for.<br /> Immediately I found some scratches on the front element lens so I changed the camera immediately. At the store I tried five different VR310 and ALL of them had some defects on the lens (coating, lines, etc...) so I took the one that seems at the time perfect.<br /> Now, a month later, I've just discovered that also my exchanged VR310 had some scratches (?) this time on the internal lens element instead!<br /> I've tried to take photos with the sun directly shining on the lens, at different angles, but so far I've not noticed any reflections or artifacts on the pictures.<br /> Now, in Europe Olympus has only a repair center in Portugal as far as I know so sending the camera off to repair will take at least two months. And I'm worring that they at Olympus will repair the camera and not change it with a new one.<br /> Repairing the camera will imply some risks: for example taking the lens module off and putting in a new one will expose the sensor to the air and dust can be collected on it. So if I'm not lucky enough I will get a camera with a maybe perfect lens but with dust on the sensor.<br>

These cheap p&s camera are also disposable in the sense that they're not like film cameras where repairing them was always worthwhile. A broken p&s digital camera is destined to the trash bin 99 times out of 100. Maybe should I put it into perspective and not to worry too much about the lens defects?<br>

I'm just not sure on what to do.</p>

<p>Today I've found four small scratches on an element inside the lens.<br>

This is serious QC failure.<br>

I had to send mine to repair under warranty.<br>

Olympus Europe has only a repair facility for all Europe and it's located in Portugal, so I had to stay without the camera for at least 2 months.<br>

Plus I had to pay the shipping myself (the return shipping will be at Olympus expense).<br>

Bad experience. Never again Olympus. </p>

<p>Get the Nikon absolutely.<br>

The Olympus has serious defects on the lens.<br>

At the local store I've tried 5 different Vr 310 and ALL of them had scratches on the front and inside lens elements.<br>

I had to send mine to repair in warranty because of that.<br>

Avoid Olumpus a.m.a.y.c.</p>

<p>David: I've had to use my Nikkor 50mm upside down for a magnifying effect to see the spot. At the naked eye is practically invisible (I think it's something like 0,2mm in diameter). The interesting thing is that the spot can't be felt under the kodak tissue in any way so it couldn't be a chip or a scratch, and it's more like a smear visible only under particular angles. Every camera I've tried at the store (5 in total) had this spot or something very similar in shape about in the same place on the front element lens.<br /> This puzzles me a lot.<br /> Obviously sane people don't go in a store with a 50mm used as a magnifying lens to check the front element lens of 5 random cheap p&s cameras before deciding which to buy.<br /> I've just bought the excellent Kodak lens cleaner but I don't feel to use it right now that the lens is squeaky clean (except for the spot).<br /> David: how would you define a person like me? Whenever I buy something new I want it to be perfect, it's like an unconcious will. The minute I bring home something new I start the quest for "perfection", rationally knowing that perfection can't be attained or doesn't exist. But my quest inevitably led me to find something that is "defective" because every man made thing has some defect in it, by definition.<br /> See, rationally I write these things but in practice it's like a compulsory need to find the "defect". I'd like to know why.</p>

<p>I've had the camera changed today. I've checked 5 different cameras at the store and ALL of them have some type of smears/scuffs/signs on the front element lens. ALL of them. I think it is the coatings that are done not perfectly. I've taken the camera with LESS signs.<br>

I've also seen a Canon with gross coating defects.<br>

It seems that Olympus (or any other brand) for cheap cameras has some "sloppy" quality control.<br>

Is that possible that such p&s cameras has these mediocre optics?</p>

<p>They are faint to the point that I must extend all the lens to the zoom position to see the lines against the dark inside the barrel.</p>