nicholas_t.

Just don't use Calcium Ascorbate, use normal Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid) or the Sodium derivative (with changes to compensate for it's lack of acidity)... Here is the original article, care of <a href="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/VitC/vitc.html">Unblinkingeye.com</a> <p> Also, there have been some changes, not to the formula, but to formulation, as well as some new developers. These have been compiled as a pdf, which should be available soon, and an upcoming Phototechniques article highlights the new developer as well.

Atomal is supposed to be an excellent developer with good grain characteristics. I've never used it but I know a couple of photog's who did (and probably still do), a review I have from the esteemed 'darkroom' magazine (RIP) also gave much praise to this developer in the 80's. Also, and I can't remember where I got this information (so take with a grain of NaCl) but apparently, it could be a Catechol based developer, one of those pre-war developing agents, supposedly no good with any of today's emulsions. ;-)

Theres a thread in the Usenet archives which goes into Sistan in a big way, Doug Nishimura is an expert and he is referenced in a big way. Google search the rec.photo.darkroom with his name and Sistan and something should come up if youre curious...

Mark, snap, I was just about to recommend the same thing, so now I'd like to second your suggestion. A bit like the mailing lists...<p>

There are alot of the posts to film and processing forum, such as, "what's a developing time for TRI X in Rodinal @ EI 200?" - are these threads really necessary? New users to b&w processing really need to be encouraged to find their own developing times with an EI. They also need the resources. I do realise that it is recommended that a person should search the archives before posting a question, but this is different; perhaps a centralised archive, and links to good tutorials in threads, or perhaps elsewhere on the web - a bit like the <a href="http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/faq.html">RUG FAQ</a>, but instead of the Planar/Xenotar debate we have the "Stainers" vs the Rodinal bunnies (or something like that - I hope you catch my drift)...

"New" Viradon, is half the strength of the old stuff.

Various shades of grey from white all the way to black. It's not possible to do color with it.

a bit like "new" Viradon then...

I use a Valoy ll as well as John, and it is the most beautiful piece of photographic equipment I own. Close is the Pradix projector, but no Leica camera. I can't justify the added anxiety of carrying one around. I used to have one, and I worried day and night about it getting stolen. My OM1n is enough camera for me - perhaps one day... (a 50mm hexanon on an M3 would be nice...) wake up, woops must have drifted off.

In fact the Biometar lens as found in the 2.8B is not necessarily a Planar lens. There has been discussion about this on the RUG and earlier this year brought it up again with the experts there... A chap called Todd catagorically stated that it was a Xenotar-type design and not a Planar. If I remember correctly he took his apart to verify this fact... Found the <a href="http://www.digistar.com/rollei/2001-05/0076.html">link</a>.

Yes very rare and valuable camera!

I am looking for my Agfa B&W handbook - cannot find it. All I know is that Rodinal Special has nothing in common with Rodinal - apart from being a film developer.

1: Handholding is easier with a 35mm. So no try not to handhold under 100th<br>

2: F8 should be fine but defer to a faster speed than trying to stop down...<br>

3: 5x5inch prints will not show any advantage to 35mm prints - 10x10in prints - yes.<br>

4: I always try to use a tripod. Because of the small size and nature of a TLR, a very small tripod w/o a head can be used - remember to use a cable release.

From what I remember, the 6th element Planar in the 3.5 is a bone of contention. The two camps are: 6th element added for added sharpness in the corners, or, the sixth element was added a colour correction device. I was more convinced about the colour correction for some reason or other. Mainly because the 3.5 Planar I had was incredibly sharp in the corners from 5.6 onwards and I would have thought variation in samples would be more a worry for a lack of sharpness than anything else.<p>

These questions are really for the Rollei User Group than here - <a href="http://www.stutterheim.nl/rollei/faq.html">here's the FAQ</a>. It is a mailing list and easy to subscribe to. Other useful resources are googling their archives or Bob M's fantastic resource the <a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/cameras.html">the medium format camera library list</a>.<p>

Regarding the Xenotar/Planar issue, I've owned at one stage or other every incarnation except the 75mm 3.5 Xenotar. They were all good, but different. The 3.5 Planar is really good. As was the 2.8 Xenotar I had. But the 2.8 Planars (3 samples) I had were also good. The biggest thing I think you will find is getting a camera which is in nice cond. and doesn't require too much work to get it fully reliable and hasn't been abused too much (lenses esp). I've sold all my Flex's and use a 'Cord now. Really love the compact-ness and excellent quality of the Xenar lens which above F8 was equal to the 3.5 Planar I had (tested).

Oh well it can't hurt to post a good link twice - I suppose... :-/

Sergei, APX 100, I find, has quite good speed compared to the ISO and I have found with a Phenidone based developer it easily makes an EI of 100, perhaps in Rodinal an EI of 80. I find APX 400 has a lower EI perhaps 250...<p>

Also, I and many others find that Agfa's contrast for their recommended times is too high for normal development and therefore we use significantly lower developing times.<p>

I have written a document which goes through the process of finding an EI and I can email it you if you want. In this document i have also collated the various Gainer Vitamin C based developers which work exceptionally well with APX films. There's even a fine grain substitute for Rodinal in it!<p>

Rodinal is good with APX 100 but contributes to excessive grain with APX 400 and is not recommended unless that is the "look" you are after. A Rodinal 1:25 dilution will emphasise grain with just about any film you use as well. In the past I have used Rodinal @ 1:50 for 12mins @ 20C with APX 100 with good results, initial agitation of a full minute and 7 secs each min thereafter. Rodinal is known to produce a slight dip in mid-tone development as well. Unblinkingeye times for<a href="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/APX100/apx100.html">APX 100</a> and <a href="http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/APX400/apx400.html">APX 400</a>

Looks to me like camera shake and/or focus error. More likely camera shake. Big problem with hand-holding especially small aperture lenses. Get a nice manual focus 50mm lens. A recent 1.8 should do - something that will meter properly with your camera...

T20? smaller, cheaper, older...

I was just looking in my fridge the other day and the bulk roll of (recently expired) Tech-pan which I doubt I will ever use. I was thinking how can I put this to use? I was sure someone would like it.<p> The only problem is I am in NZ and you are in Canada and the cost of postage will be more than it would be worth to send. If you can think of a way to get it to you where it wouldn't cost me anything - you can have it.

If you got 500$ to splash out on hobbyist photos, why not go with the best and get a Rollei.<p>

My recommendations are a late model 2.8 or a 3.5 pref an F (but a nice cond C upwards is also fine) or a V or later cord. With a cord you could afford a good CLA and feel comfortable in the fact that all things being equal it'll be another decade or so before you need another (the cord not you ;-).<p>

All one needs to know when buying old cameras is that knowledge of it's former life can make all the difference (a C with little use is better than an F which was last used by a fast talking Paparazzo on the back of some Vespa...), and the initial cost is only the first payment of many to come if you intend to keep the camera for a long time.

Regarding photos, all the test photos I did in my photo.net folder were done with this lens (the test was unrelated to lens performance but different b&w dev's). They are mainly enlargements of central piece of the neg. It's fairly difficult to see how decent a lens looks on a comp screen anyway :^))<p>

Regarding the size of the lens, if it were a Canon or a Nikon I might be more inclined to agree but the Oly is only a little more in size than a 50mm 1.4 and in real world use the size really does not hamper it in any way.

I've got a 28mm F2, I do like - a lot!<p>

It's relatively compact for it's speed. Only prob is that they are expensive. I picked up mine cheap. It's a silver nose and had to go to an industrial optician to get soughted out. But, it's still good apart from that.<p>

IIRC there is one going cheap at one of the big NY stores - online - KEH 215$ *Bargin* grade...<p>

Bloody good optic.

Before I get trolled, it doesn't make any sense that a 10% Metaborate solution should precipitate out and the substitute (Borax/Lye solution) doesn't - if they are equivilent?

... and <a href="http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/korapid.html">this</a>?

I use a Koni Omega, the older, slightly smaller version of the 100. Had it about 2 years. It took a little while to get used to it. One thing that really helps with this camera is to use it on a tripod. Once this is done you can really get the most out of it's fantastic lenses. I've enlarged a full frame to 20x24 with Acros and the grain is invisible and the level of detail is more than I've ever seen before in a B&W print.<p>

Much larger than a normal camera and very quirky to use, left handed shutter release, plunger-type film advance...<p>

You've seen <a href="http://www.davidde.com/articles/omega.html">this</a>?

There <b>are</b> ways of making Sodium Ascorbate as well as Kodalk (actually Sodium Metaborate) in fact there is an interesting discussion going on right now in the rec.photo.darkroom usenet forum right now. The substitution of Kodalk is easier than buying the stuff because you can make more than you can get and IIRC, a 10% solution of Sodium Metaborate either precipitates out or crystallises; whereas the substitute 10% solution does not.<p>

You can substitute the Metaborate without using Lye in the Gainer developers by using one teaspoon each of Borax and Carbonate per litre of film developer.<p>

Making Sodium Ascorbate has been listed here many times as well...<p>

But why? If you have Phenidone or Metol you can make many different developers with what you have in your darkroom already.