gareth_harper

Just popped back to have a look Jim. Thanks for checking.

How do you find the 24-70? I quite fancy upgrading to the 24-70 at some point in the future.

Thanks guys. Sounds like it might be OK.

I will try it on the camera in the shop.

All my other lenses are EF or EFL, so should be no worries there.

Carl, I guess you are not familiar with this lens.

I'm considering purchasing a 5D soon.

I currently use two EOS30 bodies and a lot of film.

I also have a Tokina 28-80 ATX f2.8

Is anybody using a 5D ATX combination.

Wondering if there are any compatabilty issues.

Thanks,

Gareth.

If you take one film, take Provia 100.

However if you like the look of Velvia take that for your landscapes etc.

For people shots and streetscenes revert to Provia. Velvia isn't very kind to skin tones. Some people prefer sensia to provia for people shots.

I'm quite happy using just provia 100 and 400 as my slide film.

I take it Salgado was using 35mm

Rodinal's big draw back is grain, it's rather grainy. However it does seem to be very tollerant, it's very punchy while at the same time capturing amazing highlight and shadow detail. I love the stuff and it's very very cheap. I use it with tri-x.

I just bought another bottle yesterday, what appears to be the last bottle available off the shelf in Glasgow. I've ordered another two but whether I'll get them, but I've got enougth at the mo for 2 or 3 years I think.

I am about to try ID11 with tri-x, I'm looking for a developer that looks good but with finer grain and is hopefully forgiving of my ham fisted exposures.

I've got it on quite a few of my lenses. I have to say I never use it. Most of the time I'm in single shot focus mode and I constantly re-focus as required. Or sometimes I use the auto-focus to get focus then switch it off to hold the focus where I have just set it and fire away.

I would say that if you can find the extra pennies it's well worth going for the 70-200f4L. I've used a 70-300f4-5.6 USM but I now have a 70-200f4L. The 70-300 is not bad, but the 70-200 is just lovely in terms of the results you get.

Just ordered a dozen rolls from 7dayshop.com

I'd didn't recieve any out of stock notification after placing the order, so it should drop through my door any day now.

Just checking the price for you, and stone me, it's just gone up. 1.99 a roll! That's the second price rise in two years.

Pretty much the same as what Roger said again.

I rate it at 320asa. I find that at 200asa or below and the negs are really too thick for easy darkroom printing.

There's nothing revolutionary about this.

Take a 400asa colour neg film. You could shoot it at 100asa and give it a standard process and still get acceptable results, likewise it will just about tollerate a 1 stop underexposure. But again I find it best at about 320asa.

XP2 super is based on colour neg technology.

Use a rapid fixer. There are a number of different brands on the market. I use Ilford Rapid fix. It's a reliable product and saves you time. You can use it on both paper and film (though keep a seperate working solution for each).

I fix tri-x for three minutes in 1+4 rapid fix. For Tmax it's 6 minutes. I maybe up that to 4 and 7 minutes respectively if I've used the fixer a couple of times. I always wash for about 30 minutes.

Some films do have a slight coloured tinge to them, if there is any tinge it should be so slight it's hard to see.

I always test fixer that's been used before with the film leader, if it does not clear in a minute or less with Ilford rapid fix I dump it and mix up some fresh stuff.

Hope this helps.

While it looks like Agfa will go into liquidation, it's certainly not definite.

I'm sure there are other developers out there with similar properties to Rodinal, or somebody will buy the rights to Rodinal or you will just have to make your own.

Talks continue as far as I can see

http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2005/10/20/afx2288225.html

This is the most up to date page I can find.

Have I missed something?

The last I read was that talks between Agfa Photo and Photo-Me continue.

Yes and no.

Spring water will be no use, it will probably be just as 'dirty' as tap water.

Yes you can mix your chemicals in tap water. Toners are often best mixed in distilled water to increase life and save you money.

Look about for a cheap source of distilled water. Do you know anybody who works in industry, they often have water purification plants. Some garages and other buisinesses have water distillers, you may be able to come to some agreement with them, or just use it sparingly.

My film process proceedure is, Dev, stop, fix. Then I do some inversions with tap water before leaving it to 'force wash' for 20 minutes. I then give it 3 rinses in distilled water. Before hanging it to dry in the bathroom I run the shower and steam up the room. Once the steam has settled (and taken the dust with it) I hang the film to dry and turn the radiator up full. I don't use photo'flo or other agent, I always seem to get marks when I use that stuff. I use my fingers to wipe down the film to remove excess water. I still get some water marks on my film but they rarely show on my prints.

It's seems strange to me that people seem to forget that b&w film took it's biggest hits well before the year 2000 and the digital revolution. The biggest users of b&w film were the press, but in the late 80's newspapers started going colour. Not to mention those still using b&w started switching a lot of their stuff like XP2 to take advantage of the cheapie mini-labs that were popping up everywhere.

Digital was just part of a long standing slide in use of traditional b&w products.

Meanwhile I'm gonna keep on using it, still plenty of good products out there and should be for many many years to come.

I don't know if Tokina payed Canon for the license or not, but you certinly don't hear many people maoning about compatibility with Tokina lenses.

I have a 28-80 ATX f2.8 Tokina. It's certainly a big step up from the consumer lenses, but I suspect it's not quite as good as the 24-70L. It's well put together, it's contrasty and sharp. It does get quite soft wide open particulary at the 80mm end were it's quite bad, but close it down a bit and it's super sharp. My only real critism of it's performance is it's out of focus blurr. It can be a jaggy and ugly at times, looks like Tokina might have skimped on the apeture blades which is a shame. I have had the odd problem with the auto-focus jamming, but that is probably due to me frequently soaking the lens working in the pouring rain at demos and events, so that shouldn't be a problem for most people.

If you like me, can get your hands on a mint secondhand example, it's a bargain.

I use it on two EOS30's, and I'm hoping it will work on the 5D I hope to buy soon. Having said that I'll probably replace it with a 24-70L next time I'm in the US as lenses are so cheap over there. I've certainly had my monies worth out of the Tokina, it has served me well.

Of course in a few years time digital enlargers may be a bit more affordable. That may give a new lease of life to traditional papers, but may also in turn give film another knock.

Ach who cares, I mean film ain't gonna disappear anytime soon, I doubt it ever will to be honest. Traditional b&w photography will be seen as 'the' alternative process.

Al,

Kodak have just given Ilford a big boost by dropping out of the b&w market. They may have also picked up sales from Agfa and Forte who have been having difficulties. Not that Agfa is quite finnished yet.

There is a strong emthusiast market for b&w materials. While I will be shooting digital in the near future I don't see me giving up on b&w film and paper, nothing else looks quite like it.

Film might be slower to work with, but it's far more flexible and still capable of better results than digital.

Film degrades the image? What nonsense.

"The 5D promises to be an even greater upgrade, but I've read so many stories from first owners of the 1Ds discovering how inadequate their current lenses proved to be with a full frame sensor. "

Who are these people? What lenses were they using? Just as film can show up poor lens performance, so can a full frame high res sensor.

There is a small issue with digital sensors not being completely flat, unlike film which is held flat in the camera. I suspect it's a very minor issue though.

Remember that your 15-30 Sigma will be a different beast on the full frame camera. 15mm is wild. Not a lens I even think of using.

You may find the lenses that you are using a little lacking on the full frame high res camera, but it's subjective.

For me it's prime lenses, or L spec zooms (my Tokina ATX excepted, but it'll probably be replaced with a 24-70 at some point). Optics first, camera second.

I moved from a T90 to an EOS30 and I haven't looked back. Auto-focus is magic, though you do have to learn how to use it.

The EOS5 is getting on a bit now, they should also be cheap as chips though. The EOS30 and particulary the 30V has a much higher spec. If you want pro build quality and a pro sepc viewfinder go for the 3, I've seen some very reasonable prices on 3's recently. If I was buying now I go for the 3 myself, I ain't upgrading though as the 30 is an excellant camera and serves me well.

I usually a agree with Lex and indeed I've picked up quite a few good tips from him (cheers Lex!), but not on this one I'm afraid.

The effect of yellow is suttle (in my opinion) but there is a definate effect. I've tried a few rolls of film in daylight without the yellow filter and I didn't like it.

Also living in Scotland where the sky is always up to something, the yellow is handy when shooting people. Not only does it flatter skin tones, but if you catch a bit of sky in the shot, well the yellow produces just a wee bit of drama.

Orange, while great on the sky, is no use for people as it tends to remove peoples lips etc.

I do agree however that when inside, unless you have lots of sunlight coming in, you should dump the filter.

Yellow is pretty much my default filter.

All the C41 b&w films I know of are 'pan' films. They respond to the full spectrum of light in the same as as the traditional b&w 'pan' films. Would I use a yellow filter at a wedding? Yes. One reason is that C41 b&w films are not that contrasty, the yellow gives a little boost. The other is that the yellow filter helps to remove little skin blemishes and as such flatters the subject.

If you are moving indoors however, drop the filter unless there is lots of natural light. There's no point trying to use traditional filters under say tungsten lighting, just take what you can get (you might want to take a reflector along and a flash gun). Of course if you use a flash gun it may be worth popping the yellow filter back on.

Oh and when choosing your b&w C41 film consider what you want to do with it. If you want to print in the darkroom, it's best to go with Ilford XP2 Super. If you want to print on colour paper go for the Kodak product. If you are going to scan, why not just use colour neg film and de-saturate when you want b&w.

The key word is panchromatic. Just about every b&w film commercially available (not all though) are panchromatic, that means they respond to the full colour spectrum. They are usualy marked 'pan' on the box.

What you are doing by using a yellow or other colour filter is controlling that spectrum. This in turn effects the image.

Yellow generally increases contrast a bit, flatters skin tones and gives a bit more punch to the sky. Many b&w photographers consider the yellow filter to be the one that almost lives on the end of the lens, just as many colour photographers do with the skylight.

Oh there is nothing the photofinnisher can do to reverse the effect of colour filters on b&w film.

Bear in mind that with XP2 it is a happy coincidence that it prints quite well on colour paper, it is intended to be printed on b&w paper. And indeed it can print very well in the darkroom.

If you want a b&w film for printing on colour paper you may be better off with the Kodak product which is tweeked to suit colour paper.

"I am new to developing, and I don't print at home. I have a 35mm film scanner. I shoot, develop, scan and print digitally online at a local shop."

Ah that helps me understand what you are trying to do.

First thing is, are you sure you want to use traditional film? Traditional b&w film can be tricky to scan, much of this is to do with the silver content of the film's tendancey to scatter the light from the scanner's light source. Having said that many people work round this and get great results. So try it and see how you get on, or perhaps consider just using colour neg film and de-saturating after scanning.

The other point I would make, is that if you definately want to use traditional b&w film, then as a beginer you should pick one film and one developer and stick with it. Stick with it until you have shot and devloped a couple of dozen rolls and feel confident that you now know how to work your chosen combination. You may at this point want to try another film, perhaps with a different developer, or to simply continue to use and learn with your original choice.

As for a combination to start with, well 400asa films rated around 400asa are generally the easiest and most tollerant to work with. Go for a classic combination, one that has a proven track record of producing results. HP5 in DD-X certainly fits that bill.

Have fun.