lyle_gordon

I also recommend a fuji fronteir as its usually much cheaper than getting a professional scan plus lightjet/inkjet print and the quality is good.

there is a london, ontario but I went so long ago I cannot remeber what it was like sorry.

Scala can also be processed in Canada and the DR5 process is available and it is also possible to process bw slides at home.

I have HC-110 and D76 available to process Maco IR Film so I went to

look up the dev times and the massive dev chart lists the time in D76

as 8 minutes while the maco site (http://www.onecachet.com/tech.htm)

lists it at 13 minutes. Which is correct.

 

I am also wondering which filter you suggest using with it?

 

Thanks

I expose it closer to 200 than 320 and I find that if you want to print on colour paper the kodak c-41 bw films work better. IMHO

Im also looking for a stable and hopefully long-lasting liquid developer as I dont process that much film that often and I would not like to have to replace the developer all the time.

 

Thanks

I hate to ask such a generic question but im just looking for a

starting point. I was wondering whats a good general purpose BW

film/developer combination 100 speed with fine grain, good tonality

for architecture, landscapes and misc things.

 

Thanks,

Lyle Gordon

 

P.S. I shoot 35mm and 120

Kodak 400UC, Provia 400F, EliteChrome 400 (not sure about that one), Fuji NPZ can be nice, Kodak HD400, Fuji Press 800/1600.

quote:

A reducing converter (if one could be fitted) would not increase the angular coverage of your lens, it would just compress it into a smaller spot which would not be big enough to cover your negative and would not give you a wider angle of view than you already have.

end quote

 

this sounds perfect since the sensor on a digicam is smaller than than full frame (usually) thus compressing the image would eliminate the crop factor of the digital camera. Right?

I am almost 100% certain that the dyes used to add the colour to the older type of kodachrome films have not been made for many years. This would mean that the only way to get an image would be to process it in standard black and white chemistry. Check out Rocky Mountain Film Lab.

I can't remeber why but I remeber reading that the base on 120 films is lighter than on 35mm. It might have something to do with anti-halation layers but someone else should be able to shed more light.

Very interesting, a perspective not often seen.

 

Questions: What kind of camera did you use?

I have a 55 f/3.5 that works very well with my FT2 I find it very sharp and contrasty.

The only time ive ever seen one was at the Camera show a few years ago near where I live (toronto). I saw the pentax and the minolta, I also like the look of the minolta but the pentax is actually smaller. There was also a Rollei 126 camera for a few dollars.

My Personal Favorite is Fuji Reala in 120 and 35mm, I usually print the 35mm on a Fronteir and the 120 tradionally, both on Fuji Crystal Archive.

 

I have also heard good things about Portra 160VC. I never did like Portra 160NC much too little saturation but I would assume for a wedding it would do nicely. I am about to Try some 400UC as it seems promising.

Contact me via e-mail as I may forget to check this thread again, if you're interested.

 

lyle@rogers.com

I also have some 1980's plus-x in 120. A role of HP5 (not plus), and some other misc bw films expired long ago.

I have a role of 127 Verichrome Pan from 1965, it is unexposed. I had 3 rolls that I found in the packs so I bought a kodak VPK on ebay for 5 pounds to shoot the 1st role and it turned out quite well considering I wasnt expecting much from an 80 year old camera and film that expired 40 years earlier. I processed it at the pro-lab I use and they did a great job, although I process my own b&w now. I would be glad to give it to you, I could take photos on it or I could send it unexposed, your choice. Im in Canada so shipping might cost more.

TX is Tri-X an older style emulsion with more pronouced grain but many find this appealing, its entirely personal preferance.

 

TMAX is a new T-grain emulsion with less grain.

 

There are also other differences regarding exposure latitude, pushability and development time.

 

If you shot a roll of 125 at 400 you will need to push it just over 1.5 stops, you should check the massive dev chart at www.digitaltruth.com to find the times to use with the developer you like to push that film. If you dont process your own film you will need to find a lab that will push the film for you.

I hate to do this as I looked at the photo I thought something just wasnt right IMHO the angle of the ground looks funny. I went into photoshop and fooled around a little, contrast adustment, dodging, rotation. If you don't like it, Oh well. I just thought I would try.<div></div>

I would buy a photo.net camera strap as I need a new strap anyways for my Nikkormat, this would be the perfect way to spend money.

I use a Seagull m203 (copy of a zeiss ikonta IV) it has a coated triplet lens what works quite well stopped-down in both colour and black and white. Its pocketable and fun to shoot with. To top it all off its very inexpensive.

If you look at the top left end of the light it looks like a plane with exhaust, you should check if you are near an air force base where they test planes, as the exhaust looks different then anything ive ever seen.

I used a lead bag and let it go through the x-ray with film in it and they didnt say anything nor make me open it so I figure the x-rays go right through it otherwise I could have had a pistol in there for all they knew.

 

Im still wondering if they just trusted me as the camera was in the carry-on or they could see through the lead.

If it were black and white film it would probably have come out printable but colour films that old weren't even very good when they were new but 50 years later I doubt if anything will be printable. Alas it can't hurt to try (although you will be down 13$ that you could have spent on new film).