andy_laycock3

I have a roll of Agfa 400 (APX?) 35mm that I would like to develop in an inversion tank in D76 1:1, this weekend. Does anyone have a time for this film for normal contrast?

 

<p>

 

Thanks

Andy

I would try a stronger detergent and if that doesn't work then alcohol.

Kodak selenium, Agfa virdon and Kodak sepia all work well on Ilford MG RC paper but did not work well on Kodak Polycontrast RC.

Just to add to Carlo's comments, an alternative to having a number of cameras is to roll your own film and just load 10 frames (or less) into the canister. Loading your own film is a much cheaper way to operate anyways (<$2 per 36 - for 35mm). This way you can easily devote a whole roll to the same subject and develop accordingly.

I've heard alot of good press on Ilford's XP2 for portraiture. It essentially has no grain, it's ASA 400 and it reproduces skin tones beautifully. It's developed via the C-41 process but you print it as you would any BW film (I have printed it myself). I know alot of photographer's who are using it for their portraiture and they are very happy with it.

I have always wondered whether anyone ever uses that little rod that twirls the film reels in roll film development tanks. I've noticed that it is even supplied with tanks that are obviously meant for inversion, such as Patterson. Since the lid of my tank leaks I decided to try using it with a couple of films and upon cursory inspection it seems to have given me the same results as inverting. Has anyone else tried this?

When you say milky do you just mean thin or is there also 'milky' film base - even between frames? If you haven't already tried it increase the development time by a couple of minutes but make sure that overall lighting of the subject is the same as the other films.

Pat,

 

<p>

 

I quick scan of this category of the forum and the original forum will reveal that the 'best film' appears to be any and all of them. It's very subjective and also depends on what 'look' you are seeking. Part of the fun is to try everything and judge for yourself. At this point in time the two most popular films seem to be Kodak Tmax and Ilford Delta and they share the same technology, which is different than all the rest. As for filters, well that is a subject of mystery to most beginners and I think it is best explained with actual photos as examples so I recommend any number of fine books available at a public library. The yellow filter gives a slightly darker appearance to human skin which is considered to be healthier looking. This has always been the dogma but I don't know anyone who actually uses it on a regular basis. My advice to beginners (and I am practically one myself) is to not get ahead of yourself or to overdose on data. At this point ignore the technical side and concentrate on composition because nothing will save a poorly composed image.

I have never heard of 'Heico' and I am willing to bet that not many people have. It's possible that it is for machine processing or is a specialty developer. I would just invest in the recommended developer for whatever film you are using. Something like D76 is really inexpensive.

For my kitchen set-up I use simple black plastic sheeting over windows and doors, available in huge sheets from a gardening store. I hang the sheets from small nails and use duct tape reinforcement on the plastic around the holes to stop tearing. It only takes me a few minutes to put up the sheeting and though I only print at night with some diligence I could probably completely lightproof the room. However I think that the weatherstripping mentioned in another reply is the first step.

Ilford Delta is really good and is no different than TMAX, in my personal opinion, except that it is not as temperature sensitive when developing. The preponderance of Kodak information probably reflects it's greater abundance in N. America and also could be cultural in nature. I think you can't go wrong with either one. I've heard alot of good press on Agfa's newer films as well.