matthew_stanton2

I think apx 400 has beautiful tonality albeit a little more grainy

than hp5+ but this can be kept well under control by careful

processing. If you are using a tripod i would recommend this film

for night photography. Try rating it at 160 asa and processing in

rodinal 1:50 @20 degrees for about 8 minutes. D-76 1:1

also works well but i think rodinal is better for night photography

as it seems to preserve the subject tones a little better with

higher contrast scenes. Hp5 is also good for night photography

particularly because it doesn't gain contrast with long exposures.

I rate it at 200 and process it in id-11/ d-76 diluted1:1.

I just think apx-400 has a nicer look.

If you are intending to do hand held photography i would go for

faster films such as delta 3200 or tmax 3200 rated at around

1000 iso. They make life so much easier.

I hope this helps.

I was under the impression that plus-x was less sensitive

to red than t-max 100. I also think it is a nicer portrait film than

t-max but the reason probably has something to do with it's

curve shape. Skin tones certainly seem nicer to my eye with

plus-x. A yellow filter is often recommended for use with this film.

It depends on which reproductions you are talking about,as well

as the vintage of the prints. All of the B&W images in his

magnificent monograph " Passage " are platinum prints made

either from enlarged medium format negatives or directly from

large format negs up to 12x20 inches. ( he used a banquet

camera with a 5 foot extension rail for some of his still life

images)

I have never seen reproductions as tonally rich as the ones in

this book . I have however seen some extremely high contrast

reproductions in other books which i find dissappointing in

comparison. Many of the reproductions in these books i believe

to be made from silver prints.

Penn states in passage that his platinum printing technique

involves multiple hand-coatings and developings on the one

sheet of paper !!! ... if only.

I do believe that his film was tri-x pan professional (320 iso),

not the 400 speed version. As stated above he rated it around

160 or less and processed accordingly. Tri-x professional has

excellent highlight separation which may in part contribute to that

extra sparkle in his portraits.

I believe that UFG is manufactured by Ethol, the same company

that makes diafine.

There is definitely no extension rail for this camera, I got out the

tape measure and it is only 17 inches extension. The good news

is that when i returned today i discovered with other eqipment

that had been traded in a 10" commercial ektar lens that is

clean, has been serviced and all the shutter speeds seem o.k.

for about $180 U.S. It seems as though this may be the ideal

focal length this camera without the extension rail. It is not the

wide field version but i can live with that ( at least i hope i can ),

My main concern is that i can actually at last almost afford to

shoot 8X10.

I am a photography student and i am about to begin the final

year of my fine arts degree, this present opportunity has has

been my dream since i first started making photographs 6 years

ago. It seems like the time has finally arrived.

Thank you all for your invaluable advice.

chris,

As far as i can tell it is set up much like the front tilt

system on any regular view camera with a screw system to

fasten or loosen the front standard in the appropriate position. It

is not an adapter system. I didn't think to check the thread

yesterday when i went in to put a deposit on it but if there is a

problem it sounds like it can be overcome. There is a sliding

tripod/ mounting block that slides into position on a rail .

I,m not sure if it has the extension rail however which concerns

me a little bit. It has two rails which fold down when you set the

camera up. The total bellows extension seems to about 50-60

cms. I was hoping to use something like a 300-360 mm lens

so maybe i will have some problems in the close up range.

Hmmm. Also the front standard seems to have a little bit of play

in it and is not completely rigid when properly fastened so i may

have to get a bit of work done on it.

It turns out that it cost only $150 US not $200 so i am willing to

put a bit of money into it. hopefully it will be worthwhile.

Thanks again,

Chris,

This particular commercial view also has front tilt. So maybe

we're talking long lost triplets here. I haven't checked about the

tripod mount or the extension rail but will have to make another

visit to the shop today to find out. I had almost given up on being

able to afford a decent portable 8x10 camera so i'm quite excited

about this discovery.

thanks,

Matthew Stsnton

I have just seen a kodak Commercial view camera which is for

sale at around $200 U.S. in a camera store here in Australia.

The bellows are a bit patchy but seems to be in quite good

working order otherwise and is exceptionally light and folds to a

relatively compact unit. The only problem is that it does not have

a ground glass or any lens boards.

I have seen a new 8x10 ground glass advertised for sale

on ebay for $30 U.S. it is said to be the standard thickness of .06

inches. Does any body know if this thickness ground glass

would possibly be suitable for such a camera? I have absolutely

no idea. Also I wonder if i will have a hard time finding suitable

lens boards. Perhaps they are the same dimensions as the

master view camera ?

I am new to 8x10 photography and would like to make the

transition as affordably as possible to start with. Any information

that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

Jonas if there is not enough grain with this procedure then try

rating the film at 400 and processing 1:25 instead of 1:50.

It wont be as nice tonally but it should increase the grain

significantly. You will lose the developers compensating action

and a reasonable amount of shadow detail. I think this is the

ralph gibsons film developing method with tri-x.

Paul, I was in vanbar ( cardigan st. carlton, melbourne ) quite

recently and they had a fair amount of diafine in stock.

Also their divided d-76 is worth trying, they sell the chemicals

pre-packaged ready for mixing.

Eugene i do apologize for my preaching i did get carried away.

I just wanted to convey my general dissatisfaction with most

manufacturers processing recommendations. Often they prevent

a films full potential from being realised.

You're right, ultimately we must all come to our own conclusions

about what works best for our own purposes.

I hereby step down from my soap box

Eugene, Ilfords film speed recommendations in most

developers are based upon a practical evaluation of film speed

not the foot speed which is zone 1 density . The developer they

use to determine film speed is like nothing you or I will ever use

and furthermore the speed is tested without even using a

camera. For most normal development times you are effectively

pushing the film up to as much as a stop. This is why most

people who have tried hp5 and tri-x at 200 iso with reduced

processing time prefer the results in terms of tonality , grain and

shadow detail. This is not pulling the film it is its real speed!!

If you do your own film speed tests in most normal developers

you will also come to the same conclusion.

In reality ( mine at least ) hp5 plus is only a 200 asa film when

processed in id-11 1:1 anyhow. I've tested it's speed based upon

densitometer readings of zone 1 exposure. Zone 1 density

should be more or less .10 above film base plus fog density.

When perceptol is used undiluted you lose a full stop of speed

compared to ID-11/ D-76 1:1.This reduces the effective EI to100

asa.

Diluting perceptol increases the films speed yield. For a 1:1

dilution you lose only half a stop of speed. At 1:2 it is only about a

third of a stop and 1:3 gives you pretty much comparable speed

to ID-11 1:1.

The speed loss associated with undiluted perceptol and

microdol-x is due to the effect of concentrated sodium sulfite

eating away some of the latent image. At higher dilutions the

sulfite is less concentrated therefore eats less silver and film

speed increases.

If you understand how the action of diluting this developer works

it can be a very versatile developer. For smooth skin tones using

perceptol undiluted or Diluted 1:1 may be preferable.

For increased sharpness and edge effects as well as speed,

diluting perceptol 1:2 or 1:3 can be very effective, particularly with

landscapes.

A good time for hp5 plus rated at EI 160 processed in perceptol

diluted 1:2 @ 24 degrees celcius would be somewhere between

11-13 minutes. You will need to fine tune this according to your

own equipment. I havent tried hp5 plus at other dilutions but you

would have to reduce the processing time and increase

exposure accordingly.

Have you also tried Forte Fortezo ? If so how do you think they

compare? Fortezo is the best warm tone graded paper i've ever

tried. I have sadly never had the opportunity to use Portriga Rapid

as it was discontinued in Australia many years ago.

Record rapid ( Insignia in the U.S. ) is sometimes very nice but

not as warm and richly toned as Fortezo.

I'm thinking there may be a possibility that Fortezo and the

Bergger papers may actually be the same product.

Does anybody have any opinions?

What is very important is that you ignore agfa's processing times

for any film particularly when using rodinal as a developer.

Agfas recommendations are designed to produce a much

higher than normal contrast index for all films.

I dont have a clue why they publish such ridiculous processing

times but grain and contrast in rodinal become totally

unpleasant if agfa's recommendations are followed.

I know from experience that the agfa films are great in rodinal at

about half their rated iso but only when the appropriate

processing time has been determined.

I personally wouldn't bother with rodinal @ 1:25 .

1:50 is much nicer and if you can handle a 1 stop speed loss try

1:100.

Sorry i've no experience with ilford films in rodinal but id-11 1:1

is always a great combo with the plus films.

Kelly, all of my experience going through my fathers

photographic archives concurs with yours. Many of the C-41

negs from even 20 years ago are faded and not worth printing.

The kodachromes from up to 45 years ago stored in the same

conditions are almost all perfect apart from the odd bit of fungus.

All of the silver b&w negs are perfect. I must say i like the idea of

my future kids being able to appreciate my slides in the same

way that i treasure his images.

Of course you can make an archival B&W print off a C-41 neg

and it is claimed that Fuji colour paper is also quite stable. As

much as i would like to trust the keeping properties of C-41

negs I just haven't seen enough evidence.

Henk,

I would be wary of increasing the temperature and agitation too

much . If anything a slightly extended processing time may help

with improved tonal separation. Tri-x in rodinal 1: 100 gives me a

true e.i. of about 100, it doesn't seem worth it a lot of the time

with a fast film. A 1:50 dilution will give a speed yield of e.i.

160-200 which is a bit more useful but it really comes down to

how you intend to use the film.

Another way of effectively improving tonal separation can be

achieved through printing techniques. For instance printing a

negative that would normally print on a grade 2 paper on a grade

3 paper instead and using a low contrast developer to bring

down the overall contrast.

A developer like Selectol Soft or something similar would be

suitable. I usually only use this technique with graded papers

like ilford galerie or forte fortezo but it should also work with

multigrade fibre-based papers.

Rodinal tends to depress mid-tone separation in many films.

D-76 offers better mid-tones than rodinal.

I haven't used a chromogenic film recently but as far as

conventional B&W films go Tri-x and Plus-x both have excellent

midtone separation, probably better than Ilford or Agfa

equivalents.

If you rate them at 200 and 50 ASA respectively and process

them in D 76 1:1 with your own testing you will get fantastic

midtones.

The only thing i have seen better is fp4+ in pmk pyro but you may

not want to go to that much trouble.

Tri-X will yield a speed of around ei: 160 in rodinal 1:50.

1: 50 is probably the ideal dilution for fast films otherwise speed

loss is great & processing times are a little excessive.

You can try tri-x at greater speeds for more pronounced grain but

shadow detail will not always be adequate & grain can get a bit

nasty.

Also consider agfa apx 400 rated at ei: 160. It is perhaps the best

match for rodinal of any fast film. Dont use agfa's processing

times, you will have excessive contrast, poor tonality and golf ball

grain.

Try around 8 minutes in rodinal at 20 degrees for apx 400 @ ei

160.

For tri-x i would try somewhere around 7 minutes @ EI: 160. If in

doubt it is better to under develop slightly with 35 mm films.

You will maintain the texture & grain of rodinal with this approach

but get more pleasing tones, particularly with night photography.

For extra speed i would recomment trying fuji neopan 1600 rated

at EI: 400- 800 ( 400 being my preference) in rodinal 1:50.

I shot a series on a holga in semi-overcast light using kodak

ektachrome 200. The exposure was spot on in such light.

A friend of mine has made, exhibited and sold many excellent

images enlarged up to 40 by 50 inches taken with a diana

using fuji superia 400 120 film. It is the consumer fuji film, I dont

know if it is still available in 120 but it was a couple of years ago (

in australia at least ). The film has excellent saturation & contrast

for plastic lens type cameras & speed is just right too.

could be worth a try!

I just thought of something else you might want to try with plus-x

in high contrast light that will save you the need to do extensive

testing, considering they are your last few rolls.

Use divided d-76.

David vestals formula is the best . If you rate plus-x at ei:50

you get sensational shadow separation with equally brilliant

highlight compensation. It is by far the simplest way of dealing

with high contrast lighting without too much testing & stress.

The results are always very good and you can confidently meter

for the shadows without highlights blowing out.

You will certainly give plus-x a shoulder by using this developer.

The only downside is that you have to mix the developer yourself

from scratch. No problem if you have scales and a good

photochemical supplier.

If you need the formula & developer procedure i can email it to

you.

cheers.

At 1:50 rodinals speed yield is just a little lower than d-76 1:1

perhaps about a third of a stop lower. When you dilute 1:100

due to loss of developer activity you lose up to another full stop.

What i have found with apx 100 in rodinal at 1: 50 is that its foot

speed is only truly about 40-50 iso. When processed in rodinal

1:100 the foot speed drops to about 25 iso. I would expect plus-x

to be very similar in this regard. I prefer diluting 1:100 the grain

is finer and the tonal transitions are beautiful.

What i did find is that the 1: 100 dilution needs 1 litre of working

strength developer per 8 by 10 inches of film to properly develop

the film. This quantity of developer is also recommended in the

darkroom cookbook.

I have mainly used this combination in 4 by 5 inch work

processing 4 negs at a time in a tray but it is also very

successful in 120. You can reduce agitation from every minute

to every 2 or 3 minutes once you are half way into the processing

time . This will give greater edge effects and also greater

compensation.

As a guide i would start with a test roll somewhere around

13 -16 minutes at 20 degrees celcius and then determine your

own contrast requirements from there . If you dont have a

darkroom yet , try and get access to a densitometer and do your

own tests, that is the best way.

Generally with apx 100 i use d-76 1:1 for portraits and rodinal

1:100 for still life/landscape work where i can afford the speed

loss.

If you are hand holding the camera i would try plus-x in rodinal

1:50 @ ei 50 compensation wont be as great but should be ok

for the car show.

For those who have used both the 120 makro planar cf and the

100 cf which of these lenses has the nicer bokeh overall? I am

trying to decide between these two lenses as a standard lens .

I do mostly portraits and the distance range varies between

about 4 -20 feet . Is the 120 really that far behind the 100 cf in

sharpness at the longer end of this range? Furthermore what

are the general overall characteristics of each lens when used

within this range, particularly at wider apertures?

Tri-x @ 200 asa in d-76 1:1 is lovely. 7-8 minutes @ 20 degrees

is a good starting point.. Avoid excessive agitation 4 gentle

inversions (10 seconds) per minute after 30 seconds initial

agitation will help improve tonality. I dont pre-soak.

If i were using rodinal with a fast film i would try apx 400 first.

They are an excellent combination.

Rating it at EI:160 and processing in rodinal 1: 50 for around 8

minutes should get you in the ball park. Apx 400 shows finer

grain in rodinal than other 400 speed films. Just dont use Agfa's

processing times whatever you do!! they are far too long.

I've never tried it at 1:100 in rodinal but your real film speed may

well end up around 100 asa at this dilution. Compensating

action would be great however.

Have you tried apx 100 again ? I find that it has many

charecteristics in common with some of the older emulsions

and comes up beautifully rated at ei:50 processed in d-76 1:1.

A longer, more beautiful tonal range and reduced grain is

achieved when rated at ei:50 with an appropriate reduction in

processing time.

The best results i have seen with Rodinal is apx 100 rated

at ei: 25 processed in rodinal diluted at 1: 100. Just make sure

you have 1 litre of developer solution per 120 roll of film. There is

certainly a speed loss at this dilution but for some subjects this

is not a problem.

I have tried fp4 plus which whilst a good film seems to lack the

beauty of apx 100. Plus-x is closer to the mark but i think overall

apx 100 is a slightly better film in regards to grain and tonality.

I havent tried microdol-x stock strength before but Emmet Gowin

used to get some beautiful tones from the old tri-x processed in

undiluted microdol-x with his medium format work. Speed loss

is again unavoidable.

hope this is of some use.

Try id-11 diluted 1:1 @ 20 degrees for fp4 plus rated at ei:50.

in 35mm format.

I would try around 6.5 minutes as an initial time with subsequent

adjustments if necesscary for your equipment.

I dont pre-rinse. Initial agitation is 30 seconds

( 1 gentle inversion every 2 seconds ) and then 4 gentle

inversions per minute ( 10 seconds ) thereafter.

I generally wouldn't recommend t-max developer for fp4+ but

rodinal and ilfosol s should be fine, but id-11 is pretty hard to

beat if you can be bothered mixing your own chemicals.