stevoi

@Prashant Khapane

 

... or with Film you need a Darkroom (mine cost me around 100?) and good paper for wonderfull enlargements. Not all in this world is digital now ;-) In my opinion a big print on baryt (fiber) from a 6x6 bw negative is really hard (not) to beat.

When I start use my Rolleiflex i think that this camera is way too slow for street /travel. Today I'm very quick with it and I like the Rolleiflex with the waist level finder over all other cameras for take pictures of people in the city. Actually I have bought a Bessa R3M and the Rangefinder thing is not mine.

 

The best camera is a very personal thing ;-)

 

Here you can see any of my Streetphoto with 6x6 Reolleiflex:

http://home.fotocommunity.de/stefanvoigt/index.php?id=415523&g=174736

Chris,

 

I use the PrintFile for a year and have had this scratches on the non emulsion side too. I dispose all PrintFile sheets and use only Pergamin (Paper) with P.A.T cert. Since then the scratches are gone.

I like shooting on the street with my Rolleiflex. First time i was too slow but now it works better and better. I learned zone focus with little depth of field...

 

samples:

http://home.fotocommunity.de/stefanvoigt

Like Roman i think Neopan 400 is one of the best in the 400 class with Rodinal. The grain is relative small and very sharp. I start developing at 18?C.

Fuji Neopan 400

Edward,

 

the quality relation between handheld 35mm to MF is the same like tripod 35mm to tripod MF. But there are more good reasons for a Rolleiflex for street. I like to look through the waistlevel finder, it is more secret. When people detect me they are more friendly too me and often they are talk with me about my old camera. I do not use a tripod and can handhold a 1/15 sec. without problems. But you are right that MF is slower and it is not easy to start with it on the street. I also use a little SLR and the "ideal camera" doesn't exist.

I use a Rolleiflex TLR for my street photography. I think it is the best MF camera for handheld street and portrait. The Rolleiflex is relative small, lightweight, quiet and well build.

 

Stefan

At this moment I have finished the development of two APX100 in D-76.

 

I use APX100 @100 in D76 1:1 for 11 Minutes. With the recommended time I have too much contrast. The APX100 I think is a real 100 ASA Film.

 

I use APX400 @250-320 in D:76 1:1 for 13,5 Minutes. Unlike the APX100 the APX400 have not the true speed.

 

Both films work very well with D-76. They have grain, but a very nice grain.

Eric,

 

the Rolleiflex is a snapshot camera. Eisenstaedt, Early Robert Frank, Robert Doisneau ... all of them use it for street and reportage pictures. Eisenstead said in a interview that the Rolleiflex ist the most discreet camera for him because he can take a picture without even looking at the subject.

Illka,

 

in general you are right. But in the shrinking market of film it is too optimistic to think that all manufacturer will survival. Because of that i will spend my money only to those companies who have a clear statement pro film (like Fuji or Ilford). I think the dead from one will livesaving these companies.

When you search for a new film it is better to go with Fuji because i think Agfa stop produce film in the near future and it make not sense to test film you can not get in the future. Check Astia 100F as a replacement of the RSX 50, it is a great film.

I always overexposure my negative film for 1/2 to 1 Stop. I get better results with finer grain and more shadow detail. The box speed is very optimistic and good for the marketing.

Agfa Scala is nothing others than a BW Film with a transparent base and you can develop it in every normal BW developer. I have test it in D-76 but can not remember the process time. The result was thin negatives with much contrast. I think the Scala is too expensive for the results you will get when processed as BW Film.

John,

 

Agfa said in the documentation of Sistan you must wiped (with a squeegee or so) the negative before drying to avoid stain / marks. I do not like to treat my negatives with a squeegee and without I have the problems with Sistan on both Film and Paper. On Paper I use a squeegee and Sistan without any Problems, on Film I use a little Agepon with destilled water as last bath.

 

I think also there are no needs to use Sistan or any other things to make BW Negatives more archival. When you wash and handle it correct you will never have the problem Sistan will solve.

 

Sorry for my really bad english, I hope you can understand all - I miss some words to explain it better.

You should not use Sistan for Film.

 

I have talked with a Agfa man because I have blotches on my negatives after the use of Sistan. He tell me that he do not recommend the use of Sistan with Film. It is a good replacement for the use of Selentoner or others to make paperprints more stable and archival.

Hello,

 

I develop the APX 400 (@320) in D76 1+1 for 14 min. with moderate agitation (first 30 sek. permanent, then every 30 sek. one inversion)

I switch from Rodinal to D76 1:1 (14 min @320) and I am very happy with the results. I like the grain texture with this combination very much. While APX100 is a dream in Rodinal I do not like it for the APX400 so much (in 6x6 is ok).

I always use 17 min at 1:50 without any problems. The only different is that I invert only one times every 30 seconds. But the differents can not be so high. Mostly I start with 18?C (after 17 min. it will have <> 21?C). Generally I find 18?C is better for Rodinal development.

I own the coolscan and i think this is not a good choice for your need. The coolscan use LED as lightsource and this bring out grain much more than other scanners. While the coolscan is in my opinion the best scanner (sharpness, speed) for fine grained films like Fuji Provia or Velvia or Astia in his segment, film with grain like 400 iso color negativ and particularly all BW Films with little or more grain scan not really good. I think the coolscan is the worst choice for your Trix negatives and too bad about your money.

I too think the Elite Color 400 is (nearly) the same film. The problem is that the Elite Color is not availible as 120 Film and i have no replacement for the Portra which was my standard film in medium format.

I think a Rolleiflex is a possible solution. It's like a Hasselblad (6x6, Zeiss Planar, Viewfinder) with the advantages of the Mamiya (no mirror slap, silence, handhold with 1/30 (1/15 without coffee) and lightweight).

I have tested all these Films (except HP5) and I think that the Neopan 400 is the best in Rodinal. I have tested the Neopan by many dillutions and times in Rodinal and I think that the following combination works best for me:

 

Neopan 400 EI 250

Rodinal 1+25

5,5 min at 18 ?C

 

I think that the lower temperatur (18 not the normal 20 ?C) gives a more homogeneous grain and the 1+25 dillution works generally better than 1+50 for most 400er films.

I can't get really good scans with both of this films (not good enough for 40x40cm for me). The best results I have archived is when I make a good wet print and scan this with my flatbed scanner.

 

Here in Germany many people use Calbe A 49 developer for fine grained APX400 results.

After testing I found that in my process the Fuji Neopan have much more contrast than the Tri-x. At the moment I use only Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1+25 for 135 and 120 MF and like this combo very much.