johndc

What alot of people attribute to light leakage on a Holga is actually flare. Besides the fact that it's the crappiest lens ever (not really a bad thing), the inside of the Holga is SHINY and light bounces around inside like crazy.

 

That said, there IS evidence of light leakage on that roll, but it doesn't appear to be occuring within the camera itself. The uniform fogging along the top and bottom edges is more likely caused by a loosely wound roll.

 

Meanwhile, it is flare that is causing the other high density "anomalies". Notice how they always occur in the same place relative to the frame, which means the shutter must be open for them to be imaged onto the film. The best way to get rid of it is to paint the inside of your holga flat black. this solves ALOT of exposure and color problems without losing the "crappy lens" nature of the camera.

So let's review... it's Hypo CLEAR... blah blah blah

 

The difference between Hypo Clearing Agent (HCA) and Photoflo is that, as someone said: the HCA serves to aid in the washing out of hypo (aka fixer), while the Photoflo reduces the surface tension of the water on the film so that it dries without spots. Both are known as "sundry" chemicals, that is to say, neither is critical to the photographic process. You can still develop and fix prints and film normally without them, but they help reduce your wash times (in the case of the HCA) and make the drying process more even (in the case of Photoflo).

 

One thing nobody has seemed to point out though (and I may be wrong about this, but...) is that HCA doesn't actually clear out the Hypo on its own. My understanding is that HCA is a compound that actually bonds to the fixer molecules in the emulsion and makes them EASIER to wash out. But you still have to perform a thorough water rinse to actually get rid of the residual fixer. Using HCA does not eliminate this final rinse step, it just shortens it. While the wash times for films aren't all THAT long to begin with, the wash times for heavy weight fibre papers can be several hours and it is here that the HCA is a most welcome addition.

 

In addition to promoting an even drying of the film surface, Photoflo is also useful for other things, such as rewetting the surface of a print or negative to remove some dirt or a smudge.

 

Hope this answers your question (and then some).

If you're losing shadow detail when shooting around 50, then it's probably not a 50 speed film. What are you basing your "tested" speed of 50 on? What "test" did you use?

 

The fact that it is so high-contrast, so slow, and that it has no markings lead me to believe it may be some kind of ortho/copy film. You can easily test this by taking a picture of an American flag in daylight and then printing the neg. If the red stripes are darker than the blue field, chances are you've got ortho film.

 

My suggestion would be to try shooting it around 25 or even 12 and give very short development, or maybe developing in Diafine, to reduce contrast.

I don't see that anybody's palm is visible in that shot. Are you sure you put up the right image?

PermaWash, Hypo Clear, Fixer Remover -- whatever you want to call it -- only goes a few days before things start growing in it. It's best to mix it as your need it and then throw it away. The stuff doesn't keep.

 

Make sure you wash the container with hot water and/or bleach to kill whatever was in there, then rinse thoroughly.

Am I correct in assuming DK-50 is some kind of high-energy developer?

strange (i guess) but true.

 

http://www.baseplusfog.net/images/misc/2475.gif

Well, I only have a few rolls left, and I'd like to shoot them all to see what I can get out of it. I only heard about this film because I happened upon an older (1970's) copy of EK's Darkroom Databook. It mentioned extended red sensitivity and that some photographers liked to use it for shooting in low light. When someone offered it to me, I thought "why not?". It seems to do ok in XTOL (except for the fogging, which is unavoidable), even though the two products never co-existed.

 

I'm guessing that maybe this was originally a traffic surveillance film or something like that?

I recently acquired some rolls of this film (with exp. date of Dec 2000).

 

I shot one roll @ 1600 and developed it in XTOL for 18 minutes with regular

agitation.

 

The film appears to have retained it's speed and development is adequte.

However, there is a considerable amount of uniform fog across the whole roll.

I'm not really surprised at this, given the age of the film, and the negs are

far from being "unprintable", but I'd like to know what I could do to reduce the

fogging on future rolls.

 

Is there something I can add to the developer which would reduce the fog?

 

Should I try another developer?

 

Should I develop less and then intensify to bring up contrast?

 

Any suggestions are appreciated.

 

Thanks!

Wow this thread reads like a book.

 

But I concur with what's been said. Rodinal and HP5+ are a grainy combination, not really suitable for soft tone portrait work. I have had a great deal of success using HP5 and Rodinal (1+100) for night photography, however. If you're doing low-light portraits I might even recommend it.

 

HP5+ is a great film, though. And it really shines in XTOL and Ilfotec DD-X. I've shot portraits with it @ 800 and been plenty pleased with the results. If you don't want to mix from a powder, try the Ilfotec DD-X.

The only problem I've ever had with mixing films is that sometimes the pink from certain Kodak films will stain the base of other films. However, a little extra washing will solve this problem. If you use a hardening fixer you may want to give a 5-10 minute wash between stop and fix to clear out the pink first.

I have a roll of HP5+ @ 3200, and I was thinking of developing it in

Acufine. Ilford does not give a recommended time at this speed, but by

extrapolation I was thinking around 12-14 minutes. <P>

What I'd like to know from you guys is if anyone has tried this and if

you've been satisfied with ths results. Acufine is billed as a "speed enhancing

developer". However, I'm wary of this claim since the same label is applied by

the same mfr. to Diafine, and I've never witnessed increased speed in Diafine

yet (tho I adore it for it's taming of highlights in night shots). <P>

What I like in my pushed negs is "punch" and contrast, with crisp grain and

good sharpness (understanding, of course, that sharpness is related to

contrast). Am I going to get this kind of result with Acufine, or should I stick

with XTOL (which I like but don't want to be tied to)?

"I actually think it makes a bigger difference with roll film. The distance from side to side is vastly shorter than the length of the roll. Therefore, by hanging diagonally, the water falls away from the image area much faster than hanging vertically. Hanging vertically means the residual water streaks along each and every frame and inevitably some of it dries up before it reaches the bottom leaving spots."

 

I have to wonder how much water is on your film in the first place that it's steaking all the way down to the bottom. Must be alot. Do you dunk the rolls in photo-flo before you hang them or do you just run them through a tray of the stuff? I use the latter technique. Granted when I first hang up the film some photo-flo runs down, but it's nothing to worry about since it doesn't leave spots (at least not in my experience).

 

To answer the original question, I normally hang my 35mm and 120 film vertically; in part to save space but also because i want to reduce any curling. My 4x5 and 8x10 negs I hang at an angle, just because that lets me optimize the film-to-clothespins ratio. The only issue I have with it is that the photoflo collects at the bottom corner and you have to sometimes "pinch" it off and let it dry some more before you can sleeve the negs.

But why do I have to redevelop it?

I've used it and like it. It's great for saving those otherwise

unprintable negs... but I'd like to know how it works.

<P>

Like... how does the <i>chromium</i> come into play? Why do I have to

redevelop and why can I do it in room light?

<P>

Your verbose responses are appreciated. Thanks!

"Marko, you'll find many defenders of the digitaltruth.com website because they have long provided a very useful public service and asked little or nothing in return."

 

I'd like to point out that quite a few of us here on the photo.net forums are also contributors to digitaltruth and the MDC database, and telling us "digital truth is incorrect" is kind of a slap in the face. It doesn't help your cause at all. It's more likely to turn people off from helping you. I realize you're a beginner and all and that you might not be aware, but you should try doing a little more research before you make such sweeping statements.

 

Besides, everyone knows the times on digitaltruth only work with digital films.

Dave: I know it gets foamy because when I take the cap off to empty the tank it foams over like vinegar meets baking soda. Also because I can see the uneven development on the film caused by the bubbles.

 

Ron: Neither my reels nor any other part of the developing tank come in contact with photo flo. I remove the film from the reels after the wash and "see-saw" them in a tray of photo-flo.

"no, it doesnt curl luke in the canister. it curls in the emulsoion direction."

 

you know the emulsion is the non-shiny side, right?

Yeah, I'm being a bit melodramatic. I'm not really crying. But I am

frustrated.

 

Seems that my XTOL is getting excessively foamy, and I can't figure

out why. I always mix with distilled water, so I'm pretty sure it's

not the water. I do reuse the stuff, however. Anyone have any idea how

I can solve this problem? My agitation is the standard 5-every-30 method.

 

Thanks.

Like Peter said, what model TLR is it?

 

My 1950 Rolleicord gives perfect exposure corner-to-corner every time. However, I have a Argoflex that vignettes consistently, due to the crappy nature of it's triplet taking lens.

 

Stopping down may or may not improve your situation. It may slightly increase the coverage (if it is indeed a lens problem), but it's equally possible that it will just make the image circle (and consequently the vignetting) more abrupt and give you a more pronounced "cropping" in the corners.

 

Anyway, film is cheap. In the time it took to ask your question you probably could have shot a whole test roll. ;)

"when i send it to paris, to a professional, my uncle the negs are flat. so how can i fix this?"

 

uhh... move to paris? seriously. it's a well known fact that the water in the Seine contains a rare enezyme that causes film to dry completely flat. sounds crazy, i know. but that's only because i just made it up.

 

my recommendation would probably be that you hang a weight at the bottom of the roll to force it to stay straight. i've also heard that rapid drying with a (gasp) hair dryer will help, but i've never tried that.

 

the only film i've ever used that consistently curls like a mofo (to the point of being difficult to work with) is HIE. Anyone else have this experience?

"I just set up my camera, attached lens, pull out lens and onto rails lock it at 150 on the scale (my lens is 150mm what ever that means) and focus with a lupe, take light reading, set Fstop, set exposure time, load preloaded film and shoot.."

 

None of that is going to do you any good if you don't pull the darkslide out. ;)

"I am not sure why one would want a non coated lens as a goal."

 

There are lots of reasons, but I suppose the most pratical reason is because they're cheap. ;)

Yes Jason, the Xenar I'm referring to is the one I bought from you. It's working out marvelously well.

But I wouldn't object to a Tessar either. I have one on my 3x4 Speed and it's quite nice. The nice thing about the model Xenar in question is that it goes in the same shutter as the 150, thus allowing me to use the same flange if I have to.

But I suppose at the bare minimum all I'm really looking for is a sharp, fast, simple lens that is uncoated.

make that "I have NOT come across one for sale anywhere."