tom_halfhill

The point of hypo-clear is to reduce the wash time. If you're washing film for 30 minutes, then you're right, no hypo-clear is needed for archival processing. But I've always used hypo-clear followed by a 5-minute wash. My earliest films from the 1970s are still pristine. In addition to reducing wash time, hypo-clear saves water and reduces the chance that suspended particles will embed in the soft emulsion. These are real concerns for some people. My first darkroom used well water, which contains more minerals than city water. It was so gritty that I installed a filter on the faucet to remove most of it. Even city water may be gritty if the pipes are old. My shorter wash time also saved wear and tear on the well pump.

I can sympathize. Before I was a "Leica snob," I was a Ricoh 500G snob, a Konica Auto-S2 snob, a Canon G-III snob, and an Olympus XA snob. Two of those other rangefinder cameras were used when I bought them. I have always liked rangefinders, but I didn't buy a Leica until I could afford an old used one. And I've never bought a new Leica lens. My Leica M10 is second-hand, too. I already owned the Leica lenses I bought many years ago when prices were lower. Although I'm richer now, I still keep my priorities straight. I have a Leica M10, a Leica M6, several Leica lenses -- and my car is 23 years old. Priorities!

1. It doesn't look like a developer problem. It looks more like a development problem, such as inadequate agitation. But I think you have eliminated that possibility. I used HC-110 extensively in the 1970s and 1980s and never saw a problem like yours, nor any other fault with it. 2. Yes, a defect in film manufacturing could be to blame. Once I bought a 100-sheet box of Kodak print paper that had black streaks. It was a bad batch that affected many people. The store immediately replaced my box with another box manufactured in a different batch. But if Ilford manufactured a bad batch of film, other people should be reporting the same problem. And it shouldn't appear on your Tri-X film. 3. It doesn't look like bad fixer -- again, it looks more like inadequate agitation. But I suggest buying new fixer anyway. Once I bought a bottle of fixer that had been sitting on a store shelf too long. Although it cleared and fixed the film, it left a "smoky" band lengthwise, not lines like yours. My defect looked like film fog, except for some reason it affected only the center of the film, not the edges. A bottle of new fixer solved it. Worth a try.

Ha! In 1994 I reviewed the Fed 5C for Shutterbug magazine. I commented: "The very next step after loading the camera is to wrap the leather eveready case in a plastic bag and stash it in a closet. I don't know what process was used to tan the leather, but take the word of an old farm hand -- it smells worse than the cow did when it was alive."

Update: DAG finally recalibrated and returned my 50mm Summicron lens, but only after 11 months, and only after I bugged him by phone. My lens focuses perfectly now. But because he's so busy, I would query other repair services first. DAG already has more work than he can handle. I would reserve him for difficult repairs that other people won't tackle, not for routine work.

To narrow the possibilities, check if the lines appear: 1. Immediately after fixing, before washing. 2. Immediately after washing, before wetting agent. 3. Immediately after wetting agent, before wiping. (I don't recommend wiping, anyway.) 4. Immediately after wiping, before drying.

There may be another explanation for the white specks on your scans. Do they look like individual pixels or clusters of pixels, not randomly shaped dust spots? If so, they may be caused by a programming bug in your scanner software or image editor. In my case, some scanned or DSLR-copied images have black specks. Usually they are individual pixels, resembling sprinkled pepper. In extreme cases, they are clusters of black pixels. Upon further investigation, I discovered that the black specks don't appear in my raw scans or copies. They appear when I edit the image in my old version of Adobe Photoshop. The "auto levels" command (which remaps the histogram) often does it. The black specks always appear in areas of blown-out highlights. Sometimes when scanning or copying a faded photograph, I must overexpose a few highlights to recover detail in the dark areas. I think I know what's happening. Pixel values have a numeric range: 0 to 255 per color channel in a 24-bit image (such as JPEG), and 0 to 65,535 per channel in a 48-bit image (such as a RAW file after importing into Photoshop). Black = 0, white = the maximum number. When "auto levels" or another command remaps the histogram, a blown-out highlight may exceed the maximum. In that case, the program should limit the pixel value to the maximum. But if it allows the pixel value to "wrap around" to zero, the white pixel turns black. In your case, maybe the opposite is happening: pixels in dark areas are wrapping around from zero to the maximum value per channel, so they are white. Although these false pixels can be manually erased, it's time consuming if they are numerous. One solution is to use Photoshop's noise-reduction filter set to a radius of one pixel. It works but slightly blurs the film grain. Another solution is to use an image editor that doesn't have this bug.

Cost is relative. For some people, an $8,000 camera is no more extravagant than an $800 camera would be for someone else, or even an $80 camera for another person. Indeed, nowadays, many (most?) people might think it's silly to buy any camera when we already have a pretty good one in our smartphone. When Leica announces a new camera or lens, it always provokes numerous critical comments. The commenters ridicule anyone who would pay such high prices and denounce Leica owners as snobs. It never occurs to these critics that their $500 camera would seem equally frivolous to people who are poorer. I've read that we tend to associate with other folks in the same approximate income bracket. We don't often associate with others who are much richer or poorer than ourselves. That tendency lulls us into thinking we are "typical." In my experience, most people can't comprehend what it's really like to be much richer or much poorer. We think we know, but we don't. One of my relatives works in a restaurant. Her much richer friend is getting married and has asked everyone to fly to a resort in Puerto Rico for her bachelorette party. For her and maybe for her other friends, it's a minor expense. But it isn't so minor for my relative. She's never even flown on a plane. To help her, I doubled my usual gift of birthday money. But I think a destination bachelorette party is a bit much to ask. Yet for some folks, it must seem typical.

You ask a complex question. Maybe digital is good for big business but not so good for small business. The digital transition has wiped out thousands of small processing labs, camera stores, and pro photographers. Some big companies like Kodak were hurt, too, but that was mostly their fault. Other factors: the Internet has pretty much wiped out the photo magazines and contributed to the decline of local camera stores. The general trends in a capitalist economy favor business consolidation and monopoly. It's even happening in the digital industry -- witness the fade of Pentax, Ricoh, and Olympus, and the smartphone wipeout of compact digicams. Canon, Nikon, and Sony dominate the enthusiast market. Smaller companies struggle for market share. I've never seen a Fuji X-Series mirrorless camera, not in public, not in a store, not anywhere. It's like they don't exist.

All the Leica repair services in the U.S. are swamped with business. DAG (Don Goldberg) enjoys one of the best reputations and was the only repair person I contacted who agreed to recalibrate my 50mm Summicron. (After a car seat and heavy suitcase fell on it, there was no visible damage, but it no longer focused correctly.) Unfortunately, DAG's turnaround time varies greatly. Sometimes it's a few weeks, sometimes a whole year. The lens was definitely worth fixing. It's a 1969-vintage 50mm f/2 Summicron version 3 (V3). They cost at least $1,200 these days in any usable condition. I paid $300 in the 1980s. New ones cost $2,795. Besides, it's my favorite lens. It's small, light, and works great on film or digital.

Good news: my test photobook came back from Blurb and it's great! I'm pleased with the photo reproduction, paper quality, hardback covers, and binding. I just uploaded another order for a 64-page 12x12-inch hardcover of my first visit to Yosemite National Park in 1993. I also ordered a second test book using Blurb's "lustre" paper, which is lower quality than the high-end paper I chose for the other books. I want to see if the lustre paper is good enough for some less-important photobooks. It's still one of their better papers. For this test, I used my photos of rock star Meat Loaf (1947-2022) and his band performing at a wild private party in Chicago in 1989. These photos are b&w. Their performance that night was awesome, and I was able to move very close because there was no security. For some pictures, I was at arm's length -- fortunate, because the only camera I had with me was my Olympus XA with its wide-angle 35mm f/2.8 lens.

Maybe I'm lucky, but with only one exception, I haven't had the rangefinder focusing problems that other people report. My oldest lens (a 1969-vintage 50mm f/2 Summicron) and my newest lens (a 2021-vintage 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander) focus accurately at all distances. My 90mm and 135mm lenses are accurate too, although the 135mm requires careful focusing. The only exception was in 2020 when my 50mm Summicron suffered an accident and was knocked out of calibration. It took DAG two tries and nearly a year, but he fixed it. None of my lenses are six-bit coded. I turn coding off except when using my third-party 21mm f/2.8. With other lenses, vignetting is hardly noticeable. The new Leica M11 doesn't tempt me. The 60-megapixel resolution is far more than I need. Even the 24MP M10 is overkill for my applications. Maybe I'm biased after using film Leicas for decades, but the M10's removable baseplate doesn't bother me at all. It's much sturdier than the flimsy plastic battery and memory-card doors on other digital cameras. I don't think the M11 arrangement is an improvement, except for the larger battery. I rarely change batteries in the field, though. If I ever buy another Leica M camera, it will be a second M10 body, not an M11.

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions. I have many years' experience with both Kodak HC-110 and T-Max film developers, and I agree their undiluted liquid concentrates keep well, especially when refrigerated. (In the 1980s I switched from HC-110 to T-Max because I found the latter delivers film speeds closer to box speed.) Rapid fixer keeps less well, in my experience, but maybe some waste is tolerable. Rodeo Joe echoes my original concern that a powdered formula can't be reliably subdivided without risking unbalanced ingredients. Regarding D-23, however, the subdivision would be unnecessary if the two ingredients (metol and sodium sulphite) aren't measured and mixed until one or two rolls of film need processing. But measuring such small amounts might be tricky, because a tiny error in a small amount is more significant than a tiny error in a large amount. And AJG makes a good point that D-23 needs mixing at high temperature before cooling to the working temperature. Rodinal ... thanks, but not for me. Not for high-speed 35mm or 120 films. Too grainy. Edwal FG7 was another long-lasting concentrate I used for a while, but apparently it's no longer available. Rodeo Joe also says an acid stop bath and hypo clearing agent are unnecessary for film. One of my college instructors said the same. By long habit, however, I've always used a stop bath and hypo clearing agent before washing. My oldest self-developed films from the 1970s remain pristine. (At my age now, maybe it doesn't matter if the negatives fade!) Stop bath can be mixed on the spot with citric-acid powder, which keeps well. Hypo clear can be mixed from sodium sulphite and sodium bisulphite powders. Eliminating both steps would definitely simplify the workflow. An ideal solution would be a community darkroom or a few neighborly film shooters who could share the chemicals before they expire. I don't know any like-minded shutterbugs in my proximity but will make inquiries. Interestingly, no one questioned why I want to shoot film occasionally despite having several digital cameras. It's hard to explain, but I miss the thrill of pulling wet film off a stainless-steel reel to see my pictures for the first time. The instant gratification of chimping an LCD isn't quite the same. Also, I have a few nice old film cameras sitting around.

$17 to develop two 35mm or one 120 rolls? Crazy. And too much wasteful plastic packaging. I'm looking for an economical DIY solution.

These days many people use digital cameras primarily and shoot film occasionally. For those who develop our own b&w film, the liquid solutions may expire before we use them up. Powdered chemicals usually keep longer than liquids. Many years ago (1930s, '40s), Kodak sold small one-shot tubes of powdered film developer and fixer for snapshooters who mixed them with water immediately before use. Can we devise a similar method today? Using a pH-neutral fixer, we could eliminate the acid stop bath (acetic or citric) and a hypo-clearing agent. The only liquid chemical to stock would be the final-step wetting agent, a small bottle that keeps practically forever. Questions: Which powdered film developer, and which powdered fixer? Both powders must be easy to measure in quantities small enough for one-shot developing one or two rolls of b&w film. Measuring such small amounts often isn't recommended for formulas having many ingredients because it's possible that their balance will vary beyond specifications. This drawback favors formulas having few ingredients. The simplest film developer is Kodak Formula D-23, which I think dates from the 1920s. It's simply metol and sodium sulphite. Although used today mainly by large-format photographers, until the 1970s it was popular with 35mm and medium-format users. Newer developers are probably better for modern films, but D-23 may be good enough for occasional film shooters. The difference is probably negligible. Anyone who demands maximum quality is likely shooting digital, anyway. For the fixer, is there a commercially available powder like Photographers' Formulary TG-5 Archival Fix, which is a pH-neutral rapid fixer available only in liquid form? Someone has probably already devised an all-powder workflow. Suggestions welcome.

Update: Blurb has processed my photo book order. The problem must have been at their end, because I did nothing different today. I was finally able to reach the payment screen in the checkout process, and I have received both an email confirmation of my order and the Adobe PDF of my book. The hardcopy won't come for about two weeks, though, because I chose the economy shipping option. This project is a 22-page test book so I can evaluate Blurb's reproduction quality, book paper, hardback covers, and bookbinding. If I like the results, I'll use Blurb for my bigger books later. I'll post my conclusions after the book arrives.

I don't have trouble uploading my project. I just can't pay for my order. When I reach the checkout payment screen, it bombs out, and my order isn't saved. I have entered my discount coupon code so many times that now I can recall it from memory.

Thanks, I am trying Blurb. Although I remember using their BookSmart tool to make my 2013 photo book, yesterday I downloaded the new BookWright tool, figuring it would be improved over BookSmart. It took me only a few hours to learn the tool and lay out a 22-page test book using the highest-quality paper and the hardcover "imagewrap" options. The tool is flexible and doesn't force my pictures into a predetermined format. I think it's suitable for my needs. However, I'm having trouble ordering my finished book. When I reach the checkout-payment page and try to place my order, Blurb displays an error message in my web browser that says "Something bad happened!" and suggests refreshing the page, but it doesn't work. I have tried five different web browsers on three different computers with the same results. No matter what I do, Blurb can't process my order. It must be a problem at their end. I sent a message to Blurb's help desk and am awaiting a response.

Thanks for the tips. Speaking of Blurb, now I remember using them for a photo book in 2013. I can't recall having problems at that time, but their layout tools have probably changed since then. I'll check it out. Also Printique (Adorama). After making a small test book to evaluate the quality of the reproduction and bookbinding, I want to make larger books of my favorite trips. I've already scanned some color slides from the 1980s and 1990s. One other Mpix limitation I've noticed is that books can have no more than 100 pages. For some of my trips, I have upwards of 162 photos. Unless Blurb, Printique, or another service allows more pages, I'll have to divide the project into multiple volumes. As for making my own books from scratch, that's more work and probably requires tools I don't have. For now I'll stick with the commercial services.

Can anyone recommend a photo-book printing service that doesn't alter the photographs? I want to make some one-off photo books for myself, not for sale. My requirements seem simple but are elusive: 1. Place one photo wherever I want on a blank white page, pre-sized to fit. 2. Add a thin black border around the photo. 3. Add a one- or two-line cutline (caption). So far I've tried Shutterfly and Mpix. Neither can meet those basic requirements. Mainly, they insist on imposing predetermined page layouts, and they automatically crop, resize, or stretch my photos in one dimension or the other -- even when I size them exactly according to their specifications. For example, sizing them at 250 dpi as Mpix specifies doesn't stop Mpix from cropping or stretching them again when I place the photo on the page. Even when there's plenty of room to print the photo full frame, Mpix won't do it. Mpix also has a problem drawing black borders; sometimes it encloses large amounts of white space around the photo. I can solve the border problem by drawing them myself in Photoshop before uploading. But no matter what I do, no matter which options or layouts I select -- even empty blank-page layouts -- I can't stop these services from altering my photos in some way. All I want is a minimal art-book layout: one photo per page, uncropped, brief cutline, no robotic tinkering.

I'm nursing an old pre-subscription version of Photoshop and am careful to keep the serial number for occasional reinstalls. It wouldn't install on my Windows 8.1 system but I found a workaround by copying all of its DLL files from the windows/system directory (where they don't belong anyway) into the Photoshop directory. Now I've even got it running on Linux under WINE. It's an old version but it does what I need. I also have GIMP, but I find its user interface too cryptic. Its designers seem to have made it difficult to use for anyone who's familiar with industry-standard Photoshop.

When I was shooting b&w film in meterless cameras, I generally achieved good results using the Sunny-16 rule, albeit with slight modifications. At USA latitudes, I found that an extra half-stop was needed for mid-day exposures, and an extra full stop for early morning or late afternoon. On "cloudy bright" days when shadows were still visible, open up another full stop. If shadows aren't visible, open two stops. Under heavy overcast, open three or four stops. The same when shooting in a shaded area on a sunny day. These rules-of-thumb work pretty well -- but only if beforehand the photographer has tested their film and developing combination to determine the true film speed, which is usually slower than the box speed.

As I said before, the first rule of investing is diversification. Had you bought ordinary U.S. savings bonds when they were unpopular, you could be making 4% to 7.5% interest now. And most of mine are I-series bonds, so their interest rates will rise even further in step with any future inflation. Interest rates are at historic lows now, so it's a good time to borrow money -- good for individuals, good for businesses, and good for governments. Borrowing costs will probably never be lower. In the early 1980s when I was earning up to 18% interest in money-market funds, one of my coworkers signed a 30-year mortgage to buy a house. My recollection is that his interest rate was 21%. Most Americans are heavier borrowers than savers, so low interest rates are more favorable than high rates. Retired people with diversified investments are doing okay, too. I don't think film prices were ever based entirely on material costs. From what I've read about Kodak's glory days, the markups on film, paper, and chemicals were high. Now that film is a niche product, I suspect the cost/price difference is even greater.

Actually, 2% inflation over 10 years is more than 20%. Inflation is cumulative. If you plug your numbers into a spreadsheet, you'll find that after 10 years of 2% inflation, your $100,000 would be worth only $78,100.56, not $80,000. So, ha! It's even worse than you think! But seriously, I won the inflation argument against the fear-mongers in 2009 and I'll win this one as well. Too many factors weigh against sustained high inflation at this time. If you're really so worried about it, sell some of your assets to buy inflation-adjusted bonds and maybe Leica lenses. Your $100,000 example assumes it isn't invested in anything. Even in 1980-81 when U.S. inflation reached double digits, I was earning upwards of 18% in money-market funds. My wealth didn't shrink; it grew. In fact, that's when I splurged on my first home computer -- an investment that has paid bigger dividends than anything else I've ever done, except for college.

Yes, that's why the first rule of investing is diversification. If the retired guy invested all his money in bonds tied to interest rates, he's definitely hurting. Had he invested an age-appropriate percentage of his assets in stocks, the market inflation of recent years would have compensated. Even within a bond-heavy portfolio, some diversification is possible. Some U.S. savings bonds purchased years ago are returning upward of 7.5% interest -- and it's exempt from state and local taxes. There are also inflation-adjusted bonds that pay higher interest in step with higher inflation. Those bonds additionally provide some protection against deflation, because their interest rates don't fall below the base rate at the time they were purchased. It's sad how many people who are nearing retirement or who have already retired know so little about investing. Some are poor by circumstance and never had enough spare money to invest. But I have known well-paid middle-class people in their 50s who don't know what a mutual fund is and who have never contributed money to an IRA or 401(k) retirement account, even when their employer offers to match their contributions. Not that I'm perfect. I still kick myself for not investing more heavily in Leica lenses. I have one "King of Bokeh" 35mm f/2 Summicron lens that has appreciated about 600% since I bought it in the 1980s. Dang, I should have bought a boatload of those.