silent1

Sorry, Rob, but the bathroom one won't fly. My cameras have, in fact, conspired to take over my bathroom -- so far, only on a part-time basis, but that's where I develop and print; a couple hours at a time to develop 2-3 tanks of film, and easily four hours at a whack for printing sessions. I can get away with this, even to the extent I do, only because there's a second bathroom for the wife to use when I have the door locked, but she doesn't like that one because it's rather small...

Okay, to actually answer your question, yes, Tri-X Reversal and Plus-X Reversal can be developed to negatives after exposure in your Minolta 16; those are the actual films Minolta loaded in their cassettes before they started respooling 110 stock in the 1970s (and thus got the same emulsion as 35 mm still films). I've heard varying opinions on the film speed obtained with reversal film in a negative process; on the one hand, the reversal process usually increases film speed by a stop or so, but on the other hand, movie film is commonly developed to a lower contrast than negatives for printing in an enlarger, and the higher contrast development will bring back some speed (though probably not a full stop).

 

You can, BTW, get 16 mm single-perf direct from Kodak on 100 foot camera spools, and they at least used to sell it in single rolls -- no need to hunt around for "short ends", and a 100 foot roll is good for 50-60 Minolta reloads.

 

Another option is to build a slitter and convert 120 film to fit your Minolta -- my measurements suggest that with careful loading, the 16 1/2 inch strip I'd get by cutting 120 film in half (relative to length) should still permit 20 exposures, and with hand processing we don't need to leave the film tail out of the cassette as would have been the case with the original loads; that means a carefully constructed slitter can produce four strips (each 15.25 mm wide) that will yield eight reloads, from a single 120 roll -- and that opens up the full range of common and specialty emulsions from Efke 25 to Delta 3200, as well as all the plethora of developing data that's been produced by thousands of workers. Of course, if you have a lab that can handle the film and printing or a means of scanning at sufficient resolution, you'd then also have access to all the C-41 and even E-6 stocks sold in 120.

 

Such a slitter is on my short list of construction projects, for my 16 II and MG film needs. It's been about 25 years since I last shot color in Minolta 16 format, and films have improved a great deal in that time; the Vericolor II that I used to shoot at ASA 80 can be replaced by Portra 400 NC with similar grain and 2 1/3 stops more speed, and still cost only fifty cents for a reload after slitting from 120.

If the camera has any kind of accessory shoe, you could mount a hot shoe adapter (and suitable conversion cord, if the shutter doesn't have PC socket) to make a hot shoe. This will raise the shoe by about half an inch, give or take.

 

If the camera has no accessorie shoe, you could take one off any junker camera, mount it to the Crown, and then proceed as above.

I'd also tend to treat at least the first roll of each emulsion as if fresh, though I normally develop in HC-110 and have reason to believe it may help reduce fog. You might be very surprised, especially with the Plus-X; I recently processed a roll of Plus-X that I exposed around 1980, and got several printable negatives (except for scratching the hell out of the film in handling it -- old emulsions weren't as hard as modern ones). I've also processed found film from further back, and Gene has done some that was pretty precisely datable (from the subject matter) to the end of WWII.

I might point out that Erin's Hawkeye Flash images show aberrations that I associate with having reversed the lens in its mount. With the lens in its original orientation (convex toward the film), the Hawkeye Flash is capable of making very nice, sharp, perfectly normal-looking 6x6 negatives.

 

There are two Hawkeye Flash versions; one will accept 120 film for the supply spool; the other requires the spool flanges on a 120 to be trimmed to 620 diameter in order to fit. You can also buy "resized" film, at about $5 premium per roll; this is 120 film that's had the spool of the factory rolled film trimmed to 620 length and diameter. Both Hawkeye versions, AFAIK, require 620 takeup spools (but the camera probably has one in it; the trick is being certain you get it back if you don't process your own film). If all else fails, you can respool 120 film onto 620 spools (this requires two spools, one for supply and one for takeup), and *all* 620 cameras will work with respooled film, providing you use original 620 spools.

 

The Starmite uses 127 film, still available (for around $5/roll) in ISO 100 B&W or color print from J&C Photo or other sellers of "classic" films (these would both be suitable for your Starmite). Loading and advancing film are very similar to the process with the Hawkeye Flash as described above, but the spools and film are smaller. I don't recall if the Starmite gives 12 or 8 exposures, but either way, you use the red window just as you would with the Hawkeye.

The big thing in bath B is that too much agitation can wash out the developer that was carried over in the gelatin, which will stop development in areas where this has occurred. This can result in anything from general underdevelopment (which seems to be what you have) to streaking or mottling. Diafine tends to flatten contrast a bit anyway, because it exhausts in the highlights before the shadows have finished developing, but if it gets washed out, you'll get very flat negatives because they're severely underdeveloped.

 

FWIW, when I develop 35 mm Tri-X in Diafine I agitate more or less normally in Bath A, then give five inversions after filling and five gentle inversions (taking about 10 seconds for each five inversions) at one and two minutes before pouring out at three minutes. Very consistent, and I get good shadow detail when metering at EI 1600.<div></div>

For whatever it's worth, I've routinely shot TMY and Portra 400NC in my Speedex Jr. for almost three years now. This camera has one shutter speed (slow, probably 1/25) and apertures from f/11 to f/32 -- and it does a fine job with ISO 400 films.

 

This is because even B&W films, and moreso color and C-41 B&W, have lots of overexposure latitude. When I remember, I've pulled the film to EI 200, but when I forgot I still got good negatives -- on the dense side, but very printable and with excellent shadow detail.

 

Can't help you on rebuilding filters, other than to suggest a push-on adapter with standard threads on the front...

Nicholas, don't forget the antihalation layer -- this washes out in processing, but I recall someone mentioning a while back that a student, doing film testing, came up with a speed of 16 for TXT -- eventually traced to loading the film in the holders backward. EI 16 is 4 1/3 stops below the box rating of ISO 320. It *is* pretty nearly opaque to the eye...

I agree, Santiago, I think the "long toe" that's usually attributed to TXP/TXT may have saved this shot for me -- keeping separation well down into Zone I and even perhaps Zone 0 1/2, which would then become detail when the film was pushed beyond all reason.

 

Of course, now I'm going to have to try this soup again with sky images made with short exposures; if I'm really getting midtones at EI 3200 or higher, I might be able to record some decent star fields without having to leave the shutter open so long the stars turn into long arcs.

One data point -- Yesterday, I inadvertently exposed a sheet of TXT (old Tri-X Professional, ISO 320), at box speed, through the base -- that is, had it in the film holder backward. Previous reading suggests this would cost up to four or five stops, so I needed to do everything possible to the film to increase density (without going completely overboard with real exotica -- I avoided peroxide vapor, perborate, and latensification).

 

I mixed Dektol 1+9, added 5 g/L vitamin C powder and approximately equal amount of sodium carbonate (to counter the acidity of the vitamin C), then mixed in a quantity of HC-110 syrup as if making Dilution B. Developed 15 minutes at 70 F, with vigorous agitation every 30 seconds, and got a negative that looks as if it'll be printable (albeit with some fog -- this film is almost two years past expiration and has been stored at room temperature); only the deepest shadows are devoid of detail. By eye, I'd say I got at least one stop of true speed and a push equivalent to three stops, perhaps 3 1/2.

 

No idea how the grain will look, but with 9x12 cm, I don't have to enlarge much to make an 8x10.<div></div>

Well, yes, I have a couple strips of Ektachrome I shot in a fixed-everything 127 Brownie in 1973-1974 time frame; of the four frames, three are pretty well exposed for the subject matter.

 

What I meant was that the camera will become pretty restrictive on when you can expose a good slide, and the cost of transparency film and processing will tend to make you less willing to experiment. I'd put trannies in my Speedex Jr. without a second thought (if I could afford them and had a reasonable way to view 6x6 cm slides), but it's got four apertures; with ISO 100 or so film, I can shoot from full daylight down to seriously cloudy conditions, or equivalent, and still put the camera on a tripod to use the T setting for 1/2 second or longer. Two apertures seems pretty restrictive...

Heh. I've taken many classes in rooms that had slide rules on that scale above the chalkboards (back when real chalk was still used). Can't say I've seen a 122-sized Argus, though...

The Holga shutter is pretty close to 1/100. Most of these were designed to overexpose ISO 100 film about one stop in full sun, which at f/11 would again point to 1/100.

 

This is *not* a good camera for slide film, IMO -- get some negative film, because otherwise you'll have only a one stop range of light in which you can get good exposures.

My experience is that images often require some sharpening after resizing downward -- especially if they weren't single-pixel sharp before. In Photoshop variants, this is under Filter, Sharpen, and select either Sharpen again or Sharpen More (you can undo and try both to see which you prefer).

And don't forget to ban the poster.

The main thing with scanning is that it's easier to scan a "thin" negative than a "thick" one -- barely enough exposure and slightly reduced development tend to scan more easily (with B&W), and among Kodak products, T-grain films scan more easily than conventional films.

 

However, I'm finding that the negatives I've been producing that scanned well also print well with my cold light, which suggests that published times, which are intended for diffusion enlargers, will work well with scanners that can digitize at 16 bits per channel.

I haven't used it, but the Maco Genius positive film has a good reputation. Seems to me Forte makes an ortho lith film, also -- might be worth investigating the characteristics of these materials.

If you can find a microfilm dealer who will sell single rolls, you can buy Kodak Imagelink HQ, 35 mm in 100 foot rolls with camera compatible perforations -- it'll work in a bulk loader just like any other 35 mm film. It's about the same speed, grain, and resolution as Tech Pan, though it lacks the extended red sensitivity; in my experience, it's just a nice common panchromatic spectral response. The same is true of Agfa Copex, and Copex Rapid is one stop faster (though with slightly inferior tonal range).

 

You can also buy Imagelink HQ and Copex Rapid preloaded in 35 mm cassettes from J&C Photo, as well as highly optimized developers for both. Bluefire Police is another option; if not actually Copex Rapid it's a very similar film, and in the correct developer gives effectively identical performance.

 

FWIW, I've been very happy with Copex Rapid in my Minolta 16, using Caffenol LC+C developer and shooting at EI 80. There's no hint of grain at 12.5x enlargement; haven't tried going bigger yet.

Exactly right. Any published times are only starting points; if you're getting negatives that are too contrasty, you simply need to cut your developing time. A good start is to knock off 15% of whatever time you're giving now, and evaluate the resulting negatives to adjust further if needed. Also, if you find you're getting times too short for comfort (under five minutes can be hard to be consistent with fill, process, drain, and fill stop bath), most developers allow diluting further to provide a longer time, though it's important to be certain you're using enough active developer. Manufacturer's documentation will generally tell what's the minimum amount of concentrate or stock solution for a given amount of film.

Well, not very modern, but when I use a meter at all (and it's not one built into a camera like my Spottie or Petri 7S), it's a Gossen Sixtomat that I've had for near enough to 35 years (and was used when I got it). No reason to replace what works...

I wouldn't expect problems with reusing the stock solution after developing XP-2, but I would suggest that it's preferable to dilute your ID-11 and use it one-shot (with longer development time) than to use it at stock strength and have to worry with tracking the amount of film used and extending development for each additional roll or 2-3 rolls.

 

FWIW, I use HC-110, select my dilutions to use close to the minimum amount of concentrate recommended for each roll of film, and get excellent negatives without having to keep track of how many rolls I've processed (though I do still have to watch fixer capacity).

It's possible to increase the contrast of Type 55 negatives by increasing development time.

 

It's also possible to intensify the negatives after the fact using the same methods that would be used on any other film negative -- selenium toning is one, bleaching and redeveloping with a staining developer like pyro another (and the latter can be repeated to further build density and contrast), as well as chromium and mercury intensifiers (less likely to be available, since they are very specific to intensifying negatives instead of being useful in general).

 

Jarryd, it's most likely going to be cheaper to obtain some standard 4x5 or 9x12 cm film holders and locally purchase sheet film to fit them than to use Type 55 for any length of time -- even if you have to purchase equipment and chemicals to develop your film. Type 55 isn't really better than some other films available in this format, including Efke, Foma, and yes, Kodak and Ilford products -- all of which are likely to be closer to reasonably priced where you are. I'd suggest checking what film size is common in your area (4x5 or 9x12) before buying holders, though, because though the holders interchange on the camera, the film doesn't interchange in the holders.

No way that lens will cover 4x5, at least not in the original mount. The lens is designed to mount to a TLR with a flange to film distance within a centimeter either way from 80 mm. I'd be amazed if the image circle available to pass through the mount were much larger than the diagonal of the 6x6 cm film that would be used in the Mamiya TLR.

 

Now, if you were to dismount the glass from the Mamiya tube, it's possible the lens itself would cover 4x5, but I wouldn't expect much from the image quality outside an 80 mm circle -- there's no reason for the manufacturer to care about that region, and it's much cheaper to design and produce a lens with smaller coverage.

Well the other thing you might consider is making them an offer. If I had money, I'd start with $60 or $75 (the roll holder is a nice addition, and I've heard from many sources those can feed from 120, though you'll need 620 takeup spools). The dim RF can be fixed, a new optical finder that will closely match the FOV with that lens wouldn't be hard to source, in short, it would likely clean up well -- all depends on whether you also like working on 'em, or just want one you can load and go shoot.

Diafine lists times, but with EI 200 -- a one stop loss over the rated speed, compared to the usual one to two sop increase Diafine produces with other films.

 

However, in a pinch, it certainly is possible to process XP-2 Super (or any other C-41 film) in B&W chemistry to produce a silver image instead of the dye image the film is designed to produce. The result varies slightly with developer; the one time I've done it with film that was reasonably well exposed, I got images that scanned nicely, but (due to the orange mask in most C-41 materials) would be a bear to print.

 

It's also possible, with these films, to reprocess them to a dye image afterward, if you haven't treated the film to remove the dye couplers; it requires bleaching the film with a rehalogenating bleach such as C-41 or E-6 process bleach (not blix, however!), fogging with light or chemicals, and then processing normally through C-41.