stefan_kahlert2

TMAX-films look thin. This is pretty normal. If you develop them to look like conventional films, you will have the same usual complaints about bullet-proof highlights. I ran into that pitfall myself...

If you want to know if the densities are right use a densitometer or print your negs.

 

best

 

Stefan

With my sample reflected readings were consistent with my other meters but not incident readings which were off by a stop. Must have ben something with the diffusor. Empties batteries even when not in use. Fix: take battery out before putting it into storage. Usage is convenient for cameras with direct EV-settings like older Rolleiflexes or Hassis. Setting and changing values (ISO, Timer) is more complicated than neccessary. Sold it in the end as I once again found that I vastly prefer meters with direct analogue-readout. I will try the Sekonic L-208 as my next pocketable meter.

Hi Wolf-Rainer,

 

this well known and easy to solve problem has been beaten to death in some places. But as Shikyo wasn't aware that Retro 400 even exists I think it's worth mentioning this difference to the film he knows and likes.

 

best

 

Stefan

Wolf-Rainer,

---

If you process the film properly and hang him in a "dry and cold place" over night, with a little more weight hanging on it, than the film will be flat as any other excellent B&W film.

---

 

true, but If you know that, isn't it better to tell a potential user about this - in your as well as my limited view - small problem so he can decide by himself if he likes it or not? Retro 400 is not quite the same as APX400 in 120 and nobody gains anything by not telling this.

 

best

 

Stefan

To point at the fly in the ointment: Everything still available is from Agfa's last production runs. Therefore, expiration date of the still available APX400 is 2009 maybe 2010 at best. You should also be aware that this stock is on a base for 35mm which is thicker - not each and every camera may like that - and tends to curl quite a bit more than what you are used to.

 

You can either put APX400/Retro400 in your freezer and live with these shortcomings for a limited time or switch now without knowing how long your next film will be available. Tough choice, if you ask me.

TXP is grainier, slower and has more toe and shoulder than current TX. Very classic look, not to everyones liking. I didn't like it.

 

Did you notice the update of Tri-X around 2004? It got considerably finer grained, easily finer grained than old APX 400 and about the same level as APX's latest version or Neopan 400.

To sort this out take a loupe or reversed lens, preferably short fl, and check the sharpness of the neg/slide directly.

Honestly, I wouldn't change anything and process the films as if nothing happened at all. Pushing will hardly bring back the shadow detail you lost but will increase contrast and might block the highlights which can get you into a nightmare when trying to print the results. To me, pushing is fine when exposing the film with this in mind (available light: who needs detail in bulb-filaments anyway?), but for daylight scenes it's risky.

Fuji Neopan 400, Ilford HP5+, Kodak 400TX. Differences are small. Just pick one and get used to it.

You can start with a camera with focal-plane shutter and bellows-focussing like the older bronicas or the Rollei SL66 and would elimante the need for adding shutters and helicals.

You could adapt about any lens at hand as long as backfocus is long enough to get to infinity and you manage to build some kind of light-tight connection.

<UL>

<LI>Transparent plastic bags to cover camera and lens on tripod in case of rain

<LI> Chimney finder (better, undistorted view than folding wlf)

<LI> Spot meter, averaging meter

<LI> Spare batteries for above

<LI>Bellows shade whenever I feel I could need it

<LI> Exposure correction table for all kinds of film I have with me

<LI> Most items which have already been mentioned...

</UL>

Thomas,

 

all the above recommendations start from the assumption that the blurred objects in the corner were really at the same distance as the sharp center. Based on my own experience, I'd start by questioning my own estimation and taking pictures of some flat object like eg. a brickwall or a bookshelf to seriously pin down the problem.

 

best

 

Stefan

A black Distagon is very unlikely not to be T* as they were among the first lenses which got the upgrade and it is not too uncommon to stumble upon even factory-made chrome T* Distagons (beware of swapped front-rings, though!). They moved to T* before they moved to the black finish. New front elements haven't been available for about 10 years by now iirc.

 

Stefan

"Knob rewind? How retro can you get?"

 

You do not rewind roll film. But as the wind on is also by knob you certainly have a point.

 

Stefan

As Sean said. Firts you choose a film with extended red-sensitivity than you take a blue-filter which blocks all the red light from the film. That way you could have taken an HP5+ plus filter just as well. OTOH the blue-filter will darken any reddish skin blemishes which will show as dark spots. This may look very nice with a freckeld redhead, but it's usually not what you want.

Are your pictures exposed correctly?

Over the years lots of different cameras came into and went out of my bag. But my love for the FM/FEs never faded. They are far from perfect, though. They finder looks a bit distorted and show much less than 100%, the MD quits working if one pushes the wrong buttom at the wrong time. But other than that they are just nice, simple and reliable tools.

 

Never had any trouble as long as I wasn't foolish enough to drop the camera but even then they went on and on, heavily dented and ugly, untill I managed to have them repaired,

"Since when was TX400 available in sheet sizes? I thought it was only the 320 version. In 120 however, it's available in both." Going through my personal archive TX-400 wasn't available in sheets during the last 20 years or longer. I'd guess it never was.

Either use the colour which closest resembles the enlarging papers spectral peak-sensitivity or your densitometer has a "vis" setting for white light (most do) and you can use that.

Could be a shutter-issue. Take a strong linght and shine into the lens from the front and watch it from the back. Prerelease the mirror. Is the shutter lighttight? Is it opening and closing reasonably fast?

The screen may come loose when you don't lock it in place tight enough. You have to push it all the way up not just until it stays in place. Opening the shutter won't help you a bit as the mirror has to go up to be out of the way.

 

The whole story sounds very dishartening. If I were you I would try to carefully wiggle the lens back and forth in small fractions of a mm untill you can release it. If this doesn't work, have a repairman look at it. He should also check and readjust the mirror-assembly or whatever may be left over.

Minox 8x11 seems to be the last formaat where Agfapan 25 is readily available. It is still offered in Minox' online-shop as well as on www.8x11film.com. But if 25 ASA is enough, why not use Copex? http://www.8x11film.com/spur/engcopex01.html

Q.G. wrote "But as was said: the Series 63 retaining ring thread mount is not quite the same as 67 mm filter thread, and it may or may not work." That's correct. The thread ist 67mm but with a different pitch. Using E67 filters or rings will work but ruin the thread over time.

 

best

 

Stefan

Q.G.,

 

very vaulable info ideed. I thought about replacing my 250mm C with a 250mm F but your comment changed my priorities.

 

best

 

Stefan

A central shutter located at the lenses nodal point (close to the aperture) will never cause vignetting. Remember that closing the aperture also doesn't introduce vignetting but most of the time even minizes it, right?

 

But: In the XA the shutter seems to be positioned in a less than perfect spot in the optical system. With my sample I observed severe vignetting when the batteries were nearly dead in landscape shots at about f8-11. The center was exposed correctly but the sides and corners were gradually underexposed. Replacing the batteries solved the problem. I draw the conlusion that the shutter starts to act sluggish when batteries are nearly empty and caused my problem.

 

But this was much stronger (at least 1 stop underexposure) than what you describe (1/2 stop) and I think you may be seeing the lenses normal vignetting. Exchanging the batteries for a pair of spares and changing back afterwards maybe a worthwile test nevertheless.

 

Stefan