Jump to content

jim_appleyard

Members
  • Posts

    1,199
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jim_appleyard

  1. Freestyle has a product similar HC-110. LegacyPro L110 Liquid Film Developer - 1 Pint (Makes 2 Gallons) (freestylephoto.com)
  2. I'll just add Rodinal (a liquid) for film to the good advice above. Mix what you want from 1+25 to 1+100. The open bottle lasts for quite awhile.
  3. I never shot PX motion picture film, but I did grow up on PX still film. Premium 100 sure looks like PX still film to me.
  4. Rollei IR film. D-76 1+1, 11 min. 10 sec agitation/min. EI unknown but may be as low as 100. IR film really needs a sunny day for the effect. Lake George, Adirondacks.
  5. 120 was beautiful if you could get past the light leaks around the paper backing. I always made sure I took two shots of everything and allowed for some cropping.
  6. Sorry, but I don't remember the dilution that Kodak recommended over the phone. I haven't shot Tech Pan in 25 years.
  7. Thanks, I'm already doing Pan-F in Rodinal 1+100.
  8. FWIW, Technical gave me the best negs from Tech Pan. I tried HC-110, at Kodak's recommendation, but it was too contrasty. I eventually moved back to Pan-F and APX 25. They weren't as sharp as Tech Pan (although sharpness was still good) , but much easier to work with and had better tonality.
  9. Try here: If you don't like her hair, there are other videos you can watch. ;)
  10. You can use a graduated neutral density filter to darken a cloudy sky. Tiffen Graduated Nd Filter | B&H Photo Video
  11. Ilford SFX, 35mm Hoya R72 filter. Enough IR for me. Daylight loading and easy to process.
  12. X-tol, so I've read, was to be an improvement on D-76, the standard of b/w film devs. It should be no surprise that most films will do well in it.
  13. Did a lot of this at wedding and my own personal shooting; color & b/w.
  14. I liked Efke 25, but the quality control was horrid. Light leaks with 120 and pinholes with 35 (water stop bath and alkaline fix). Pan-X was great, but I still have a 50m bulk roll in the freezer of APX 25. I think the Pan-X was just a bit less fussy to process. I shoot a lot of Pan-F now. PX has moved over to FP-4. Hey, there's still TX & HP-5 and if I really need speed, Delta 3200 in MF!
  15. There used to be a good site: covington innovations, but it's no longer up. It had quite a bit of good I info re: hc-110 and the mix he used for making prints. I tried the way bak machine and that was a no-go. Perhaps a more thorough search?
  16. Whatever works for you, but when you open a new squeegee out of the box, wet it with Photo-flo and it tears the emulsion off the film... I'll never use one again. But to each his own. I think it's an accident waiting to happen.
  17. I squeegeed once, 40 years ago. Followed the directions, wet the squeegee and it ripped the emulsion right off the film. It was Tri-X, too, not some cheap film. Never did it again.
  18. I would never squeegee film. Use the proper dilution of wash aid, re-wash and hang to dry.
  19. You'll get opinions from all over on this and the debate has been ongoing for decades. I agree with what Ben says. RC is the standard and it does process faster, is less expensive and will probably outlive us all. Most of us will agree that FB has a certain look to it and some will say it has more "soul" and every photographer has some negatives that just seem to be matched to FB paper. I'm happy that we have both.
  20. And to think I've been using cheap Pilsner all these years...
  21. Joe, are you using dish detergent to clean your filters? If so, are you sure it's chemically ok with the multi coating of the filter?
  22. Same here. I went to trad grained films.
×
×
  • Create New...