frank.schifano

<p>Kodak 400CN, or whatever they're calling it these days is a B&W film designed to be processed in C41 chemistry. Developing it in D-76 or any other B&W developer is guaranteed to give sub-par results. There's no question about it. You should also know that, like every other C-41 film on the planet, it is inherently a relatively low contrast medium. That's why you have tremendous over exposure latitude with these kinds of films. If you are looking for a B&W C41 film that prints well in a conventional B&W environment, them I'd suggest you look to Ilford's XP2 Super. It lacks the orange mask that the Kodak films have which makes printing very difficult. The orange mask is almost, but not quite, the same color as an OC safelight and plays hell with VC filters. XP2 super prints like a dream.</p>

<p>...and another one</p><div></div>

<p>I had the opportunity once to print some old glass plate negatives. What a thrill! They belong to a friend of mine who found them in a house he'd rented in South Park, Co. One depicts the very house he was living in at the time.</p><div></div>

<p>http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf<br>

http://ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201071394723115.pdf</p>

<p>Looks like Ilford's Delta 3200 has slightly more red sensitivity if I'm reading these charts right.</p>

<p>None of them is worth very much. Run a roll of film through them and see if they're working ok. If so, maybe you can clean them up yourself and have at it.</p>

<p>You've done a beautiful job with these images. Keep up the good work. To those who might be upset by these sorts of activities, please bear in mind that this is play acting. Yes, these people are serious about what they're doing, but realize that they are trying to keep history alive. One can hope, but hardly truly believe, that perhaps in some small way, this play acting might serve as a deterrent to the real thing</p>

<p>That is a pretty camera. The images look a little soft, but so what? That could be anything. I'd love to see how the actual negatives look. Bet they're a lot sharper.</p>

<p>My first guess, and this is more than just a poke in the dark because I've seen similar looking negs a lot, is that you are not completely fixing out the negatives. Fixation tends to proceed from the outside edges in toward the center in roll film tanks and that's exactly what this looks like. The situation becomes more apparent as the fixer starts to exhaust (fixing takes longer), or if you become lazy with your agitation cycles during fixing, or both. Make sure your fixer is fresh. Fix for the appropriate amount of time as indicated by the film or chemistry manufacturer, and follow the SAME agitation cycle you'd normally use for development. Bet you it goes away, ok? </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think I'll try the TMY-2 for a 400 speed film; should I use Tmax Fixer for it, or will anything do?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good choice, IMO. Any old rapid fixer will do. Even a regular fixer will do in a pinch, but you'll get old with the long fixing times.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>I quite like to have consistency in the look of my photos, so if I decide to stick with Tri-X after trying the Tmax, I think I'll use FP4+ for the slower film, but if not, is the Tmax 100 especially tricky to get good results with (like old Tmax 400 is said to be)?</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Not really once you get used to it. TMX is a bit more sensitive to variations in development than other more conventional film. Once you get time/temp/agitation under control, you're good to go.</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>One final thing, am I going to find that TMY-2 is a lot less contrasty/flatter than Tri-X.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>Again, not necessarily. TMY-2 has the ability to capture a very wide dynamic range and this can make the negatives look like they're flat, but so what? You have all his detail to work with when printing. It's there for you to use - or not - depending on how you want your final product to look. Negatives are NOT the finished product, and the real skill is in printing or other post processing techniques. Come on, do you have your friends over to look at your negatives or to show off your photographs?</p>

 

<p>Use the 6x6 mask. As poorly as these things are made, it will probably (almost certainly) work better with the mask. If nothing else, It will help hold the film flatter. Otherwise it could get hung up in the camera and jam things up resulting in a wasted roll of film.</p>

<p>Ain't that the truth. TMY-2 has grain structure on par with old style films two stops slower. However, the spectral sensitivity and contrast curve shapes are different and these factors will deliver a different "look" if you use the standardized development given by the manufacturer for each film. Curve shape can be influenced to an extent by altering development of course; but that opens up another whole can of worms now doesn't it? Have fun, but I'll tell you what - DON'T GO CRAZY. Pick a couple of films and stick with them for a while until you learn how they behave under various conditions. Personally, I really like TMY-2. It's ability to hold detail over an extraordinarily wide contrast range makes it particularly suited for many of the types of things I like to photograph. The same can be said for TMX, which I happily use when I am guaranteed of having enough light to work with. Under more controlled lighting situations, I like Plus-X for that little extra snap that I like to see sometimes. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Tri-X, a film that I will happily use any time. But I've been at this for a while, and I've learned how all these films behave over the years.</p>

<p>Yes, I've found that to be more or less true with HC-110. It's tougher to get good shadow detail with HC-110 when using the film at box speed. An extra 1/3 to 1/2 stop exposure over box speed helps there, but the curve coming up out of the shadows will be more steep than it would be with XTOL. At the same time, HC-110 seems to work more vigorously in the highlights. Mind you, my observations are from using HC-110 @ dilution B (1+31) and Xtol 1+1 or (rarely) stock strength. Higher dilutions of HC-110, along with a more gentle development cycle, may be helpful in taming the hot highlights. I don't know since I haven't really investigated it. I'm very happy with either D-76 or XTOL, reserving HC-110 for tray processing small runs of sheet film because of the short processing times.</p>

<p>Can't say for sure, but it might behave differently with a lens mounted and film in the camera. If it behaves this way when properly set up, then you'd likely see skipped frames and uneven frame spacing. If that's the case, the the winding mechanism will definitely need servicing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At home, HC-110 dilution B, 7 minutes, would be a good estimate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When in doubt, that's always a good starting point. It will get you an image. Alternate? D-76 stock for about the same time. 10 - 11 minutes if you dilute it 1+1 will get you there.</p>

<p>Gene, I don't often reply to your posts,but be assured that I do look forward to seeing them. I love your sense of humor, and above all your creative use of images and captions to tell a story. Doesn't matter if its fiction or fact. I enjoy it all the same.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Have just taken delivery of a mint Fujinon GSW690 and hear that it has a killer contrasty lens. Can anyone with film knowledge recommend color slide film (I usually use Velvia 50 in my Pentax 67) or B+W film that will suit this camera?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think your head may be in the wrong place concerning high contrast lenses. The thing about high contrast lenses is their ability to cope with flair, and that means it will be able to render very subtle differences in shadows & light - something that with a lesser lens will get lost in the murk. It's not going to magically make a high contrast shot. That said, the difference can be seen with any film you care to use if you were to make a side by side comparison. </p>

<p>I cannot speak with much authority about Fuji Velvia 50, except to say that it is a film with more contrast than is considered "normal," and one with over the top color saturation. It is a very nice film when used with appropriate subjects, but not very good for people pictures. For the B&W choices, either TMX or ACROS are both excellent; but for long exposures, I give the nod to ACROS because of its very low reciprocity departure characteristics. This helps greatly to preserve detail that would otherwise be lost.</p>

<p>Don't count Kodak out. They are a lot bigger and in more fields than most people are aware. I do believe that they will find their way out of the current morass of troubles currently besetting the company, and will continue to provide top quality merchandise. As an aside, Kodak's QC is among the best in the business, IMO, and that surely counts for a lot. In all the years that I've used their products, I have never had a problem that could not have been traced to my error - never a defective product. </p>

<p>I like to use it for street shooting on bright overcast days in high summer. No filters - it's too slow for that.</p>

<p>When you think about it a 400 mm mirror lens, as opposed to a 500 mm focal length, kind of makes sense because of the smaller negative size of the APS format.</p>

<p>I do both. If there are photos on the roll that I'd like to share, I have a scan. The scans also serve as a guide as to which negatives I think are worth the effort of making a wet print. I also make contact sheets of every roll. In the end though, a well made wet print is vastly superior to any print I can make from a scan.</p>

<p>There is no difference provided that you have enough develop concentrate for each roll of film you are developing.</p>

<p>Just get the shutter curtains replaced. Don't screw around with any sort of gooey stuff in your Leica. Have a little respect for the machinery. Treat it right, and it will do the same for you.</p>

<p>If you're going to push Tri-X to something around EI 1600, a different developer is called for IMO. Diafine is what you want there. I will give you an almost normal looking negative at that speed. At an E of 1000 to 1250, it can't be beaten by any other developer.</p>

<p>Why the heck are you looking at (I'm assuming) "The Massive Dev Chart?" It's not terribly reliable and I'd only use it as a last resort. In the case of Tri-X, you can get all the development data you need from Kodak's own tech sheet, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf">F4017</a>. Read it and you'll have the answers to all your questions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just a question: Is rolling 120 film on a spiral (Paterson, plastic) really much harder/different from 35mm? Because I have two MF <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Y8ob?start=10">cameras</a>, Bronica ETR and Yashica Mat 124, I would love develop my own 120!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. It's a little different, but not really any harder. Get a roll of the cheapest, nastiest 120 film you can find, and sacrifice it to a practice roll. Do it once or twice and you're in like Flint.</p>