russ_kerlin

I love my Omega D-2, which is the newer version of the D-II. They are very similar, but I think for the money either the Super Chromega

or Beseler wouldbe better. The former has a color head, which can be used with black and white negs, but if you are not planning to do

color, I'd probably stay away from it. The Beseler is a solid workhorse, and I would love to have one as a second enlarger.

Get as close to "perfect" as you can, but if in doubt, overexpose. If there is a latent image, you can always work with it,

but if it is not there (such as due to under exposure) there is nothing you can do. Also, using a film with good exposure

latitude helps, as does compensating developers if you are concerned about getting the exposure spot on.

I use Acros almost exclusively and develop in Rodinal (R09, Adonal, etc.) using the 18 min development scheme listed in

the MDC. I find that the dilute concentration coupled with the minimal agitation does an excellent job of compensating the

highlights yet providing great shadow detail. The results are very consistent, even if my exposure is off slightly. BTW, I

shoot 120 and rate the film at EI50. I think the extra stop exposure helps, and get a pretty decent CI.

<p>They still make it, but presumably in limited runs as supply is often limited. Just keep watching. Freestyle is where I have usually had success.</p>

<p>It's all about what you <em>want</em> to do and what you <em>like</em> to do...there is no "right or wrong" answer.</p>

<p>I have a scanner that I use to upload to Flickr, etc. It works well, and I don't mind scanning negatives (120, by the way). I sometimes even use it to scan a negative to see if it is worth printing and to also help with cropping/burning/dodging options. So in this regard, it is very useful.</p>

<p>However, I enjoy the challenge of trying to produce a good print with an enlarger. I'm not saying that creating a good print by scanning and sending off some place to print is a "no brainer". However, there is something about the creative process of putting your negative into the enlarger, finding the right exposure, dodging and burning, putting the exposed paper into the chemicals, and then mounting/matting that appeals to me. It seems to complete the creative cycle, and for me, this is what I prefer to do. </p>

<p>I seem to recall other postings on the MOD54. You might want to do a search on this topic. There definitely appears to be some agitation phenomenon associated with this device, though I'm not sure what is happening.</p>

<p>Would this by chance be the Dave Clark from Houghton? Not an uncommon name, but just wondering.</p>

<p>Are you sure that's what the bands are from?</p>

<p>Also, maybe you are agitating too gently. Larry's point is spot on. I'd agitate a little more. Unless you are doing some kind of semi-stand development, I don't think you can agitate TOO aggressively. </p>

<p>Like the other Russ asked, why are you moving away from MF? Unless you are doing some action shots, I would think you'd want the natural benefits of a larger negative if you have that capability. The only issue I could see is if you don't want to use a tripod and the MF camera you have is challenging to hand hold (like my RB67). Regardless, using a tripod, even with 35mm, will yield the sharpest portraits. Again, unless you are doing action shots, your model isn't going anywhere fast, giving you ample time to work from a tripod. I used to think tripods were for wimps, but now I swear by them. There are exceptions of course, but I think they help immensely.</p>

<p>Anyway, regarding film, I would vote for Acros or Adox CHS Art.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>no frame numbers are visible in the 3rd roll. What should I conclude from this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an indication that the film was not developed at all. The numbers are put on the film at the factory, and we know that they were exposed properly. If you don't see them after processing, either you skipped the developer entirely or it didn't do its <a id="itxthook0" rel="nofollow" href="../black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00Zsc8?start=20">job</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Leigh is correct. Either the developer was 100% exhausted (which seems unlikely - I would expect even reused Rodinal to have <em>some</em> developing power capable of producing faint images) or you somehow put the roll in fixer first, which folks have been known to do.</p>

<p>I also agree with Craig's comments. Simplify things. Stick with one film/developer combination at first. Perfect your technique and then move on to different variations. That won't guarantee that you won't occasionally make a mistake (like I do from time to time), but it will minimize the chance of doing so and better equip you to diagnose the mistake when it does occur.</p>

<p>With the third roll you developed, are any frame numbers along the edge of the film visible?</p>

<p>There are a lot of variables, but there are likely notable differences between the end products in terms of tonality, shadow detail, etc. However, you could probably get them to be very close with post processing (e.g., editing in Photoshop).</p>

<p>I think it really comes down to personal preferences as well as cost & time. If you primarily want to create B&W images, then I'd say shoot B&W. Don't waste time and money with the extra step of shooting slides and having then converted. B&W film is optimized to produce greyscale images and in general would be the best choice for doing so. However, this would mean developing your own film -- which may or may not appeal to you -- or sending the B&W film out for development, which depending on the lab may not produce the results you want. </p>

<p>On the other hand, if you want to simultaneously produce color and B&W images (and don't have interchangeable backs), then sticking with slides might be the best option. And, if you have a lab that produces consistently good results with your slides, this might be strong reason to stick with slides as well, despite the cost and extra step.</p>

<p>I'm sure others will be able to weigh in on this topic.</p>

<p>What's the purpose of your post? We are all film users, some of us exclusively so, and considering this is a forum about film & processing, your message is lost on me.</p>

<p>Oh, and by the way, Kodak is a publicly traded company so there is no "parent" company, so I have no idea what you are talking about here.</p>

<p>Why take the risk that you may not get the correct wavelengths filtered out which will result in some fogging of your papers? Plus, unless you are using papers that require a red safelight (and there are some), what you want is an OC safelight, which is more amber in color. This is much easier to see with than the classic red, so if you don't need it, I'd go with the OC. There are plenty on eBay.</p>

<p>My vote is that it is an agitation issue. The wave pattern is simply too regular to likely be a light leak. Also, a light leak would be darker, not lighter. <br>

I've never been enamored with the little twirly thing on the Paterson tanks. Good agitation is absolutely critical (unless doing stand development), and other than a Jobo processor, nothing is better than full tank inversions with a twisting motion (to assure developer moves around spiraled film).</p>

 

<p>I have an Epson Perfection 4490 which I like very much. I see one is available at the Epson clearance store for $109, well within your budget. I bought mine off eBay. It can be used as regular flat bed scanner but has both 35mm and 120 negative holders, as well as one for 35mm slides.</p>

<p>Acros 100 is my fav!</p>

<p>Alan is spot on. I keep a roll of 35mm film that I bulk rolled a while back handy. Every so often I snip off about an inch or so of the film, drop it into a cup of fixer, and time how long it takes to clear. I use TF-3 fixer which has a recommended fix time of 3 minutes. In general you want to fix 3 times as long as it takes to clear the film, so provided the test strip clears in less than a minute, I know I have plenty of fixer life. Even it took longer than a minute to clear, I could probably still use the fixer by increasing the fix time. However, by that point I have gotten my money out of the fixer and it's time to mix up a new batch.</p>

<p>I have tried to keep track of how many rolls I run through the fixer, but I am not very disciplined using this method.</p>

<p>Chris, very interesting. I assume everything else was constant (i.e., developer, filter, print exposure, etc.)? If so, even a small variation in dilution would seem to produce visible increase in compensation. Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK, more directly to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6852290">Krzysztof</a>'s question, that's a bit more difficult since I have never developed Delta 400 in Rodinal, and I have never shot Retro 400S at all. Plus, it depends somewhat on the types of images and the desired effects.</p>

<p>Neither of these films are considered fine grain films, but since Rodinal is a non-solvent developer, it is not going to help much with grain size at any dilution. My personal preference therefore would be to maximize compensation and edge effects by using higher dilutions. In fact, I am intrigued by the one listed for Delta 400 in the MDC with semi-stand agitation (1:100 for 36 minutes). While twice as long, it is similar to the one I use with Acros. I have a few exposed rolls of Delta 400 right now, and I may give this a try out of curiosity.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I tend to think it is 80% emotion,and 20% science.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I don't know about that, but I am definitely a convert. I used to pooh-pooh Rodinal but now love it. For me, it works well, which in the end is what's it all about. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While I like to believe there is some compensating effect with my preferred developers - such as highly dilute Rodinal at 1+200 for stand processing, Microphen at 1+1 or HC-110 with modified stand development - so far I've found no scientific evidence to support my beliefs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex, I can't say I have scientific evidence either, but my <em>experience</em> strongly suggests this to be the case. My primary film is Fuji Acros which I find to be rather contrasty in D-76. While a higher dilution (i.e., 1:3) helps, I find I get much better compensation with HC-110 and Rodinal, particularly at higher dilutions or stand development. I have also found two-bath developers to work rather well.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Conventional wisdom for Rodinal is that, unlike D-76 and similar developers, acutance is not influenced significantly or at all by dilution. What I do see with more dilute solutions of Rodinal is higher fog.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would agree that dilution has a more marked effect on acutance with D-76/ID-11, and while acutance may technically not change much with dilution in the case of Rodinal (since it is inherently a non-solvent developer), there is likely an increase in edge effects in very high dilutions (and also stand development), which increases <em>perceived</em> sharpness.</p>

<p>I really like the 1:100 development time for Acros given in the MDS with the modified agitation. For me, it provides consistent results with the right amount of contrast and perceived sharpness. And because Acros is a fine grain film, I get reasonably fine grained prints. BTW, I rate it at EI50.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>In general</em>, higher dilutions will result in larger grain size but greater edge sharpness (accutance). Some developers (Rodinal being one of them) will also produce more compensation between highlights and shadows (i.e., less contrast) at higher dilutions. And of course, more dilute solutions offer improved economy.</p>

 

<p>Agree with everyone's comments. It really depends on the shot, what kind of image you are trying to create (mood, etc.) and finally personal taste. I have personally gotten some good B&W shots in bright sunlight either by taking creative advantage of the harsh shadows produced by the sunlight or by slapping on a red filter and darkening the sky for a dramatic effect. Conversely, I have gotten disappointing shots during overcast conditions because of the dull and lifeless sky. So again, it really depends!</p>

 

<p>If you Google Plus X 125 and look at images, you might find what you need.</p>

 

<p>Absolutely! First, recognize that you need to adjust for reciprocity failure. Second, be sure to give it enough exposure to bring out shadow detail and achieve a good, printable negative. Third, consider using a compensating developer or development technique that effectively controls contrast and prevents highlights from being blown out. This includes stand development, two-bath developers and the "N-3" technique by Mark Citret that I have commented on elsewhere.</p>

<p>Well, to be honest, it didn't do much for me. There was more video gimickry than technical substance, and it felt like a Monty Python movie. Don't get me wrong, I like Monthy Python, but I don't think it provided much inspirational or technical insight into printing. In fact, I was somewhat bothered by the technical approach (c'mon... minsicule test strips in a 20x24 tray!)...Jay's comments are spot on.</p>

<p>And regarding the prints in the sand, I agree that this was disrespectful, but honestly, what the heck does this prove? One thing I have learned is that you need to print according to the type of lighting in which you anticipate the print being displayed. In bright light, the print can be darker with tighter tonal separation, but in dimmer light, you need a lighter print with more separation. And, the color temperature of the lighting can also play a role. Bottom line: I don't know many folks that display their prints in bright sunlight against white sand.</p>

<p>Sorry...being honest! :-)</p>