robert_mackanics

I usually use the stick, but have tried inversion a few times. I

prefer the neatness of twirling the film, but I have noticed that it

seems a bit uneven if I only twirt in one direction, so I go back

and forth about a third of a turn, and then one kinda random amount

of spin for the last twist before letting it sit. I do this for 10

seconds out of every minute and have no problems.

In reply to developing costs, I develope my own B&W, and the costs

are identical. For slides and C41 though I let a lab do that and the

following are the prices:<p>

E-6: 35mm $7.60 120 $6.50<br>

C41: 35mm $3.25 120 $2.30<br>

<p>

So I guess it's cheaper per roll, but more per exposure.<p>

As for it being a better idea to go with MF or a dslr, I'm a big

film fan and think that film in 35mm is better than any sane digital

camera I could imagine affording. So in my opinion MF will

definately beat digital, even that new 16mp wonder canon is coming

out with.

I actually don't bother cutting at all. I'm using patterson plastic

reels and the film just slides right on leader and all.

I've used DD-X with HP5+ quite a bit, and also a good amount with

Xtol. I find that while Xtol seems to be slightly finer grained than

DD-X, DD-X seems a lot sharper to me. What i'm describing as sharper

is probably accutance though, and this would make sense as Xtol is a

solvent developer. I haven't used D76 on HP5+, but with Tri-X I feel

DD-X is finer grained than D76.

<P>

Overall I like DD-X the best of all the developers I've tried, with

Xtol coming in second. If you're going to continue experimenting I'd

recommend giving Xtol a try.

<P>

As far as DD-X with "classic" vs "new-tech" films I think that DD-X

does wonderfully with both, but most of the popular developers will

give wonderful results with the classic films, while I really only

like the "new-tech" films in DD-X, Xtol, and HC110.

<P>

Also, if you are only going to be scanning than you will probably

want to use a solvent developer like Xtol to reduce the grain.

Scanners don't really seem to like B&W films with their hard-edged

silver specks, but solvent developers mildly compensate for this, at

least with my scanner. I would very much recommend getting any B&W

printed optically though, the results are worlds better.

Ilford SFX 200, Konica 750, Maco 820c, and Kodak HIE should all work

with that filter. <a

HREF="http://www.pauck.de/marco/photo/infrared/comparison_of_films/comparison_of_films.html">

Here</a> is a good page to get an idea of what to expect.

I personally consider myself a hobbyist, more interested in the

craft of making good prints than getting technically perfect ones.

Anyways, that's my viewpoint, the rest is opinion and what I do,

take with a grain of salt, or not at all.

<P>

If I'm going out thinking I'll be taking photos of something moving

fast, or of fleeting moments, or just snapshots, I load up a

hopefully appropriate film in my Minolta 5 and let the camera do the

thinking. Usually it gets me a pretty decent exposure and I can get

the print I was hoping for. Not perfect, not exactly what I would

have wanted, but good enough that I can focus on getting the image

and leave the technical stuff at home in the darkroom.

<P>

On the other hand, if I'm going to be doing something like a

portrait, landscape, or something else where I can slow down, take

the time I would like on composition and lighting, I use my

Rolleicord V. No meter, no advance, no autofocus just me working the

camera, the subject, and the lighting. Sometimes I really mess up an

exposure or two, but the ones I do get right, are almost if not

exactly what I wanted. These are the real joys in the darkroom.

Instead of dealing with what I have, I'm working with what I made.

<P>

So keeping that in mind, I would say for Doug's original questions,

use a grey card, bracket your exposures if you're not certain or

just want to be safe. The Zone System, while wonderful at times, is

not suited to most portraits as you want your Zone VI right where it

is and an incident or grey card reading will do just that.

<P>

Also, I'd use something other than TMX. While TMX has fantastic

grain and sharpness, I don't think it's too good for people. FP4+

would normally be my pick, but if you're concerned about too much

contrast I really like Delta 400 pulled to 200. In fact the Delta

400 @ 200 has given me the best portraits I've ever taken, very

smooth tonality, fine grain, and not overly sharp like TMX.

I also got myself a Rolleicord recently, although mine is a V not a Vb. Nice camera, really fun to work with. Anyways on to film.

If you have experience judging exposure without a meter (or you have a meter)

B&W: Ilford HP5+

Color: Kodak Portra 160NC

If you don't have a meter and haven't tried the sunny-16 rule yet, I'd suggest that for B&W you try Ilford XP2 Super instead and just err on the side of overexposure. My first really workable set of negatives actually came from C41 film because I knew I had the latitude to be over a bit so just made sure I didn't underexpose it. Once you learn to judge exposure though, real B&W film looks so much nicer.

As far as #9 goes, I think that HP5+ and DDX is a great combination. In fact, that's my primary film and (currently) only developer. I have found that HP5+ and DDX is pretty good in the EI400-800 range, and still good at EI1000-1600, with 1600 being the highest I've tried.

I would have to suggest trying Delta 400 in DDX as well. Delta 400 has a smoother range of mid-tones and an S-shaped characteristic curve. Delta 400 in DDX is actually recomended, by Ilford, to be exposed at at least EI500, and I have had great results at 200, 500, 640, and 1250, although with obviously very different contrast at the various speeds. The only bad things about Delta 400 are it is more expensive, and some people don't like the look of the newer "T-grain" films.

I haven't had a chance to play with the 70 yet, but my main camera is a 5 so my comments on the 70 are just related to what I've heard/read.

Anyways, I know that I would definately miss the eye start function from the 5. This function turns on the exposure and focus systems when you have your fingers on the grip and something in front of the viewfinder. I initially didn't think I'd like this feature, but it really is nice.

Also, along with a slower max shutter speed, you also get a slower flash sync speed, 1/125 on the 5, 1/90 on the 70. Probably not a big deal for most people, but if it matters, it matters.

You do gain two more AF sensors on the 70, but I only use the center focus area on my 5 as I find it annoying to have the AF system guess wrong about what I want in focus. For me it is easier to have it focus on the center sensor, press the shutter release halfway down, and recompose.

I believe the built-in flash is also a bit more powerful on the 70.

Finally, I think that when selecting a camera body, as long as it does what you want/need, the most important thing is user interface. If you prefer the controls on the 70, and it otherwise meets your needs, I'd go with it. The greatest body in the world doesn't help you at all if you can't use it easily and quickly.

All the advise given so far has been great, but everyone has an opinion, so here is mine.

I think that you should decide if you're happy with the results you've been getting from your TMY/TMZ combo. If yes, I wouldn't go testing out other films until you can shoot a roll and develope it shortly thereafter. It's better to not trust a totally unknown film for anything important. Yes, it may be worlds better than what you are using now, but it could also be totally unacceptable and ruin an important one chance only shot. I really don't think that there are any horrible films out of what you listed, but I've heard people go on for 30 minutes about how horrible *insert film name here* is when I find it great.

If you aren't happy using TMY/TMZ, I'd do a lot of reading comparing other films to those two, and see what the general opinion of the differences are. This way you'll know what to expect. If, for instance, you find that TMY is too grainy for you, you know to stay away from HP5, which I personally love, but is definately more grainy. Also, if you like TMZ but find it lacking tonality, you know the try Delta 3200, but expect more grain. If you're going to be trusting a film without testing it yourself, it's better to at least know what to expect, and possibly what to avoid.

As far as developers go, I personally prefer D76 to HC110, but if you showed me two pictures I couldn't tell you which developer was used for which. The difference with those two isn't going to make or break a photo, so I would just pick one unless a film you use is definately known to be better in one or the other.

My number one most important piece of advise however, is to be more concerned that there is film in the camera than what film is in the camera. I once wound up with only 3 rolls of film on a sunny day, two plus-x, one TMZ. After finishing off the two rolls of Plus-X, I loaded the TMZ just because it was all I had. Later I was glad I did as a great photo presented itself, and while I was annoyed it was on TMZ, at least I had an image at all.

I would recommend either Kodak Xtol or Ilford DD-X. In my (albeit limited) experience they both look great with Tri-X and give a bit more speed. Xtol would probably give better overall image quality, but I feel DD-X is more forgiving with sloppy exposure and/or developement times. I've gotten printable negatives from rolls of the old Tri-X that had frames exposed all over the place in both developers.

Diafine I feel should be avoided since the rolls are being shot at about 400 speed, you'd probably get way too dense negatives.

No matter what developer you use, I think low agitation would be key as it should prevent the overexposed shots from blocking up, but still let the others get a good amount of development.