david_foy3

<p>In my experience, the various coffee developers can be used for about a day and for several rolls of film. Using them as a one-shot is not necessary but ensures consistency.</p>

<p>14 minutes at room temperature. In a Minox tank, use an eyedropper to circulate developer. Squirt in a dropper full, wait about 30 seconds, then repeat. You can recirculate the developer that overflows, just catch it in a cup. If you want more acutance (edge effects), start with 30-second intervals for about three minutes, then switch to 3-minute intervals and a total time of about 16 minutes. These work for me, but experiment, because your mileage will vary. David Foy</p>

<p>110 is no longer manufactured anywhere in the world.</p>

<p>I recommend Blue Moon (echoing Somak Ray). David Foy (The Frugal Photographer)</p>

<p>Thiosulfate (fixer) removes halides and leaves silver untouched. Potassium ferricyanide (bleach) converts silver into silver ferricyanide, which is removed by fixer. Farmer's reducer combines the two and is used to bleach an image in a controlled manner. Its effect on an image is irreversible because, as the bleach converts silver back to halide, the halide is simultaneously removed.<br>

Potassium ferricyanide combined with potassium iodide converts silver into silver iodide, ditto ferricyanide with potassium bromide, to silver bromide. So here is my suggestion:<br>

Photograph a grid on clear-base film (not grey-base film). Microfilm would be perfect. I have customers who buy Bluefire Police 35mm from me for just this purpose, because it's a clear-base microfilm. The Adox 35mm microfilm, the name of which I don't remember, would work equally well. Microfilms are also sold in rolls 105mm wide.<br>

Develop it in a high-contrast developer, and fix it. Use a developer that is higher contrast than D-19. If you're using sheet film, use litho film and developer. That will give you a high-contrast negative image of the grid, with hard edges.<br>

Bathe the negative in a ferricyanide-iodide bleach for long enough to bleach the developed silver back to silver iodide. You can do this in room light. Two to four minutes should do it.<br>

Wash it thoroughly and dry it. You will have what was formerly a black image converted to a transparent (mostly) silver halide image. As others have noted, this will have a pale yellow or pink cast, depending on which halide you are using, and it will discolor under the influence of light and atmospheric pollutants.<br>

Remember, it's the negative of whatever grid you photographed.<br>

For 100 ml of bleach, use 8 grams of potassium ferricyanide, 2 grams of potassium iodide. There are a lot of similar bleach formulations with different proportions, scattered around the Internet and in books, but they differ only slightly. Any more or less similar formula will work just fine. The bleach deteriorates in light over time, and should be kept in the dark if you intend to store and re-use it. Despite its ferocious name, ferricyanide has nothing to do with cyanide.</p>

With some films, household detergent is harmful, probably the effect of an additive. I have had it peel the gelatin off, more than once. I don't know if it harms prints or not -- never tried it.

A small bottle of pure wetting agent (like Edwal LFN) is inexpensive and lasts a long time, since you use only a drop or two in a quart of water. Detergent is worth a try, but test it on a film you don't mind losing before committing to it.

It's quite easy. Buy a developing tank and a dark-bag (aka portable darkroom) and you won't have to worry about having a darkroom. Tanks are very cheap, used, and quite reasonable new. Dark bags are going for $15 and upward on eBay.

I have posted a quite useful developer made from kitchen and laundry ingredients that is perfect for Holga work. It's at my commercial web site: http://www.frugalphotographer.com/info-formulary-coffeedeveloper.htm.

The issue is less that it's 620 (same size as 120), and more that it's Verichrome, not Verichrome Pan. That means it's very old, undoubtedly more than fifty years. Treating it like relatively recent Verichrome Pan will probably result in very badly fogged film. Whoever processes it should have some experience with old film, like Film Rescue International (who don't charge if the film is blank).

As an authorized Minox film retailer (www.frugalphotographer.com) I have no problem getting stocks from the USA distributor, and am able to keep a good supply in the warehouse. I'm also now doing a test offer of Acmel Minox-load color film from Japan, which customers seem to like. I don't know the status of Marcus's project of offering Ilford b/w and Agfa Copex in Minox loads -- with J&C gone, they seem unavailable in North America, which is a shame. Perhaps Marcus can comment.

Blue Moon has been a godsend and I highly recommend them for anyone who, for whatever reason, prefers to not use Minox Labs.

Measuring tiny quantities of chemicals is considerably simplified if you outfit yourself with measuring syringes (or conventional pipettes). They're not expensive.

Polaroid's standard camera lenses, like box camera lenses from many decades ago, were precision-made meniscus lenses that produced excellent images, undistorted and well-corrected -- but only if you didn't intend to enlarge them. You need more sophisticated lenses to make negatives for enlargement. If you limit yourself to contact printing the Polaroid roll-film cameras are still capable of worthwhile work. I scan a lot of antique box camera images, and they often amaze me at how good these simple lenses could be in the hands of a competent and thoughtful photographer, mindful of exposure and careful about camera shake.

No current Polaroid film can be used in any of the roll-film Polaroids, including the 667 in the J66. You can, however, modify these cameras for 120 roll film, but as other people have noted in this thread, it's rewarding as a stunt but impractical for ordinary photography.

Tracy, you can gently pry cartridges apart and re-seal them with tape. If you want reload them you will have problems with film perforations -- 126 has one perf per frame, on the top of the film (bottom of the image). Most 126 cameras use that perf to regulate film advance. 35mm's perfs will intrude on the image and will require you to use six or seven film advance strokes per image. It's tedious but can be done.

Ferrania's last production run was in April 2007, after which they dismantled the 126 production equipment. They continue to make 110 and 35mm. We purchased most of that last 126 run and should be able to supply it to customers for several more years. I believe one of our European competitors bought up whatever we didn't buy. 126 won't disappear soon. David Foy (www.frugalphotographer.com)

The person who attributed the Mitsubishi films to Maco made a mistake. Maco has never made films, they repackage the films made by primary producers. My understanding is they work closely with their partner factories and some of their films are unique. However, Mitsubishi has never had films made by Maco.

You've done a great job in a thankless task. Best wishes.

David Foy

The Frugal Photographer

I wish I had seen this enquiry sooner. Blue Moon Photo in Portland does an excellent job with 126 and they are inexpensive. I also offer a commercial processing service for 126 (and I sell fresh 126) at The Frugal Photographer (you can Google this for the details).

Regarding storing liquid chemicals: Where I live, stores that sell home wine-making supplies sell "bag-in-a-box" innards, the empty bag without a box, at about $4 or $5 each. I have been using them successfully for several years.

Agfa in Belgium has no interest in consumer photography. They are strictly a business-to-business organization. That's why they spun off consumer business, because they didn't know how to make money with it.

Micah -- this is wonderful. Thanks for your continuing contributions to submini photography. And a belated thanks again for ID'ing the Mouth Of Wilson shots that I put on my web site. What a remarkable place!

David Foy

Adox Fotowerke, Inc. (registered owner of the Adox trademark in Canada) does not manufacture, sell, re-badge, etc. any film with the Adox name on it at this time, anywhere. It has too much potential to confuse customers (as can be seen by the contents of this thread). The trademark is used in Canada to brand non-film goods and services, and a retail location.

 

<p>Mirko and John have not discussed their plans with me, but from talking with Mirko last September in Cologne, I believe they are making up stocks of Adox-badged films out of what is in storage at the Fotokemika factory. The re-badged Ilford 35mm films are obviously a different matter.

 

<p>This "new" Adox branding makes sense to me, and I'm pleased to see they have started shipping Adox brand sheet films. With Fotokemika in liquidation the Efke brand is effectively dead, since a buyer for just the brand name is unlikely, and unless somebody buys it it can't be used.

 

<p>The original question is ambiguous and may have had to do with whether or not the films Fotokemika manufactured and sold as "Efke" were identical to the Schleussner "Adox" films. The answer must surely be that, just as today's "Plus X" and "Tri X" are similar to, but different from, films of the same name made 50 years ago, the Efke films must be similar to but different from the original Adox films of the 1950's. If for no other reason than that modern films generally use purer materials and are less variable.

127 Macochrome has been discontinued. It is not a rumour. We bought up all that was available from the distributor and I believe it will be gone in about a year.

127 b/w remains available. It's an excellent film.

127 C41 color print film remains available.

I believe Film For Classics continues to make up 127 rolls from Ektachrome, but I'm not sure and I haven't asked them.

We've discontinued our 127 reload package (10 Portra 160 film strips plus labels). I suspect not enough people had access to salvaged spools and backing paper.

David Foy (Frugal Photographer)

The "Adolux" product referred to above is a light-sensitive emulsion. It is sold by JandC in North America and by FotoImpex in Europe. I have a summary of the current state of the Adox trademark at http://www.adox.net/about_adox.htm.

 

David Foy