colin jackson

I just finished a shutter speed test on my 2 yr. old MP and recently CLA'd M3. I have been

trying to isolate some inconsistency problems in my negs. and was trying to establish a

system index for Tri-X given my techniques etc. I read that first I should check my shutter

speeds, so..

I did a series from 1/1000 to 1/15 at the same EV (f/2-f/16) on each camera ie. 14

exposures total. Fortunately, all very consistent grays from the test card except that on

both cameras there is a slight difference in that the 1/1000 second is a bit thinner neg ie.

faster speed. I have heard that, generally, 1/1000 should be avoided for precise work as it

is more apt to be closer to 1/800 ie. slower than 1/1000. I sent my M3 for a CLA when I

acquired it last summer and noticed that the 1/1000 was considerably thinner than the

rest of the negs, to a greater degree than it is now.

Has anyone else experienced this apparent contradiction of the conventional rule that

1/1000 is considered to be optimistic and should be considered to be slower than that? I

am assuming that f/2 to f/2.8 is a full f stop. Is that 1/2 stop by any chance? f/2 just

happens to be the limit of the 50mm. Summicron ASPH I was using. I'm quite sure it is a

full stop but if it were just 1/2 stop (full being to 1/4?) that might explain it.

Thanks.

You are right to be cautious. My 21 VC finder was a bit snug and after a few ins and outs

one of the flanges crumbled. I have been waiting for 3 months for Gandy to get another

foot in from CV and am really missing the finder. I wouldn't think thinning the flanges

would be the way to go inspite of the looser fit as they are already fragile. If/when I get

another foot I will be inclined to leave it on the camera and handle it with kid gloves.

I use D76 1:1. Just remember to use twice the volume required to cover the reels (ie. same

amount of stock). This is per Kodak J-78 tech. pub. small print. You can also use 1/2 the

stock to save a few pennies but should add 10% to the time (about 10 3/4 min.). I think

many have missed this fact and it does seem to help the Tri-X deliver the best values in

my opinion. BTW I use a diffuser enlarger and prefer a little more "snap" than when I used

a condenser which the D76 1:1 used correctly seems to deliver.

If you happen to be using D76 1:1 with the time recommended on the D76 container or

film (Tri-X 9 3/4 min. @ 20C ) for 1:1 you should use twice the volume to cover 1 reel ie.

fill the 2 reel tank. That is the way you are supposed to do it anyway by Kodaks direction

in small print in their tech pub. For 1:1 you need twice the volume of developer diluted or

the same amount of stock as you would to just cover the reel. Oddly, this is the 3rd time

this topic has been referred to in the last couple of days (Leica group and on this forum 4

topics earlier "same session reuse of D76"). Coincidence or just that am tuned in to it as I

just realized this recently myself. It is in the small print in Kodaks tech pub that I quoted

yesterday in this forum in the above topic.

If not using D76, I would just use the amount to cover the reel and fill the remaining gap

with the second empty reel to avoid the film slopping around to much when inverting. I

would also reduce the agitation action as all that air space will accentuate the movement

of the developer. I still think the best way is with a full tank of D76 1:1.

This may be OT the OT a bit I am processing Leica negs also.

Robert wrote: "To use I pour the entire bottle in a graduate add distilled water to a total

volume of 500ml (as the content of the bottle are actually a bit more then 250 with the

added water). I now have fresh, 1 shot developer mixed at 1:1 and can hapily develop my

2 rolls of film."

Just in case you might want to check:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FjrK&tag=

Are you adding the 10% corrrection time recommended by Kodak in their small print in

their tech pub? I was not doubling up on the volume of 1:1 (ie. 250m. stock per film

whether diluted or not) or addding the 10% and think my negs suffered as a result. One of

the posters suggested that even with the extra 10%, it is not recommended to use just 250

ml. stock per film. Just wondered. You say you were doing two 35 reels per 500 ml. tank

so without the 10% added time you should only do one reel in that tank full of 1:1 D76. I

am hoping to see improvement when I try this as my Tri-X results have been a bit

disappointing so far.

BTW I use 250 ml. brown plastic bottles purchased from the pharmacy and top them up to

overflowing which works great.

Diwan, thanks for the film suggestions. I will see if I can get them locally or on line.

The new Tri-X is a different emulsion than the original so I've been told and I didn't like

Tmax but am very happy with the Ilford delta 100 in DDX when I can handle the slower

speed. I have been using about 100 ml. D76 with same amount of water for Tri-X but

should try extending the time 10% or go stock or double up the volume 1:1. Any of these

SHOULD change things for the better so will try one before judging it. I plan to try the

delta 400 next time to see how it looks in DDX. I always feel a little guilty about giving

Kodak the business.

Cheers.

Diwan: rereading your last post after my last message: yes we are spending (not wasting?)

a few more cents of developer, not a big deal with such cheap stuff. And, yes, 100 ml.

stock D76 is the very minimum per film but don't forget to add 10% to the time according

to Kodak. Someone else says add 15% (TMax?) and you basically say you add none.

Someone else says this is "not recommended". I am just saying what Kodak says and, yes,

they say a bit more than 100 ml. stock is the minimum with the added time. So there you

go.

Diwan, I puzzled over the apparent waste of chemical also but I think the idea is that it

takes a certain amount of chemical to develop 80 sq. in. of film no matter how much you

dilute it. There is a difference in just covering a reel of film with dilution X and having

twice as much of the same concentration chemical in the tank because during agitation

you are bringing fresh chemical in contact with the film perhaps deepening highlight

densities and bringing up some more shadow values.

I understand how your results may seem satisfactory as you are now doing it. Speaking

for myself, due to consistently thin highlights and weak shadows, I was fudging by extra

agitation and frequently opening up an extra stop when shooting as well as dragging out

my development times all of which add up to a better end product but the results still did

not match my results with Delta films in DDX partly at least I suspect because I was

developing the latter to the exact instructions of Ilford. I am hoping that I will see a richer

end result now with the Tri-X but have yet to confirm this. My old negs from Tri-X done

in the 60's print up so nicely compared to the recent ones and I think I was using stock

D76 hence was in accord with Kodak standards.

It might be worth doubling up on the 1:1 solution as Kodak suggests to see if there might

just be a little more "je ne sais quois" to the negs. Offsetting increased developer costs, I

will be saving on the fixer costs when processing multiple films as I will be avoiding having

to mix enough for whole 1 L. tanks. The flip side, of course, is that it will take twice as

long as I can only use 1/2 of each tank unless I go to full strength. Sorry, train of thought

ramblings.

Does that make sense or clarify anything for you? I am still in the learning phase of this

thing also. Maybe some of the more seasoned Tri-X/D76 vets could point out if I am on

the wrong track here.

Good luck.

Diwan, I don't blame you for the confusion. This has only become clear to me now after

years.

The 100 ml. (closer to 120 ml. per Kodak) minimum stock per film mixed up to 240 ml. 1:

1 will work best only with 10% extended development times . If you are going to use the

published times, you must still use the about 240 ml. min. stock to make about 480 ml.

total volume for 1 film (135-36 or 120 or 8x10 sheet).

The Kodak quote from previous link: referring to D76 1:1

" You can develop one 135-3 [sic. typo should read 135-36] roll (80 square inches) in

473 mL (16 ounces) or two rolls together in 946 mL (one quart) of diluted developer. If

you process one 135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL

(16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables)."

I was wrongly using the minimum 120 ml. stock per film without the extended times but

gather even with the extended times it is not recommended by one of the previous posters

so personally I am going to the double volume working solution 1:1 option and take the

9 3/4 minute time at 20C. This requires about 240 ml. stock per film to develop in a 2

roll tank with total about 480 ml. 1:1 D76.

Is that any clearer or have I just muddified things more?

Wow! I have always missed the fact that with 1:1 D76, I should use the same amount of

stock ending up with twice the volume of working solution in the tank than required to

cover the reel(s). This post made me reread Kodaks instructions that imply this but not

very emphatically. I thought the extended times took care of the dilution difference. I

have been shooting Tri-X TX400 at 200 recently due to empty shadows and weak

highlights. I can't wait to try it the right way shooting again at 400 to see the Tri-X world

as it should be! Thanks for the heads up!

I've had my BP MP 2 years with moderate use (200 films) and the only brassing is on the

winder lever "teeth", rewind knob and a little on the shutter speed dial edges. Also no

scratching or buffing noticeable. Pretty tough in my opinion. SN 2939XXX

Also not so much shiny as glossy.

The other side of "Coffee and Toys" with Glenn. Also 2nd attempt to post a photo, the 1st

was a total bust. Here goes....<div></div>

Erik: Just curious about step 3. Why keep on firing to the end THEN rewind? What am I

missing? Honestly, I'm not being sarcastic, but find I learn something new everyday, and

this might be another. Why not rewind from the last frame as other posts suggest?

Thanks.

That is my dream camera - like M3 with fast rewind! I much prefer the levers without the

plastic facing!

My M3 has the lug on the viewfinder side as well hence nothing to do with motor and

never understood why it is there. Anyone?

After your 12th shot wind the film the rest of the way onto the takeup spool with the

winding lever on the back that you used when you started the film. Wind until you feel the

resistance decrease. Unlike 35mm. the film IS NOT REWOUND! It keeps going in the same

direction and is taken out on a different (takeup) spool.

The 100 and 150 positions are with no mask mounted but the 250 should have a mask

mounted on the front hence does not need to be extended as much. My older version has

a mask for the 150 and 250 and am not familiar with the newer ones but am assuming

from your description that this is the case.

Maybe it has something to do with "How do I upload a photo?". I will some hours getting

that all straightened away. Excuse my bumbling but it all seems very complex for an old

dinosaur like me. Hence the leicas, I guess! Stand by...

Basically, photo is all configured per previous posts (Oculus, Posting to site...) in PS but

how on earth do I get it past that onto this site. I've been looking for links on this page to

post photo but maybe am blind.

Whoops! I did all the PS stuff, size right, etc. Missed something pretty major!

I followed all the suggestions in previous posts and nothing. Will try again later once I've

cooled down.

Albert:

Staggering shot!

I am about to try posting for first time as well and am struggling with PS to get a border. I

am playing with larger canvas size but can't find an option to change the colour, thus e-

mailed shots with white background are basically borderless. Borders contribute so much.

How did you do this? Obviously your baby steps are bigger than mine! Thanks.

Peter, I believe 11,000 yen is about US$95 which sounds very reasonable for a well built

finder. Were the examples you mentioned at stores that have web links so that I would

have a shot at one?

Thanks for the helpful suggestions. I will try to see what works and if successful will post

the results for others in this situation.

If not successful I will offer what is left to those that have expressed interest and go

shopping for something else more robust.