paul_arnold

Thanks to all of you who responded. Now I know what to do. I'm

appreciative.

I understand that the TX film available in Europe was manufactured in Europe, and that it is not the same as TX manufactured in the US. I've heard that the silver content of the emulsion is different, and that the images made from the two films are noticably different.

 

<p>

 

Is this true, or is European TX interchangeable with US TX?

 

<p>

 

The reason I ask is because it would be a lot more convenient (and now cheaper) to buy my TX in Europe when I travel there, rather than carry the stuff from the US.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

 

<p>

 

-- Paul Arnold

One a couple of prior lengthy trips to Europe I've packed along my film from home, in little yellow boxes.

 

<p>

 

Now, for my 120 work, I've pretty much switched over to Agfa APX 100. This film is manufactured in Germany, I believe; does this mean that it will be generally available in France?

 

<p>

 

It seems counterproductive for me to buy German film in the US then lug it back to Europe. But maybe not.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

 

<p>

 

-- Paul Arnold

One advantage of the HP5+ is that when one air-travels there is not

the concern about fogged film that one has with films nominally rated

at around 1,000, such as TMZ and Delta 3200.

 

<p>

 

Also, if one is not going to be able to develop until returning home

after a long trip then the HP5+ has a superiority; however, here I'm

assuming that HP5+ can sit around post-exposure pretty much like TX

can -- and TMZ can't.

Thanks so much, Ed. Most helpful.

Ed -- Thanks so much. Sounds like just what I was seeking. I've

ordered a copy. Next, I guess, I'll be asking for a reference book

for printing palladium (and the like) prints; any suggestions?

I'm sure some other folks have had this idea, and I'm wondering if it works. I'd like to have some large negatives (say 8 X 10) to do contact b/w prints. It occurs to me that I could use a scanner and print onto the clear plastic used for making overhead-projectore transparencies.

 

<p>

 

I'm thinking I could put a positive slide (Scala, for instance) in my enlarger and produce a negative-print on paper. Then I scan the negative-print onto the clear overhead-film and that negative-overhead-image is my negative for contact printing.

 

<p>

 

Does this make any sense? Is there an easier way? Incidentally, I only have a flat-bed scanner and no transparency attachment. I'm not even sure how folks make the overhead transparencies, but that it is commonly done and that the overhead film is a positive of a positive.

 

<p>

 

Suggestions welcome.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

I just acquired a very nice Zeiss Super Ikonta B which I plan to

shoot a lot. The bellows leather is in good shape, notwithstanding

the considerable age of the camera; I'd sure like to keep it that

way. I live in a very dry climate, and this might hasten

deterioration from use.

 

But I don't know what to use to preserve the leather. I considered

using the leather dressing (Montana Pitch-Blend) that I use on my

hunting boots, but thought I'd better hold up on that until I get

some other recommendations. Anybody have any ideas?

 

Also, is there some place on the Web to find out the manufacture date

of my Ikonta?

 

Thanks.

Paul, my "new" Seagull is a folding rangefinder, based loosely (roughly?) on the Zeiss Super Iknota I believe. One of the things I'm curious about is when it was made, as it is no longer in the Seagull product list. I've shot some B&W with it, but have not been yet able to develop the film. I shall do that this weekend.

 

From what I read, the later models are better made than the earlier. My model has quirky controls for shutter speed and aperture, and the rangefinder makes me really appreciate my M-6. Nonetheless it is fun to shoot and hope the glass is good enough to make it worthwhile. I'll find out this weekend, I suppose.

 

Thanks for all your input. You make me want a Seagull TLR no matter how the rangefinder works out.

 

-- Paul

Yes, Lonelyboy, these give me info on current models. I should have included in my query that I'm interested in knowing about discontinued models as well. Thanks for the Websites, though.

Where can I get information on various models of Seagull cameras?

What, for instance, is a model 205?

 

It appears that Seagull has made knock-offs of Zeiss Ikontas as well

as TLR's and other models as well.

Pete, I know that 1600 seems obvious as a DX, but I recall that P3200

has "nominal" speed (Kodak's word) of 1000 . I've always taken that

to mean that P3200 has a DX of 1000.

 

<p>

 

Since both P3200 and Neopan 1600 are both faster than the average

film, it occurred to me that the 1600 was a marketing speed like the

3200 is.

 

<p>

 

I've used only manual cameras in the past and the issue of DX was an

irrelevant issue for me, but now I have a Leica Minilux which does

use the DX.

 

<p>

 

Sorry if my question seemed stupid to you, and maybe it is, as odds

are that Fuji uses a DX of 1600.

I'm interested in trying some Fuji Neopan 1600 in my Leica Minilux. In order to compensage EV, I need to know the DX of this film.

 

<p>

 

Also, any thoughts about an appropriate ASA for shooting this film? Developing it (D-76 or Rodinal, for instance)?

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

What in the Dickens is "cross-processing"? I know about cross-

training and cross-dressing -- could cross-processing be developing,

for instance, Provia 400 in D-76?

 

<p>

 

Certainly not, but what's the answer? Maybe Provia 400 in C-41.

 

<p>

 

Thanks.

Yes, I have. It was with Tri-X each time. Like your experience, it

was not all the time, occasionally. It has happened both with diluted

1:1 and with undiluted developer.

 

<p>

 

Also, with XTOL, I've experimented with storing (as recommended) the

straight, undiluted developer for multiple use. A couple of times

I've had heavy deposits of "silver" in the bottom of the container, a

clear plastic bottle. All this was with Tri-X Pan.

 

<p>

 

Now I read that TX is the only Kodak film that is not improved by

XTOL. Since I don't use the T-grain films ordinarily, I just stopped

using XTOL. I figure one of these days I'll shoot a roll of P3200 and

give the XTOL another try.

 

<p>

 

Until then, it's D-76 (Tri-X and Verichrome Pan) and Rodinal for APX

100.

 

<p>

 

I'm sorry to hear you are having this problem of inconsistency and

unreliability, but still there is satisfaction in knowing I'm not

alone out here.

 

<p>

 

So many people like XTOL that I'm still not totally convinced that I

didn't somehow cause these problems.

Thanks, guys, for the information. It is most helpful to me.

Are there some b/w films that suffer less than other films from the deleterious effects of long delay between exposure and development? I'm going to be traveling for almost three months, and the notion of lugging developing equipment along is daunting. Films I currently plan on using are (35 mm) TX and (120) TX, Verichrome and APX 100.

Are there some films that are suffer less than other films from the deleterious effects of long delay between exposure and development? I'm going to be traveling for almost three months, and the notion of lugging developing equipment along is daunting. Films I currently plan on using are (35 mm) TX and (120) TX, Verichrome and APX 100.

I too have a Hassie and the current 180 lens. It is a marvelous lens, but I wonder if using it for street shots isn't creating more problems than it solves.

 

Have you noodled the notion that none of the problems you're coping with would exist if you were shooting the normal, 80mm lens? (If your MF street-shooting choice were a Rollei TLR then you would not even be faced with the problem of which lens.)

 

I'm no street photography guru, but from what I read about street shooting (in 35 mm format, customarily) the deviation from a normal lens seems to be toward wider, not toward longer, lenses; 35's, 28's, 24's, etc.

 

Moi, I'm a normal lens guy usually, and I just thought I'd throw in this comment since the resolution of the issues raised by the 180 seem to be growing more numerous and more complex.

 

I've enjoyed, though, the helpful discussion about D3200, which I've never used. Only P3200 in 35 mm format.

I'm considering a polarizing lens, a "Rolleipol," for my Rollei TLR.

 

My Rollei has a meter but it isn't, of course, TTL.

 

Does this pose any problem for the use of the Rolleipol with the

meter on the TLR? Is the problem in any way resolved by use of a hand-

held meter?

 

Thanks.

In addition, there are considerations as to just how out of focus the image is in those parts beyond the "depth of field." In general, those out of focus areas will appear more out of focus with a longer lens, and less out of focus with a shorter lens.

I'm just getting started with XTOL. Just now I'm using it straight (no dilution). According to Kodak, a liter of the undiluted stuff can be used five times without any time adjustment in development, and after five uses they suggest increasing the time by specified percentages.

 

<p>

 

I filled a liter bottle and have used it a total of four times. Wow! The stuff has gone from clear to opaque and there's a heavy deposit of silvery gray in the bottom of the bottle. To me, it looks like the end of the road for that particular soup.

 

<p>

 

As an economy, it would be nice to re-use developer, but I don't want to sacrifice quality of result. It also occurs to me that the diluted stuff might work better.

 

<p>

 

Has anyone out there had experience (good or bad) with re-using XTOL? Or with comparing the results of diluted vs. undiluted XTOL?

 

<p>

 

In case it's relevant, I'll add that mostly I use Tri-X, Plus X and Vericrome. Occassionaly (very), T-Max.

Greg -- Thanks for the helpful offer. Of course I'll take you up on receiving a report on the Maxwell. I truly hope that it works out well.

 

As for timing, I'm a very patient guy and I want very much to make the correct decision.

 

If you tell me when you estimate receiving your machine back from Armstrong, then I'll mark my calendar for a follow up Email to you.

 

Your information will be particularly helpful because you know what to look for in the Armstrong, having experienced replacements that were brighter but not as good.

 

Are you getting the split-center ring model? I find those helpful and not at all distracting, though my experience with them is fairly well limited to manual focus 35mm. cameras.

 

Thanks again.

I have a Rollei 3.5F Planar and I'm considering replacing the

focusing screen in order to get more brightness. I've narrowed the

field down to Marflex and Armstrong replacement screens -- now trying

to decide which one to get.

 

People who have the Marflex replacement screen seem to like it.

People who have the Maxwell replacement screen seem to like it. I

know of no one who has used both and can compare them.

 

Apparently, the potential problem with replacement screens (though

brighter than the originals) is that they may lack the contrast of

the original Rollei screens and would be, as a result, more difficult

to focus.

 

I'm looking for information comparing the Marflex and the Maxwell

replacement screens, from someone who has some experience with both.

 

Thanks for the guidance.

Hmmm. If this is the answer, then I must have asked a bonehead question.