tim_bradshaw1

<p>I hope this doesn't count as off-topic: these are just nerd questions really. Can anyone identify the two cameras in 'Carol' (the movie)? The first is one of these fantastic-but-horrid US very-square cameras (I'm in the UK so I'm not really used to these), and the second (the one Therese is bought) is a Leica III-something, but I couldn't work out what the something was, or what the lens was (not anything collapsible I think).</p> <p>Definitely off-topic: does anyone know how it was filmed? I'd assumed it was digital with some nice processing, but I read something which implied it was 16mm film. The image quality was really nice to look at: I found myself occasionally just looking at the texture of it which was really nice in the way small-format film grain often is.</p> <p>Apologies if these are off-topic (and despite appearances I'm not trying to advertise the film!)</p>

<p>I'd be very dubious about a 'job lot of FP4 without foil packaging': Ilford don't actually <em>sell</em> FP4 (FP4+ really) in 120 in units of more than a roll as far as I can see, which will be foil packed. So this is a bunch of film which someone has removed the foil packaging from (why? perhaps a professional who didn't want the overhead of removing the foil when shooting, a long time ago when professionals shot medium format) and then not used, very old film from when Ilford did sell it in bulk packs (if they ever did) or it's something else (I can't imagine there is enough money in film now to justify someone making fake FP4, but ...). Any of these cases could have had arbitrarily bad things happen to them.<br> <br />I think the first thing to do would be to buy some film with a known, good provenance and try it.</p>

<p>I'm not completely answering your question as I use Bromophen / Hypam not Kodak chemicals, but the Foma papers are really nice I think. I use two: 123 (which is Fomabrom 123) and 132 (which is not Fomabrom but some other family), and mostly the 132 which has very desirable characteristics for me: the image tone is lovely and it's very slow, which I like as it gives me time to dodge and burn. I treat them the same as Ilford papers - 2 mins in dev, a few seconds in stop (may be 30), fix for a few minutes, wash for an hour.</p> <p>One significant thing is that they don't go very hard: I find that they're pretty equivalent to Ilford papers at anything below grade 4, but they probably top out at 4 or 4.5. Fortunately I only print that hard in desperation in any case.</p> <p>I much prefer them to anything Ilford make with the exception of Art 300 which I have a love-hate relationship with and the Ilford matt paper, which I like because of its texture but not really otherwise (also I've not printed the new version yet).</p>

<p>In that particular picture I'm not even sure it's grain: it might be reticulation. I don't use HP5 (in small-format) at present on the other hand, so may be my memory is misleading me.</p>

<p>A lazy followup question (sorry): do any of the later-serial ones have 2 lugs? I hate the 3 lug ones, but I've always secretly wanted a 2 lug one.</p>

<p>I can see reasons to pick both a camera system and a format you haven't used before for a trip, but I think I'd be inclined to stick with the system and format you know unless you are feeling very adventurous.</p>

<p>Here is a response from Ilford themselves (with permission):</p> <blockquote> <p>The key differences are in grain structure and exposure latitude. Delta 100 has a more uniform and finer grain structure and can produce very sharp images. It is a little less forgiving with regard to exposure and processing, whereas FP4+ has fantastic exposure latitude and is suitable for a broad range of developers.</p> </blockquote>

<p>Thanks to all the responses, especially to Sal, who has given me a lot to think about!</p> <p>I had not made clear (which I should have) that although I have used FP4 a fair amount I'm not enormously keen on it: recently I've been using 320 TXP and Rollei Ortho 25 for LF (I realise these are not similar films!) and hardly any FP4 at all, and for small-format I pretty much use only Tri-X. However I suspect my dislike of it is partly/completely because when I <em>did</em> use it a lot I was even less competent than I am now.</p> <p>I think I probably will stick with it, but I am considering if I can afford a box of each (as I hope to manage more than 25 exposures in a year, and generally do comfortably more than that on 4x5).</p> <p>I am mildly terrified of the developing: I do 4x5 in a Mod54 which is fine, and I'm hoping to be able to do single-sheets of this this in a print-processing drum.</p>

<p>I don't have the APO version, but the older 210 Symmar I have is in a Copal 1 shutter, and it's this dimension you need to worry about. Wikipedia claims that the hole you need for this is 41.6mm although I'd be inclined to check around a bit before actually drilling the hole. If you have the lens to hand the shutter has written on it what it is (well, Copal shutters do).</p>

<p>I've just bought a slightly insane whole-plate camera, for which I'm going to have to make use of the Ilford ULF once-a-year offer. Ilford offer Delta 100 and FP4+ (and HP5+ which I'm not interested in for this purpose). I've used FP4 a fair amount in 4x5 but never Delta 100. A box of either is a significant investment so I want to not make the wrong choice (or buy two boxes: I've spent enough already on this thing). I'm tempted to stick with what I know: it doesn't seem to me that finer grain will matter at this scale (making not-huge prints), and I understand FP4 pretty well.</p> <p>I have looked around in the usual places for images but it's very hard to tell by the time scanning/monitors/&c are taken into account.</p> <p>Has anyone used both films, specifically for LF (35mm or even MF is not so interesting as things like better grain make a much bigger difference) and can comment? I'd be interested in both stories about significant neg-quality differences at this sort of size and processing issues if any.</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>I own one of these which I bought new: as other people have said it's a recent design. Mine needed the rangefinder aligned, which Zeiss (in Germany I think, though the camera is not German of course) did for free, although I was annoyed that it needed it. It has been fine since then (7 years or so: I used if for my hundred rolls of Kodachrome project but less since then).</p> <p>Compared with a Leica it is clearly not as nicely made, but the viewfinder is so much better than an M6's that there was no competition for me. It's like looking through water into a slightly better version of the world. May be more recent Leicas have better finders, or maybe the M6 I used was particularly crufty, but I am not tempted to find out as, while they could perhaps be as good as the ZI's finder, it is not possible to be better.</p> <p>The Zeiss lenses are a funny thing. They are clearly optically at the level where it is a matter of taste: you might prefer Zeiss or Leica but that's because they differ, not because one is better. But they rattle: of the three I have (50mm Sonnar, 35mm Biogon and now 50mm Planar) the Sonnar is seriously wobbly, and the other two are better but I suspect are becoming wobbly. It seems to make no difference at all to the images they make but it's just annoying and not necessary.</p>

<p>As Ron mentioned: you can, I expect, process ortho film under dark red light. You can get 4x5 ortho film which is branded as Rollei (I presume this is not the original Rollei): I have used some of this and it's interesting to use.</p> <p>However I'd recommend finding a way of processing film either in total darkness or in a tank: I use a Mod 54 and the current version is fine (the older ones were harder to use I find).</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone who has replied. I did originally intend to scan things but it takes me much longer to set the scanner up than it does to make a contact sheet when I get to the darkroom: which I can do without taking the negs out of the envelope (and after I've made up dev I'll use anyway). I think it would be different if I had a flatbed but I have a Coolscan.</p> <p>It sounds like the safe thing is to keep them separately: even if the risk is tiny the negs are obviously a bit precious.</p> <p>Craig: interestingly I find I don't need contact sheets for MF (and even less 5x4) but I am just crap at picking the good negs from 35mm: I think this is just practice.</p>

<p>Historically I've either not made or made and disposed of contact sheets for 35mm (B/W), which is dumb of me (particularly not making them). I'm now trying to be more organised about this and am making and keeping contact sheets. I make them on cheap RC paper, and they get a lot less washing than FB obviously. Currently I am keeping the contact sheets interleaved with the negs in a file, with the negs in 'Print File' sheets: this avoids having to run dual filing systems for them.</p> <p>Should I worry about residual chemistry from the contact sheets getting at the negs? The sheets are, as I said, reasonably well-washed, but not nearly as seriously as I'd wash a final print (but my final prints are FB of course, so need a lot of washing, while RC shouldn't). And there is a layer of polythene (or whatever it is) between them.</p> <p>What do other people do about this?</p> <p>Thanks</p>

<p>if you have no compatible lenses then what you are buying is a (very pretty) shelf-ornament: something which has no use at all until you get a lens. The only good reason I can see to do this is if you are being offered an *extremely* compelling deal on the body. Film cameras are essentially light-proof boxes which hold the film in the right position relative to the lens, and it's those two components that matter. I realise this is heresy to many Leica owners: sorry!</p> <p>Of course you may already have compatible lenses, or be being offered a really good deal, but I'd at least think about which to buy first.</p>

<p>I'm not sure if I'm recommending it, but I have a Minox 35ML, and although it's a bit rudimentary -- scale focus being the big thing -- the lens is <em>really</em> good. And it is very compact indeed, of course. However, although I've had mine for about 20 years and it hasn't gone wrong, I keep worrying that it will as it smells a bit fragile, and film winding is a little questionable (small gaps between negs). There are a number of other Minox 35* models: I am not sure what the differences are, but I think there is at least some difference in lens design: the 35ML is a Colour-Minotar (which I think is a Tessar), so that at least is good.</p>

<p>It's based on the linear dimension, unsurprisingly: just take the diagonal. From your data the factor is about 1479, where everything is in mm. So for sides x and y, c = sqrt(x^2 + y^2)/1479, about. Remember x and y are in mm. So for 8x10 we get c = sqrt((8*25.4)^2+(10*25.4)^2)/1479 = 0.22. For 11x14 you get about 0.31.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'd like to correct a couple of confusions about the Nikon Coolscan 9000. I am doing so from first-hand experience: I own one.</p> <ul> <li>They work fine with modern machines: I currently use mine on a late 2013 macbook pro running 10.9.5. I don't use (have never used) the Nikon SW, but VueScan, which is fine, and supports all the stuff that the scanner can do such as dust removal etc.</li> <li>They do not need special cables: they have a conventional FireWire interface, cables for which are extremely widely available. To use one with a recent mac you need the FW-Thunderbolt adaptor which is available very cheaply. There is anough FW kit out there (a lot of it used by musicians) that FW support, perhaps via adaptors, will be available for a long time.</li> </ul> <p>So there is no problem at all using a Coolscan with a modern system. You can also buy one (used), right now, for about £2,500: I paid about £2,000 for mine three years ago. Unless I am much mistaken this is a fair way short of $6,000. So that is what Leica would be competing with.</p> <p>I'd also like to at least raise the question of how dedicated Leica are to film. if you wanted to buy a film Leica what would you buy: a really nice M6 for a little over £1,000 (or an even nicer older M if you don't need metering, or don't mind an M5), or a new M7 for three times that price? So, OK, that's a silly question: there are so many really good film M bodies out there that no-one who wants to use a film M is going to buy new. So who <em>is</em> buying them, and why?</p> <p>Well the answer to that is: it's the same people who buy mechanical watches, and for the same reason: these things are jewellery for men (mostly). As with mechanical watches, they are also beautiful, functional, tools, but that is not why they are made or sold. People who buy new film Leicas are not particularly interested in film other than as a fashion statement, and are certainly not interested in labouring over a hot scanner for hours: they leave that sort of thing to their minions.</p> <p>Leica will not be making a scanner.</p>

<p>As I mentioned in the previous thread (referred to by richard a): I think the autofocus on the G2 is significantly better, and given that neither camera is really usable with manual-focus, you may well want to hold out for that.</p> <p>The 45mm lens is very nice indeed.</p>

<p>I have a 67 (II) and it doesn't have this problem so it's not univerasal. As others have, I'd guess it's a difference in the effective position of the focussing screen and film plane, which should be fixable (I've had another (35mm) SLR which had this problem, which I got fixed).</p>

<p>Chris: thanks! I'll use that if pushed: I'd like to find factors which don't alter dev time as I want to process a bunch (well, 4) negs in a tank rather than individually.</p> <p>(That sounds like I'm being ungrateful: I'm not meaning to be – this is useful to know!)</p>

<p>If the film is <em>completely</em> blank (no frame numbers, no trace images at all) then I think it never saw developer. In particular it seems unlikely to me that developer which is either slightly contaminated with fix or worn out would produce no image at all: you'd expect <em>something</em> I think.</p> <p>Also I agree with what someone else said: before thinking about pushing etc make sure you have your process sorted well enough to get good negs at rated speed.</p>

<p>Hi, I've recently bought some of this – which I presume is rebadged film from someone else in fact – and I've not managed to find anything useful on reciprocity-failure correction for it. As I'm using it in a 4x5 camera I'm pretty much committed to multi-second exposures unfortunately, but (also because 4x5) I don't want to waste too many exposures trying to guess the correction factors.</p> <p>So, does anyone know anything useful about this? Thanks!</p>

<p>While I think you are right that printing is the important thing to learn, as it's where the craft really is, I'd suggest that if you are going to make prints you also process your own film. I'm suggesting this because processing film is <em>almost trivial</em> compared to printing: you need a tank, some reels, some chemistry and somewhere dark to load the tank. The hard bit of all this is somewhere dark to load the tank, but if you are going to make prints you already <em>have</em> that: just turn the safelight off wherever you are making prints and load the tank on the enlarger baseboard.</p> <p>There are subtleties to processing film of course, but it's really pretty easy to turn out very printable negs, and these will often be better than the negs you get by sending film off, and much cheaper.</p>

<p>I would hold out for a G2. I think there are two reasons, one more important than the other.</p> <ul> <li>The important reason: the AF on the G2 is adequate (once you understand that it is a rangefinder and focusses on the rangefinder patch only, so you need to do the rangefinder focus-and-recompose thing), while I think the AF on the G1 is probably not adequate. Neither is really usable with MF (no focus ring on the lenses), so this matters.</li> <li>The other reason: I think the G1 will not work with the whole lens family. This does not matter for me as I only use or want the 45mm lens, but it might for you.</li> </ul> <p>Additionally I think the G2 just is a better camera (some might claim it is the best 35mm camera in fact) as Don Bright has said.</p> <p>Disclaimer: I own a G2 but have only ever played with a G1 briefly (decided not to buy it!), and I'm very much a one-focal-length person so I don't worry about which lenses will work with the body I have if the one I want does.</p>