gnashings

<p>I would say DDX is one of the better choices. If that's what you have on hand - bonus. My understanding is that Microphen is very similar, except in powder form you have to mix, where as ddx is a liquid. I may be wrong, its been a while. Either one would be near the top of my list for this, so you already have what you need. Ilford has the times, I am sure - I just can't find the page because I am half asleep:)<br> PS - Jochen - is that time for continuous agitation, or you're just using a Jobo tank? </p>

<p>Can't think of a more classic choice than Tri X. It's hands down my favourite film (not saying its the best for everything, just if I had "a pick just one film" scenario, Tri X would be it). So many iconic images that you probably know and love were made on that film. It can be pushed, pulled, used and abused, processed a million ways, given almost endless variations in the end result or just forgive a ham fisted shooter and still produce and image. In fairness, same goes for most traditional b&w film - if I had to make (very subjective) judgement, I would say Tri X handles it with a little more than some, and a lot more than others, grace and flexibility.<br> Please don't be misled by Kodachrome and Tri X being both Kodak products - Kodachrome was a very unique film even in its hay day, even compared to other transparency films both from Kodak and other makers. Tri X, while many of us will go on about its many virtues and fine points (and some will criticize it too), is just a normal panchromatic black and white film - traditional grain structure, technically no different than its equivalents from Ilford or Agfa or you name it. The differences are mostly nuance and preference. <br> If your aim is to make b&w images from the outset, it or any other actual b&w film would be a much better choice than Kodachrome. <br> Good thing about actual b&w film, you can process it in coffee if push came to shove:) I can't see a day when you won't be able to develop black and white film, even if all the manufacturers went under and no longer made the chemicals. As a matter of fact, many folks prefer to mix their own and even have special recipes for developers, etc., in some cases better (or perhaps more specialized) than the commercial alternatives. I have been more than happy with what i get off the shelf, but its just another fascinating aspect of this hobby/obsession/medium, whatever you choose to call it.<br> And if you actually want slides, there are still plenty of slide films which do no require the now extinct, dedicated Kodachrome process. Granted - for better or worse - I don't think any of them look like Kodachrome. But they exist, are easy to get and many labs will process them in a standardized process called e-6.<br> OK. I have officially claimed the long winded blow hard award for the night - better get myself to sleep. Best of luck with whatever you choose:)</p>

<p>I second what Bill and Larry wrote wholeheartedly! Even though I learned all the scientific principles and I have a more than rudimentary understanding of "how it works" - the actual feeling is always that of a kid convinced he witnessed magic. Off topic a bit, but to me the same and then some goes for printing, AND you get to watch the image appear before your eyes. No matter what floats your boat in terms of making images - be it photography or digital imaging - I can't think of a way that learning this stuff wouldn't benefit an individual. But, now I am way off topic.</p>

<p>the attempts i have seen best fit "muddy". The only reason to attempt this is if your faced with two options: never see the images on already exposed film, period, or at least get a muddy approximation. The intrinsic value of the moment captured is really all I see - either lost forever or at least partially revived.<br> The examples I have seen don't even qualify for having "a look" that those people who insist that crap is art might want to LOMOsturbate over...<br> I do wonder if anyone will undertake a Project Impossible type of endeavor with Kodachrome? I don't think just developing existing remnants would not be enough justify the venture, they would have to attempt to produce the film as well</p>

<p>I would suggest reading up on film in general. As Bill has already pointed out, none of the films you listed are c41 - having said that, no reason not to try them, but you would have to decide if b&w processing is something you want to try. If you don't, I believe you are not fully exploring their possibilities - labs exist which process traditional b&w, but even the ones offering a huge degree of custom options require YOU to know what YOU want. You won't really know that if you don't educate yourself on the subject and, in my opinion even more importantly, experiment extensively to see what works for you in any number of conditions, etc. If you do, that's great - its an amazing and vast world of possibilities - each film can look a myriad of ways depending on how its shot, developed, printed. Most are very flexible, yet at the same time, all have their strengths and relative weaknesses. To top that off, those terms "strengths" and "weaknesses" are very much subjective and relative to your desired application and outcome.<br> On the other end of the spectrum is some sage advise that I was never able to abide - if you want to learn b&w photography, start with one film, one developer and get to a point where that combo does exactly what you want consistently and repeatably. I would suggest that a traditional (so basically not Delta, TMAX) emulsion 400 speed film and a forgiving flexible developer such as d76 are a good starting point. But, that is only a suggestion, there is no "right" answer.<br> And... that quickly got out of bounds:)<br> I think its a subject too broad to cover in one post, and I wouldn't pretend to know enough to have all the answers - but the collective centuries of experience we can access on sites such as this, not to mention (gasp!) hundreds of amazing books on the subject are a wealth of information that will see you through just about any scenario. They're just a search button away.</p>

<p>I think Kurt would be quick to agree:) No that I know, or knew Mr. Vonnegut, and thus far he has not deemed any rooms in my house worthy of haunting, so I can't even ask. Maybe if I build a nicer library...</p>

<p>""And so it goes..." Perhaps Billy Joel owned one... ;-)"<br> I thought Kurt Vonnegut:)</p>

<p>Wow... yup FOUR sheets... I checked back because I thought I did a stupid and wanted to correct it, but then you guys beat me to it:)</p>

<p>Larry, I think you mean two 4x5 sheets? both those roll films contact print onto more less 8x10. not that it detracts from the main message of your answer</p>

<p>lovely stuff, well done, and thank you for the post!</p>

<p>You know when I read Marco's response it got me thinking... right now its kind of a Schrodinger's cat of a camera, in a way its as good as broken since it "can't" be used so it kind of is and isn't... it exists in a weird limbo lol I guess if you are looking at it as an investment and keeping an eye to its value as a commodity then perhaps the caution is justified but otherwise...<br> This is all good and well because its your camera of course, I am still inclined to think that logic might take a back seat to a fear of breaking it if it was my camera... anyway - its a nice problem to have I suppose and in no way detracts from the enjoyment and appreciation for your presentation of this rare beast.</p>

<p>Awesome post - real pleasure and lots learned - especially with the bonus material of the brochure! I can't blame you at all for the reluctance to use it, and I am one of those people who usually espouses a philosophy that cameras are meant to be used, cars are meant to be driven, etc. But in this case... yup, I am with you. I'd chicken out too - and its truly too bad, I bet its a pleasure to use and capable of wonderful work. Thank you so much for sharing it!</p>

<p>I missed JDM's departure from the forums, he was another gentleman with a remarkable wealth of knowledge and very generous with his time and efforts to share them with us. I understand that a very small minority was vocal enough to cause him to wash his hands of the whole endeavor...the internet can do that to a person, truly too bad as we are all poorer for it. </p>

<p>I always learn so much from your posts - and I am sure that even a camera cleaning post would probably teach many of us a great deal, it is kind of integral to the whole old camera experience. But I certainly understand what you're saying. And I think you need a special award for putting up with my (what I refer to as) humour (although I have been assured by many that I use that word, but people question if I know what it actually means). And without a shred of jest, and I am sure I am not the only one who shares this sentiment, your posts have not only taught me a great deal but also inspired me to attempt things I would probably never try - take my "lens repairs" from a few years back for example. So whatever time you have to devote to this, and whatever drives you to do it, I thank you for it.<br> And now I added EPNS to the list of things I did not know before and now I do:)</p>

<p>Well I will have to sell some of them anyway (gee THANKS, Rick...) to buy some EPNS foil and then to get lessons in artful folding (and to find out what EPNS is).<br> All jokes aside, what a handsome beast you have there, and what a thoroughly enjoyable post. Some of these older cameras almost look like the high speed low drag purified versions of their later siblings.<br> I think it would be awesome if you posted a bit of a before and after one of these days (I am not sure if you haven't in the past), when you get a real war orphan of a camera and after you work your magic on it, perhaps a bit of how to - although I am sure most of it is just patience and attention to detail - but I am sure we would all love to pick up some trade secrets. All your cameras look beautiful and lovingly brought back to a better than new splendor!</p>

<p>I am 99% sure the light warns you but the camera treats you like a grown up:) I know the meter is pretty remarkable in low light, and if you stick one of these on a tripod and shoot in low light it will take some pretty long ish exposures which is neat-o if you ask me. Nice lenses too:)</p>

<p>Oh great... friggin' Drawbridge makes friggin BUBBLE WRAP look good. I give up. Anyone want to buy a bunch of cameras?</p>

<p>While this isn't a location specific answer and therefore not precisely what you were looking for, I think you will find that most of us obtain these gems through a variety of rather opportunistic methods. I wouldn't be surprised if the internet wasn't the number one source - fleabay, various classifieds. Some folks scour estate sales/auctions. I have found a few hidden gems at garage sales. Once in a while you do have a thrift store or pawn shop find. I doubt that in Houston - as in most of the places nowadays - there is that one "honey spot", but perhaps I am wrong and a local will correct me.<br> By and large I think that the search and the unexpected finds in unexpected places is as much a part of this affliction as the cameras themselves.<br> For me most of them came from eBay, garage /yard sales, thrift stores, family and friends that find them somewhere and know that I am "that guy with the cameras" - in that order.</p>

<p>This wouldn't be work for me either, but I do go on about my cameras and lenses lol I am looking at the prices of some of these Chinese filters and I am almost inclined to think its worth a risk to just try it.</p>

<p>Glen, Jochen - thank you for weighing in - this is basically the kind of sentiment I was referring to initially, and I have seen people who's opinions I respect, express them as such. Oh well... choices:) I guess its what they call a "1st world problem" :)</p>

<p>Guy with the Vito never got back to me - sometimes the world tries to ave me from myself;) The flamingos formed a union after this winter. They demand electric blankets.</p>

<p>Ram I feel horrible - I have been away from the forums and for the most part photography for a while, I realize that now your question is a couple years old - I really hope you got your lens fixed - I do not have experience with that specific lens but to my best ability to see it works in a very similar fashion, so in a nut shell the above steps should work.</p>

<p>Can't argue with Barry's logic. If price is no object, the FM3a is really the pinnacle of its lineage. But I would say it is usually not mentioned in the same conversation as it usually costs more by a factor of several times. Still a bargain given what you would pay for a Canikon Rebel 5xxx... whatever its called this week;)</p>

<p>Rick,<br> I have missed this forum! Its been a while since I have been around - life and such... but its such a pleasure to see that you are still posting these incredibly educational, entertaining and very visually pleasing chapters! I always learn so much, and I always drool a little, and I always admire your eye for composition (when you post colour I just hate you a little bit because you work in it like a master and I kind of wallow in it like a confused sloth caught in a paint ball cross fire... but I digress...). Funny you should post this, I was just fighting off an attack of GAS over an incredibly cheap B on the local classifieds... you're a bad influence.<br> PS. How are the gnomes?</p>

<p>There in lies "the rub" - so far, so good but I have not tried the RB or the AF nikons yet - I suppose we shall see. This would be strictly film, strictly b&w also, I am not sure if that is a factor.<br> And I absolutely agree with the sentiment of not sticking a crappy coaster of a filter in front of a good lens - but, that's the rumour I am trying to either confirm or dispel - apparently little or no difference is noticeable with these IR filters... something I find hard to believe. My initial inclination is to do exactly like you say, I am quite frankly being cheap in considering something that will get comparatively little use. Also, I was playing around with getting a few with various cut offs - so that I could take advantage of the "longer" films like HIE, yet have something better suited to films that don't "see" quite as far. I think given my experience with just red filters (not even IR, simply r25/29)I may be over-thinking this a bit and should just get a r72 hoya and call it a day. That way I would have one that I know will work and give the desired results in most situations - and if I want to experiment with some of the other more hard core IR filters I can at a later date.<br> Thanks again for the enjoyable and helpful conversation:)</p>