gnashings

There is nothing wrong with your lens or camera. There is really nothing wrong with your film or developer - it is simply a case of a developer which does not exactly hide grain. Rodinal produces very sharp negatives that usually show exactly the grain of the film - unlike many others it does not desolve the silver grains to any extent, therefore is usually not the ideal developer for people who want minimal grain, especially combined with a film like HP5+ in 35mm.

There are several things at play here:

-first of all, your macro lens is probably deadly sharp, especially stopped down a bit - some people find that to not be ideal for portraits because it exposes any and all minute skin flaws, etc. Nothing wrong with the lens, just something you have to keep in mind when using it with human subjects.

-the grain is a result of two things that are known from your post: traditional emulsion 400 speed film, and a developer which does not hide any of that grain. Other things to consider are dilution of developer (did you use 1+25, 1+50?), and the possibility of overexposure, overdevelopment - both serve to increase grain.

 

As to solutions, there are several ways to go. If you need a 400 speed film for your work due to available light, etc., try going with a t-grain film such as Delta 400. They are generally finer grained than traditional films of the same speed (ie. traditional technology films: Kodak TriX, Ilford HP5+, Agfa APX400 are some of the common ones - t-grain (some call them "new technology" films) are the Kodak TMax line (in this case TMY being the 400 ASA variety), Iford Delta, Fuji Acros. If you do not need the speed, I would strongly recommend (especially to a 35mm shooter) trying a slower, finer grained film like Delta 100, Tmax TMX from Kodak, Fuji Acros (again, all new tech, t-grain films), or going even slower with something like a Ilford PanF or one of the Efke films - 50 and 25 speed films of traditional type, but very fine grained. Those films, even developed in Rodinal will give you very fine grain from a 35mm neg.

Another approach is to try a different developer: Ilford Perceptol is an excellent fine grain developer, but will cost you some speed (ie, you may have to rate your films a stop slower to get best results), or even an old stand by like ID11 or D76 (same developer, different manufacturers) will give not accentuate your grain the way Rodinal does.

Now, as to the last part of your question: there is nothing wrong with HP5+ - its simply the type of film that it is, and by that virtue is not fine grained (see above). Aside from grain size, many people don't like the look of HP5+. I was one of those people, but have experimented more with it, and have to say that now that I figured out some things, I am getting along with it much better.

As to the specific combo of HP5+ and Rodinal - I have used it, and again, you are not dealing with any deficiency, but rather a "nature of the beast" - I wold suggest if tight grain isyour aim, try one of the options I mentioned above. I like grain, and Rodinal is by far my favourite developer - but its not everyone's cup of tea, and even I have to admit, it is not the right tool for some jobs. Look at it this way - you can't blame a hammer for not being a screwdriver.

In conclusion to my little long winded essay (for which I apologize!), I suggest that the simplest method for you to go with is to evaluate your specific needs as to film speed, be very careful about your exposure and development to begin with. Then, choose the slowest film that will work for you!(a tripod is of great help here), opting for a t-grain film if you need the extra speed - or you may simply find you like the look, many people do and soup it in a developer like D76 or ID11 (there are many others - these just happen to be ones I am familiar with) - simple, reliable, flexible, capable of full flm speed while not accentuating grain. Be very careful about your dev time and temp so as not to overdevelop. You should see a marked decrease in grain visibility. If you want to stick with Rodinal, I would suggest a higher dilution - I usually go with 1+50. If you go with D76, try it at 1+1 as many people find the stock solution to produce somewhat mushy results - I do, but many photogs, far better than I, get great results from stock D76, its largely a matter of taste. Best of luck, hope you find a combo you like!

come on - seriously - go to eBay, look at completed auctions. You will see a pattern. Compare to reputable retailers to get even more knowledge (some of them sell on eBay). This is not rocket science and enough of this stuff changes hands to allow for a reasonable sample on which to base your averages.

The only thing that throws a monkey wrench is the type of lens you want: which 50mm? the "price of shipping" 1.8? The $50 1.4? The $300-$400 1.2L? One of the very pricey 55mm SSC ASPH for about $600-700? The 105 is a little simpler - but again, there are decent third party lenses, etc.

The absolutely biggest spread is in the 300mm lens: third party slow lenses for well under $100. The Canon 2.8L for $1500 to $2000. The Canon f4 versions seem to cover a spread too - I often see the non-L versions for less than $200, while the L's seem to fetch a $1/mm + :) A friend of mine purchased the non-L f4 in excellent optical, and decent comsetic shape for $120. You have to be more specific in order to compare apples to apples.

Check out this site:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/SLRs/ae1/

 

for more in depth description - the page there is for the AE1, but near the bottom there are links to almost all the FD cameras, certainly the ones you ask about, discussed in depth with istory and background. I found the information this gentleman provides to be very accurate and exhaustive.

The A1 is a lot closer to a professional camera than the AE1 or AE1P(as a matter of fact, many pros have and some still do use them). And it does have interchangeable screens - albeit they need to be replaced by a technician. Actually, the AE1P is more closely related to the A1 (the same chassis, the sports grip and winders fit both - except for the faster motor drive, which only fits the A1, butnot due to shape but connectivity)than the AE1, but is more feature laden and has more advanced features. The AE1P is a great camera, but by design it is a step down from the A1 - given the prices of 35mm slr's, go for the A1.

I own an A1, and personally, I just don't like it. I dislike the display, the ergonomics and next to my New F1, its just feels fragile (although its not). Keep in mind, those are strictly personal preferences. You already have one and like it - I would say go for it, the amount of money you will save by going to a AE1P is negligable and not anywhere close to justifying the ability you gain.

You should always have a second body, if for no other reason than as a back up. See Mr Murphy for general rules about things going wrong, etc:)

I find carrying two 35mm slr's to be no problem at all. When my better half comes along, she usually has another one (one of her beloved rangefinders), so that is always there. Frankly, I rarely leave the house with less than three cameras when I am intentionally going out to shoot. And guess what... at least once a day, I find myself in between films, or in between lenses. There is no better way to fix that than a medium format camera with a bunch of backs. And keep in mind, usually the "in between films/lenses" situations are just an example of my lacking abilities than actual, factual shortcomings of what I have at hand. Also often happens when I go for a walk, and bring a camera - I have to make a call on a lens (and I don't like zooms), so I usually see a building I like when I have a long lens on the camera, or a bird just asking for a photo when I have a 24mm :)

The lesson in this is: you can never have too many cameras, and you will always come across at least one instance when of all the gear you own, you are currently holding the absolutely most inapproporiate one:)

I have seen results from and heard opinions from people I trust that the Vivitar 90mm f2.5 (with the matching tube) is just about as sharp as they get. Apparently the one piece models are not quite as sharp - but I would understand that to be referring to the kind of line counting than I doubt any human user could discern. That is the lens I am currently hunting for - they often go for well under $100 if you look hard. I believe they are mechanically identical to the Tokina already mentioned, actually, I understand they are made by Tokina, if I recall correctly.

Another option I would support, since you already have some tubes, is a Canon 50mm macro - very good lens, many people actually use it as a standard lens as well (I find the focusing to be a bit tedious for general use). They are cheap (seen them for as little as $35!!!) and you can't go wrong with one. The only thing I found is a preference for a longer lens for macro work - just a personal preference - and since the 90mm Viv is a f2.5 lens, not even the 50mm's are faster (although to be honest, I don't know where I would use this speed in macro work).

Norbert,

 

APX is back on the shelves in 35mm.

Ilford FP4+, TriX - those are my favourites(I use others, but I like these the most). Grocery store C41 film. Usually B&W goes into Rodinal and colur goes to the drug store... I have to get a permanent dark room, so I can do my own colour - I am hating the results I get from mini labs. I plan on shooting a lot more slide this year, but I shoot so much more B&W than colour that I never seem to get around to it!

What camera is it? That's another factor that may have an effect, especially wide open.

Marko,

 

Given the amount of time between changes in what you use and calim to like, it really won't matter what you use. You haven't been using any of these developers or films long enough to get results that would indicate anything about them - but rather about the skill of the user.

Just use one thing and learn it well. I like Rodinal for most things - there are 10 answers here telling you ten different things, from helpful, through extremely subjective all the way to down right stupid - why don't you make some opinons of your own?

I do PanF+ in Rodinal 1+50 quite a bit - it works great. I used Rodinal with every other film I use, and liked the results (except with Delta 3200 - but I don't really like it no matter what its in). Also, there is no such thing as "no grain" - it may be smaller, or larger - but its there. Here is an idea: use a C41 B&W film - your firends will still think you're very artsy, and you will have a 400 speed film with next to no grain per se.

One more thing, I don't recall who said this, but if you are getting images that are "more grey" with Rodinal, then you should really look into it... its probably not the Rodinal.

Go to rangefinderforums.com and do a search on Tri X push development. I don't have the exact threads to direct you to - but this film has done just about anything anyone ever asked of it. Its probably the best B&W film ever made in terms of flexibility and bullet-proof resilience, I would stick with it if that is what you shoot. Remember, there is no magic bullet - all pushing is, to some extent, a compromise and a bit of an illusion - but the discussion I saw on the rff showed some remarkable results in terms of grain and shadow detail. Check it out - I think it will raise an eyebrow!

What are you guys doing to this film?! I know Delta is a t-grain film, and by the nature of its even sized "grains" is less forgiving thana traditional emulsion - but the two scans shown here are more like the results I get from Delta 3200 in Rodinal than anything I ever got from Delta 400... and I usually print 8x10 from my 35mm negs... Are these tiny sections enlarged greatly and I just completely missed that point? Then again, I don't scan my films, I print them in a dark-room. I know that the scanning has some effect on the image, but not one so drastic! I must be missing something...

Seeing the photo, I think I have to agree with Mark 100%. This does not seem in any way out of the ordinary in terms of variations in light intensity. And of course, another thing touched on by Mark - stacking filters on wide angle lenses does not take long before it causes some degree of vignetting. Try a similar shot with a standard lens just to have a frame of reference. By the way - nice shot.

How wide was the lens? Polarizers will often produce un-even effects with very wide lenses, because the level of effect is directly linked to the relation of your lens' axis to the location of the sun - and that changes across the field of view of a wide angle lens quite considerable. If the trees were back-lit to any degree, this may also contribute.

I have seen AE1's with that 1.8 50mm go for less than $50, and no more than $100. That's the downside. The upside is, someone will buy it, put some velvia in it and make better pictures than the 10d ever will... I won't even get into B&W :)

Jokes aside, with this kindof stuff, you may be better off at a pawn shop, especially the 3rd party stuff. They seem to sell old photo equipment by size - the bigger the lens, the more expensive ithas to be, right? You will be more likely to find a foolish pawn shop owner than a person on eBay, who is generally at least as well informed as the "completed auctions" button allows. Quite frankly, unless you have a very rare lens or camera in like new condition, you are far better off keeping the stuff. Its really worth a great deal more than it will ever cost again. Actually, the most money you could make on this lot is by donating it to a school or community centre and claiming it on your income tax. Use a local photo store that sells (or rather, as is most often the case - fails to sell) used photo gear at exorbitant prices as your price guide for the write offs. Sure, the prices are pipe dreams and sucker traps - but they are real and can be documented.

Dave,

 

Thanks for the kind words! I hope you have some spare change about your person - right now,that is all it would take to get a decent MF outfit! Alrigth, that is a bit of an exaggeration - but its an amazing time to buy MF or LF gear (any film gear, really, but especially evident in those fields) - I recall not that long ago a Mamiya RB67 was something used by pros exclusively, as they were the only ones who could really justify the expense. Now for about $300 you can have a perfectly serviceable system, usually with a couple of backs and perhaps an extra lens!!! Closer to out FD hearts, I picked up a optically excellent/cosmetically average 50mm 1.4fd for $14! One of the best short-to-medium tele zooms eever made, by anyone - the 80-200 f4 "L" (I am convinced it gives many a quality prime a run for its money!) is frequently sold for about $200! The FD system really spoils a photographer on a budget with outstanding glass at outstanding prices! Even the legendary 55mm f1.2 SSC ASPH, given its outstanding performance and the fact that its an inherently expensive and exclusive piece of kit, is pretty much a bargain at the $500-600 range I see them sold for. Not to mention the fact that you just can't beat the feeling of an older lens in your hands - even the good lenses made today feel so flimsy and artificial by comparison! And while I know that those touchy-feely comparisons are misleading in many cases and simply a sign of newer and better materials giving more strength at the cost of less weight... well... doesn't it just feel nice to turn the focusing ring on an old, all metal prime?

All the best,

 

Peter.

Dave,

 

You mention a revivial, and I think that is very interesting indeed - I too am of an opinion that film is not going anywhere. Not because I really want to believe that, but because I see certain indicators to that effect. I don't shoot digital first and foremost because I simply don't like to: 90% of what I do is B&W, 100% of it is for my own enjoyment (so I have no need to concern myself with the cost of doing business, speed of my process, submission guidelines, etc). I like old cameras, I like developing my own film and there is nothing more magical to me than seeing a print develop in the dim glow of a safe light - that never gets old for me, its as magical as the first time! But that's me - that is no indicator of the general ability of film to stay afloat. What I am looking at when I say I see a future for film is... well... human snobbery! I know its a blunt way to put it, and not 100% accurate, but I know that properly marketed, film photography will become 'classic' and be embraced by people who will see it as more 'special'. I would say a vast majority of these people could not tell print from a 4x5 from a print from their cell phone, much less one from a good digital camera processed by a competent photographer as opposed to a film image - but, the cache will me there, the prestige. I have already heard several people express the view that they want their wedding photos to be on film because its more 'classy' or prestigious. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but I think the niche will be there, just as photography (contrary to claims from some early photographers!) did NOT spell the end of painting.

Digital is here to stay - it will only get better, its not going anywhere. Right now its still in its infancy to a large extent, and still looking for a sense of self. Many digital shooters seem to need to justify themselves, and there is an air of this about the whole digital 'crowd' if you will. It will go away in time. All things when new need to establish themselves just as people do, and until they do so, they tend to see a need to justify themselves and their virtues to anyone who is listening (and many who are not). People will calm down, I think. Film guys will see the market become something different, but still remain in existance. Digital guys will not see the need to proclaim film's imminent demise. Everyone will have their own little piece of the pie that they are happy with. They still sell oil paints, don't they?

 

Sorry about the essay - I think I got to thinking out loud!

 

Cheers!

 

Peter.

Try looking through this site:

 

http://westfordcomp.com/holga/index.html

 

The gentleman who runs this site has a lot of experience with very old film, and is active on this forum in the Canon FD section. Perhaps he could help you out, or at least give you an idea of what you can expect. Best of luck!

David,

 

When I re-read my post I realize taht I may have come across somewhat argumentative, which was not my intention (this time, for a change!), and I am glad you saw it that way. Although, I am somewhat of an analogue zealot... :D

Need to shoot digital? I don't own a digital camera, or scanner - do you know the kind of glass I can get for the price of even a very mediocre dslr??? For the price of a crappy dRebel, I can have a couple "L" lenses for my F1N, and probably enough money for a basic RB67 kit (I know, wrong forum)- touch that with digital... I don't understand why people are so surprised that film gives them perfect results... Lets not forget - there have been a lot of wonderful photos taken before the digital epidemic... It would be an economic nightmare for the manufacturers if people who don't need a digital camera never bought one... but the hype sells, just look at what became of this site... The gadget addicts and quick fix junkies with promises of pro results even if you leave your lens cap on. There are so few people who actually NEED to shoot digital - even then, its a matter of dollars and convenience. This reminds me - did anyone ever get a hold of anyone before cell phones? Wall St still worked, everyone got the dentist on time, and groceries were brought home by spouses... but now we NEED a cell phone. Yep, we sure are individuals, one and all...

Yeah... uhm... those are just ugly, sorry, not good at all - you should pack and send the 20mm to me immidiately so as not sully your reputation any further.:D

Just kidding, of course! Lovely results! And some unusual and characterful lenses on that AE1, I love the look of those CZ lenses, something intangible about them, isn't there. And when I buy that 20mmSSC, I am sending my better half to you for explanations, your results have really given me an unhealthy appetite for that lens! Of course its the photographer, not the gear, but... cameras and lenses are so pretty... its so hard to say know :)

Great work as usual - wonderful site!

Hi,

 

I think its great that you will have an experienced colleague with you - I had privelage with my first roll, and my first printing session, and its a HUGE help! It will take a load off your mind, calm you down and there are so many things you will learn that you wouldn't even think to ask about. Great idea - a resource beyond books and web-pages!

Thank God for Pico - nipped it in the bud! I don't know why the simple statement "neither" is inflamatory, but you know that people on both sides of the fence would take it to mean "better" or "worse" and the mud would fly. Still, neither is the right answer, and as a traditional darkroom guy, I sometimes wonder why people go to all the trouble of trying to duplicate a simple process of traditional B&W with what seems to me like a lot more money and a lot more effort. Then again, to each their own...

FP4+ @125 in Rodinal 1+50 is one of my favourites, and my main combo. It has to be an easy film to work with if I get great results from it, as I am no master photographer. A different look, but beautiful in its own right is souping this film in D76 (ID11) 1+1. I don't recall the time, but I know that I found I got best results from a minute or so longer than the massive dev chart. My agitation is 30s econds to start, 10 seconds each minute. I use patterson tanks and use the stir-stick provided, so far with no ill effects.

Are these blocked highlits apparent on the negative, or only when you try printing?

The beauty of photography - ask 100 people, get 100 answers. Funny thing is, NONE of them are wrong. Take me for example - I hate the Kodak Tmax line, I can't get it do anything for me, especially for portraits! Yet look at Jay's post - I love his results! Personally, I like the way FP4+ looks, as well as TriX for that more gritty look that I find appealing. Have also had good results with PanF and Acros100 when fine grain was the object. Keep in mind that developer is a big part of the equation - all the films I use look great (to me) in my favourite developer - Rodinal. Some people hate Rodinal for anything other than slow, fine grained films and larger formats. You really have to try it and see what you find appealing. One good way to see are galleries on web-sites. I would suggest that APUG.org is the best place for it - most photos on the site are scanned from print, and have detailed film, dev and exposure info - so you can see what results others get and with what tools.

As far as colour... well, don't ask me - all my colour looks like crap, but I found that Kodak Portra films give me the best people results.

Processing your own film is inexpensive and muchlike playing guitar: easy to learn, difficult to master. Then again, that could be said of anything... But I would second the recommendation that you look into it, as I found that unless you have a very good lab that will work with you, you will often get dissappointing results. Also, as to the C41 B&W films (the ones you can process at a 1 hour photo, like XP2+), they are capable of great results, but be prepared for some crappy prints if the lab does not make the necessary adjustments to print the B&W. The negatives will be fine, but the pictures often come back with a weird colour and bad contrast control. Again, I would suggest a good lab that you can talk to and make sure they know what they are doing. Best of luck - you will have fun, there is still no substitute for B&W film!