gnashings

Have pushed it successfully in Rodinal, Microphen and Acufine - the massive dev chart is pretty close to on the money. I think Microphen is a very safe bet as would any Kodak equivalent.

Although this sounds very extreme, there have been some third party dogs out there over the years. Conversly, there are many real gems with off-brand name tags that can save you a lot of money and give you a lot of joy. I would suggest that whenever you approach a third party lens you are not familiar with, have a look at forums such as this one and do some research - you will avoid all the bad apples and a lot of frustration! Still, I wonder how the lenses affected exposure so consistently? Did you ever figure it out? I'd love to hear the "CSI" report:)

That is precisely why I chose the FD system - good glass (some great glass) for low prices. And I don't have to worry about some digital fad making my 50mm lens a legend. To be truthful, this trend was true before the digital epidemic - as soon as the new Canon EOS mounts (EF) came out. I know a lot of people criticize Canon for this move, but in all honesty, they have gained a lot on Nikon in the AF dept early on by not having to adapt an existing mount. I think it was a forward thinking move. I simply don't have any use for AF so this does not really impact me in any way, and I love the quality of glass I can get for my $$$!!!

Well, you have pretty much a full set up - you will hardly need anything else for a long time, or unless you go into some very equipment specific fields (macro, wild-life). I have an AE1, and its a good camera - mine developed some problems, but they are old cameras and some issues are to be expected with some examples. I think as far as pointers on how to get the most out of it, aside from a manual, you will be best served by a general photo book - I find that your local community coleege's photo101 text is usually a decent (albeit very general) place to start. There is no substitute for shooting, so just get a pile of film and shoot. I would suggest sticking to one lens at first - probably the 50mm would be my first choice - and seeing what you get out of that. Its a good way to learn, and all 50mm glass is pretty darn good and the fastest glass for your dollar. Have fun and welcome to the club!

Richard,

 

First off, take what you read here with a great amount of psychology on the side. Generally, the idiots who will write things like 'Sorry, but Rodinal and HP5+ is just WRONG!' should be ignored, for obvious reasons. Most of the time, when you get absolutes like that, they are coming from narrow-minded fools.

Now, as far as your HP5+ experience: I have never worked with a true custom lab, but all the labs Ihave ever given my B&W films to fell short of my expectations. Perhaps your experience will be better, but I can tell you this much: developing film takes very little room, and no permanent dark-room facilities. You need a daylight tank and reels, some measuring cups, a thermometer (mine came from Wal Mart...) and of course the chemicals (you will get our of the store for under $15 in chems if you buy small amounts), and a changing bag. I have never used a bag, I use a pantry that happens to have no windows - I am sure you have a closet or a bathroom that will do OK. Once the film is loaded into the tank, you can do the rest in room light. Sure, there is a learning curve, as with anything, but I found my beginning results to be more pleasing than what the lab gave me, simply because I could do what I wanted to do and had more control - where as the lab just took the path of least resistance without any particular care towards your roll of film. Seriously, you can be developing your own film for less than $50, especially if you shop for used equipment on eBay or the classifieds, and that amount will buy you enough chemicals to last a long while. If you make that decision tonight, you can go outin th emorning, spend $50 and have your first roll of film developed an hour after it gets dark. I suggst you give it a shot soon - it seems like a big step, but its really a lot less scary than it sounds, and the returns are enormous.

Frankly, I don't like HP5+ very much - there is NOTHING WRONG wit it, I just prefer the way TriX looks and works for me, but I have used it and can confirm that it will give you great results, reliability and flexibility. I have souped it in everything from Rodinal, Microphen, Acufine and D76 - and it has always responded well, predictibly and reliably. Just as another option, I have actually souped it in Acufine at 400ASA (Acufine is generally used to get extra speed from a film), and got very pleasing results. I love TriX, but have no love left for Kodak as a company, so may re-evaluate what it is that I don't like about HP5+, its a very small and subjective matter than I am sure I can rectify through some experiments - and I would rather hand over my money to Ilford, than the Big Yellow Digital Wannabe...

Sorry about the rant, best of luck.

Thanks! Now I know - and knowing is half the battle! And here I was thinking that I actually liked Tri X in Rodinal... silly me. I have a long sleepless night of e-mailing ahead of me: I have to get the word out to the thousands of very accomplished photographers who use (and have used for decades)Rodinal for just about everything before they ruin any more images. I am afraid mass depression and even some suicides will follow... but the truth must be known.

 

There is an off chance that internet forums are full of pompous, overly opinionated people who have been exposed to the outside world so very little that they truly believe their opinions to be absolute... But nah, it couldn't be that.

 

Truthfully, though, if you are after fine grain with Rodinal, you may want to try stand or semi-stand methods with high dilutions (1+100) - I have seen some amazing results from it, especially in MF(not to mention LF!).

If you don't feel like experimenting, you can either try a t-grain emulsion which will inherently be finer grained, a faster film, or a combo of both. If you are shooting at 200, I have to say that I got much finer grain from pushing a 100 speed film like Delta 100 or Tmax100 than by pulling a traditional emulsion 400 film - and at that push I can't detect any shadow detail loss. Then again, I like grain, so most of the time, I happily use Trix at 400 and soup it in Rodinal 1+50. But that is a matter of taste and how approporiate the grain will be for the image.

While I completely agree with the approach of learning one film in one developer (I sincerely wish I took that approach - it would have saved me a lot of grief and I would have learned some fundamentals a lot sooner!), I think that there is a time when you can actually point out why you need to go outside of that combo for something particular. I think that's how you know you're ready to move beyond one film, one developer and do it effectively and in an educated fashion. I know many photographers who use one developer - but almost none who only use one film, unless they have a very singular direction for their work and only do that one very specific wype of work. Most people I know (and please keep in mind this is just one person's experience, by no means a scientific survey) have a mainstay film and developer and usually another film and developer for specific results or conditions that would be hard to attain with their main film (example: I know many people who only shoot Efke 25 in Rodinal, but will go to TriX in D76 when they need more speed - the brands are not important, you get the point I am sure).

Best ofluck with your work!

Intersting - hope it makes it over the Atlantic. Is this a t-grain, or a traditional emulsion?

Canon was not my first camera, but I chose the system fas a replacement for my aging russian gear for one reason, mainly: economics. Most Canon gear does not have the hype surrounding it as the Nikons do, and since I don't care about AF, I would have some real bargains in the FD mount. And ever since I was a kid, I wanted a F1N... and now I have one.:)

I have a AE1 and a F1N (the last model). The AE1 developed electronic gremlins that were cost prohibitive to fix. Seriously, while I like the AE1, there is nothing wrong with it and its a great consumer camera, in my mind there is little to compare bewteen an F1 and an AE1. The AE is a consumer camera with some advanced features, while th F1's are pro bodies with all that this brings to the table: extensive system of accesories, far more rugged, etc. I really enjoy the F1N, however I wish the mirror lock up from the old F1's was retained. If you want a totally battery independant camera, the F1N is not for you, but it is a reliable,robust camera that retains a great deal of functionality after the battery dies.

As far as the coverage of the view finder, I think its always preferable to see all that the negative will capture, or as close to it. Its always better to adjust for slide mounts,etc., than not see what is there at all. I find nothing beats the viewfinder of a Nikon F3 - its a thing of beauty, but I find my F1N to be very good indeed. I would invest the money in an F1 - they are very afordible right now, given what they cost when new, and feature for feature, you actually get more for your money than with an AE1. One thing that I would look into is the excellent, and underappreciated Canon EF. Basically a original F1 (minus interchangeable screens and motor drive abiity) body, with a vertical travel shutter, flash hot shoe and high for that time flash synch of 1/125th sec. Its a great and rugged camera that sometimes slips under the radar of the used market.

I also think that recommending a T90 or A1 to someone concerned with battery-reliance is a bit silly, good cameras though they are.

'I can't find anyone else who would even consider using a film camera'

 

Try www.apug.org , nothing but film, about 11,000 people and growing ;)

It would help if some of the stores were a little more informed about the film market. They constantly cry that 'no one is buying this stuff anymore...', and they do nothing to change that, in the process turning their backs on large chunks of business. I am surely going to drop Simon a message in this regard - I would like to see this film come back. But, I would also like to go into the local photostore (a big chain called Henrys) and actually talk to someone who knows more about this than I do - wouldn't that be nice?

I gave up on inversions due to spillage. Have been using the stir-stick/twis paddle, whatever you want to call it, and have had no uneven development, no issues at all. Works for me. I think the description given by Lex should be made into an article - its one of most BS-free, non-patisan, factual, well thought out, logical answers on this very, very disputed topic. I would like to see it in the articles section, personally - every beginner would be very well served by such impartial input!

There are some great suggetions here for sure - but, there is one thing that worries me. How much control will the lab give you over the process? I know its not an option for you to do it yourself right now, so perhaps the best approach would be to ask if a) the lab will allow you any choice in materials and methods and b) if not, then try to tailor your film choice to best work with the methods and materials used by the lab. I think establishing that would be the best starting point for any serious consideration. Other than that, in MF there is really so much you can do before you get unacceptible grain, etc., that its really a matter of a look you prefer.

I am not really sure I understand what you are trying to learn here: you developed the film, I assume you fixed it and washed it, etc. Pull it out - printing is not magic - if there is an image on the emulsion, no matter how thin - you CAN get an image on paper. Simple as that. Now, will they look the way you intended them too? NO, they will NOT. That ship has sailed - but I think there is only one person - you - who can judge wheter the negs are a) important enough to you b) wether the images are still acceptible to you.

You made a big mistake - true (we all have at one time or another), but what you are lft with is up to you to judge!

Thanks again for the input. I think I will hunt for the concave SSC simply because I find it interesting and I like the unusual look and construction of the lens. I may take the advice of also getting a cheap user - I think this is focal length that may become a favourite of mine! Thanks!

I would buy a Leica rangefinder, simply because they are beautiful and I like them, and yes, there is no argument that their optics are among the best in the world. I am not a Leica hater, far from it. I just know that my decision would be based on their legendary status and sentiment. To me, the Leica SLR's have none of that going for them. Fact is, many of them (early ones) are dubiously related to Minoltas... which are far from legendary. But, think of this: as soon as the Nikon F came out, and later, when the Canon New F1 made good with the pros, you would have to look really hard to find a field photog with anything other than a Nikon and Canon hanging from their necks. These are people who make a livign off their equipment, and in a way that relies on utmost reliability. They could afford Leicas, they chose the Nikons and Canons.

Now, as far as your original question about the SLR lenses (Leica vs Canon), check out this link:

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/magazine/Noct-2.html

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/CanonFD/FD50.html

Mind you, that is the Noctilux in question and comparison. But, having said that, I think you would be better off spending the money on better lenses for a system you already have - a ridiculous amount of which can be had for the $600 you are about to throw away...

Well the digital crowd is still in such a stage of infancy that anything and everything gives them apoplexy. They'll calm down when they stop feeling they have so much to prove, and I predict, pixelography and photography will peacefully co-exist remember, photography was supposed to kill painting...). And I'll still have a new sensor in my camera for every shot:)

Ah, the beat goes on. This never gets old, does it?

And the Leica-phile snobbery never gets any less pathetic. Don't get me wrong, I love Leicas, I just can't take serciously any moron who looks down his nose at other photo equipment.

Terence was spot on with his comments! Why don't you people buy time shares or do some day trading, or maybe pay some attention to your spouses instead of trying to build up your smug self importance by underlining how you would never use anything but Leica gear... La ti da, you're still a pretentious load that should have been swallowed, just with a very expensive camera wasting in your hands.

While you guys are at it, who's gonna win the next Superbowl? I am all for clarevoyance.

 

But I think the second answer you got pretty much sums it up. No worries, we're going to be ok.

OK - I give up. Try going here

 

 

http://photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/?action=view&current=canona1_2.jpg

 

 

http://photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/?action=view&current=canona1_1.jpg

 

Hope that works...

Oops - this forum does not have the photo attach at the end option - lets try again:

 

 

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/canona1_2.jpg

 

 

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/canona1_1.jpg

Oops - this forum does not have the photo attach at the end option - lets try again:

 

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/canona1_2.jpg

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a80/gnashings/canona1_1.jpg

Here is what the finger grip (or Action Grip in Canon lingo) looks like. I believe the AE1 DID NOT have the facility for one (mine does not) the AE1Program and the A1 (closely related cameras) do have it. Its a comfy way to holf a camera, and from what I understand it is removeable to facilitate the motor drive which replaces the grip with one of its own when attached. If the savings are there, I would not hesitate to buy a camera without one, as it does not impact the perfomance in any way, and you may be able to scrounge one from another Canon FD user, or a parts bin at a photo store.. well, you get the point.

Its kind of unfortunate when people try to help someone out and the person asking for help grows an attitude. You know, just because you don't like the answers does not make them wrong. Everyone here made a good point... but you don't want to "fill out a questionaire"... I don't get people like you...

I would second the reccomendation of Ilford Rapidfix. It works very well, and keeps pretty well if NOT mixed. Mix it as you need it is great advice.

I have been using water as stop bath with no problems, but I know that there are many who advocate using an acidic stop bath for more precise development control - for me it has been a case of learning with water and just not fixing (no pun intended) what is not broken.

I would suggest trying the ID11 at a 1:1 dilution - its been the look I liked best, but of course, you may see it differently, so experiment and have fun!