mike_scarpitti

Use Microdol-X if you can get some. That'll cut your speed to about 200. Then try cutting back the time a little. DO NOT DILUTE the developer. use full strength.

Kodachrome, for sure. I hope you have sharp lenses!

I've never considered this soup even worthy of consideration.

KL:

 

If your usage is heavily in the low-light world, the Noctilux would be up to the challenge. High-speed optics are always a compromise, so don't expect it to perform as well as a slower lens at smaller apertures. But as they say, open up the Summicron to f/1.0 and let's compare negatives.

Stephen: 50ml + 50ml + 400ml is 1:1:8, not 1:1:10.

Neopan 1600 isn't 'normal' at 1600, but at 650, which is its actual speed. That's what I'd use, but beware of its EXTREMELY short development times. I'd try Paterson FX-39 diluted 1+19 @ 8-10 minutes, 68F to start.

Jeannie G , nov 12, 2003; 05:27 p.m.

"Um, some wedding photographers do that. Why is everyone so surprised or indignant?"

 

I would consider it highly unprofessional. Negatives are delicate and valuable. They are all too easily lost or damaged.

 

I have seen people who obtained negatives of their wedding from such a photographer writing over the envelope with the negatives inside them to place their reprint order. Horrifying!

M.L.

 

I have no idea what '#105' is, but I have attached a scan of the Beutler formula taken from the British Journal of Photography Annual, 1965 edition.

 

Neofin Blue is not identical with this formula. It is a proprietary product.

 

 

Mike Scarpitti

It's rather unusual for wedding photographers to hand over negatives, precisely because of this problem. They are usually supposed to do this as part of their service. Negatives are delicate and should normally be retained by the photographer. Just look in the yellow pages under 'photo-finishing, professional'.

Kodak EPN or EPR for transparencies, and Fuji Reala for negatives.

I should try 2x agitation per minute to start, for 5-6 minutes. see how that goes. Make your prints on grade #3 paper if you're using 35mm. Shoot a 'normal' daylight scene.

 

Good luck!

Yeah, start with 5-6 minutes with the agitation as described in the LF article and see how it goes. I bet you'll be close!

Mike

"Then why did Crawley use borax in FX-11? Is glycin there just to make the formula more complex?"

 

It's used in FX-11 as it was in the Sease formulas: to regenerate and assist the other agent phenidone. FX-2 is somewhat different. In that formula, it's a co-primary.

 

Glycin is used sometimes as a 'helper' and sometimes as a primary developing agent. In the latter use, it generally requires PC.

Marco Ringhio , nov 11, 2003; 04:55 p.m.

"The main aim of my thread was to collect impressions over what, to my eyes, looks like a problem occurred by overdevelopment."

 

Almost certainly the problem, Marco. The best advice I can give you is to start with the times in the Tetanal article I posted earlier, from the 19778 'Leica Fotografie'. It's very likely the film is receiving excessive development.

If you're scanning, I strongly urge you to try a C-41 type B&W film. Scanners are built for dye images, not silver ones.

John:

 

I was talking about the quality of the photography.

 

 

I'll also wager the reproduction in those old mags was better than most magazine stuff today.

Stephane:

 

Could be, but the times being discussed are <<<<way>>> too long in my estimation. I've used this product, and the time should be well under 10 minutes for a medium speed emulsion, even using 1/2 vial, at 75F.

Steve:

 

Are you sure they're undersexposed and not undeveloped? Are they weak overall, but is shadow detail present? Or are they weak in the shadows?

Norm:

 

I've seen that sort of approach advocated before, but I have reservations. There are people who churn out hundreds of photographs and who never seem to improve. I believe competing and getting paid is the best reinforcement and test of your work. Competition does wonders.

Xtol may give thinner negs if it's failed. Suggest trying with another developer to see if that's the problem.

 

If you use a condenser enlarger, develop less than recommended times by about 20% so your negs won't be too heavy.

 

If you're using 35mm, develop even less so your negs will print well on #3 paper, not #2. This will give finer grain and better sharpness.

Lex: That article was from Tetenal.

 

Axel:

 

But 15 minutes is <<<<way>>>> too long. I'm not familiar with the 'old and new' 400 film issue. The time for Tri-X could be perhaps used as an 'index' time, as it is probably the one film on the list to have the least change. You'll note that Agfapan 25 is only 3 minutes. I would start out with the times given in the LF article before using longer ones.

 

Here's what I suggest:

 

The time given for Tri-X is 7 minutes and for old Agfapan 100 is is 5 minutes. I would compare the times for the current Agfapan and Tri-X in a metol developer such as D-76 and others to see if the same ratio applies. If the ratio is similar to the one given here (7:5), 5 minutes would seem to be a good starting point to use. If, however, the developing time for APX 100 in most developers is longer than for Tri-X (say 9:8), I'd suggest following that indication and using a time in the same ratio.

 

My experience with Neofin and the times in the range the OP is using is significant over-development. The times in the LF article are probably more accurate.

Jorge Oliveira , nov 10, 2003; 06:19 p.m.

There are lots of formulas using glycin and sodium carbonate.

 

As a matter of fact, in

 

http://www.jackspcs.com/index.htm

 

The ONLY one that doesn't is FX-2

 

Jorge, I posted yesterday an Agfa formula that calls for potassium carbonate. Almost every old glycin formula calls for potassium carbonate, as for instance Hübl paste. Recent formulators may not be aware of the advantge of potassium carbonate, and may have just assumed that sodium carbonate was equivalent.

As you can see, a time in the range of 5 minutes should be the starting point at standard concentration and temperature, for Agfapan 100 and Neofin Blau.

The times being discussed seem awfully long to me. Should much less. See atttached article by Tetenal, scanned from Leica Fotografie 1-1978. Page 27.

The times being discussed seem awfully long to me. Should much less. See atttached article by Tetenal, scanned from Leica Fotografie 1-1978.