pc_b

<p>Hi John!<br>

If you like lots of (beautiful) grain: TMZ at 1600 in Xtol 1+3<br>

If you like 'a bit' of grain: Tri-X at 1600 in 1+3 Xtol.<br>

If you don't like grain, or want to add it electronically: TMY at 1600 in 1+1 Xtol.<br>

The negative strips from Xtol show comparatively 'low' contrast (only Emofin at 800 will be give you flatter negatives). Definately scanable with a maxD3.6 or up scanner.<br>

TMY scans brilliantly, Tri-X very well, too. TMZ: cannot recall scanning it, sorry!<br>

Do yourself a favor and work with an incident meter, do believe its low readings..., and expect to use the 1.4/50 as your handheld mainstay, the Summaron for f8 static/overview shots from a mono/tripod.<br>

Ok, second thought, why not experimenting with using S'ron (and 'lux) handheld down to 1/2s?! Especially with the inexpensive TMY and Tri-X.<br>

Good luck and have fun!<br>

Pete</p>

 

<p>Yet another reason to love my M7: ISO shown every time I start it up.<br>

My light readings are sometimes like that too, though - with PanF+ and the likes.</p>

<p>A brand-new MP with 2008(?)-tweaked Tri-X is retro now? What then is my M2 with Efke50 in Atomal? - Dinosaur bones?<br>

...<br>

R.J., have your TMX@50 developed in Perceptol (1+3) or LegacyPro Mic-X (1+3) - you'll get the most beautiful negs.</p>

<p>I used to mix Xtol in cold tap water (over the season varying from quite soft to medium hard) and later in cold battery grade water. My experience/observation was: it took up 10 minutes to dissolve part A (almost constantly stirring and crushing flakes), then about 5 min until part B had dissolved, too. Nerve-wracking.</p>

<p>Then I started using water at about 30°C (battery water container in warm water bath) and both parts dissolved in less than two minutes each! Almost no flakes.<br>

I never filtered Xtol before use. Fear of getting the ratios out of ballance.<br>

Guess how I mix up Xtol now...</p>

<p>I am used to observing cloudy 'stuff' in week/month-old Xtol bottles (glass, full to the brim) which always dissolves instantly as soon as I go 1+1 or more. Even 12+ month old bottles worked as if recently mixed. (But I always do a test strip to keep my blood pressure down in the healthy range.)</p>

<p>And no: every powder chemical (mix!) is different from all others. There is no 'should be like all other...'.</p>

<p>Michael, you got a problem in your development scheme: TMY-2 is WAY smoother than NewTri-X and HP5+ only a bit grainier than NewTri-X.<br>

Maybe you should do a series of A3 (or thereabouts) _wet_ prints.</p>

<p>Except for carefully made drum scans, b+w film scans only give testimony of the scan-ability of the particular type of film on your particular consumer flatbed/film scanner. Which is where Ilford almost generally lags behind Kodak/Fuji. Except for PanF+, funny enough.</p>

<p>Used 1.4/50As may become more affordable again... Love Leica for that effect alone!</p>

 

<p>Man, am I simple. All I ever did was swapping my well-worn 35/4th for a (un-)used 2/35A (black) way back in 2003 (well-informed as I was).<br>

No film wasted on "test shots" that would all come out the same because of a crappy scanner that makes 35v1 pics look like those from a 35A.<br>

No time wasted on buying and selling and then rebuying male jewellery or Italian jewellery cases.<br>

Or being fearful about my back breaking because of a heavy 35cron on my Leica - hell!<br>

Is that a purely invective post?<br>

Probably.<br>

But sorely needed!</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>What would you do if you were in my shoe?</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you one-legged, Jun?!?<br>

If I were in your shoeS (luckily I am still two-legged) I'd sell all my Leica stuff and invest into an extended therapy.<br>

(The most important step is to admit being a narcistic Leica-holic; from then on it's all downhill, ask your therapist.)</p>

 

<p>Grrreat thread, wow.<br>

I used an M5 only for one day - in conjunction with an M6. Without any grips. The M5 was just better for holding/waiting for a long time without moving (theatre photography). Especially with the 90/135mm. Carrying it on the side (the long way) was cumbersome. Carrying it around the neck this way nearly impossible (croaching down and leaning over all kinds of things). In hindsight, switching back and forth (M5<->M6) was the worst thing about that setup of yore.<br>

IMHO, all Leicas handle better with a grip or the motor M.</p>

<p>Wrong developer for that. Only Perceptol and Microdol-X-alikes could possibly be worse. If you want to push and get a good measure of grain: Microphen, HC-110, D-76 (1+3). If you must use Rodinal: use it 1+100 at 24 deg Celsius. Good luck.<br />If you're in for pushin and intend to get grainy negs then use HP5+ or Tri-X or Kentmere400 or Orwo UN74 or Fomapan400 or Rollei/Agfa APX400. Or start with Delta3200 oder Tmax3200 rightaway.</p>

<p>@Maciek & Asim</p>

<p>The M7s with optical DX detectors (original or exchanged later on as mine are) are totally reliable. I had mine changed after 4 years or so only because some cassettes would just not come out without tweezers – or someone helping out with their smaller fingers. MPs feature the same DX/detectors circuits, don't they?<br>

I do not know whether the electronics of the MP were designed new and therefor are more reliable than the one in the M6 models. For the M7 Leica designed it all from ground up.</p>

<p>@Asim</p>

<p>There always is the possibility of setting ISO manually. If you ever doubt the meter readings: switch to manual ISO input and compare results.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>The start-up takes 2s to 2.2s.</strong> Learn to switch on your camera as you grab it to take it out of the bag. By the time you will have chosen the f-stop and finished focussing/framing (all the while fighting the free-hanging/-clinging strap) the camera will always be ready for shooting. This is part of my standard routine with two M7s: the second in the bag (color), the first M7 (bw) always around my neck – and always on.<br>

I cannot help but tax this pretty moot point as a beginner's complaint. If you miss an important photo then it is because you were not concentrated or determined enough (it's somehow interconnected) to *anticipate* the photo opportunity. I've shot street with Hassis. All you need to do is honing dexterity with the camera at hand and stretching even more that 'anticipation time lapse'.<br>

The only _other_ way of missing THE shot - we're talking M camera mechanics, not brain/human abilities – is winding the film too slow to be ready for the sometimes better follow-up situation. That's why I have motors on my M7s (truly cheap these days).</p>

<p>M5(?)/M6 and later finders (IF x0.72...) have 28/90mm + 35/135mm + 50/75mm masks. Hot-shoe-finder-free (_love_ that word creation!) shooting with six different focal lengths possible.<br>

The much-revered M3 finder has only three: 50mm + 90/135mm (if I recall correctly!).<br>

And the 'perfect' M4 finder four: 35/135mm + 50mm + 90mm.<br>

The best finder is currently in the Zeiss anyway...</p>

<p>The F5 (and F6?) auto-checks the shutter action with every shutter cycle. They'll go 'err' or similar as soon as the shutter is clocked to be off.</p>

<p>Let me see...<br>

— aperture priority with memory lock on the shutter release button<br>

— flash TTL<br>

— finder identical to the MP's (except for the batches from 2002-3)<br>

— a 6-frame finder that is clearly better than the "holy/perfect" M4 finder<br>

— not a poser camera like the MP ("I got myself a painted M6-without-a-dot and paid 2000 extra only!")<br>

— *always* working 1/60 and 1/125 backup speeds — until one finds time to change batteries<br>

— speed dial made for index finger actuation while looking through the finder<br>

(not thumb-plus-index while looking down as on the MP)<br>

— frequently to be had almost cheaply as display models or second hand<br>

— just as rugged as any other M Leica (one of the design requirements after the M6 light meter problems)<br>

— more intuitive and ergonomical solution for the on/off-switch<br>

— M7 à la carte for red dot haters or black paint lovers<br>

Now, what lists in favour of an MP again?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The closest we can come is figuring out which film has the least grain with a standard developer. That would probably have to be TMax; Fuji doesn't make chemicals, and (I don't think) Ilfrod makes a developer specifically for Delta. I'm pretty sure that TMax is the only 'standard' film that has its very own 'standard' developer, so it stands to reason that both the film and the chemicals have been optimized to work together.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fuji produces and sells film developers.They even produce their own D-76 version.<br>

The "dedicated" developer for the Delta range of films is DD-X.<br>

Tmax developer is not even 'dedicated' to Tmax films. It's just a mediocre liquid cash cow developer for those too lazy to work with Kodak's great powder developers of yore (D-76, Microdol-X, Xtol). Even less it is any kind of standard developer.<br>

Jay's diddy about TMX vs. Acros is quite accurate. The question about the least grain (when developed) is pretty academical when it's about RMS 7 vs. RMS 8.<br>

Plus, there is so much more difference (in a positive sense) between TMX, Acros, 80S, and Delta100 than just RMS. I just recently learned to love 80S for its interesting set of abilities, too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Don't pay any attention to manufacturer's claim of 'best/finest/etc.' though. Since they don't need to tell you how they tested it (as long as all testing is the same), it means nothing. 'Finest grain' could mean that all films were developed in TMax. It could mean that the inherent grain is the finest, even if it isn't the finest after developing. It could even mean that TMax has the finest grain of any 100 ISO film, but only if all 100 ISO films were exposed at 400 ISO, and then developed in TMax.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Theatrical paranoia, insufficient basic knowledge, and not enough common sense. Tragical, kinda.</p>

<p>Clay, it's 2012; Panatomic is not on sale anymore. Since before the turn of the millennium, actually.</p>

<p>To another one from the past: With the advent of TMX in the 80ies the ISO rule of thumb about graininess had to be dumped. Today, the superb TMY-2 is less grainy than the *two stops* slower Fomapan 100, Fuji SS, LuckySHD100, and APX100!</p>

<p>About the eternally recurring 'PanF+ is so contrasty!': E.I. of around 20 and the use of Microdol-X/Perceptol diluted 1+3 or Xtol 1+2 or 1+3 tames the film perfectly. Unless you overdevelop.<br>

(But one has to have the guts to change dev times, experiment, fail at first, ...)</p>

<p>Zack, claiming that a thicker film base in C-41 films is the cause for loss of resolution in output is simply wrong. Read up in books about it. Most important in that matter (resolution/sharpness) is the fact that dye clouds (C-41) and balls of silver filaments (conventional b+w films when developed) are very different starting points to build visual information from. Bayer (or not) sensor arrays are yet another way to record/quantify an image - with yet another differing set of math/physics behind them. Except for straight resolution measurements based on finely tuned drum scans it's very much apples and oranges (and mangos). The professional analog color printers of yore (I'm not one of them) knew from experience that *some* b+w films just had more microcontrast/resolution than the best E-6/C-41 film. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Bill, you are pulling our legs, aren't you?!?</p>

<p>Shoot! I did not realize that this was a sales business question. Photo.net is deteriorating into the photo businessman's Google! </p>

<p>Jeff, where do you get your Fuji chemicals from?</p>

<p>Michael, TMX/TMY/TMZ were the first "high-tech", tabular crystals films! Then came der Deltas, then Acros.</p>

<p>CN400 is really sweet, huge latitude. My favourite for 'careless-shooting-and-results-in-1-hour-please' situations. However, if you drum scan well-developed Techpan, CMS20, TMX or Acros (both at 64), they all come out finer grained than CN400 (even at E.I. 100). And they sport much more resolution - if the subject/lens permits. Scanning non-C-41 b&w films with negative scanners such as the ones from Nikon/Minolta just doesn't do them justice. Ah, CN400 in 120 is soooo sweet. I feel like ordering...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>These prices *are* tragically high!<br>

However, out of one bag of Xtol (whatever that costs over at your place) you get either 40 (1+1), 60 (1+2) or even 80 (1+3) films developed. Do your math first. And then buy in bulk, online.<br>

HP in Rodinal (in 135 size) is kind of an aquired taste. With zero push abilities for sure. Truly weird that everybody started raving about Rodinal here. Rodinal shines (if at all) with PanF, Acros, TMX, TMY, Adox/Efke - the slow films with small grain to start with.</p>

 

<p>...math and determine what [...] economically... (sorry, it's late around here)</p>

<p>Paul, there is no 'Best Developer'. Each developer makes each type of film look 'his way' - up to a certain degree.<br>

Leigh is right saying that there is not mixing half a bag of developer powder. However, stored in well-stoppered glass bottles, almost all chemicals keep for at least 6 months. Powder chemicals in their bags keep at least two years so buying them in bulk additionally keeps postage etc. down.<br />Do your film consumption math a determine what size of bags may be econimcally sensible.<br>

Fixer, developer, hypo wash all powder in my darkroom. A dust mask should be used for mixing, though.</p>

 

<p>Hey, Kommode,<br>

as you address everybody as son, I reckon you are an elder. So, *IF* you were into using (your) cameras (for decades), you should know that the top plates are not where the biggest impacts happen. So what's your real worry?</p>

<p>Fact one:</p>

<p>The oh-so potty zinc tops of thousands of M6s (non-TTL) have been used by an equal number of world-travelling journalists - for a decades, usually. Leica simply did not deem it necessary to produce a stronger top plate: probably because they just did not have to supply more than a handfull of replacement top plates in all those years.</p>

<p>Almost-fact two:</p>

<p>I guess I have found/hit/had repaired almost all of the Ms structural weak points: front windows breaking on M2s and M4s, exposed rewind mechanism (M4/6/7), brittle alloy of the flash shoe (M7). A top plate, however, was not amongst them. I 'tried' several times and it always was something else giving away before the top plate even got dented. It always was a matter of the G-forces working the innards and never a crushing effect.</p>

<p>Fact three for those who are into male jewellery (and still reading):</p>

<p>My two black chrome M7s have become 'less-than-black' overall and some greyish metal is shining through at the corners/edges - after 9 years of rather intensive use. Extremely ugly. Must have missed *dozens* of great flings because of my non-brassy cameras.</p>

<p>Now, ... what was your question again?</p>

<p>Harry, as I understand your description, you simply produced fresh D-76 in 1+1 dilution. What's wrong with that?</p>

 

<p>... then the leader would be have been exposed at least.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's also other options, but only Kodak films (Tri-X, T-Max, ColorPlus)...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hell, you could get Tmax100 and waste your time on Lucky?<br /> It's clear by now: you dearly need a good book on the basics. And read it, with a dictionnary at hand.<br /> Wildly guessing and experimenting by tweaking parameters that make no real difference regarding your problem (temperature, for example) is just a waste of time and money.</p>

<p>Your negs are the text book example of the classical 'fixer-before-developer' mistake. Either your developer was completely dead, or it was your needlessly complex development procedure that helped you in messing it up.</p>

<p>I suggest you just drop steps 1 and 3. Do half as many cycles in steps 4 and 6 while doubling the times. If you use rapid fixer cut the fixing time in half but agitate every 30s for 5s.</p>

<p>In my book, Lucky 100 is not worth bothering. Technically speaking it is easily the worst 100 ASA film around plus it has no 'personality' to speak of.</p>

 

<p>Ilkka et al. are right: a 15mm is a superwideangle, the 45mm on the xpan simply a 25mm wideangle. Totally different imaging effects even if you crop your 15mm shots to 13.3x36mm in order to mimic the xpan ratio. Only special b+w films in special developers can be blown up to sizes 'normal' for xpan/mf panoramas.</p>

<p>p.s.: I own a Mamiya 7 system but rarely bother to use the adaptor for 135mm films. I just crop when I need it. In my experience, xpan panos don't stand up to Mamiya 7 panos so I never thought of investing into yet another system. The xpan 28mm lens (possiblities!) was tempting, though.</p>