malcolm_myers

<p>Film is opaque when you are taking pictures, so if you open the back before rewinding the film and after taking 36 shots you lose a couple of exposures but the light never reaches the majority of the film. I've done it a few times and only ever lost a few shots.</p>

<p>AG Photographic in Birmingham or 7dayshop sell Tri-X in 10-film bricks. I've started stocking up, not because I think it'll stop production but simply that the price will rise. I'm better off investing in film than putting my money in a savings account! I wish I had stocked up on Velvia 35mm some years ago as I now only have a couple of reels left and the new price is too high for me.</p>

<p>And now the second photo</p><div></div>

<p>Firstly, my apologies for messing up the uploading of my photos. I had actually thought I'd cancelled the post completely, and it was only when I looked in today that I found I hadn't! Despite that, some very helpful responses so far so thank you. I will now try and upload the pictures</p><div></div>

<p>I took two photos a couple of years apart on similar (but different) films and developed them slightly differently. However, I am surprised at how much difference there is in the grain. Can anyone help me understand what is going on please?</p>

<p>The first shot is of my wife in a hat. Kodak Tri-X rated at 400. Developed in D-76 stock for five and a half minutes at 22 Celsius.<br>

The second is of my wife and son. Ilford HP5 rated at 400. Developed in D-76 1:1 for eleven minutes at 20 Celsius.</p>

<p>Both had similar agitation: two inversions every 30 seconds. Both were taken in low light with an Olympus 35 RC.<br>

I would normally expect more grain from the Tri-X but it is clearly more finely grained here and I prefer it. Can anyone shed any light on the differences? Thanks!<img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src=" alt="" /></p>

<p>I'm not sure where you are in the world, or what speed you want, but there appears to be 'plenty' here</p>

<p><a href="http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=8371">http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=8371</a></p>

<p>Malcolm</p>

<p>After reading your original thread I bought a used T-70 off 'a well-known auction site' for £5 + P&P. The lens mount rattled but I whipped the front off and tightened it no problem. I had one years ago and sold it to a cousin when I first went EOS. A nice camera, I always think the three program modes were a great idea: wide, normal and tele.<br>

I'm looking forward to running some film through it!</p>

<p>I agree with Matthew. I used to love wet printing but you need space, chemicals, mess and lots of time! Of course if you can find the space then you can get stuff quite cheaply or even free if you look around.<br>

Personally, I use a changing bag, develop my films in the kitchen and then scan and print. For me it's the best compromise, as I don't have the luxury of space.</p>

<p>Just for the record I have a litre of D76 stock which I re-use, but now I am getting back into B&W I think it is time to get some brown bottles, stock up on D-76, and start to use it 1:1 in one shot. I also want to try Rodinal, but probably on a slower film. Thanks for all your help.<br>

Malcolm</p>

<p>Henry,<br>

thanks for the info. I tried to post an image but messed it up, maybe I can post one with this reply :) I have also noticed more grain in underexposure and Louis, thanks for the tip about agitation.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi,<br>

I have developing my own TRI-X 400 at home using D76 stock solution. On bright days I have found that skies get very grainy. Is this just the nature of the film? I have seen in the Kodak data sheet that reciprocity failure appears to kick in at anything faster than 1/1000 of a second. Should I jsut develop for longer? What will this do to the pictures with less grain?<br>

Thanks<br>

Malcolm</p>

<p>Hi Josh, did any articles ever get published? Has VivaFilm gone anywhere at all? Thanks</p>

<p>I always keep my film in a fridge and have used some that is out of date (maybe up to a year) with no serious side effects. However, you must remember that films also expire due to background radiation which is not slowed down by freezing. When I get my film back I wonder whether any poor photos are my fault or the film's fault. Since film is the cheapest part of the photo equation I'd sooner be sure and try to stick to in-date film. My memories are worth more than a few extra pence.</p>

<p>The 70-200 f4 L was my first L lens and it's still my favourite. It is a reasonable size for a zoom, focusses fast on my 300D and 40D and produces lovely images, with the subject relly standing out from beautifully out of focus backgrounds. I has the same dilemma when I bought. I don't know what the 70-300 is like, but I have no regrets buying the 70-200.</p>

<p>As an 11 year old I hankered after a Pentax ME Super but could not afford it, so I bought second-hand Carena instead. On a school trip I noticed one of the teachers had an A-1 and I told him I was impressed. That was a real camera! I went off photogrpahy for a bit in my teens but when I started to earn money I saw an old A-1 in a second hand shop going for a song so I bought it. I kept my eyes peeled and slowly added lenses and an AE-1 Program. I did have an EOS film camera but kept using the FD stuff as two bodies and more lenses gave me more choice. I only stopped using it when I went digital, but with all the talk of going back to film I have bought some 35 mm to have another go with the FD kit.</p>

I have a Yaschica Mat 124. I use a Rollei B1 bayonet to 46 mm screw converter, then a 46 to 52 mm step up ring, then put a Cokin P series adapter on (I'm sure A-series would do, I just have P). Then I hold the polarising filter up to my eye and rotate it until I get the desired effect. I then drop the filter into the holder without rotating it, compose and take my shot. The filter goes right across the front of the viewwing lens, but I was surprised at how little you notice it.

 

It may not be perfect, but it suits me fine.