anthony_roth

Well, I am using a 90mm with a .72 T6 and all i can say is that the

photographs are super sharp. i have enlarged no more than 8X10, but

they look very well focused. i generally shoot hand held at 125. i

wonder if they would be even sharper if i were using a .85. somehow

i really doubt it, but i don't know.

I appreciate both your responses. Robin, you are actually the first

person that I have heard compare the voigtlander negatively to the

leica. I have heard ancecdotal evidence that the voigtlander is a

bit more contrasty than the leica, but not heard anyone say that one

is better than the other overall in terms of actual performance.

Indeed, I would have thought that Leica devotees would be actively

interested in comparing notes on high-performance, alternative, low

cost lenses.

 

<p>

 

In any case, I just purchased the 90mm 2.0 apo asph leica, and I

would be very curious to compare its performance to a voigtlander,

but i don't think they currently are producing a lense of that

length. Too bad, since it might perform similarly and would probably

cost 1/4 the price!

What are your experiences with the Voigtlander (spelling?) lenses? I just bought a new m6-TTL (after years of shooting hassy, not to replace, but to complement) and the V 35mm 1.7 aspher. lense (mainly due to price and a few people who told me they actually prefer it to the leica 35mm lenses). The lense works well, but it will be some time before i can draw any absolute conclusions, much less any relative ones to leica lenses. Are there other sites i might look into for threads on this subject. thanks, tony.

some time ago, Kornelius Fleischer posted a response on this web site

suggesting that much better results could be achieved when shooting

mf if a tripod were chosen that reduces vibration, including shutter

vibration. in fact, he went as far as stating that all camera

tripods are inadequate since they fail to offer special vibration-

reducing features, as compared to video tripods.

 

i have been using a bogen tripod (don't know which one, but a fairly

hefty one) and a 3047 head for about six months now and remember

being initially amazed at the improvement over my hand held results.

My question now is whether I could achieve a similar (or any) further

improvement by upgrading to either carbon (known to absorb vibration)

or some kind of video based product with a fluid or air based

vibration reducing feature. I don't want to get carried away. On

the other hand, this is a serious pursuit, i've already got lots of

$$$ invested and Kornelius made quite a big deal of it and I have

found other posts that he has made to be extremely helpful.

 

Any specific suggestions on tripods, heads and where to purchase

would be greatly appreciated. thanks, tony.

so, in layman's terms, what is the advantage to using a 2 bath

process? does it give you better shadow detail without

overdeveloping the highlights, or am i totally going down the wrong

track? (probably the case).

Frank, thanks! I agree with you about tmax, subject of course to my learning how to load 220 correctly in the first place! what kind of reels do you use for 220? i am using hewes. i wonder if should try something else or just need more practice.

 

btw, do you use the hc-110 with tmax? i have only recently started using tmax, on the theory (not born out yet) that it should give better separation of low (dark) values, and thus print with better shadow detail than the tri-x. does that sound correct? and is it really good to use the hc-110 instead of the tmax (or some other) developer with the tmax film?

 

thanks!

Tony, thanks, my question then is what if I want to develop two rolls

of 220 at once given the same developer volume, what adjustment to

developer strength or development time might be required? In other

words, I have a 32 oz tank and the 220 reels are the same size as the

120 reels, and I want to be able to do 2 at once for purposes of

efficiency, I just don't know what adjustment to make. And also, do

I need to fix for longer?? thanks.

Bill, thanks for the links. I will probably have questions about what the curves mean.

 

Alec, I thought 28:1 gave me a B solution, so my math must be mixed up, which does not surprise me. I'm not even sure how I got to the 28:1 anymore, but someone else told me 31:1 was the right ration for B, so I think I will change and increase my time slightly.

 

But my question is this. What if I want to develope two rolls of 220 at once for purposes of time efficiency? Would I double the developer strength, to mabye 30:2? And would everything else be the same? what about the fix? Thanks.

Subject: HC-110

 

<p>

 

I am developing tri-x and tmax fills (not together ;), using HC-110. I have a couple of questions. First, although I ordinarily use 120, i do have a 220 back and recently have developed 2 rolls of 220 using the same process. Do I need to increae the potency of the developer solution (or development time) since there is more film surface area? If so, is there some way to figure out by how much other than trial and error.

Also, I have been mixing one part HC-110 to 28 parts water, and not using a stock solution. It seems to work fine for me, but I'm really just a beginner. Is there any reason that I may be overlooking that this is not a good idea? Seems to me like it would yield more control not less (assuming accurate measurement of 1 oz., which isn't too hard with the right tool) gien that i start each time with fresh HC-110 and not a stock that has been sitting around for some months.

 

<p>

 

Last, does anyone know where I can find the characteristic curves of most black and white films. I am looking for a single source, and maybe even one that compares the curves to one another and explains what the difference in result theoretically should be. In my experience, these curves don't come with the film and I couldn't find such a book at B&H.

So what about 220?? I have been using the Hewes stainless reels with

120 for a few months with no problems. recently shot a couple rolls

of 220, went out and bought the 220 hewes reels, and when i got home

and tried to use them i totally trashed both rolls of film. these

things are so much harder to load than the 120s its unbelievable. is

it just the hewes reels? any advice?

I am developing tri-x and tmax fills (not together ;), using HC-110.

I have a couple of questions. First, although I ordinarily use 120,

i do have a 220 back and recently have developed 2 rolls of 220 using

the same process. Do I need to increae the potency of the developer

solution (or development time) since there is more film surface

area? If so, is there some way to figure out by how much other than

trial and error.

 

Also, I have been mixing one part HC-110 to 28 parts water, and not

using a stock solution. It seems to work fine for me, but I'm really

just a beginner. Is there any reason that I may be overlooking that

this is not a good idea? Seems to me like it would yield more

control not less (assuming accurate measurement of 1 oz., which isn't

too hard with the right tool) gien that i start each time with fresh

HC-110 and not a stock that has been sitting around for some months.

 

Last, does anyone know where I can find the characteristic curves of

most black and white films. I am looking for a single source, and

maybe even one that compares the curves to one another and explains

what the difference in result theoretically should be. In my

experience, these curves don't come with the film and I couldn't find

such a book at B&H.

Excuse my ignorance, but can i use a Kiev fish eye lense with my hassy 503? If not, how much does a body and fish eye go for? I figure it must be much less than just a new zeiss fish eye alon, right? Where does one buy Kiev gear, new/used?

Thanks. I will keep a watchfull eye for flair, but it's something that i've never had much problem with so far. yes, i agree the 67's comparitively can be a pain to change, but on the other hand i have found lense caps that not only fit on the polarizer (which you can't do, i think with a B60 polarizer), but also are easier to remove on all filters when using shades, which i find to be a big plus.

I recently purchased a B60-67 step up ring for my hassy 503 camera,

along with a range of 67mm b+w filters and polarizers. The width of

the 67 mm filters is only very slightly less than the B60 filters,

and cost about 1/3 to 1/4 the price. The camera store insisted that

they are the same quality and would give me the same performance as

the b+w or hassy B60 filters. Is there any reason that this would

not be the case? (I am shooting just 80 and 120 mm lenses at this

point). If not, why would anyone waste there money buying the B60

filters?

Has anyone done any comparisons 903 v. Alpa biogen? I think the latter is less expensive, but is it as good? Also, has anyone had any experience with the fuji 6X9 camera with the permanently mounted wide angle lense. How does this compare to the other 2? Finally, is there any significance to the fact that the 903 hasn't undergone an upgrade to the "E" or "i" designation, as with most of the hassy line?

 

Thanks.

Has anyone done any comparisons 903 v. Apta biogen? I think the latter is less expensive, but is it as good? Also, has anyone had any experience with the fuji 6X9 camera with the permanently mounted wide angle lense. How does this compare to the other 2? Finally, is there any significance to the fact that the 903 hasn't undergone an upgrade to the "E" or "i" designation, as with most of the hassy line?

 

Thanks.