photojim

Superia 100 is a good film. I shoot it a lot in both 35mm and 120.

 

Reala is also nice. Same speed.

 

As for 160 film, colour negative film will easily take a 2/3 stop overexposure and not miss a beat. You can shoot 160 negative film at 100 just fine, although shooting it at 160 instead of 100 is not difficult. :)

Todd has it right. It is highly probable that the battery is causing your problems.

Don't overlook the Bronica systems too. The ETRS (6x4.5) and SQ (6x6) systems are very inexpensive. I recently chose a Bronica SQ series because I thought it provided the best bang for the buck.

If you can't afford a truly wide lens to shoot with digital, why not consider shooting film?

 

The Nikon AI-S or AI 35/1.4 is not cheap but is not horrible, and might do the trick just fine. The 50 is not wide on film but will be a lot wider than it is on DX digital.

Nikon USA should repair it.

Remember when you do your comparison that scanning creates artifacts in black and white film, because of the nature of the emulsion. The way to compare d* to black and white is to make prints.

All the time. I don't do digital. Not yet anyway.

 

Last roll shot: a roll of Portra 800 in my Nikon F4s.

 

I shot some 120 film in my Bronica too but that's not a Nikon.

The FE isn't such a bad camera. I have a pair of them, one chrome and one black. Neither eats batteries.

 

The downside of the E screen is that it has no focusing aids. I have one in my FM2n, but I have mixed emotions about it. On AF Nikon bodies, of course, this isn't an issue.

The multireel tanks are slightly more difficult to use (especially the very largest tank, which takes 8 35mm reels - I've never filled it up with 120 reels so I can't tell you its 120 capacity). It weighs quite a bit when filled and takes longer to fill and drain. However, I've had good luck with it.

 

Because I tend to process film in batches, I have four different Paterson tanks of different sizes (2-, 3-, 5- and 8-roll tanks, 35mm-wise). There is also a 1-roll 35mm tank that is of questionable utility.

Nothing wrong with film. If you prefer the larger viewfinders and the greater ease of doing wide-angle photography, shoot more film. Film cameras are a bargain these days, and the cost of film is not that horrific.

The 28 is a good focal length. Whether it is a good choice for you depends on the type of photography that you do. (I'm speaking from a film perspective. I don't do digital.)

 

The 28/2.8D is much better optically, but at the right price, the 28/2.8 non-D is not a horrible lens. It will do the job, particularly when stopped down.

Rodinal lasts for years and years if it's stored well (tightly-closed bottle in a cool place).

 

I'm not sure how heat affects it.

 

My instinct is that it's fine, but you should run a test on a non-critical roll before you commit anything important to it.

John, I can't equivocally remember, but my best guess would be The Film Development Cookbook.

It seems very clear that thick-emulsion films did respond more, but all the evidence I've seen indicates that "more" was merely noticeable and not quantumly more.

I've never used a thick-emulsion film. To my knowledge, the last one on the market was Kodak Super-XX which was discontinued many years ago.

 

Different developers unquestionably have different effects on different films. I have preferred developers for different films for this very reason.

 

You'll have to run your own tests to see for yourself, but what thick-emulsion films could do is quite irrelevant to me (unless someone starts manufacturing one, which seems unlikely). I only know that developer choice matters on modern films.

You've checked the batteries?

 

Are the contacts clean on the lenses and bodies?

 

Those are the first things to check.

 

If you don't have battery power going to the shutters, they will fire at 1/500 sec.

This perhaps isn't what you want to hear...

 

...but perhaps you want to shoot a larger format.

 

Getting fine but crisp grain is easy with 4x5 (or even 120 to some degree) by shooting an ISO 400 film and using a developer like Rodinal.

 

You will also get that fine gradation that you seem to value so much (and I agree that it is desirable).

Just because you don't want to hear it doesn't mean it's not true. I don't want to hear that it's winter, yet it is.

 

Since Technidol is a low-contrast developer, you need to maximize contrast. This means you will want to underexpose the crap out of your Pan-F to maximize contrast. (Please note that this means you will lose shadow detail.)

 

Who knows? You might get some interesting effect this way, but it certainly won't be pictorial contrast if that is what you are seeking.

Foma is good film. The Foma 100 is grainy for its speed (not a huge issue with 4x5 or 5x7 obviously) but has nice tonality and it takes well to many different developers.

 

Efke is a nice film as well but is fussier. It's a good film to play with but will take a bit of work to really master.

 

I agree to start with Foma. However, do try Efke later if you have the inclination.

The best way to replicate the film look is to use film.

 

Digital is its own thing. It has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Even at places like KEH this stuff is cheap. I just spent about $900 including shipping on an SQ-A, 3 EX-rated lenses (50/3.5, 80/2.8 and 150/3.5), 3 film backs and a prism. I've never seen this stuff cheaper, which is precisely why I finally gave in and bought a system.

 

If you're not using the equipment and don't intend to use it again, it has no value to you at all, so even getting a small sum for it is probably a good idea.

 

A lot of digital shooters think their film gear is still worth a lot of money and then discover that a lot of other digital shooters think the same. There is a glut of film gear on the market. This is why the $1700 Nikon F5 can be had for $400 in cherry condition now.

I just bought a Bronica SQ-A with 50/3.5 PS, 80/2.8 S, and 150/3.5 S lenses along with 2 SQ and 1 SQ-i 120 backs and a prism finder. I blame my Autocord for making me do it...

Keep that metal film canister. Very cool. :)

Christopher is right on the money. If you don't mind spending a little money to get some bulk ingredients and an accurate scale (good to a tenth of a gram), you can mix up almost any reasonable size of batch of chemical that you like. I mix my D-76 a litre or two at a time, and I get the cost savings of buying in quantity (I buy decently-sized batches of raw ingredients). The only down side is that the effort to mix a small batch is about the same as mixing a large batch, which is often a good trade.

I definitely agree to shoot native 126 film. The hassle factor of spooling your own will greatly exceed the convenience of being able to use local processing. Besides, mailing away your film and getting the images back in a couple of weeks is kind of fun. :) (Back in the day of this camera, there wasn't any one-hour processing.)

 

I do think you should try it though. Why not? I shot a roll of 120 in a folding 6x9 cm camera from the 1930s a few weeks ago, and I had a blast.