john_silvey

<p>Craig: 35mm Tri-X 400 shot May 2007. It's been sitting in the freezer in a Ziplock bag since August of 2007.<br>

Lex: I'd never even thought about base fog in older film! I've always been pretty careful and have developed negatives quickly, usually within a month to a maximum of two months. I've never used HC-110 -- always D-76 with Tri-X or for TMAX, TMAX developer. <br>

Any thoughts on Perceptol?</p>

<p>I have a roll of Tri-X that I've kept around for many years, unsure of which developer to use. I was in the unfortunate situation of capturing an image from too far away, yet this is a high school graduation picture and I would like to be able to enlarge it to make a useable print.<br>

This roll of Tri-X 400 was shot in great light and was exposed properly. I am looking to reduce grain and enhance both sharpness and acuity. Does anyone have a recommended developer? Kodak is vague on X-Tol; I also was thinking about Acufine and Diaphine. Any recommendations would be greatly appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>

Daniel,

That picture has a rather surreal effect. I think I will play around with a couple of expired color rolls next time I stop into the camera store. What were your development/stop/fix times? What chemistry did you use?

Radu,

I have a clarification issue I'd like to pose: what f stop are you using on your Schneider lens in the darkroom.?

Also, what is the serial number of your lens? Mine is in the 3xx's, it was manufactured between '81 and '84, and it performs stellar from F4 - 8. At f 2.8 and lower, there is apparent softness on the edges, but it is really not that critical unless I was photographing a newspaper on a brick wall... otherwise it is hardly noticeable.

This lens receives rave reviews by those who spend countless hours testing lenses, so I'm curious as to why you are obtaining the results you are. Hopefully, in figuring out your problem you will provide us all with some valuable insight.

I'm stunned.

So many of you have provided valuable insight (and opinions) as to which film I should use. I think I should clarify by stating that I have two very good labs available to me here in Austin, TX. Moreover, my equipment is limited to a Nikon N90s, and Nikon F3. I cannot afford to purchase what I'd like in a film scanner, nor can I afford the digital camera I desire. In the meantime, I use film, and need to have it printed. Of course, C-41 processing is cheaper, but I can still obtain prints from E-6 for a reasonable price.

What I'd like is those saturated colors. I will try Reala, and also EktachromeVS. I've seen some phenominal shots done with Fuji Velvia, and I'd like to use it... but it may not be the film choice for me.

I have a question regarding film choice. For certain applications,

I want a vivid, saturated color. I do not develop color film of any

process nor do I print color film, I just don't have the adequate

materials. I suppose I could scan it, but alas, I have no film

scanner. So what should I do to get those vivid, saturated colors.

It seems as if Fuji Velvia is the way to go. But there is little to

no latitude with slide film, so is there a color negative film that

anyone could suggest? Or should I just bracket Velvia, and

hopefully I'll obtain that shot? And what about Kodachrome?

Rachael,

I think -- and what has been stated in several reply posts -- is that doing what you think is best for you is something that you should do. I recently purchased a Nikon F3 non-HP for the fact that I felt as if I needed to become a better photographer by understanding aspects of metering and film emulsions. To me, those who are superb digital shooters are those who have shot and perfected film years ago.

What really irks me is that everyone esentially jumped on the digital bandwagon which seemed to start in 1997, and it appears that only in recent years has digital really been where it should be, yet people wanted the technology for it's promise and because it was "nifty" and "new". The chief R&D "scientist" of Carl Zeiss has stated essentially the same thing this year in response to why Zeiss made the decision to make Nikon F-mount manual focus lenses.

Moreover, I am a former film student who does production work in the industry and few in the "professional" film industry use digital for anything other than test shooting. They are still burning thousands of feet of 35mm motion picture film and spending hundreds of thousands for development. Major studios do not find it a viable option at the time, regardless of the low cost factor. Moreover, they view it as an extreme loss of quality.

I realise that I am ranting here, and perhaps it is in response to the frustrations I have and the ridicule I receive when I pull out a 23 year old 35mm SLR and begin to shoot. With all that said, I would shoot digital if I could afford the quality camera that I desire. I will never stop shooting film, however, until it becomes too cost-prohibitive.

How about a Nikon FM3A? Fully manual camera, proven meter, and if you opt for batteries, automatic shutter speed. The shutter speed range and flash sync are superb. You can also pick up Nikon AIS lenses in prime condition for next-to-nothing. The only thing I dislike is the lack of 100% viewfinder coverage.