christer_almqvist2

<p>Robert said: "Very high dilutions Rodinal are not working anymore over 30:00 minutes developing time.".<br>

<br>

I beg to disagree. I tested different development times for stand development using 5ml Rodinal per film (HP5+) with a dilution of 1+100. Each test included making ten shots of a grey card with zones from 1 to 10 and measuring the densities with a densiometer. Initial tests were with developing times of one and two hours. There were substantial differences between the high zone densities for these developing times, and none was what I wanted. A subsequent test showed 75 minutes to be about right, with the high zone densities being more or less in the middle of the two previous tests. </p>

<p>BTW, the ONLY advantage of stand development is that you need not invert the tank so many times.</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>and thanks for sharing. I have gone thru your test cycle too, but it was a good year ago that I tested HRX-2. HRX-3 should have the same pictorial qualities as v.2 but with improved shelf life.</p>

<p>Spur has another developer called SD 2525 which I very much prefer over HRX. I found the SD 2525 prints to have much more sparkle than the HRX prints (and many others for that matter). SD 2525 is also a liquid developer, but comes in two parts to prolong its life; dilution for most films is 1+12 (or 0,5 + 0,5 + 12 to make it absolutely clear). Development time is 8 mins which gives enough control without being too long.</p>

<p>I use Delta 100, TMX and TMY and expose at an e.i. higher than box speed when developing in SD 2525. I also use Xtol when I push TMY to 800 or 1600. The only other developer I use is CG 512 but then the real speed is only half box speed and the temperature must be 24° which is a bit of a hassle.</p>

<p>The ultimate non slip solution, I have used it for years.</p><div></div>

<p>I find that the curves showing the absolute densities are difficult to read. My solution is to establish my own standard densities for each zone and graphically show only the differences from these standard values. The scale I use is in f-stops, which makes the graphs easy to interpret and easy to read because of the scale used.</p>

<p>I enter the values using a normal spread sheet application (called RagTime, but that is not important) and use a bar chart to show the result. I find that better than a curve, as I have only 9 distinct measurements. Why use line smoothing? Isn't that cheating, telling you something that is just assumed?</p>

<p>There is no reason why Excel should not be suitable for your needs. Perhaps you need to reassess and simplify your requirements.</p>

<p>Write me ( almqvist ett gmx.net ) if you want me to email you a sample printout of my chart.</p>

<p>The smallest flash that you can get will work; all it has to do is to give off enough light to set off your big flashes. On camera, or off camera with a sync cable, does not matter. Minox have very small flashlights, but they do not fit the M7 unless you cut off one of the corners, which I have done. Used small flashes are about 10 Euros.</p>

<p>I use a computerized flash, just in case I want to use it on its own, but that has never happened. To set off other strobes I use a white card in front of the flash on the camera turned 45 degrees upwards to avoid it affecting the picture directly. I then use the manual flash setting and set this to the lowest possible output.</p>

<p>Shooting speed should be 1/50 or longer, 1/50 being the shortest speed that the whole film window is open at the same time. Use of shorter speeds will give you negatives that are only partly exposed by the flash.</p>

<p>I paid 80 euros for mine (10/10 condition) two weeks ago, it is the non-zoom version which has a better reputation than the zoom with regard to lens quality and reliability.</p>

<p>I have a CM without zoom and when I did some research on it, I came across several people writing about a dreaded software problem with the zoom version which made the camera practically worthless as repairs are too expensive. I can only suggest that you google and search archives.</p>

To answer one of your questions nobody dealt with: if one 500 w lamp gives you a meter reading of say f/2 at

1/30th second, then one additional 500w lamp placed next to it will give you a meter reading of f/2 at 1/60th.

(Double light equals one stop.) If you now add a third 500 w lamp you do not double the light, you increase it by

50% and that is half a stop.

 

Why do you want to use reflected or diffused light for sultry pictures? Use one direct and one reflected light.

The direct one will add drama and the reflected one will make sure distant parts of the room are not totally

black in relation to your main subject.

 

I, and Helmuth Newton too for that matter; have found the old nitraphot photolights (the one with a built in

reflector that screws into normal lamp sockets) are excellent. The disadvantage is that they get very hot and

have a limited life span but the advantage is that they are cheap and give off a lot of light. A 500 w nitraphot

give the same amount of light as a 500 w halogen lamp. At last in the middle of the lit area, border areas will

differ dependig on reflector layout.

 

I have just ordered a 50-pack of Delta 100, but I have only good things to say about Kodax TMax film. If you

don't like the look of prints from Kodak film, then the culprit is not Kodak but the printer. ;-)

 

BTW the new TMX can be pushed to 1600 in Xtol and the result will be to your taste. Here is a sample. No I did

not mange that<div></div>

This morning I needed a developer for limited push developing, but the three developers I have ready to use are

not suited for pushing. With three developers already available I did not want to mix 5 liters of Xtol so I took

a look at the two bottles of Xtol from last year that I had kept to check its keeping properties.

 

I kept the Xtol in two brown glass bottles, one filled to the top and tightly closed, the other only one third

full, but tightly closed. Room temperature, which means that it was probably over 25 degrees centigrade during

the summer

 

Poured into glass beakers, the Xtol from the full bottle looked like clear water, but had some crystals swimming

around. The Xtol from the partly filled bottle had a distinctive color which can best be described as "medium pee".

 

I developed two small pieces of TMY-2 for about ten minutes in undiluted eveloper, then stop bath and then fixed

as I always do, 4 minutes in old fixer followed by 4 minutes in new fixer. Rinsed and dried as usual.

 

One strip came out greyish looing and the other one absolutely black.

 

Using my RH Analyser I then measured the densities (above fog and film base). The film strip developed in yellow

Xtol had an denisty of .8 while the strip developed in the clear Xtol was so dense it was outside the range of

the Analyser.

 

We have all heard or read about the Xtol sudden death syndrom, meaning that the developer is completely inactive

but that there is no obvious sign that this is the case. Films are said to come out completely blank. Completely

blank! Huh.

 

Well, I just do not believe that.

Carl:

 

Yes!

 

Chris.

I have filled the half-empty bottle with distilled water as per instructions (be careful to mark the bottle accordingly!) and used the "pre&part" diluted solution several weeks later with good result.

 

BTW, I found Imagelink/Imagespeed preferable to your other choice because it is less likely to show the effect of uneven development. This is generally only a probblem if you have very large light and even surfaces (including the sky if there are no clouds) in your picture. Interiors with white walls are a high risk area too.

 

For 10x12 inch enlargements from 35mm you do not really need these film, TMX is a more practicable solution.

Eight weeks?

 

Where are you sending your lens ?

 

I sent mine to Solms in the middle of their holiday season and it was there less than a week.

 

The current Summicron is about 600 Euros in the non-6-bit NOS version

It think it would be appropriate for WRS to declare his connection with MACO when pushing that company.

 

A google search shows the following

 

*Wolf Rainer Schmalfuss*

Technical Adviser

*MACO PHOTO PRODUCTS*

Hans O. Mahn & Co. KG

Brookstieg 4

22145 Hamburg-Stapelfeld/Germany

Fone: +49 (0) 40 23 70 08-88

Fax: +49 (0) 40 23 70 08-488_*

*_E-mail: _*photo@xxxxxxxx*_

Web: _*http://www.mahn.net*_

_*http://www.rolleifilm.de*_

_*http://www.macodirect.de*_

Handelregister Luebeck HRA 2205 RE

USt.-ID-No. DE1188123098

Komplementaerin: MAHN Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH

Geschäftsfuehrer: Thomas Mahn

Handelregister Luebeck HRB 7794 HL

Jim,

 

your understanding that "Adox doesn't make anything" is wrong.

 

The name ADOX was/is a registered trademark and thus protected. It has a history of ownership changes. The

penultimate owner did not renew the registration when it run out a couple of years ago and anybody who wanted could

register the name again on a first come first served basis. The owner of Photoimpex in Berlin (google!) had realized this and re-

registered it. If he did so in his own name or via a holding, that I do not know, but the trade mark office records are

official and not secret.

 

Photoimpex (or subsidiary or a holding or whatever) also bought some of the old Agfa manufacturing equipment. For

example they bought the machines used by Agfa to produce test run quantities of photographic paper, the market

obviously being non-existent for large production run equipment. They have installed this equipment near Berlin and are

producing paper which they sell under the ADOX name. Staff from the old Agfa factory are deeply involved in the production, but I do not

knowl if they are employees or consultants.

 

 

I have just bought the ADOX paper, but I have so far only made a few test strips for calibration purposes. I am very pleased with the very

white white and the very deep black.

John-Paul,

 

thank you for the additional information which was very helpful. I thought that I had made some error when I arrived at an EI

of about 6 for Imagelink in Xtol and Rodinal. As Jeff Adler also found the EI to be about 6, then it must be that Imagelink

reacts differently to those two developers than did TP for which I got four times the speed or EI 25.

Thank you for the replies: That picture is GOOD.

 

Unfortunately the replies do not help me.

 

I have developed many TPs in Rodinal and Xtol in line with what was suggested above, and I got very good results.

 

When I tried to develop Imagelink in Rodinal and Xtol in the same way as I had done with TP the results were very

disappointing. It seems that the speed was something like EI 6 (six) so I did not pursue the matter further.

 

Has somebody personal experience of Imagelink usable film speed and Rodinal or Xtol development times?

I have used quite a lot of Kodak Imagespeed which I have developed in Spur Imagespeed with good results.

Unfortunately I have left the developer in my vacation home and will be unable to get at it for some time. I need to do some shooting with

Imagelink tomorrow and the film speed is of no importance: I have Rodinal and Xtol available (also SPUR 2525) and would like to know

what exposure index to use with these developers, and also the development times. Please state what dilution you have used and your

agitation method.

 

Thanks in advance.

Daniel,

 

thank you for your reply; it was very interesting.

 

I know nobody who has his b+w films developed by a commercial lab, and afaik they only scan color. I am in Europe and

things may be different here. I will see if I can get the same service here. Perhaps it is available, I just did not ask!

 

Also interesting that you only use one lens. (My favourite one.)

 

Thanks again,

Chris

Lex is correct. The current version is Kodak Professional T-Max 100 Film. The Cat # is 853 2848

 

Mine is:

 

Made in the U.S.A.

 

Finished in Mexico

 

 

Importado por Kodak Brasileira Com e Ind.

 

Sold in Germany, and

 

Used by the undersigned, a Swedish national, in France.

 

Chris

Daniel,

 

here are my questions re b+w:

 

what film? which developer?

 

pushed; how much?

 

scans from print or negatives?

 

most used focal length; second?

 

thanks, chris

Did enjoy!

 

Very much.

 

Thank you!

 

Have bookmarked.

 

(Could you please provide some general technical details on the b+w pictures?)

 

Chris

If there will be adequate service and spare parts, then prices will go up.

Maco sells film which is made by other companies under their own or associated labels. It, or a sister/daughter company, manufactures

chemicals. AFAIK

I have used both Rodinal 1+100 and Xtol 1+3 with very good results. Times are in the Cookbook, or I can look up my times

for you when I get back home in three weeks' time. I think Xtol was 12 mins, and probably Rodinal too.

 

I stopped using TP three yeas ago. TMX is fine grained enough for me.

Losing the lens cap is not so bad.

 

Really bad is dropping the lens because you picked it up by the back lens cap.

Happend to me once. Luckily enough I was sitting in the lens landed safely on my trousers.

 

Fix it tightly!