christer_almqvist2

Fixed first and then developed?

Are frame numbers visible? If not, then it was the above.

There is such a book written by the managing director of MACO in Hamburg. Somebody reading this will know his name, I

have forgotten it. The drawback of the book is that the print quality is so low that the pictures used to show the effect of

different film/developer combinations, and they are usually not that major, are not convincing. The book was published perhaps five years

ago.

You can of course google for MACO to get their address, and then contact them directly.

Drew,

you have got the basics absolutely right!

One film, one developer and one camera.

And you want to have fun!

Have a nice day,

Chris

No, but I have tried Kodak's Imagelink. If you liked TP, you will love Imagelink. Kodak only sells in 30 meter reels, but

independent small companies sell in the common 35 mm "Leica" cassettes. Google for SPUR + developer.

I used T-max developer with Delta 400 some years ago and was very satisfied with the results. I stopped using it because it

was (is) so darn expensive, at least in Germany.

I think you havee to be more specific. Kodak has a wide range of recommended exposure indexes with corresponding

development times, generally ranging from pull 2 to push 3!

Anyway, to obtain (what YOU think is the) best range of tones you need to do your own testing to establish your optimum

combination of exposure index and development time.

TMY-2 does not change violently when you change from one developer to another. I recently tested it in Xtol 1+1, Rodinal

1+25 and SD 2525. Looking at 35 mm 9,5 x 12 inches prints from a normal viewing distance it is more a matter of taste than

a matter of grain size.

I concurr with Randall " 'fine grained' films developed in acutance developers tend to produce results that are far more

pleasing (to my eye) than using a less fine grained film with a solvent developer".

Chris

He also does seminars, they are usually about 5000 dollars for a short week, plus hotel etc. I think the last ones were in

Paris. Google !

You can unscrew the eyepiece also if you do not have a diopter correction lens. My eyepiece sometimes comes off when I

unscrew the magnifier. Amazing how dirty the inside can get.

Same cleaning procedure as Richards describes, or use diluted washing up liquid. And while you are at it, give the windows

on the "outlook side" a good cleaning too.

Gonzalo wrote:" I find it easier to street shoot in grey days, because metering is simplified and you can focus on the

composition."

Perhaps it is easier, but one decisive element of a good picture is the light. Good light. Correctly put to effect.

Make an effort Gonzalo! Bracket to make sure.

Look here (bottom of the page)

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f32/f32b.jhtml#1147625

and you will have the development times for TMX exposed at e.i. 200, 400 and 800.

The link contains essentially the same information as the one listed by Chuck, but is more T-Max film specific.

Generally I find Kodak's times to be on the low side by about 10-15 percent, but it all depends on your thermometer, your

agitation, your enlarger light source and - - - your personal taste.

I beg to disagree completely with people saying:

- send to a lab (does a few minutes' longer development make it more difficult to develop oneself?)

- TMX does not like being pushed (well then no film likes it, but I like it)

Larry,

that is a superb picture!

How was it lit?

What size negative?

for those of you who are not fully fluent in japanese, here is the english version of alex's link

http://www.cosina.co.jp/seihin/voigt/english/wide-e.html

Of course Frank is right.

Paulo: if you are going to start again from scratch, why don't you take advantage of the situation and go for the "new" films

like the new T-max 800 a.k.a. TMY-2 right away? Developers as Frank suggested.

Grain is much finer, sharpness is better, tonality is superb - and these films are not difficult to develop if you have got a

thermometer and a digital kitchen timer.

Ronald's answer is exhaustive and there is not much more to say except to confirm it.

Ian wrote: "And I was under the impression that it was the individual lens and cam that were calibrated together." This is true

too, but one should add that the calibration can be done by the user.

I have used three different 40 mm lenses on my V35 and calibrating has been an easy and quick (10 mins) job. A test

negative, or just any negative with a scratch made by a knife, will facilitate the job. So will a large enlarging glass, no need

for expensive grain focusers. Just remember to calibrate with the lens wide open because that obviously reduces the depth

of field and makes the calibration more exact, and also make the image brighter.

If you calibrate at maximum enlargements, the lower factor enlargements should be fine too. If not, raise the

column 10mm and recalibrate at 16x and see what the result is. If worse, then lower the column 10 mm and see what

happens and act accordingly.

I have gone through three different easel, the present being a Pelling and Cross. All had different thicknesses. Obviously it is

no problem to adjust for this.

If you push the film one stop, then you will (perhaps) have .1 above FB+F in Zone 2.

In certain circumstances it is a low price to pay for being able to use a higher exposure index.

i had two rolls and threw them away.

now on tmx and tmy-2 only

Steve,

nice shots! Obviously you are also a first class camera lens repairman. Congrats.

Funny, here in Germany Tmax is much cheaper than Delta, at least with regard to 35mm.

I switched from Delta to Tmax a few years ago when there was a problem with supplies from Ilford, and after all that testing

to find the optimum e.i./development time combination for Tmax I did not switch back.

Delta looks sharper but has more grain than Tmax, at least in Xtol 1+1. But grain should not be a problem if you shoot 5x7

inches

Baltimore 2005, that's a cool picture. A work of art.

Chris

Chris,

I have bought a handful of new Leica M lenses and also half a dozen of used ones. I

bought the new ones when I was new to Leica ten years ago, but all recent purchases

have been used ones. The used ones have been recent and little used lenses. Apart

from the price (between one-third and half of the new price), I have seen little difference

between new and used lenses. No, that is not true; I have seen no difference at all.

I have the Summicron ASPH and before that I had the latest non-ASPH version. The

advantage of the non-ASPH is the small size; the disadvantages are that prices are

high considering the age of these lenses, and that negatives are less than sharp in the

corners when the lens is used fully open - and low light situations is where you plan to

use your lens.

The ASPH is of course very sharp, and that is a reason for some people to avoid it.

The last pre-ASPH version is famous for its rendering of out-of-focus areas. In my

opinion, it is very easy to see the difference between the two lenses in a 9,5x12 inch

print (my only print size). Which is "better" is a matter of taste.

Please post your results with Rodinal.

I found the old TMY developed in Rodinal to have muddy grain; quite the opposite to

TMX in Rodinal which I find very good.

I have developed TMY-2 in Xtol 1+1 and also in SPUR SD 2525. That is a German two

component developer. I found the results with 2525 much better than with Xtol,

particularly with regard to tonality, sharpness and grain. (Did I forget something?)

Sorry, yes, it does not answer your question ;-)