hoshisato

<p>@John: You are right, the LEDs are located in the back of the camera and it could very well be that you are hitting the nail on the head. <br /> My Nikon Coolscan V ED doesn't include the sprockets in the scan which doesn't help to recover the information. The image above was created with my DSLR and a macro lens :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for your help all.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I attached an image of the 'blobs' to help you understand what I'm talking about.</p><div></div>

<p>My Pentax MZ-S can imprint ISO speed selected, exposure, aperture, exposure mode, metering system, compensation value, bracketing information, etc. between the sprockets of the negative. Until now I have been shooting Ilford PAN-F, FP4+ and HP5+ films and invariably the data has shown up as overexposed blobs no matter what value I set for the imprint strength. I assumed that the LED embedded in the camera back was broken and was disappointed as I scan my negatives and intended to add the exposure information as EXIF data to the TIF files I create with help of ExifToolGUI.</p>

<p>Now that I have been using some ADOX CHS 25 film, the data show up perfectly fine. Since I shoot PAN-F at EI 50 and FP4+ at EI 80, I would have assumed that these films should have shown better legible information if the problem was the LED overexposing but in fact the 'blob' looks the same on PAN-F as on HP5+ shot at EI 400.<br /> One thing that I could think of was that the ADOX film capsules contained no DX encoding information and that this threw off the camera. Therefore I selected the imprint strength to ignore the DX encoding and set the lowest strength. No luck.<br /> Could it be that Ilford has optimized their manufacturing process and that the space between the sprockets cannot be used? Has anybody of you been successful in using the information between the sprockets using an Ilford film with the MZ-S or other cameras?</p>

<p>Thanks Chris, I'll use that as starting point and see where that takes me.</p>

<p>The Massive Dev Chart has no entry for this combination but I found two suggestions in this forum that unfortunately differ slightly: One person suggested 9 minutes at 20C and another 12 minutes at the same temperature. What would your suggestion be for this combination?<br>

I intend to scan the film on my Nikon Coolscan and won't be using an enlarger, if that makes any difference for your recommendation.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>@alwin: I'm Dutch indeed, but living in Greater London where it wouldn't surprise me if we have similar problems with the tap water as the water mains keep bursting in the streets around me (nothing really unusual here).</p>

<p>@everybody: Thanks for all your suggestions: I'll inspect the negatives and try rewashing it to see if it improves the situation. I'll also make a point of making sure everything is dust free when I develop the next film and try to cut the level of dust in the bathroom where I dry the film. Didn't I read somewhere that running a hot shower for a bit will cut the dust in the air considerably?</p>

<p>All the chemicals I used were fresh. However, I took quite a bit of time getting the film on the spiral in the change bag, if it is dust, this comes to mind as a possible source. Would pre-soaking help to get rid of dust contamination before starting the actual development process?</p>

<p>@Anthony: Indeed, I'm using a Nikon Coolscan V ED and it tends to bring out all irregularities :-)</p>

<p>I developed my first film in 26 years and ran into some problems. Some of the negatives have tiny white spots in the darker areas. Here are the details:<br>

<br /> <em>Film</em> : ADOX CHS 25 @ 25 ISO<em><br /> Developer</em> : Rodinal 1+50, 8mins, 20C<br /> <em>Fixer</em> : Ilford Rapid Fixer 1+4 for 4 minutes<br>

<br /> I agitated constantly for the first minute by inverting the tank, and then 3 inversions every minute for about 10 seconds.<br /> Instead of stop I filled the tank with water, shook it and emptied it, and repeated that once more.<br /> I used de-ionized water to mix the chemicals and tap water to wash while using a filter, except for the last wash were I filled the tank again with some de-ionized water.<br>

<br /> Are these the dreaded pinholes? Where did I most likely mess up?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, you have all put my mind at ease and I now might even consider using 1+100 one day in that tank.</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff!</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> I have an old Paterson System 4 tank that only takes 290ml developer. I have the feeling that most people use the newer tanks that use 500ml developer for a single 35mm 36 exposure film. My question is, can I use the smaller tank with Rodinal 1+50? What I mean is, isn't there a larger chance that the developer exhausts if I take into account that the one part of Rodinal in my tank is just a little over half of the 500ml tanks?<br>

Thanks.<br>

<p>Thanks, you guys have been brilliant!</p>

<p>Thanks guys!</p>

<p>Hi, I will be in Las Vegas next week for a trade show and will of course be spending a lot of time with my camera on the Strip, but I will have one or two days to spend and I'm thinking of renting a car and finding some nice locations in the area. Do you have have any suggestions for locations one or two hours outside of Las Vegas? Any help is much appreciated.</p>

Note that the PDF files have all been moved on the Ilford webpages. The FP4+ PDF can now be found here: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

Thanks Asim, I have a film in the camera at the moment but the moment I have the chance I'll clean the area you mentioned and change the batteries in the back for good measure. The rest of the camera is working fine, but I would like to use this "EXIF-like" information.

The MZ-S records the exposure mode, metering method, shutter speed, aperture and

exposure compensation on the negative outside the actual photo area, but on mine

the result is always a couple of overexposed smudges while I use ISO 125 or 400

films and I have played with the programmable settings on different films to

play with the intensity but the results are the same.

Do you have an idea of what the problem could be?

I used the possibility to change the exposure in RAW files to generate HDR files that pretty much kept foreground intact without blowing out the sky.

Thanks for all the feed back! I decided to spend a little more and have bought an MZ-S as I figured that Pentax won't release a new high-end 35mm SLR camera any time soon :-) Downloaded the manual and shot my first film with it this week and it turns out to be rather easy to use and I love the extra features already.

I just discovered the MZ-S is rather rare and still rather expensive. I found a very affordable MZ-5N and the controls look like the spitting image of my MZ-3. How does it compare to the MZ-3?

Thanks for all the feedback. At the moment I'm leaning towards an MZ-S if I can find one as I believe it was the top model in the MZ-series and I wanted to buy it before. Does this make sense?

I own a Pentax MZ-3 that I use for b/w and now that 2nd hand Pentax 35mm cameras

are getting cheap I was wondering if this isn't the time to buy a backup camera.

However, there are so many different bodies around: MZ-M, MZ-8, MZ-6, MZ-60,

etc. and it is difficult to find out any old comparisons between the different

versions. Which body would you recommend?

Since the Pentax ME was my first camera I still use Aperture Priority (Av) mode with all the cameras I have access to; including my Pentax *ist DS DSLR and my wife's Pentax K100D without having any of the problems you reported. I also use spot metering from time to time and have encountered the situation mentioned by Alexander, but that is only natural.

How does the camera behave with the same tests under natural light?

Thanks everybody; I have tried blowing but evidently the problems remains which triggered this question. I would also hesitate before using a wet cleaner but I noticed lots of products on the market. I did a quick Google for an O-ICK stick but couldn't find any references to it; could somebody point me some more details?

From time to time I notice a smudge on the photos taken with my Pentax *ist DS

(see <a href="http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2168832140037002407mpGmVp"

target="_blank">here</a>) and I was wondering what it was. Until now it has been

easy to remove them with Photoshop, but I prefer to fix the problem. The weird

thing is that it is not always there but it always appears at the same location.

It seems to be independent of the lens I use. Maybe it is related to the f-stop

I'm using. My conclusion was that it is some dirt on the sensor but shouldn't it

appear in all photos in that case?