ron_west1

<p>Hi Sergei,<br>

You might try posting this question over on the Zenit camera users on the yahoo groups. They are a very knowledgable and friendly group with detailed info on anything regarding FSU cameras or lens.<br>

Hope this helps....Ron</p>

<p>Hi Andy,<br>

Yup, that's pretty much the same as I do. I was having water spot problems and so I tried twirling the loaded film outdoors and it works just great! I loosely wrap the plastic spiral with a paper towel held on with clothes pins, poke a hole in the bottom of the paper enclosed spiral, run a three foot line through the spiral and twirl it around a dozen times or so outdoors and presto-zippo most of the water is slung off and then I hang it in the shower for a couple of hours and its dry. Works for me too.......Ron</p>

Hi Lex,

Thanks for the speedy reply. I take it that you would recommend the 10% reduction in processing time for pretty much all film/developer combinations?

 

When you say "Tri-X and HP5+ exposed at EI 250-320 and given appropriately less development in ID-11 or D-76 also work well", doesn't exposing the ISO 400 film at 250 cause it to be way overexposed and then how would you know how much to reduce development to compensate?

I have occasionally read that recommended film development (Massive Dev Chart) times should be reduced by about

10% to insure that the negatives are thin enough for scanning on a film scanner (eg. CanoScan FS4000US). Does

anyone do this and if so, do they reduce times for all film/developer combinations?

Thanks for any input on this and sorry if this topic has been covered before but can't find it with a search.....Ron

Hi Mike,

I noticed your post this morning and had to laugh because I have the exact problem with an f1.4E series lens on my Miranda EE. I took a shot at dismantling the lens last night and it was a disaster.... The lens had fungus and the shutter was oily so I said what the heck and went at it. I would not recommend the procedure as I had very tiny screws, lens and parts scattered all over my work bench and I finally ended up with the shutter removed but all the blades fell off....oh my God! I placed a cloth over the whole mess and went in to watch the ball game (that too was not pretty as the Braves lost again).....Ron

 

PS. Check with KEH a very reliable outfit in Georgia who rates their stuff very honestly. They have some Miranda stuff from time to time and their bargain rated stuff is usually pretty nice. I just bought 3 Miranda bargain lens from them and am very satisfied (28mm, 50mm and 135mm).

Hi,

You might want to post this together with the scanned photo to Zenitcamera@yahoogroups.com very knowledgeable and helpful group of photographers......Ron

The Freestyle site is listing the 100 ft rolls in both ISO 100 and 400 as available.....Ron

Just to update the topic, I emailed Freestyle and they said the ISO 100 is expect to be in-house in mid-August......

Hi Justin,

I really like Arista II and develop it in DD-X for 7 minutes at 20C comes out beautiful. Going to try using Clayton F76+ which is supposed to be similar to DD-X to see if results are same as F76+ is cheaper. I understand that Arista II is AGFA's apx100. I just hope it will be available in the future.

Hi Scott,

I'm new to the Patterson tank too and was floundering around trying to find a good, repeatable method of agitation with the tank and finally got the best results by doing what the directions called for which was to twist the twirler 4 times after pouring in the developer and then slowly inverting the tank 4 times every minute afterwords and taping on the bottom to release any possible bubbles. For the remaining solutions (stop,fix,hypo) I simply invert the tank the recommended times per minute. Works great for me....Ron

Hi Folks,

I had the same problem with my FG and by moving shutter speed dial to M90 it released the mirror which I cleaned and evidently the FG needs good batteries to release the mirror from all other speeds. Camera is working just fine now so thanks to all who posted possible solutions to sticking mirror problems...Ron

Well, just in case someone else in the future has a similar problem and is searching for a resolution.....it turned out that when developing film using XTOL 1:1 I got my best results for scanning by reducing the recommended development times by 15%. Scans are much better going into Photoshop. Now to work some more on watermarks.....Ron

Thanks all for your suggestions. I think I will reduce development another 10% (total of -20%) together with less agitation and see if I can't get a thinner negative. I don't want to switch to XP2 until I can figure out what's going on. I should be able to get a decent scan from a couple of those films I've tried. Very frustrating. Apparently, others don't seem to be having a similar problem....Other than the comments here, I've only run across one comment which was made in passing about the necessity of reducing manufactures development times 20% when the intended use of the negatives is for film scanning but I can't find that posting again. Maybe that is apparent to everyone but not to this b&w newbie. I contacted Kodak about my difficulty but they acted surprised that anyone would or has had a problem with scanning their film (but after prodding suggested reduction in development times). Also contacted a major mail order film supplier regarding the problem and they could only suggest the standard development times as supplied by the manufacturer. In my Googling, someone commented that the most difficult film to scan is the old silver based b&w films. Wow! I'll have to agree with that as I have had few problems scanning color negatives or chromes but b&w is something else..... I guess I'll just keep puttering around trying to get that illusive "thin, flat negative"...whatever that is.

Thanks again, Ron

Hi All,

I've been trying to find a b&w 400 speed film which will scan without being so

dense and flat. My negatives are very dark so I have reduced the development

time (in XTOL 1+1) about 10% from the recommended development times and reduced

my agitation to two inversions per minute but still I am getting very dark

negatives which result in dark scans although better. I have to tweak quit a bit

in PS Elements to produce a usable print. I don't have the same problem with

100-200 ISO films. I have a Canon FS4000 and before that a Minolta Dual Scan and

use Vuescan for the scanning software (scanning in 16 bit grayscale and

outputting the same). Both scanners produce dark scans. I've never done any

print developing and am a newbie as far as film developing goes. Ilford's FP2

developed film seems to be a lot thinner than any of the b&w films I have tried

(ie, TriX, Neopan400, Fomapan400, Delta400 and HP5+), is that normal, is the

base just darker? Any suggestions that I could try would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks....Ron

Thanks Everyone,

Will get some Hypo Check, Hypo Clearing Agent, 4x250 bottles and a 1 litre accordian bottle and give it all whirl.....Thanks again, Ron

Hi,

I plan on using Ilford Rapid Fix deluted 1+4 to fix my 35mm film. Ilford states

that the deluted solution will only keep for 7 days and will process 24 rolls of

35mm/36exp film per litre. Reading through old posts it appears that most

everyone is reusing their fixer until it is exhausted but surely they are not

processing 10-24 rolls of film in 7 days? Will deluted fixer 1+4 keep longer

than 7 days in a partially filled bottle?

Please advise as I hope to reuse my deluted fixer for longer than 7 days!

Thanks, Ron

Thanks Don....Any Idea why 1+1 delution is excluded from developing lists?....Ron

Hi All,

 

I'm new to B&W and development and want to try using and developing Fomapan200

and developing it in XTOL deluted 1+1 but cannot find any times listed for XTOL

deluted only undeluted with Fomapan200 in 135 film? Is there a reason for this?

Is anyone using XTOL 1+1 and if so what development time would you recommend at

20C?

Thanks, Ron

 

PS. Sorry if this question has been asked before but I've been searching for the

answer for hours and can find nothing.