sg_adams

Run some tests for yourself. I did some the other day with Acros at ISO 64, and though I was slightly overdeveloped still, wow. I can't see any grain in my 4800 dpi scans, i get to pixels and or lens limitations before I see grain.

But here again, the finest film will be the one that you decide works best for you. And certainly film format is relative to grain. A 35mm image is only a thumbnail. On the other hand, a contact print from a 4x5 of a grainy film like HP5 can be astounding, and take a lot of enlargement before grain effects image quality or lens limitations. It's all so very subjective.

I tried a couple 120 rolls of 25 and 100 in D76 1:1 and decided it is a low quality product not worth risking unrepeatable images. The film appears to have developed properly and rendered good image quality, that is if one considers having unussual streaks running through the film useable. The roll of 35mm I shot in a vintage camera turned out very well. I read a lot of posts about this film here and there, and there have been a few comments on problems including the nasty film curl. I think the sheet film users are having the best results. I intend to try some, but not in the field.

Ooops, I wrote E-6 abovewhen I meant C-41. Sorry.

If you plan to get into B&W photography it may be better to learn to develop and control the process one's self. The first time I developed my own film it turned out better than the stuff I was sending out to a supposed high end lab. Wherever you send it, you wont know what developers or have any control over the process. My film had been coming back inundated with dust, thouroughly scratched from wiping, and very hard to make prints from. It might come back nice, or not so nice. Perhaps the best route for sending out B&W is to go with chromogenic films that can be developed at any place that does standard E-6 color processing, even one hour labs. Another benifit I hear is that the stuff scans well.

Anyway, good luck...

<div></div>

Got too much info yet?

Bob's suggestion above is about what I came up with in this last weekends test rolls for Ilford's FP4. Someone said don't use Fuji Acros? Here's my take on the three popular modern flat grain emulsion films. Tmax 100 requires diligent testing and accurate developing to achieve good results, and is too narrow of latitude, esspecially for those without perfectionist tendencies in the exposure developing process. Delta 100 provides more user friendly latitude than Tmax 100, and finer grain than conventional emulions, and will probably provide better results starting out. Fuji's Acros 100 is somewhere inbetween. It is very fine grained, and results from ISO 64 tests provided impressive results. My tests were medium format but I could easily take crops out of smaller than 35mm, and it worked well in my 35mm with those sharp Nikkor lenses. But I did have problems with over exposure in the highlights shooting in the high mountains in thin air and extra bright sun, but even then still had plenty of texture in snow fields. The weekend tests require an awful lot of enlargement before I can begin to see any grain at all. Another bonus seems to be that the thin clear base is offering up some good scans, esspecially the better exposed film. A side note on films like Tmax and Acros are that they react to develoment adjustments quicker than traditional emulsions. Contrast and exposure also change with higher and lower temps. I like to cook Tmax and Acros at higher temps than older type films,and have been happier with the results. The Fuji I actually stepped up to 75 from 72 degrees and took an extra 5% off the time. More testing is required but so far so good. But grain is not always bad, and sometimes adds to an image. Which brings me to mention a couple faster films. HP5 is a very popular film and for good reason. Sure it has grain, and one can use it to good effect. It is very user freindly film with a lot of latitude and should provide a lot of printable images. Though I don't partuicularly care for Tmax 100, I do like the 400 a lot and have shot a bunch of it in 35mm, 120 and sheet film. The grain is somewhere between 100 and and 400 films and could probably be better in finer grain developers than my D76. Even in a Holga, which one would think overexposes the highlights on a sunny day at 1/100 f~11 by 2 stops, I get useable images though I have to do some darkroom manipulation when printing. For added speed there is Delta 3200. I shoot it at 1600 and worked out my own time for D76 1:1 and got better images than recomended stock solution. I'll even use it for daytime shots at 1600 for the added grain. So it really depends on what one is trying to accomplish and thus which film may serve best. Having been going through currently available film testing for my own purposes I think if I were to make a suggestion it would be to work out some tests with Ilford's FP4, but also check out what's out there. With 35mm you can bracket and try filters etc.. 'til the cows come home. And make notes, write the development, filter, and exposure info with a fine sharpie right on the neg sleeves before filing them away.

One last thing, I tried going back to mixing Kodak D76 powder myself and was quite unhappy. It's so much easier to pick up my favorite premixed solutions at the local photo shop, and results are more consistent and easier to prepare. Others may dissagree, but changing solutions inthe middle of testing was a bad idea so I went back to the product I have been using for four or five years, or start over.

I shoot Color and B&W when I go into the high Sierra every summer. We are talking apples and oranges. I have been spending the winter and will continue to test my prefered B&W films before I go back...for a better understanding how my preferred films see.

So far so good. I have read a lot about 100 ISO films here and so far have acheived better results with films that were not working for me but wanted to use like FP4. I was getting very few quality negs like yourself and having to work really hard in the dark room to achieve decent prints. Two problems surfaced. 100 speed film isn't really 100, more like ISO 64 for Acros, and 50 to 64 for FP4. Secondly, the camera is only a tool, and mearly pointing it at pretty scenes to eyes doesn't equate to beautiful photographs. I will also add that some things that look pretty good in color or B&W do not necessarilly vise versa. Furthermore, even the best compositions may still require hours and hours of dark room time solving the print for the best possible rendition.

Don't sell your gear. LEt it show you and learn what it can do and put it to work for you. However, there area lot of old TLR, and other fully manual cameras around, I prefer the 2x3 Graflex Grahics, Rolleicord, and Holgas, that can provide a fun experience in a larger 120 roll film format. I tried to be self taught with modern equipment and eventually fell back on cameras from a previous era and found it a very educational (still) experience.

Expose to retain some shadow detail and develop for the highlights. Quite a retard in sunny snow scenes with a lot of shadows. But a good test for you. A couple test rolls close to home should help.

TriX is grainy especially enlarging little 35mm negs. Folks like it for it's traditional tonal qualities. You might try one of the T-grain film for less grain and they require less time fluctuations to adjust for contrast. I despise Tmax100, but have had good images with Acros and Delta100. I also really took to Tmax400, which isn't as grainy as traditional fast films. I just ran some tests with Fuji's Acros in medium format and 35mm and it is impressive shot in bright sunlight. I just started testing it at ISO 64, but developed in D76 1:1 with a 15% decrease from the standard times it was almost grainless and good shadow detail and higlights just a bit over cooked. Unfortunately, everyone seems to have thier own formula that works for them, through thier own painstaking experience and I haven't found any other way to work it out other than to read up on things, apply a little and test a lot and find what works for you. I don't think the polaroid would have helped much if your snow is overdeveloped (Overexposed and thus requiring under-development) as much as it looks.

<div></div>

So many lenses, so many choices. Someone mentioned the 10" Tele-Raptar. There is also the 15" Tele-Raptar, both sometimes found in shutter; the 15" more common in barrel, and both reasonably priced and can occasionlly be had for a song as there were a lot made. Whether hand-held or on support, the 15" is a lot of weight out on the front of the camera, which causes a lot of unstable shake. I made a 5/16 thick x 3-1/2 x 9" support plate out of aluminum, with holes drilled and tapped so the camera suport is centered and the lens is not waty out in front. Works good.

The Tele-Raptars or Optars aren't known for sharpness. Depending on how much you want to spend, you might consider looking at the classic 203mm f~7.7 Ektar. They are sharp, but not as fast as the 5.6 tele's. The 203mm Optar, like the Ektar, are much lighter in thier #2 shutters. I have read old threads on the boards here and some have suggested the 203 Wollensak lens was made to replace the discontinuance of the Kodak 203. While I don't know if this is true or not, comparing them is apples and oranges. The 203 Optar is a very useable lens, would probably make some very nice portraits and such, but based on the side by side comparisons I made, the Kodak lens is in another league.

Another option available to you if you have the Grafloc back is to use your current lens or something like the 203 or 10" tele with a 120 roll back. This may help achieve your desired composition with regard to DOF, and subject distance. Or just crop. The 15" Tele would certainly offer a much shallower DOF at 5.6 than something with f~7.7 max. I got mine a few months back for sixty-five bucks, early uncoated version, harder to find I imagine.

Another great find turned out to be a Cooke 7" anistigmat series II I nabbed for a song. Very old lens, but fast at f~4.5, and makes beautiful images. I set it up with theRF on one of my speeds for two reasons. Being a normal lens rated for 5x7, it makes a wonderful light weight barrel lens for hand held shooting. And with the roll back and shot wide open it offers a pleasant vintage softness for handheld portraiture etc... Stop it down some and it gets nice and sharp. IIRC the Cooke lens ran me thirty bucks.

But it really depends on what you wish to do, how you intend to shoot, and the end results you are seeking. Lighting, flash, and so on might require a working synchronised shutter that would not be unavailable with a barrel lens, so keep that in mind while looking around.

And depending on available funds, there are also the Wollensak soft focus protrait lens series like the Verito, Veritar, and older Versars etc... Still much sought after, and not reasonable compared to other vintage optics mentioned above. And there are no shortages of modern lenses available, but the Speed's limited bellows will have to be considered, and thats why the 15" Tele comes to mind again...

Have fun...

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Doug,

I think the place to get half silvered mirror is Edmunds Scientific, but searchthe Graflex.org site for the info. It is there on the help boards, or I canpost the correct info later. They sell a small piece that can be cut and glued in as a replacement, and the fellas there think it works good. I bought a piece but haven't got to makingthe repairs yet, buthave three Kalarts waiting...

Yeah, I guess the address changed when I deleted it and tried resizing the images and reloaded them. Here's the prompt I should have added:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=688119

 

I think there are better ways to download so as to maintain edge sharpness and tonal quality. I could do wonders with these negs in the dark room, but you'll get the idea of what I was trying to say even though these aren't exactly stellar examples of what can be done.

 

By the way, if you check out the Graflex.Org web site, even though the help board is down as far as posting, you can do searches and read the posts. Do a search for South Bristol News. Either there or on Google. When you find it, there is a Graflex section, at the bottom left, that contains some pdf maunals and I think there is a complete Speed Graphic and 120 roll film back manual.

Graphics are pretty straight forward. If the front Graphex shutter for your 101 is hanging up on the slow speeds, it probably still fires reasonbly well form 1/25 to 1/200. 1/400 takes more pressure to load the high speed spring. A properly working rear focal plane shutter should move the curtain from the "T" setting (closed), to its fully open "O"setting, and be able to roll down and close when released again (this when set to the higher speed with the governor selection lever on the bottom in its rearward position). If it rolls down but not completely, The shutter will probably still give good results, and may even still be more accurate than the front shutter. If the RF isn't calibrated properly or out of whack, just use the ground glass on a tripod to get going when you get to trying it out. The only real problem I seem to have when out shooting with my Graphics is camera shake. Though I have gotten good results at 1/25 at times, I blew a whole roll Sunday.

Anyway, have fun with it, they are neat old cameras with a lot of history behind them.

Good point made above. Don't judge that lens until it shows you what it can do. They are pretty versatilte. The real issues with vintage Wollensak Optars is consistency. I have had no two that shoot exactly alike, and have used a number of 101's, 135's and others quite a bit over the last few years. I have four 101's currently and keep one set up on a Crown 23. I keep a 135 on my Speed 23 because I like that it is a sharp lens, reasonably contrasty, and has a subtle glow. They didn't sell thousands of Optar and Raptar lenses on various models of cameras because they weren't very good optics. I agree with the above comment that Kodak's Ektars tend to be a little better consistently, but I use my Optars more. I like the images they make. It is personal preference. If you develop your own film and do your own printing or scanning, all the better, in fact much better.

I am scanning illiterate, but learning, so here are some Optar 101 examples. http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=685722 Note that these are crops from 2x3 negs using about the image area or smaller than 35mm formats. I added one color image shot with a nearly hundred year old Cooke 7" 5x7 barrel lens fit to my Speed 23,from about eight feet away, and with a piece of diffuser screen rubber banded over the lens. I cropped this out and it is smaller than 35mm, and was shot nearly wide open at about f~5.6 IIRC. The lens gets quite a bit sharper when stopped down.

Anyway, I would suggest learn to use the camera, and have fun with the Optar before collecting lenses. Try it out on varying subject matter, stopped down and wide open etc... Try shooting some people stuff and stills or so on. If you need help loading film or making sure the camera is set up properly for the lensbesure andcheckout thesite mentioned above graflex.org. There are also other online sources on roll film holders, manuals and so forth...

It might be helpful if you gave more info:

D-76 stock or 1:1 etc, and wasit new developer?

Temp and time?

Agitation?

Exposure info?

Your image looks like you have a very contrasty lens. I have had to develop for a bit less contrast with better results with some of my lenses with HP5, TMY, and and so forth, depending circumstances, especially very bright days which require the good old expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights approach. Tkaes a bit of practice, but If that fence is close by, there you have a good test to work out for yourself. HP5 can give excellent results in D76, esspecially fresh solution mixed 1:1. Maybe try one of the liquid substitutes for 76.