rodeo_joe1

I certainly hope so for ecological reasons, but I suspect that almost as many people are quickly discovering how crap film is and giving up on it, as are being suckered into trying it for the first time by its Internet meme status. There's an old saying from the north of England - "There's nowt so queer as folk!" Translation - There's nothing as strange as people.

Then the SD-9 definitely isn't working. Please be careful if you're poking a multimeter into its output plug. There's about 350 volts on there (or should be if it's working properly.) To be frank I'd say you're wasting your time messing with it, if it's not working. The only fault that's fairly easily fixed is if there's poor or corroded contact(s) in the battery compartment. Outside of that it's definitely a case of "No User Serviceable Parts Inside!" I'm also not sure what improvement you might be expecting over the SB-800. The SB-900 and 800 output exactly the same amount of light at comparable 'zoom' settings. Plus the 5th battery option on the SB-800 brings the recycle time down close to what an SD-9 will give you with the 4 cell SB-900.

I'll venture to say "not a lot". In fact I'd be surprised if there's any visible density difference between a film agitated at 30 second intervals, and one given identical agitation at 1 minute intervals; especially over a 9 minute dev time. Because IME the quality of agitation is more important than its quantity. I.e. ignore stupid 'slo-mo' figure-of-eight wrist callisthenics, as seen on YouTube! And make sure there's a good airspace in the tank for inversion agitation. That's enough solution to cover the film properly by about 3mm, but definitely not completely filling the tank to the brim.

Just to illustrate how a developer can go off: Here's what happened to a bottle of T-max concentrate I had over a period of about 2 months. Prior to that it had been fine for ages. First, a good development of some 5052 TMX (left) next to one that turned out a bit 'thin' and rang alarm bells. Part of fully-fogged leaders shown, as would be seen on a light-box - And a few weeks later - The Dmax 1.8 was (luckily) just a clip-test of the developer. Showing that it was 'clapped out' and had gone bad. The brown tone of the thin film's leader also indicates a problem with the developer. The 'thin' film with Dmax 2.3 was still perfectly printable/scannable BTW. So a slight under development is no big deal. Under-exposure, OTOH, just can't be properly rescued. I'm not so sure about the density of frame numbers and other edge markings being a reliable guide to development. In my experience they vary widely between film types and even between batches of the same film. FWIW, the densities were read using a Sakura PDA-81 analogue readout densitometer. It's calibration was recently checked using known ND filter gels. Probably not up to NPL standards, but close enough for general photography!

I had a green Werra II once, but I think it was just a fashion statement and nothing to do with military use. I also suspect the olive Pentax above is just a DIY re-spray job. Otherwise they'd be turning up by the dozen. I'm pretty sure that both Nikon and Pentax cameras were used postwar by the British military. Their stuff kept turning up quite regularly at government surplus auctions in the late 1980s, all in standard factory black finish though. As did heavy Kodak camera stands - mine bearing the evidence of a quick and shoddy field repair by some ham-fisted REME squaddy. (A small bolt had come out, and rather than find the right thread, a new hole had been drilled and tapped for a different bolt that had obviously come to hand!)

I can't believe you need nearly 50% more than Kodak's recommended time to get a decent density with Tri-X. Kodak actually do know what they're talking about in their datasheets. So there's something amiss somewhere. How old is the D-76 you're using - I mean in powder form before being made up? D-76 can go bad. The sachets aren't completely hermetic and the Metol can oxidise in storage. There's also a possibility that the water used to make up the developer is acidic or contaminated in some way that reduces the activity of the developer. Although that's much less likely than having a bad batch of D-76 to start with.

Afterthought. They could be flecks of undissolved fixer powder. That would explain the lower density surrounding halo and streaks. Try re-fixing and washing the film. Making sure the fixer is fully dissolved of course! 🥴

Sounds like you're thanking an AI 'bot for its regurgitated and generic' 'advice'. I wonder if it can lie? So, thomasx - are you an AI 'bot?

Nope. Surprisingly the formulae given in Jacobson's 'Developing' (old or new editions) are pretty short on details like developing times and keeping qualities. The nearest Jacobson's formula to the above is one attributed to Kodak Research Labs, using a similar quantity of Phenidone, but using formaldehyde as the hardening agent. A hardener helps to equalise the development and fixing times, apparently, as well as prevent the necessary strong alkali from lifting the emulsion clean off the base!

Change the socket. Small mains-voltage 'Golf ball' bulbs are available in an SES/ES-14 fitting. There's also a range of Colour-temperature options in LED bulbs. A 6500K daylight bulb will print much faster - for a given wattage - than a 3000K warm-white bulb.

IME you'd have to leave a developed film in fixer for one heck of a time (maybe hours) to make a noticeable difference to its density.

If you're using 35mm film, then run a quick clip test with a bit of exposed leader. Can be done in normal room lighting without a tank. You only need about half-a-frame of film. Just get the developer up to temperature, pour a few millilitres into a small beaker - even an eggcup will do. Dip the film into the dev for the maker's recommended time; agitating in any way possible about every 30 seconds. After the dev time is up; either rinse or stop, as per your preference, then fix for the recommended time. You should now have a bit of film with a good Dmax of around 2.5D to 3.0D - if you have a densitometer to measure it. Otherwise the film should be about dense enough to see a lit light-fitting through fairly easily, but too dense to read a newspaper through in normal room lighting. I always do a clip-test like this if I'm unsure of the freshness of a developer, or it's a developer that's new to me. It's saved a wasted film on numerous occasions, and saved embarrassment when I miscalculated a dilution a few months ago. (1+9 instead of 1+7. Ooops!) Edit: Incidentally, D-76 can go bad in storage. It's possible for the developing agents (smaller bag or sachet) to oxidise through the plastic. If the powder looks brownish, then it's suspect.

Except digital 'double exposure' doesn't have to be a simple addition of lighter areas. There are a number of layering options available in most image editors, that can imitate either a camera double exposure, or one done in the enlarger. Or something that would be almost impossible to acheive optically.

+1 to Dustin's diagnosis. The overall variation of density would indicate a developing fault. The streaking running the length of the film also suggests an unconventional, and poor method of agitation. I'm guessing hand dipping the film in a dish or shallow tank and rocking it back and forth? You need to question your friend as to exactly how she developed the film, because I think the answer to the puzzle lies there. They can't be holes. Holes would print black. They're opaque spots on the negative, with a strange low-density streaking around them. Why the low density stops at the sky below the archway is also mysterious. It could possibly be a scanning fault, but nothing I've ever seen before. P. S. the lower density and higher contrast at the film edges is typical of under-fixing, but that doesn't explain the spots and their halos.

Sorry, but the plasticky Df with its vague-feeling knobs is nothing like using a solidly-built manual film camera.

One of the reasons for having interchangeable backs (film magazines). You could have 3 backs on the go for the Zone system - one back for N development, one for N-1, and another for N+1. Not that I've known anyone do that, but you could. I'm sure that was one reason for AA's use of the Hasselblad's system. Ugh! Technical Pan. I never did get a roll of acceptable normal-contrast negatives out of it. It was easier to just shoot medium format than try to squeeze better results out of a 35mm camera. I note the use of Sodium Hydroxide, and caustic soda developers aren't known for their long keeping properties once part-used. There's most likely a similar recipe in Jacobson's book 'Developing'; and probably with more detail. I'll have a look later.

What's this "we"? You can actually vary the contrast of a two-bath developer by re-dunking the film in the first bath, or varying the time in the first and 2nd baths. Or so I'm told. D-76, HC-110, Tmax or other one-shot developers have always served me well. (Apart from Acutol that proved quite unreliable - least said about that the better)

Wow! That's a lot of Phenidone to waste for just one litre of developer. My Phenidone-Ascorbate substitute for D-76 uses only 0.5g of the stuff, and can develop 8 films per litre. I guess some people just get a kick out of pointlessly burning money.

Except... What camera(s) these days shoot in 11"x14" or 20"x16" proportions? Outside of 6x7 medium format and 5"x4" or 10"x8" large format - precisely none! So you're either going to be cropping the negative or the paper. Either way is simply wasteful. Why is photographic paper not more readily available in A4, or in other more 'modern' aspect ratios?

I would get something in DX (APS) format. Anything with a smaller sensor won't let you explore shallow depth-of-field properly. It should also, obviously, allow full manual control of all features, but good Auto Focus is expected these days. I think a DSLR would be quite an alien way of working coming from an I-Phone. But it's a matter of personal choice. You might like the more direct (and pokey) view of the subject through a DSLR viewfinder. Thing is, that none of us are you, and only you can decide what sort of camera you like and feel comfortable with. Find a store where you can try a few different models out. I don't think there's a particular standout make or model of camera in the price range that you're looking at. Nikon, Canon, Sony, or whatever other top-name brand's camera; they're all going to deliver good quality pictures. It's more how the camera feels in your hands that counts. WRT that Rebel 4ti kit: That camera model is now over 11 years old, which is quite ancient in terms of digital camera evolution. I think you can do much better for your budget. Don't jump at the first thing that comes along. Take your time to find something that suits you.

I've just tried Topaz De-noise AI, and am impressed. The detail retention is far better than what's possible with the chroma and luma noise-reduction sliders in ACR (and ACR exceeds a SOOC Jpeg by quite a way). The only quibble I have is with Topaz's rendering of reflective highlights. These sometimes have the appearance of being 'drawn on' and a bit artificial. But overall an impressive piece of software. There's always going to be an increase in blue channel noise when the subject is lit with a low Kelvin light source. The blue channel has to be boosted to bring the CT back in line with daylight, for which the sensor is designed. And vignetting effectively further underexposes the corners of the image. I'm wondering if the effect you're seeing is down to micro-lens array geometry making lens vignetting worse? It seems to me that no-one has compared the degree of vignetting with the same lens(es) across different sensors/camera models. Not counting DX versus FX sensors of course.

I think the words 'of its time' need emphasis there. As well as a questioning of 'best'. Best suited to taking a professional battering maybe, but delivering superior image-quality? Questionable. Speaking for myself, before I got a mirrorless body I would reach for the much neater and lighter D7200 over the hugely more bulky D800 as an everyday user camera. Then there's the question of condition. A lightly used, amateur-owned D750 versus a well used, pro-owned D4 at about the same money? A total no-brainer. D750 please!

What's that whirring noise? Oh, it's just Ansel Adams spinning in his grave at the thought of monobaths, and the fact that they allow no control over development time and hence negative contrast. If - big IF - monobaths gave the same quality of results, the same economy of use and the same archival permanence as separate developer and fixer, then don't you think they'd be the norm by now?

There are loads of DIY options if low cost is important. A cork note-board laid flat and using thumb-tacks to hold the paper is just one thought that springs to mind. No need to pay through the nose because a product has the epithet "photographic" attached to it. Same as surveyor's tripods costing a fraction of the ludicrous prices asked for photographic tripods. We're just being ripped off guys!

That appears to be a standard sprung back for a double-darkslide (DDS). The film holder is pushed underneath the sprung ground-glass screen after focussing and composing. Next size down from 9x12cm would be quarter-plate - 3.25"x4.25" (~83x108mm) - and from that, 65mm x 90mm. You need to measure the width between the guide rails either side of the screen section to find out for sure. A DDS is about 1cm wider than the film it's designed to take. So the width difference should be obvious; at just over 90mm for quarter-plate, and around 75mm for 6.5 x 9cm film. Neither of those film sizes are easy to find these days and you're probably looking at a cost of £50 or €50 minimum order for film + the cost of a darkslide if you don't already have one. Does the camera have a lens fitted? Is the lens in good condition, and does the shutter work? If the answer to any of those is 'no', then it's going to be an expensive and tedious business making the camera workable.