kip_babington

The little bit of Neopan 1600 that I've done in PMK was exposed at

800 and developed 10 minutes at 70F. I found I preferred the results

of HP5+ exposed at 800 and developed in more "regular" developers, so

haven't used the Neopan 1600 much.

There are always a bunch of Gralab 300 timers available on Ebay.

Several have sold recently for $30 or so, although others have gone

for much higher. This is what you're familiar with, and although they

seem to just run forever, if you had a second one on the developing

side you'd have a spare in case your enlarger timer ever gave up.

 

<p>

 

The Gralab 300 is what I use on the wet side of my darkroom - actually

two of them. One was my father's, which must be 50+ years old and has

the bell (single ring at the end of the time - fairly loud, but then

it's over) while the other one is the new model with the adjustable

volume buzzer. I have one at the middle of the wet side where the

paper developing tray usually sits, the other is at the sink where

it's easier to set and see for developing film.

 

<p>

 

I actually prefer the bell model with its single ding, because the

buzzer model just goes on and on, and even at its lowest setting is

quite annoying if it goes on for any length of time. Sometimes I'm

doing something else when the buzzer goes off - like framing and

focusing a negative in the enlarger - and it isn't critical that I do

something at the end of the time - like take a print out of the wash.

I just want to know when the wash time is up, and a single bell is

enough. The operating advantage of the bell model is that I can leave

it "on" all the time and just click the minute hand over two minutes

at the start of a print, which starts the timer running immediately.

Then, if I want a bell to ring at the end, I just tap the bell button

on the top (which I think cocks the bell mechanically) at any point

before the time runs out. At the end of the time the bell goes off

and the timer just sits, waiting to run again. With the buzzer model

I'd have to set the minute hand then flip the timer switch to on, and

I have to turn it off at the end in order to silence the buzzer.

 

<p>

 

On the whole, I find the bell model friendlier for paper timing. But

the bell models are quite old, and I don't see them very often on Ebay

(not that I look that hard for them, though.)

Rollei Bay I hoods and filters also fit YashicaMats (at least they fit on mine.) The Rolleinar close up devices also fit, although the parallax compensation lens for the viewing lens might not correct perfectly unless the lens spacing is identical (anybody know?)

I've been bulk loading HP5+ and shooting it at 800 for several years.

Haven't had much in the way of scratches, and never had a canister

open up when I didn't want it to. I use Kodak Snap Caps, and blow

them out with air before each loading. I tend to put a bulk roll in

the Watson loader and load up all 17 (I think it is) 36 exposure rolls

at once, putting them in Ilford green top plastic canisters that I've

saved from commercially purchased rolls. I mark the caps of the

reloaded film canisters with an "R" (using a Sharpie) to easily

identify reloads. I've found that they work fine in all of my manual

wind cameras and motorized Nikons, but sometimes the little point and

shoots don't have enough muscle to wind a particular cassette. I keep

some commercial rolls around for those cameras.

 

<p>

 

For processing I've used Ilfotec HC at 1:31 with good results, using

the Ilford recommended times for starters and adjusting a bit from

there. It's an easy to mix concentrate (like HC-110, I'm told) and

the stock solution seems to keep well. Results of my kids'

participation in theater productions and indoor horse shows are just

fine at 800. I've tried a lot of other film/developer combinations in

side by side tests, and haven't found any that were materially better

for these purposes (for me and my equipment and my technique - your

mileage may vary.)

Technically off topic, but at the other end of the size scale Minox has notched its film gates since the Model C (beginning late '60s or early '70s.) The C, TL and EC models that I have used have notches in different places around the gate, making it easy to identify which type of camera took a particular negative ("easy" being a relative term, considering the size (0.8 x 1.1cm) of the negative.)

I use HP5+ as my low light film, rating it at 800 and developing in

Ilfotec-HC, dilution 1:31, one shot. My "normal" development

procedure was worked out by testing, was for indoor horse show arenas

(which are relatively uniformly lit,) and is 1 minute less than

Ilford's recommended time (at 68F, then adjusted for temperature,)

with agitation for 5 seconds every 30. When I recently took some

rolls of a high school theatrical production (same cameras and lenses)

I got negatives that were much too contrasty. After some

experimentation, I now develop theater shots starting 1.5 minutes less

than Ilford's chart, and give only two gentle inversions every 60

seconds. This gives me negatives that print nicely with a 1.5 or 2

filter, instead of the 0 or 00 filter that was needed when I used the

longer time with more agitation.

I'm going to be using 4x5 sheets for the first time in years, and would prefer not to develop in trays or in my old FR daylight tank. I'm spoiled by decades of fast chemical changes with Paterson tanks, and would like to use something similar for sheets. I gather that the HP Combi tank is a fairly slow fill (in the summer my processing temperatures can reach 80F, with developing times of 6 minutes at that temperature) and I know my old FR is even slower.

 

<p>

 

Paterson doesn't make reels for developing sheets in their tanks. Jobo does make such a tank, and while I gather it isn't made for inversion agitation I understand that it does fill and empty rapidly, and can be used by just rolling it back and forth on a surface. I don't have the space or budget for a full Jobo motorized system, wonderful as it may be, and I'm wondering if any of you have experience using the Jobo 4x5 tank for non-motorized processing? Your thoughts and experiences will be appreciated.

Well I certainly like it with Delta 100 and 400 films in 35mm, which I

rate at 64 and 250, respectively. Very little grain and very good

highlight detail, while the slower film speed rating sees to it that

there's detail in the shadows. I'm going to try it with some sheet

Delta films in the near future, which should be a lot of fun.

Filling time shouldn't be an issue with Paterson tanks. I did 8 rolls

at once in one of their tanks two days ago, and got the 2.5 liters of

developer completely poured in within about 12 seconds. A sharp line

of density change certainly sounds like not enough developer in the

tank (unless, of course, the lighter density section was at the bottom

of the tank, in which case I haven't a clue as to cause.)

 

<p>

 

I'm curious, though, as to how you put the film in the tank. Did you

just roll it up, emulsion side in, and let it expand against the sides

of the tank, or did you manage to cobble together two reel halves to

hold it in a spiral? I'm thinking of doing some 4x5 sheets (for the

first time in decades) and would like to take advantage of the rapid

fill and iversion agitation possibilities of my Paterson tanks, but

haven't figured out yet how to put the film in the tank.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

The last roll of Tech Pan I bought came with an instruction sheet

which included developing suggestions for a range of contrast indices

from 0.50 (low contrast, pictorial) to 2.50 (highest contrast,) using

Kodak developers Dektol, D-19, HC-110, D-76, Microdol, XTOL and

Technidol (in descending order of contrast - I note that TMax

developer is not listed.)

 

<p>

 

For the highest contrast index (2.50) they suggest exposing at EI 200

and developing in Dektol for 3 minutes at 68 F. Dektol is a paper

developer, usually diluted 1:2 (stock solution made from powder.) I

remember using Dektol stock solution succcessfully, either straight or

1:1, when developing Kodak's High Contrast Copy film for high contrast

applications. (Apparently Dektol is now available as a liquid

concentrate to be diluted 1:9 for use - I'd guess that using

this concentrate without any dilution might be a bit aggressive.

 

<p>

 

I wouldn't be surprised if that chart is available somewhere on

Kodak's web site, although I confess I haven't checked to be sure.

The instruction sheet also contains a reference to Kodak Publication

P-255 for more info on Tech Pan - perhaps that's available on line,

too.

 

<p>

 

Good luck with the process.

Based on a suggestion I picked up on one of the photo mailing lists

(can't remember which one) I've begun adding a jigger of rubbing

alcohol to my final rinse (distilled water and about half the

recommended Photo Flo.) I don't use Agfa 25, but have noticed

fewer water spots on my other film since adding the alcohol. It

doesn't cost much to try this, if it sounds interesting to you.

There's obviously not a consensus, but my 2 cents are - Delta 400 at

250, and Delta 100 at 64. In my Paterson tanks and with my water,

starting times are 10 minutes at 70F for both films in 35mm, which is

handy when I have rolls of each to develop at the same time. YMMV.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

I use one of those leader retriever thingies to pull the leader out of

the cassette so I can trim it straight and cut the tip off the corners

with the lights on, before I turn the lights off and pry the end off

for loading into a developing tank. I think the maximum distance that

the metal blades can reach is about one time around the film at the

outside of the spool, and almost all 35mm cameras lose more than this

getting to the first frame. So unless a lab uses a much longer

retriever (can't imagine why they would - the leader is at the end of

the film, and you only have to grab an inch or two to pull it out of

the light trap) there shouldn't be much risk of scratching a

worthwhile frame.

 

<p>

 

Of course, this is only theory, and a man with experience beats a man

with a theory almost every time (please, no gender neutrality flames

on this.) I do B&W almost exclusively, so have virtually no

experience with labs, but I will say that the half dozen color

negative rolls I take in a year don't seem to get scratched by the

camera store lab that I use.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Kip Babington

I have bought a lot (for me) of Ilford film and paper from B&H, and

for film they can't be beat by anyone reputable and reliable (that

I've found.) But I'm about to switch to my local store for the paper.

Paper is heavy, and after checking the DELIVERED price on a 250 sheet

box of 8x10 that came last week, I noticed that it was only a couple

of dollars cheaper than my local supplier. There is value in having a

well stocked local store, so for an extra few bucks occasionally, I'll

buy my paper down the street. Depending where you are relative to the

mail order supplier of your choice, you may find that similar price

comparisons apply.

 

<p>

 

Cheers.

You might take a look at the slitter offered by Ray Pepalis for $55

delivered in the US. He's at http://members.aol.com/xkaes/adf47.htm.

Not sure what the break even point would be with this device, but it

has to be a lot lower than the Minox brand.

 

<p>

 

I've been very happy to have the slitter I made for myself from plans

and pictures found on the net. It offers so much more flexibility if

you develop your own film (as I do - all B&W) because you can slit a

couple of short rolls for practically nothing (compared to Minox film)

just to try out a new developer or agitation technique, etc. If most

of what you do is color that has to be professionally processed, the

advantages might not be so great.

Would you consider a Linhof 23 with rollfilm back a MF folder? If so, I'd guess there were (and still are) lots of lenses available for it (whatever you could fit in a lens board that would focus in the range you wanted given the available bellows length), many of which could have cams made that coupled to a built in rangefinder. I have the impression that rollfilm backs could be had in 6x6, 6x7 and 6x9 formats, but have no first hand knowledge of this. One of these setups with two or three cammed lenses makes for quite an outfit - not exactly small and lightweight, but vastly capable. And you can always use single sheets for the odd shot that needs a different film.

I have no experience with the Polaris. Once had a Minolta III, which was wonderful but large, and took batteries that weren't normally available late on a Saturday night before a Sunday shoot (which is when they tended to die.) I gather the new ones have fixed this particular problem.

 

Lots of nice things have been said about the Sekonic 308, and for good reason. I have one and agree it's very nice - small, light, cheap (relatively) and intuitive. BUT it has two characteristics nobody has mentioned yet and that cause me to leave it behind more often than not. First, it times out fairly quickly and does not remember the last reading when turned back on. Second, it takes about two seconds to come on (it does a battery check at each turn on.) Two seconds may not sound like much, but I find it very annoying, and forgetting the last reading adds insult to injury (so to speak.) This is not to say the meter's no good, just that it's not perfect for me.

 

If I were in your position I'd probably get the Gossen, based on my experience with an old Luna-Pro SBC and a Multi-Pro, both of which have done yeoman duty when called upon, but are a bit large and heavy compared with the currently available models. The Luna Pro F apparently also takes the Gossen variable angle attachment, a fairly cheap narrow angle (15 and 7.5 degrees) device that allows somewhat selective ambient and flash readings at a price quite a bit less than most true spot meters. I find it quite handy, and you can leave it at home when you don't think you'll need it (although it's fairly small and quite light.)

 

When I don't need flash I much prefer the Quantum Calculight XP, which is also small, light, cheap and intuitive, remembers the last exposure, and has a calculator dial, which I like.

 

Why not try to find a store that has several of the models you're interested in and see which one feels best in your hands?

 

Best of luck.

 

Cheers,

Kip

The problem Tony describes is a surprising one to me, as I've been

using Paterson reels and tanks since about 1970 and of the 3,400+

rolls of B&W film I've developed so far, I cannot recall ever having a

roll screwed up because of the little ball bearings sticking. I've

acquired 27 of the reels over this period, and have been using most of

the reels for at least 20 years (I pretty much retired my original 5

old style two piece reels when I got some of the three piece (two

spiral halves plus the rotating male post) reels) and have never done

anything but be sure to rinse off the photo flo before letting them

air dry. I've discovered other ways to get film crunched on loading

(square corners on the leading edge of the film, any dampness in the

reel, putting any side pressure on the reel when loading thin 120 film

or any 220 film, etc.) but I've never experienced the problem

described.

 

<p>

 

For me, the benefit of being able to fill an 8 reel Paterson tank with

developer or stop in the time it would take to fill a 2 reel steel

tank far outweighs the theoretical disadvantage of outside-in loading

of the film reels. I also use regularly the plug-in hose for washing

when there is more than one reel in a tank. In addition, on those few

occasions when I use my steel tank, I usually end up with what I

assume are undeveloped areas along the film edge (they're kind of

pinkish and opaque and usually extend up to but not beyond the

sprocket holes), a situation I never see with the Paterson equipment.

(I admit my steel reels are generic, not Hewes.)

 

<p>

 

These comments may not apply if you're developing color film - I

have no idea what that chemistry involves. Or, it may just be that

you have a bad reel or two, in which case replacement may be simpler

than repair. But if you like the Paterson system otherwise, I'd not

give up on it just because you got a couple of bad reels.

 

<p>

 

Cheers,

Kip

I too have no experience with Tri-X, but I've been using PMK with

Ilford Delta films for about a year. My practice has been to cut the

ISO in half (as you have done) and then take about a minute off the

sheet film starting times that come with the PMK kit from

Photographers' Formulary. I use the printed times for roll films (and

would try them for sheets, if I used sheets.) Results are lovely.

If you haven't done so already, you ought to run the numbers on the

cost of setting up to develop-only at home. You will find that the

cost of basic equipment (changing bag, developing tank and reel(s),

chemical bottles, thermometer, a graduate or two, etc.) is equal to

the cost of commercial processing for XX rolls of film (the exact

number depending, of course, on what equipment you get and whether you

get it new or used.) It is immensely satisfying to develop your own

film, as it gives you complete control over the process (but nobody to

blame for scratches, unfortunately), an unlimited choice of

film/developer combinations, and the ability to get negatives RIGHT

NOW (or at least a lot faster than the mail) if you really need to.

So if you're going to shoot those XX rolls of film in fairly short

order, it might be worth going ahead and just setting up your own

developing outfit from the start.

 

<p>

 

Be warned, however, that all developing tanks give off a colorless,

odorless, tasteless gas which will feed your latent desire for an

enlarger and a darkroom to put it in.

You might also consider a Maxwell screen. His literature has quite a

bit of disucssion about using his screens in the Pentax 67, including

his proprietary modification to older screens (camera marked 6x7)

which brightens them up. I gather that any brighter screen, whether

new or modified old, will require meter recalibration.

 

<p>

 

Call Bill Maxwell at (404) 244-0095. He's in Decatur, Georgia, and a

delight to talk to.

Let me add just two things to Stefan's long and comprehensive

response. First, my L-398 has two arrows on its dial, marked "H" and

"L". You use the H arrow for setting the dial when you have the High

slide inserted behind the diffuser dome, and you use the L arrow when

the slide is removed (in low light.)

 

<p>

 

Second, for those not familiar with them, the ISO slides can be very

convenient if they fit the way you work. They are a set of 11

graduated slides (the standard High slide that comes with the meter is

number 12) that are matched for a particular combination of ISO and

shutter speed, and when used allow you to read the f/stop directly

from the meter dial instead of having to set the meter's calculator

dial. For example, if you use ISO 100 film and a shutter speed of

1/125, slide number 8 will give direct readings. You can use the same

slide with ISO 25 film at a shutter speed of 1/30. (The High slide

gives direct readings at 1/500 sec with ISO 100 film, 1/250 with ISO

50, etc.) There is a chart that comes in the wallet holding the

slides that explains all this. As I say, it's very convenient if you

can pick a shutter speed and stick with it.

I'm not familiar with the 645 film path, but the question involved

running 120 through a 220 back. The 120 film plus paper backing will

be a bit THICKER than 220, where you have film or paper but never both

together. Also, on my practice roll of 220 (TXP) the film itself is

about 0.050 inches/1.25mm narrower than the paper leader. If the

tolerances within the film channel are tight, I can imagine that you

might indeed jam something running thicker film/paper through it.

Also, if the width of the channel is just right for the film only, I

can imagine that there would be no problem putting slightly a wider

paper leader and trailer through it alone, but that things might jam

up on the sides when you run that wider paper through along with a

thickness of film.

 

<p>

 

OTOH, unless the back is particularly delicate, it ought to be tougher

than some film and paper, so the worst that might happen is that you

tear up a roll of 120 finding out if it will work.

 

<p>

 

Let us know what you find out if you decide to try it.

The counter is reset to 1 by twisting the film advance knob backwards

(about an eighth turn, as I remember it).

 

<p>

 

I got rid of my Hasselblad stuff many years ago (when I had more than

one tuition to pay at a time), but as I recall the 12 (not A12)

magazines the counters ran from 1 to 12. When you took frame 12 you

could wind the camera body and lens with the winding knob, which would

wind the end of the film past the opening in the magazine. The

counter on the magazine would go past 12 and not allow the shutter to

be pressed. You may notice a small opening at the lower left of the

magazine (when the magazine is off and you're looking at the film

opening) into which a thin blade extends from the camera body as the

shutter button is pressed. This opening is blocked when the dark

slide is inserted fully, or when frame 12 has been passed.

 

<p>

 

On the A12 magazines, the ones with the fold out handle for advancing

film after loading, the counter is reset by removing the film insert

from the magazine.

According to the bottom of my Paterson tanks, 127 film is between 35mm

and 120/620. Minimum fluid volumes are 290, 370 and 500cc for the

three sizes. The Paterson reels do adjust to the 127 size.