leon_f

I would need a plastic container with screwmount to store a Focotar enlarging lens

and also 2 lenscaps for my focotar 50 mm lenses. Has anyone some of these

items left??

 

Thanks

I would be perfectly happy in a world without digital cameras. Me and my Leica MP take all the pictures :-)

Nice pics Paul

I forgot: the black dots are caused by the dust denying development to that part of the film. No development so they appear black.

Mike, I have the definite answer! I searched for this problem in a little book called "Ilford Negativtechnik", published in 1981! It describes all sorts of problems that can occur when developing negatives. You are sufering from what the Germans call "Nadeltische" or needle stings. It is caused by dust or dirt on the emulsion side of the film. The only solution is to thoroughly clean the inside of the camera.

And can I still solve it?

Ok, I just found out that there is a sort black line along the whole length of the film below, just over the little holes..... . Can we conclude wrong agitation?

Thanks to all so far. I also think this has either to do with wrong agitation or fogged paper. Tonight I will scan the negatives and see if this is actually visible on the negs. too. If not, I need to shop for a few boxes of fresh paper. Will report back asap.

Please see the attached scan of a print. You notice the sort of white stuff on

the bottom of the picture? Did I do something wrong while agitating the film?

Another nail in the Silver coffin ...

 

Sorry but this thread breathes utter nonsense!

 

Do you know what traffic police cameras use? high speed b&W Film! Why? Because digital files can obviously be manipulated and are not accepted in court. But this forum is neither about medical appliances nor about police camera's. Moderator: please delete... .

Let me clarify that I understand Antonio's point of view I just don't think it is only about lighting. Remember the words of Cartier Bresson: "I'm only interested in the shot". Well in fact he did not ever print any of his negatives himself he had them printed by a master printer in Paris. However; he did evaluate the prints and the ones that did not correspond to his visualization would not make it to any exhibition. He would instruct his printer to printer harder or softer or to dodge, burn..... any minimal adjustment that would make the picture more interesting. He used the same light we use nowadays and so he probably got some shots which were very interesting from a compositional point of view but shots that would technically not be superb....hence his printer would optimize them. I'm not talking about "manipulation" which has nothing to do with photography. That's the whole point.......no picture out of any camera will be accepted by any editor or museum if they have not been optimized for their intended purpose.

Lighting is obviously important but I have no idea how somebody can make a good print digitally, without at least adjusting color space and levels and traditionally by printing it rightaway with the right contrast ? May I say that image "optimalization" is always necessary due to technical shortcomings of sensors and film?

Antonio, the initiator of the thread already mentioned that the shot was digital: " That image is digital, but I really would like to do that on a print. Anyone have any starter ideas? "

 

I totally agree with Russ; one should master everything in photography. Type of film and development actually DO matter a lot and so does the printing, type of paper etc. be it digital with photoshop or done in a traditional darkroom. You can have the best lighting in the world but if you don't know how to properly develop film (to create a certain mood) or how to make a decent wet print, again to evoke emotion, you're creative possibilities will be very limited. Have you ever seen "moonrise over Hernandez" by Ansel Adams? No way the lighting was that dramatic when Ansel took the shot. Even if the lighting had been very dramatic, this picture would have evoked little response if it wasn't for Adams' great skills in the darkroom. I'm sorry but lighting is just one of the many important variables in photography.

And I'm sure the same could be achieved with other combinations of film and developer so I'm not trying to prove anything.

I describe how I developed the film.... .

You may want to check my blog:

 

http://thegoodlight.blogspot.com/

 

I recently uploaded a picure from a negative developed according to the earlier mentioned technique. Since this is a scan you can't really see the effect but what you can see is that it is overdeveloped, overexposed and quite harsh. I'm sure that if I was to print this in the darkroom it would still come out nicely though. Most "special effects" are created in the darkroom anyway......read some Ansel Adams books if you want to find out more./

Tri-X @ 200, 11 min. in Rodinal 1:25 at 68 degr. no agitation for the first 90 sec., 10 sec. agitation every 90 sec. thereafter. Agitately gently! Result: dense overdeveloped negatives with considerable grain and no creamy midtones. I like it but it's personal. Check out Ralph Gibson!

Thanks John! feel free to visit and report back anytime!

I have set up a blog in which I plan to write down my thoughts on B&W

photography, equipment, my own pictures etc. etc. You may visit it through

copying the below link into your browser. Hope you like it!

 

http://thegoodlight.blogspot.com/

Steve Deer: that's a great shot!

Following up on my previous thread, I learned that a CLA is quite expensive for

the focotar, so I was thinking of buying a new enlarger lens. The question is

simple; which of the below 3 and why?

 

Rodenstock (NON- APO ) Rodagon 1:2.8/50

Schneider Componar S 2.8/50

Nikon EL Nikkor 50 2.8/50

 

Thnks again

I have a second hand Leitz Focotar enlarging lens which needs a good CLA. The

glass is a bit hazy and there's some dust inside but there are no signs of

fungee, so nothing major. Apart from this, the apertures need to be oiled. I

sent it over to Leica Solms but they returned it to me, telling me that there

were no more spare parts available to repair it. I assume they meant that they

couldn't open it or anything, if not, what spare parts would they require?

 

In any case, I do want to use this lens and don't want to give up that

easily.... . Does anyone know any other qualified company or person that could

carry out a CLA on this lens? If I can get it fixed,it will give many more

years of pleasure in the darkroom. Maybe Leitz USA ?

 

Thanks a lot!! I could ofcourse buy another brand enlarger lens on e-Bay but

for now I want to give it a second try with the Focotar.... .

I would not have my company's future depend on one camera only (the M8). And...I would re- introduce the Focomat V35.

I just developed a roll of Tri-X in Rodinal. After washing I shortly dipped the

film into water with photoflo for about 10 seconds. After the film had dried I

saw horrible water marks (look like snail trails) all over the film. I'm

certain it's not caused by photoflo but probably by hard water in my area. I

normally use distilled water but didn't have any of it left. Is there a way to

remove these trails after the film has dried?

I intend to develop my tri-x films in Agfa (A&O) Rodinal at dillution 1 + 50.

The problem is my tank can only hold max. 250 ml. of sollution. Is it true that

with Rodinal you have to use at least 10 ml of Rodinal with 50 parts water? In

that case, my development tanks are too small, or could I use 5 ml Rodinal with

50 parts of water?