jeff_stuart

Paul,

 

Lordy what is it about someone asking about home processing that stirs such opposition, mostly from them that never tried it I�ll bet? To your questions:

 

1. Can Jobo CPE processor be used for C41 process? If yes - what modifications should be done if any?

 

Yes. I�ve done hundreds of rolls of C41 on a CPE2+, including 220. No modifications are needed. Get the lift if you can. It helps maintain consistent timing. You also need tanks and reels. I use the 1520 most. It�ll do one 220 or two 120�s. It uses 250 ml of solution for rotary work (less actually but the difference is lost when you mix 1 liter working solutions.) You also need graduated cylinders & bottles for chemistry & rinse water. The JOBO 260 ml graduates & 1 liter bottles work well. You also need a good color thermometer and a time keeping device. C41 is easier than B&W.

 

2. Can Jobo CPE processor be used for E6 process? If yes - what modifications should be done if any?

 

Yes. See above. E6 is harder than B&W.

 

3. Can Jobo CPE processor be used for colo print process? If yes - what modifications should be done if any?

 

I haven�t done color print processing lately. The guy I bought the CPE+ from used it exclusively for print processing, so I�d say yes. He used the 2840 tanks I believe.

 

4. Is it true that head replacement is the only required modification for Laborator 138S for color process? If not - what else should be done?

 

I dunno.

 

5. How many rolls of 220 film may be processed in single E6 chemistry solution? What is the price of single chemistry solution?

 

I thought you said this was a yes/no quiz? Complicated question. Let�s bound the answer. A 1 liter Tetenal E6 kit from B&H is roughly $25 (last time I priced it.). It does 4 x 220 rolls one-shot (that is flushing the chemicals � no re-use, no replenishment.) Call it $6.25 a roll.

 

Buy bigger kits, you can do better. You say you do 15 rolls a month? You could buy Tetenal 5 liter kits which (list price) could get you down to about $3.75 per 220 roll. You�d use up the kit long before the shelf life would expire. With a little (creative purchasing) effort you can get the price lower.

 

Kodak�s E6 chemistry is less expensive and just as good I think, though I haven�t used it because B&H won�t ship me the E6 kit.

 

As for those who say you �can�t match a good pro lab� I have to agree. Since I started my own E6 & C41 I have been unable to match the thumbprints, scratches, snot (or whatever that stuff is), cut frames or lost rolls my former �pro� labs achieved. (Not that I�m actually trying that hard.)

 

Hope this helps your efforts, good luck,

 

Jeff

Robert,

 

I shot a roll of Provia-400 last week and ran it thru my normal Tetenal E6 using the same process as Provia-100. It came out fine. No real point in giving you my times as each Tetenal kit has its own instructions, but FWIW the Dev 1 time was 7:10.

 

Cheers,

Jeff Stuart

My 7II does not answer the compensation dial in manual mode. Works as expected in Auto & Auto Lock modes, but in manual, por nada.

 

I don�t use the Auto modes much, so I use the aperture to bracket ½ stops.

Thomas,

 

Tetenal Press Kit C41. Powder keeps a long time, makes 1 liter working solution. I�ve bought it from B&H. Maybe cheaper sources, but I don�t do much C41 and piggy back the chemicals on the shipping for other stuff. 1-liter plastic soda bottles (suitably cleaned) are nice for the working solutions because you can squeeze the air out of the color developer, crank the lid down tight, stick it in a dark place and it will keep pretty well. If I have important film to develop I�ll always use fresh chemicals.

 

BTW, I add 1 drop of Kodak Photoflo concentrate to the Tetenal C41 stabilizer. With my rinse water the Tetenal will leave spots.

 

Cheers,

Dave,

 

My reference is Jobo�s instruction sheet which came with a kit I bought in Sept. They don�t seem to have dates or version numbers with the sheets. Anyway, page 8 says, among other things, �Fujichrome films should be first-developed about 16% longer than Agfachrome or Eckachrome films....� They make no reference to Astia.

 

I�ve always found the 16% adjustment extreme and settled on 10%, partly empirically, partly because I can divide by ten in my head.

 

My observation between Astia and Provia involves rolls shot with the same camera in the same location with the same meters. I can�t say in the same light, but damn close. My intent was to compare the two films as directly as I can.

 

Developed as I described, the Provia has denser shadows, similar mid-tones and highlights. The Astia has abundant highlight detail and no apparent color shifts. In every respect the Astia does not appear overexposed, not even 1/3rd stop. If my processing has resulted in an effective push, then hurray for Astia, it lost nothing in the deal. Next roll of Astia I run I'll drop down 15 secs and see. This is the beauty of doing it yourself.

 

Please let me the source of your info, I�d like to know more.

 

Cheers,

Jerry,

 

Short answer, try soaking Fuji in the 1st dev 10% longer than the recommended Kodak time. Some Tetenal E6 calls for 6:30 for Kodak which would make a 7:10 time for Fuji. A new 5 liter kit I bought in September called for 6:15 for Kodak, so I used 6:50 for this new �hotter� blend.

 

Shoot some test frames bracketing 1/3 stops from 2 stops under to 2 stops over, run those +10% 1st dev time and see where the ideal density falls. Tetenal says (in my literature at least) a 1 stop push requires about a 30% increase in 1st dev time. If your test roll is off, interpolate the correct time at about 10% per 1/3rd stop. With the CPP you should be able to dial in the process easily. (Perhaps not coincidently, that means the 10% bias I find works for me corresponds to a 1/3rd-stop push, or that Fuji overrate their films 1/3rd-stop, which is opined in these annals from time to time.)

 

I can't comment on Velvia 100F, but I recently ran a dozen rolls of 220 Astia 100F using this 6:50 time (keeping in mind I�m using the new �hot� chemistry) and they came out a tiny bit less dense than Provia exposed with the same camera & meter. The difference is too slight to complicate the process in my opinion.

 

Good luck,

Thomas,

 

Congratulations. May you enjoy many happy rolls with your Jobo. You don�t say which model you have, but since you have the lift I guess it is one of the CPx guys. I�ve done lots of roll film with the CPE2+, all color (where I live the Jobo would need a refrigerator to maintain B&W temps.)

 

Here are my suggestions: Get some chemical kits (Tetenal, Kodak, etc.) and read the instructions. Use distilled water to mix your working solutions. If your tap water is hard you might want to use softened or distilled water for you final rinse. I use tap water for rinses. Get a stop watch and a good color thermometer. Be consistent. Despite what anyone says, you are way ahead of the game using one-shot chemistry.

 

The Jobo reels load nicely unless they, or your film, are damp. Always make sure things are dry. Similarly, never put color stabilizer solutions into your tanks or your reels into those solutions. The wetting agents will glom onto the plastic (stainless steel too) and make your reels sticky.

 

Pre-heat your tanks per instructions. For E6 temper your 1st dev and 1st rinse precisely. Did I mention, be consistent?

 

Find a way to dry your film away from dust. Jobo makes a splendid dryer. Too splendid for me, I made my own from PVC pipe, some filters, and a junk chassis fan. There are other dryer suggestions on this site.

 

Don�t make any judgements about your film until it is dry. Wet film is a lot like a wet new born. Don�t panic, give it an hour or so..... Sometimes years....

 

Did I mention, be consistent? And have fun,

I've used the Jobo/Tetenal C41 Press Kit chemistry with great results. You need a good thermometer (+/- 0.2 degrees F). Tetenal's instructions are clear on hand inversion technique.

 

C41 is easy, easier than B&W. It doesn't offer creative opportunities, maybe, but neither do grunge or a lab oaf's thumb prints on your negs.

 

Jobo's rotary processors are good. The 'Lift' option is very civilized. If you can find a Jobo at a price you like, it makes things much easier.

 

BTW I find Tetenal's C41 stabalizer will leave water spots, even when mixed with distilled water. I add a drop of Photoflo conentrate to a liter of stablizer. Helps in my case.

 

Good luck,

This is so bizarre. I could pack my film in a box, give it to UPS, tell �em it�s worth $1000. They couldn�t care less what it�s REALLY worth, or even what it is, they look in a book and it says �$1000 insurance = $9.95.� It�s my choice. (And guess what, they sure don�t lose money on the deal.)

 

But when my film crosses the threshold of the processing lab it enters some mysterious vortex where actuarial science does not operate. My film is now worth 20 little green or yellow boxes. No questions, no options, it�s in the contract: 20 little green or yellow boxes.

 

How is it that UPS, complex, geographically dispersed, with thousands of employees, trucks, airplanes, facing countless mishaps, stupidity, fraud, accidents, malfeasance, thievery and outright catastrophe, how is it they put a price on guaranteeing their work and a film lab does not?

 

Hold on, I see it now. It�s so simple: photographers are doormats. There�s even a school teaches how to avoid getting stepped on all at once. How delightful for the labs to have such, uh, fatalistic customers.

 

Don�t get me wrong, I know most labs are diligent and competent. That should make insurance even more obvious & easier to price. Seems to me it would be good business.

 

For the record, I am my own lab. Consistent with the sentiments expressed, I always offer myself insurance, but since film coming out of my camera if usually worth LESS than an unexposed roll I opt for the little green box and root for the screw up. To date, no luck, all the rolls have come out fine. What can you do?

 

Anyway, good luck Alex,

It burns me to hear you all discuss this guy�s loss like a bunch of tortoises on the side of a Texas road looking at a former friend, flattened out and being pecked on by a bunch of birds. �Yup.� �Yeah.� �Shoulda done somethun diffrent.� �Happens.� �Yup.�

 

Les De Moss offers the semi-tractor�s side of the story on his web site. You should read it.

 

There�s an analogy to processing film we�re all familiar with: (oddly) shipping. Let me recast Les�s argument in shipping terms:

 

�Because the wide variance in value, the shipping industry has adopted policies which limit liability to the replacement cost of the cardboard box. Most shippers, including we, openly publish this policy in our invoices. As a function of this policy, all cardboard boxes have a known value that can reasonably be insured against loss or damage. The �premium� for this insurance is built into the cost of shipping. Therefore, the cost of shipping is determined, in part, by the cost of a cardboard box. Liability limitations protect a shipper against accepting an extraordinary liability, such as a cardboard box worth thousands of dollars, without their knowledge or consent.�

 

If a shipper operated on this basis they�d be outa business before sunrise. So how come photographers still endorse this abandonment of responsibility?

 

I understand business and I understand risk, and you only got to waltz into a U-SHIP-IT franchise to see an industry which can quite openly, easily and economically deal with the fact one box of cardboard is worth more than another box of cardboard. They ask. And they have insurance.

 

It�s a deficiency of the photo processing industry that Alex wasn�t offered and aware of the chance to value his film before it was lost. If a �premium� for competent handling would have made a difference, I suspect he would have paid it.

Turgut,

 

I haven�t looked through a 7, but I use a 7II. I wear glasses, and I don�t have a problem seeing what I need to see with the 7II. It�s a personal thing though, you should look through a 7II view finder for yourself, especially if you�re new to ranegfinders.

 

On my camera the meter measures a rectangle about the size of the rangefinder focus patch and directly below it. It is not TTL, and has no adjustment for the lens angle-of-view. It is spot or averaging, depending on the lens and how you define such things.

 

It is not inaccurate. With slide film, outdoors, I find it quite reliable for gauging the highlights and shadows of a scene.

 

Good luck,

What I like about 220: half the rolls to pack and carry and expose to the perils of modern travel; half as many film changes in the field; half as many rolls to process; better utilization of chemistry (my Jobo tanks need 250 ml for either 120 or 220).

 

I haven�t experienced the shortcomings. My M7II winds 220 fine, I haven�t had any light leaks that penetrated an exposed frame (it could happen more easily, I recognize that fact and I handle the film accordingly), my Jobo reels load it fine, the film isn�t any harder to handle than 135-36 film for drying, cutting, etc.

 

Anyway, obviously, to each his own. May that we debate this again in 2008.

Ed,

 

I use the SS4000 & SilverFast 5.5. I have scanned lots of Portra 160NC without problems. These comments pertain to the PS plugin for SilverFast.

 

Assuming you are working in Normal mode and have correctly identified your media as a negative, you should see the �NegaFix� tool where you can select the film type. Select Kodak/Portra whatever, then click on the �expert� button. In the preview window move the frame lines so only the exposed film area is inside the frame. Do not include any black or white border, sprocket holes, etc. Then click the Auto button.

 

SF should analyze the negative and adjust the channel thresholds in the �expansion� display. You can tweak the thresholds or adjust the curves if you wish � with well exposed negatives I seldom feel the need.

 

Uncheck the unlabeled check box next to the Auto button and these settings will be preserved for all your subsequent negative scans. You can readjust the frame lines if you�d like to include the film border, sprocket holes or other trash without affecting the color settings.

 

Or, if you�re doing a batch scan and have cropped the frame you can leave Auto checked and each frame will be individually adjusted. This can help if you�re scanning a strip with uneven exposures.

 

I�ve used SF a lot, I find it very capable though somewhat underdocumented. With clean film I have almost nothing to do in PS except save the TIFF, sharpen & print.

 

Best of luck,

Jonathon,

 

Using the Tetenal/Jobo 6-bath process, 1st dev, I have found 6:30 to work best for Kodak E100 (exactly what Jobo recommends) and 7:00 for Provia (+8%). These times yield slides which scans well, but are about 1/3rd stop denser than the same films processed via Fuji mailers.

 

The Tetenal literature says 1st dev. time should affect only the density of the result. My experience bears this out.

 

They also say �development times are averages which may need to be individually adapted to the combination of processor, agitation during development and the ratio of film area per quantity of 1st developer.� I process two rolls of 135-36 or one 220 in 250ml of one-shot working solutions, which �wastes� 50% of the chemistry�s capacity, but yields very consistent results.

 

I suggest you start with Jobo�s guidelines and adjust per your own needs.

 

Cheers,

freD,

 

Nice detail, but the scans look a little flat.

 

Neat idea, I've never seen that done before. Anti-Newton glass slide mounts in 35mm are about US$0.35. They might make a damn good mount if your scanner has a slide carrier. I think I'll get some and try that.

 

Thanks,

I use Tetenal E6 chemistry for home processing. The only inhalation warning in their literature concerns the stabilizer solution which contains formaldehyde. I have a sealed plastic container for that step which is only open long enough to dump a roll in and pull it out. The stabilizer works at room temperature, so does not produce a lot of vapor.

 

You may be able to find the Tetenal material data safety sheets on Jobo�s web site.

 

Kodak�s E6 kit does not contain formaldehyde if I recall correctly. Kodak has a wealth of safety information on their site.

 

There are no other inhalation warnings in the Tetenal literature. Don�t drink the stuff, don�t bathe in it or splash it in your eyes, you�ll be OK. As far as odors, E6 chemistry is no better or worse than B&W or C41 chemistry I�ve used.

 

I have to disagree with Mendel regarding the potential quality of home processing. I started doing this myself specifically because I got fed up with professional results: professional scratches, professional thumb prints, and professional grunge left on the film. (Not to mention professionally lost film, or frames cut professionally down the middle.) These were top quality processors too, local dip & dunk, Q-star, Fuji & Kodak mailers.

 

Besides cleaner, scratch-free film, you can get results that are as consistent as you want. Literally, it�s up to you, not some faceless technician with a hot date and a dickhead for a boss. Since you have a good processor, find a consistent source of water to mix your working solutions (I buy 5-gal bottles of distilled so I get neutral pH & no minerals or chloro-whatnots), and follow the instructed temps & times. It really ain�t that hard.

 

I�ve only got 3 years to compare, but my home-processed slides have not faded. I wash my film thoroughly and make sure it gets a full does of stabilizer. I�ve heard a high temperature drier improves stability, but I don�t use one so I dunno about that. It seems E6 fades eventually, no matter who does what.

 

Cheers,

RW deserves his fine reputation no doubt, but you might want to check out Hong Kong Supplies at http://www.hksupplies.com/product/product.cfm.

 

I've dealt with them on several occasions including the recent purchase of two Mamiya 7 lenses. They are prompt, courteous and their prices are very competitive (Mamiya 7II + 80mm lens is US$1630) and shipping is included.

 

Best of luck wherever you purchase, it's a very handy 6x7 camera.

Testing 1 2 1 2. How now brown cow. Is this mic on? Ahem, yeah, I've had on-again-off-again results. Tried all the remedies, seems pretty flaky. Hey, maybe if I email Brian the Photonet evangelist he can post for me?

Bejing, 1988<div></div>

Robert,

 

There is a clutch on the take-up spool which accommodates the variable diameter as film is wound onto the spool. It sounds like the clutch on yours is out of whack. Too tight and the take-up will tear the film sprockets; too loose and the take-up will not keep sufficient tension and film could bind up in the take-up chamber. Either of these would be more evident towards the end of the roll.

 

You can get a sense of the clutch tension by removing the bottom plate and simply stopping the take-up spool with a finger while winding. It should slip smoothly while providing steady torque.

 

If this is inconclusive I would sacrifice a roll of film and, after loading the film normally, remove the base plate (keeping the back in place) and observe what happens when the winder begins to bind.

 

There is no adjustment for clutch tension per se. Friction is set by a spring in the base of take-up spool. If the clutch seems tight then it�s probably worn or damaged; if it�s loose check the screw in the base of spool, maybe it�s backed out. (Use a good #6 jewelers screw driver, you don�t wanna ding the screw head.)

 

The clutch itself is nothing more than a synthetic washer, nylon by the look of it. It can�t cost more than a few cents. If you bought the camera used then maybe you should spring for a CLA as there may be other wear and tear.

 

In any case, the problem you describe is not normal, good luck,

Awright then, let it be street. You can't fault Glenn's photo, where else but on the street would you find that? Here's another street photo.<div></div>

I too use RRS clamps and plates (on an M6, I confess.) They are very well made and I hope quality remains a priority for the new management. RRS are/were a quaint outfit. Not in the 21st century, perhaps, but when I needed a clamp in a hurry they shipped me one prior to receiving, let alone clearing, my check. (I miss the 20th century. What�s the 21st century got to offer Leica fans anyway?)

 

And to all the would-be forum cops, there are lots of discussions here which could arguably go elsewhere. But then this place might be less worth visiting.

 

So, thanks Luther.

James,

 

<p>

 

Unless you live in Tornado Alley your church ain�t goin� anywhere

soon, is it? So try all these things. Try till you get what you want.

The most important ingredient is the picture in your head.

 

<p>

 

One more thing you might think about, if (a) the building elevation

is not much larger than the window and (b) the subject window faces

east (SE if you�re way up north), then you might try shooting on a

clear evening from the outside of the building during the fading

daylight. Illuminate the window from the inside, or if you�re really

lucky, open the doors and light it with God�s own. The intent would

be to silhouette the building with the glow of the evening light,

with the bright window as the main focus. Wow, if you could get snow

into it you could sell it to Hallmark and make back the cost of the

film.

 

<p>

 

Good shooting,

Thanks Brett. I keep thinking a 6x9 with a 150ish lens would be pretty good people camera. I�d love to try one sometime.

 

And while I understand the appeal of interchangeable lenses, I think Fuji got it right with GW and GSW. Building a good, usable view/range finder that operates over a 3-or-4-to-1 range of focal lengths ain�t easy. Far more cost effective, IMO, to build a v/r finder optimized for a fixed lens. I s�pose if you gottta have all the focal lengths with you all the time, multiple bodies get bulky. Generally, the more lenses I carry the fewer I use. I can�t explain it.

 

Regards,

Brett,

 

How hard/easy are the longer lenses to focus?

 

Thanks,