mark_tate

For stand developing the developer you use is very critical and IMO D76 is the worst of the lot to use ( not just for stand developing either ). I am sure a few will disagree.. oh well.

I have never really thought much of any stand development method and look at it as one of the worst developing methodologies there is. I have done it a few times and have never seen any advantage or benefit in doing so. It does however waste a lot of time and has a greater risk of ruining your film.

I have seen and read an awful lot of literature on the subject with most of it being nothing but silly crap that makes no sense and unless you have several $k worth of scientific analytical equipment you would never know if it is better as most if any improvements over normal developing are very very subtle however any degradation will most of the time hit you smack in the eye.

When you pull process film you must decrease development time NOT increase it.

have not found a B&W film yet that can not be pulled or pushed 3 or 4 stops and you are only 1 stop over exposed.

As others have said just decrease your development time by around 10% and use what ever developer you have been using the same way you have been using it. There are much better developers than D76 as well but this is nothing to do with push/pull processing.

Based on = nothing like

<p>No it is not the filter that is for certain.<br>

Looks to be a developing issue, maybe not enough developer in the tank but I doubt that TBH. <br>

What dilution developer ? maybe to strong or to hot, this can cause uneven development and it is something I see a lot of on this and other forums. One of the thumb photos at the bottom of this page right now is also showing uneven development. <br>

I used to use FP4 many years ago with ID11 developer ( Ilford brand D76) and did have some problems with uneven development, I found it much more reliable you use a 3:1 dilution at 20 deg C, I forget the development times though soz, been a lot of years since I have used that film and developer combination. <br>

Just something else to look at and make sure it is actually on the film and not a problem with your scanner as this can also cause similar looking effects and is rather common. <br>

It is possible you have a light leak in your camera but I doubt it TBH. </p>

 

<p>Some how you managed to not get developer on that part of the film although I can not see just how this could have happened. My guess is that you got a kink in the film as you loaded it on the real. <br>

Can not say I have ever had blue blobs like that with any B&W film. <br>

Bad idea not to use stop bath, this can cause staining and a few other problems and may have something to do with the blue blobs. <br>

Do not be to concerned with problems like this, even after 40 years I still make some mistakes and waste a bit of film, it is certainly not something that you learn over night or with just the first roll of film. </p>

 

<p>Sure does</p>

<p>Who ever said that C-41 chems do not keep, fact is it does keep rather well and better than most B&W developers. I have used mixed developer that is six months old with no problems or ill effects. Given I mix all my chems with Demineralized and STAGNANT water. <br>

I have a small batch of fresh mix that I am letting age for 12 months just to get an idea of its useful life, will be 12 months in Feb 2017. <br>

As for the cost well that can depend on your demographic as to weather it is worth it or not, for me it certainly is since I am in the land of empty, Australia. The few labs that are around are a long way from me and a rip off in price. There are still a few minilabs around but they only do 35mm and mainly shoot in 4x5 LF for colour. </p>

<p>If you are happy with the results you are getting then that is all that really matters.<br>

I personally have never been one to do it that way, if I want B&W photos I use B&W film. If I want colour I use colour film, mainly Ektar100. <br>

I detest C41 B&W films TBH, to me they just look bad and lack luster. <br>

One thing to keep in mind though is that B&W films are much higher resolution than colour film, about the highest resolution colour film you can get now is Kodak Ektar 100 at around 150 LP/mm, slide film is around 170 LP/mm. Most B&W films are around 220 LP/mm with many films now getting 400 LP/mm and with Adox CMS20 that can get up to 800LP/mm. <br>

There are other things to consider as well, if you want your films to be still around in 100 years then a silver based B&W is the only way to go. <br>

With B&W films you really do need to do your own processing, there are just way to many process variables that can have drastic affects on the final negative. With C41 there are no process variables at all that can change the final image in a positive way, it is either right or it is wrong, if your lab is telling you at any time they are push or pull processing C41 they are lying. <br>

Many things you need to consider, what ever makes you the happiest is the best option. </p>

<p>For contact printing the F stop is irrelevant, all lenses have a sweet spot for maximum sharpness but this does not apply for contact printing as you are not projecting any image through it, just use the F stop you would use when printing. <br>

As for times you will have to do your own test to determine this. How I do it is I set my timer to 5 seconds, place a card over the paper and leave a strip, expose this for the 5 seconds and then move the card a bit more and expose for 5 seconds, repeat this until all of the test paper is exposed, look for the strip that looks the best exposure and count how many 5 second exposures it was given and then this will be your base time. </p>

<p>John<br>

I hope you enjoy the camera, in there day they were a true contender and sure did give Hassleblad a run. <br>

The SQ-B was in fact a student release and priced accordingly, they are mechanically just as reliable as the SQ-A but the SQ-Ai did have a few upgrades both mechanical and electrical. <br>

The SQ-AM is the least reliable due to the motor film wind being built in and this is what would fail most of the time. <br>

Yes you can still find some very nice examples of these cameras, I still have a brand new SQ-Ai body, 80mm PS lens and film back my self that was apart of my spares from when I was doing weddings, all brand new in boxes ( sorry not for sale ) , I do not use a Bronica anymore my self as I am no longer a working professional and for what I like to do I would rather 6x9 rangefinders or large format now.<br>

In the last 2 years I have sold 3 pelican cases full of SQ gear and I get the feeling I am going to regret it in some way, but I had way to much stuff that I was just not using, I had 15 or so lenses, 30 odd film backs and 8 bodies not to mention view finders and grips and other miscellaneous bits of kit. Alot of it I bought new from around 1998 to 2004 when Bronica closed down. New price for it all would have been well over $150K , just one lens I got in 2001 cost me $19K ( PS500 ) unfortunately that lens and a lot of other gear ( my self included ) was smashed in a car crash in 2007.<br>

Hassleblads as good as they are were certainly not immune to age anymore or less than any camera and they were certainly not indestructible. </p>

 

<p>No there is not, there is really no instant film around at all now that is worth buying. </p>

<p>View camera Action<br>

Steps of the Sydney Opera House <br>

Canon AE-1P , 50mm lens Adox CMS20II film. </p><div></div>

<p>Almost every thing I currently use I got from eBay and most of that from US sellers ( I am in Australia ) TBH I have never had a problem. Just keep in mind that is something sounds to good to be true then it probably is not.<br>

Do not know why it would take you so long to get items from AU, nothing I have sent to the US or the UK has ever taken that long. I get some things from the US in less than a week. </p>

<p>Bronica SQ. Great cameras, a few tips.<br>

Do not get a "B" they were the student releases and only had basic functions, the latest is the SQ-Ai and this is the body you should look for, with the SQ-Ai you can also use an SCA flash adapter to control a flash with SCA interface such as a Metz CL45, I used this set up for many years and it is amazing.<br>

The SQ-A is an older body and does not have SCA interface.<br>

Only get the PS lenses and not the S lenses, the S lenses are good but the PS are the best and in terms of sharpness are just as good as Hassleblad. </p>

<p>You can do it any way you like provided it is totally DARK.</p>

<p>Stabilizer will last you a long time and it is not even a compulsory part of the process, very recommended but still not compulsory.<br>

The premix Digibase kits do not even come with any in fact.<br>

Just dilute it until you have enough volume for your tank and it will be fine. You could make it a liter and it will be fine or you could just use 500ml with constant agitation. <br>

You can also just buy it separately if you need to. </p>

<p>Generally speaking slower films have finer grain , for the same developer Tmax100 is finer than Tmax400 but there are many thing that can affect this.<br>

IMO if you want grain-less negs then use Tmax developer, Tmax100 is incredibly fine grained with that developer but I personally do not like the tone. <br>

Any reason why you are chasing the finest grain ? film grain can also look great and it is nothing like digital noise in fact it is not a noise at all but a physical effect, film grain is what gives film photos there unique look. <br>

If you really want grain-less photos then Tmax400 is not a good choice of film, it is the last film I use when I do not want grain, it is the film I reach for when I do want some grain in fact.<br>

For very low grain I use I like to use films under ISO100 , Adox CMS20 is so fine that my Epson V700 can not scan deep enough to see it.<br>

Other films I like for fine grain are Rollei RPX25, Ilford Pan50, Tmax100 pulled to ISO 25 and developed in FX39 is one of my faves. </p>

 

<p>Old problem this, there was a few batches of Kodak roll film that had bad backing paper.<br>

Has been bought up many times on this and other forums. </p>

<p>Look like a gimmick aimed at people with very little knowledge and experience in film developing to me.<br>

Gimmick = " junk item that cost way more than what it should and does way less than what is says it will " </p>

<p>TIP #1 .. you do not need a dark room to develop film. <br>

TIP #2 .. C41 colour film is just as easy to process as B&W films. <br>

TIP #3 .. Unless you want to spend $20K a machine will not make the job any better or easier. <br>

TIP #4 .. Do not take my word for anything, find out for your self if you feel you must. </p>

 

<p>That is not xray damage, it is only ISO 125 film, I have had literally hundreds of films and loaded cameras go through xray machines and never had a problem anything like that, even when xray does affect film it will be an all over fog and not a defined shape such as this. <br>

I am not to sure what it is, I just know what it is not, my best guess is a light leak.</p>

<p>I would say it is a lab issue and probably from underused machinery. Problem is with mini labs is that they MUST keep ruining every day and a lot of smaller labs do not get enough throughput to keep there machines running at optimum.<br>

There is also some scanner artifact in the images that I can see but not very much. <br>

<a href="/photodb/user?user_id=714827">John Shriver </a> is very correct is saying that you can not wash the film in water. This could have happened at any stage of the processing so chances are it is permanent anyway. <br>

Make sure the lab knows about this and get a refund and find some place else to do your developing. <br>

I had this problem years ago with a local lab and that's was when I decided it was better to develop my own C-41 films, it is in fact very easy to do. </p>

<p>HAHAHAHAHA of course :)</p>

<p>I did a lot of casual night club shooting with 35mm many years ago, I mainly used a Canon AE-1P with Metz CL-45 flash gun for this on full manual exposure, as I was only using C-41 type films the exposure latitude is wide enough that I could set the camera to F: 5.6 and leave it there, the flash is only synced at 1/60th of a second on the Canon.Wit C-41 colour film mu exposures were all good but with B&W films it was a bit more hot and miss and required more accurate metering.<br>

I also used a Bronica SQ-Ai 6x6 medium format latter on with an SCA flash control for the Metz CL-45 flash gun, that was by far the best set up for this sort of thing as I could just select any f stop and shutter speed I wanted and the SCA would adjust the flash output accordingly, it was very accurate as well. Down side to this set up is that it is very large and intimidating and rather heavy. A big plus was that you could load up several film backs with different films and use each one as you needed. I used these cameras for weddings and they were so good for that.<br>

100 speed film is fine and what I mainly used but 400 speed film can make it a bit easier. For the life of me I can not see why anyone would want to use ISO 3200 film, if you can not get a decent shot with ISO 400 film then ISO 3200 will not help you much either.<br>

Bracketing exposures when shooting in a night club just does not work and you will waste so much film. Most of the time you only get that one chance for a shot anyway. </p>

 

<p>All B&W films can be reversed processed but some are much better than others, all you need is film reversal processing developer kit and away you go, it can be tricky to get right and as I said some films are better than others.<br>

There are a few reversal developing kits around, a google search will find them for you.<br>

I have done it with Rollei Retro 80s just fine and Rollei Ortho 25 that is excellent for this. That is about all I have done because I really see very little point in doing it, they sure do project very well but being negative film it just does not have the durability of true slide films and are very easy to damage.<br>

You can not reverse film that is already processed as far s I know. <br>

If it is only for projection uses I would personally find it easier and better to just scan the negative and use a digital projector. Depending on the amount of film it could also be a lot cheaper as reverse processing of B&W films is not exactly cheap to do.</p>

<p>I have had several Bronica SQ cameras in the past and did many weddings with them in the 90s, had almost every lens made for them. The PS 80 is the highest resolving lens in the range but there was very little difference between them. My most used was the PS 110 Macro, it was so incredibly sharp and very versatile and far better than the 135mm or 150mm lens as well as the closest focusing. <br /> I did not have the PS 180 but I had a PS 40, PS 50, PS 80, PS 110 macro, PS 150, S 200, S 250 and an S 500,. all lenses were excellent performers and the cameras were as tough as tanks. I also had a zoom but it was not a genuine Bronica lens, forget who made it now but it was not that great of a lens either, seen a few on eBay from time to time at stupidly high prices.<br /> I got a lot of my stuff new and it was incredibly expensive stuff by todays standards with an average price of $10,000 per lens in Australia in the late 90s.<br /> It was impossible to visually tell the difference between Bronica SQ and Hassleblad quality at any print size and I have done countless comparisons, the best print would be done by the best printer regardless of camera or who thinks what camera is the best, I think if it come down to the numbers the Hassleblad would win but it is just not something you can see without scientific analysis and equipment.<br /> I can however at a glance tell an SQ negative from a hassleblad or any other 6x6 negative :)<br /> You will find the performance of the PS 180 to be as good as any other SQ lens of either PS or the older S lenses, I have used both extensively and really could never tell that much difference. The PS handled flare a lot better being the only real noticeable difference. I had several S lenses stolen and replaced them with PS and could not pick the difference in prints.<br /> My best choice for a lens when you only can take one lens would always be for the PS 110 Macro, there were two versions of this lens, one was a true 1:1 macro and had a 77mm filter thread, this is a very rare lens, and the other was not a true 1:1 and had a 67mm filter thread and is more common and the one that I had, it was very close focusing of around 250mm from memory and extension rings where also made so if you wanted you could focus as close as you wanted.<br /> I stopped using Bronica cameras years ago as they got to heavy and I wanted larger formats, for MF all I use now is Fuji 6x9 rangefinders. <br /> There comes a time when you just have to much gear over complicating every simple act, all I shoot with now is two 6x9 rangefinders and a 4x5 with a 90mm and 210 mm lens. when I had Bronica gear I had 4 large Pelican cases :)</p>

<p>BTW Bronica stopped production around 2001- 2002 if I remember right. The PS range of lenses started around 1998 as an update from the S lenses. ( I am pulling this from memory but I am around right ) <br>

The first body was the SQ then the SQ-A and then along with the PS range of lenses was the SQ-Ai, all PS or S lenses are compatible with any body.<br>

The PS lenses are not compatible with the PE ETR lenses, the ETR was by comparison a much smaller and far cheaper camera with no where near the optical performance of the SQ. </p>

<p>As Robert stated Pyrocat-HD in Glycol has a great shelf life in concentrate form, working solutions have to be used as mixed though and is only a one-shot use as well, can not imagine why you would want 3 gallons of it. That is close to enough chemical for over 2000x 120 roll films ( based on US gal = 3.7 liters).<br /> That is a lot of film. <br /> <br />Great developer though and one of my faves.</p>