drew_simons

February 12, 2010

I shot a lot of this combination that you mentioned, D76 1:1 and Neopan 1600. I think that you will find the results are superb. Nice tight grain structure with good contrast.

I followed Fuji's recommendations quite closely. I agitate for the first 50 seconds if it is a high contrast scene. If it is low contrast, then agitate the whole minute. The next bit is also important for the outcome of your highlights:

I agitate twice on the minute per minute for a low contrast scene. Only once for a high contrast scene. Go for about 5-6 seconds. I found that you DON'T need to over agitate this film. Instead technique is important with a twist as you invert to ensure even distribution of the develper over the film base.

Process for 7 1/2 minutes for a high contrast scene. Alternatively for diffused lighting like on dusk with no street lights turned on yet, process for 8 - 8 1/2 minutes. This is for EI: 800-1000.

For EI: 1600 go to 9 minutes. I tend to process for a little longer than Fuji's recommendations, but with reduced agitation. Temperature is quite critical - I keep mine at 19/20C.

I recommend that you also look up a guy on flickr, under the user name of Junku Newcleus. A respected Japanese photographer who has had a number of exhibitions. He uses this combination exclusively and I think that his work will provide the best example on the net as to the excellent noir tones that this dynamic combination is capable of. He uses a 50's Leitz Summarit 1.5 and the highlights are truely wonderful. I do believe that he processes for 6 1/2 minutes at 26C every time. He has quite high contrast images, so whatever moves you.

Good luck>

February 6, 2010

I recently shot two rolls of Ilford Delta 3200 film under diffused just on dusk light. I bought a bottle of TMAX developer as I didn't want the complication of mixing and storing Microphen.

One roll was exposed at EI:800 and one roll at EI:1600

I read that 1:4 is the suggested dilution and the times of 61/2 minutes and 71/2 minutes respectively are the recommended times. But I have also read that for this Delta film it is best to process longer for the next EI.

So, does anyone have experience with this? What times did you use? How about agitation cycle - 5 seconds per minute or ten seconds? First 30 seconds?

Thankyou for any help with this.

February 6, 2010

I have always wondered about this topic as well. I have the opposite problem - higher temperatures due to the Australian humidity etc

If for example I process my chemicals at 20C/21C then the wash water moves up to 28C will reticulation occur? Has anyone identified how high the temperature increase has to be for this to happen? I normally keep about 5 liters cooling in the fridge as wash water, but sometimes I get caught out and forget to do this, hence I have to use the tap water which is warmer than processing temp.

An old pro once told me that warmer water gives a faster wash than 20C, but I have never verified or tested this. Opinions and experiences welcome^^?

December 12, 2009

Thanks for the input everyone. It was interesting to hear your views on this.

One may only wonder what the future has installed for film users. Perhaps everyone company that produces film will be bought out by a large multinational company of unknown origin that mass produces every brand of film in the same generic yellow box. Then, it is up to the consumer to do a clip test in D76 to determine what film they were lucky enough to purchase and process from there. You could ultimately be stuck with a slow Efke film whilst secretly hoping for TMAX3200 for a night shoot you had organised .

December 12, 2009

Has anyone else been disappointed with the gradual removal over time of developing times on the inside of film boxes? I am currently shooting some TRI-X and Neopan and wonder what were the companies thinking in eliminating this information.

It could be from consuming too much Belgian beer and inhaling stop bath odours, but can anyone actually remember when these disappeared? Are they on the inside of the TMAX lineup? What about Delta? I haven't shot Ilford HP5 for a few months so I can't remember what was inside their boxes. What about Neopan Acros and Efke films.

Do you think that this could be a further cost cutting method? Save on that precious ink. Or perhaps there are too many commercial developers available nowadays, so the space on the box is prohibitive. Perhaps a more informed member has some information on this.

Alternatively, perhaps the companies realize in the current age of internet technology that it is a safe bet that everyone who can afford film also has some access to the internet which can deliver these times instantly through pdf files and the like.

Thoughts - opinions...

December 12, 2009

I can't comment from personal experience as I don't use the 28mm field of view.

According to other user reports, the Ricoh GR1 gets rave reviews and is favoured by street photographers such as Daido Moriyama who takes one everywhere he goes. Also, Jacob Aue Sobol from Magnum uses them. There is an excellent review of this camera in the archives of this website. It has a snapshot mode so would be very fast for a point and shoot. In the photo.net review it is compared by a major photography magazine as better than the Minolta TC-1. It would be worth reading.

December 11, 2009

Martin,

"T3 is smaller and slightly wider Sonnar 2.8/25mm lens"

You are wrong. The T3 has a 35mm lens, not a 25mm lens. I have used two models of point and shoot from Contax and two from Leica: the T2, T3, Minilux, CM.

I also used a T3 for a period of two months and got rid of it really quickly. Besides the camera being too small to steady, focusing on the T3 is slower than the T2. I had an awful lot of missed shots when on autofocu, when subjects were moving compared to the T2. My only regret is purchasing the T3 and wastinf time and money with it.

Also, you have to PRESS buttons on the T3 to scale focus and change the distance. This is a big deal. With the T2, Minilux and CM, you use a dial, which is ALOT faster. When you want to use an improvised snap shot mode, just dial to 2 meters, set the aperture to F8, F11 depending on light and fire away. This is especially good when subjects are off center.

However, I would strongly recommend the Minilux or even better, the Leica CM with a better viewfinder- supporting an absolutely stunning jewel of a lens, the Summarit 2.4. You will be hard put to distinguish photos taken with this lens and a modern Summicron or the new 2.5 Summarit range. This Summarit will provide a lot more subtle tones in between black and white when compared to the Sonnar. The Sonnar lens is too strong in contrast.

Good luck. Like I said I would suggest ebay to get a camera like that.

December 11, 2009

I can't comment on the Olympus, but I did use a Contax T2 a few years back for a period of nearly 9 months.

I found the viewfinder excellent - like an M6! However, I have really gone off modern Sonnar lens such as the one in the T2. In shadowy light I found the contrast excessive.

A few other things - you can't select 2.8 as a working aperture, as that will be aperture priority if you select that. But of course in low light with flash turned of, then it will use it. But in afternoon light on a cloudy day, you don't know what aperture you are getting when you select aperture priority.

So, in conclusion I would strongly suggest a Leica minilux. No, this isn't some leica fanatic talking here - its just that the 2.4 summarit lens is superior in every way. That lens is a killer - fantastic resolution, it will match an earlier summicron. I found this summarit a nice blend between new and old. I guess India may have some strong light, so I would go for a Leica minilux.

Perhaps ebay would be good? Contax T2 are perhaps rare to find in shops nowadays.

Good luck and happy travelling!

December 5, 2009

Lex - sorry but that may have come out the wrong way!

What I meant to say, was that I was hoping to hear from you and I am grateful for the response that you did give.

Sometimes I think it would be great to meet up for some beer with everyone to discuss film processing so as to remove these potentially misworded replies!

Cheers,

Drew

December 5, 2009

First, thanks to everyone who contributed.

Chris - It is interesting to see that we draw some of the same conculsions with this. I have read a lot of what you have written in the past about your work with Rodinal and some of the the slower films. I guess 1:50 could be a nice middle ground.

Lex- I was hoping to hear about your experiences with push processing. I have read that you favor Microphen and from what I have seen it does produce wonderful attractive grain. I realize that Rodinal isn't the 1st choice for pushing, but if need be it is interesting to examine which dilution would do the job.

Frank - Your recommendation of Diafine sounds great. I just have an availability issue with that, otherwise I would have tried it earlier. Rodinal is the only developer that I have on me.

Mike - Its interesting to see that someone noticed the conflicting data with Kodak's data. I think also there were different times floating around on the net after the new TMY-2 and TRI-X were introduced. I do note that Kodak and the Rodinal have different times for TRI-X. Perhaps they have different thermometers.

My biggest processing mistake I made was made late last year. I had shot two rolls of the new TMY-2 in very contrasy conditions. This seems to be an inherently high contrast film to begin with. I didn't bother checking the internet to see if the old times stood. So I developed with D76 1:1 for the old time of 12:30 instead of the newer shorter time. My highlights were severly blown and I was pretty gutted by the whole thing as there were some potentially good shots in there.

Thanks again.

December 5, 2009

I have been using Rodinal for a while now to process TRI-X, Neopan and HP5.

I was hoping to hear from some of the more experienced members as to which dilution you would recommend for push processing. I normally process with 1:50 as it seems a nice middleground - the time is reasonable and contrast can be controlled quite well. Allternatively 1:25 for slightly overcast conditions to give my negs some zap. I will sometimes use 1:100 for close to 20 minutes with strong lighting conditions to protect highlights. There is always conjecture around the theory of push processing and some have suggested that it is more art than science. This area of film development has always interested me, partly because Kodak (which I tend to use) seems to have dropped the ball with a lot of their data for 400 ISO film shot at EI:800 and above. For example, the famous example of TRI-X in D:76 1:1 is recommended at the same time for both 400 and 800.

Also, with the release of the new RO9, there are so many different sets of data out there for its use. There are suggested times of TRI-X at EI:400 anywhere between 11 and 14 minutes. There seems to be a lot more dircrepancies than the research that was conducted for D76. Perhaps because it was a new product there wasn't suffficient time to test.

So, back to push processing and the lack of emprical data for TRI-X and Rodinal -

Common sense would dictate that a dilution of 1:25 or 1:50 should be used so the developer doesn't get exhausted for the extended time. But, of course the number of rolls and solution will then have a bearing on this. On the flip side of the coin, pushed film is also often shot under contrasty lighting conditons like stage etc where there are large zone differences, so a weaker dilution maybe preferable to save those highlights. So, 1:50 or 1:100 would be perhaps the more practical alternative.

So, if anyone has some opinions, experience or advice to offer with this, then I would be most interested to hear from you. I realize that everyone has their preferred methods and at the end of the day you find what works for you.

Cheers, Drew

P.S I guess in retrospect it may come down to the tradeoff between the two factors that I mentioned above.

December 1, 2009

Walter - thanks for that reference to that website. I will definetely have a look at that after I have replied here.

I also had a feeling that someone would ask me why I don't process using the conventional method. Well the answer is this: i'm not a cheapskate at all, but to get to the nearest processing place is going to take me at least 40 minutes by car in the wrong direction - I live in the outer burbs. So factoring in gas price I couldn't be bothered. Also, processing is also about the journey discovery and I wanted to try something different. I realize that the results will be less than optimal but I have heaps of memorable shots taken on a leica lens that will see me through. Also and perhaps the real reason - I broke up with that girl, so I don't mind if all doesn't go well.

Richard - thankyou also for that informative/prompt response. I will follow your directions exactly and see what I come up with. I figured that I could utilise the remaining Rodinal I have as well. I once saw on rangefinder where someone had processed some Fuji 400H with D76 and it came out very well. I don't expect much, but just wanted to enjoy myself.

Photo net is an amazing site to be able to find someone that has used rodinal to develop color film.

Thanks again Walter and Richard.

Cheers,

Drew

November 30, 2009

I think that its best to put in fresh developer each time as this will reduce variables that you have to take into account with times etc.

When I was using D76 before I switched to Rodinal, I only used one shot 1:1 and then discarded. If there was solution more than a couple of months old I tossed it and brewed up a new batch. If the film is important then I would do this. But, if its not important, then go for it!

November 30, 2009

Hi,

I have a little disposable camera that I used to take photos on a trip a few years ago. They are not important so I am considering processing them with my chemicals for black and white photography. Bad I know. I am really not bothered if they don'tm turn out well.

I plan to use Rodinal and the film speed is about EI:200. Does anyone have a ballpoint figure for the time needed to process that color film in a dilution of 1:50? What temperature should I use? I need a rough guide.

Also, what about fixing - will the times be the same as normal black and white film?

I'm just writing in the off chance that someone may have committed a similar deed. Also, if anyone has done it with another black and white developer other than Rodinal, please tell me and I will extrapolate the time from there.

Also, on a separate note, I plan to somehow dislodge the film in a film changing bag. I will pry open the camera with scissors or something. Has anyone ever processed film from their own disposable cameras? Is the film easy to get out?

Thanks to any members who have some experience with this!

Cheers, Drew

November 29, 2009

Sergio,

I am sorry but I can't comment on its compatibility with the M8 - I only shoot film on a M6.

I will say that the results that I got with my Leica CM's Summarit were outstanding to say the least. Apparently the CM's Summarit was identical in make to the M mount range.

Many have compared the Summarit range as having a look half way between old and new - so its a nice compromise. There is definetely somethingn special in those highlights, I will say that.

I have also read that the Biogon 2.8 is even higher contrast than the 2.0 version I am currently stuck with. I have had to reduce all of my processing times significantly on a sunny day to compensate for this high contrast. Also, like I said, build quality is another feature to take into consideration and there is always the chance that the Biogon can develop problems like mine and so many others did.

Good luck and take your time to get as much information from as many sources as possible,

Drew

November 29, 2009

I used one for about 6 months for black and white work. From my experience continous agitation like this is will not give you your best quality negatives for black and white film. You also have to take into account what developer you are using and then adjust from there.

I found that you that the developer is constantly hitting the film/highlights and the suggested reduced times of 15% doesn't allow the shadow areas to develop fully. When processing film that was shot in high contrast conditions I copped a lot of blown highlights. Work exposed on an overcast day turned out a lot better. I was processing my film in a place where the guy had bought one for the space then he sold it later due to these problems. My suggestion is that if you only shoot black and white and not very much of it, then it may be better to sell this, get some tanks a heap of film and keep the change.

I have heard that it is better with color work, but I haven't used it for that so I can't comment.

November 28, 2009

I realize that everyone has different experiences, but I would recommend to stay clear of the Biogon range.

I purchased a 35mm Biogon 2.0 new in Japan when I was there. The whole thing has been a disaster from the start. It has experienced a multitdude of problems and the rendition at F2 is in my opinion so clinical bordering on nasty.

Problems include, what I have recently found to be paint dislodged in the lens. It also has accumulated dust like there is no tomorrow. I also encountered the wobbly focus mount problem. Some may argue that it isn't expensive to repair, well the time getting it to the service shop - 1 hour drive from where I live has to be considered. I have done that trip twice now and spent $180 getting it fixed.

Needless to say, the contrast is too strong with figures appearing like clinical cutout cartoon characters. It is also difficult to focus in the vertical position, so I think the ergonomics are cheap quality.

So, in short have you considered a Leica Summarit 35mm 2.5? I had the Leica CM 40mm 2.4 version and the way it rendered highlights was MILES apart from what the ZM could do. There was such a subtle capture of tones it made me regret ever going down the ZM range. ALso, what about considering the Summaron 2.8?

November 17, 2009

Yes, I am currently using a generic lens cap. However, I want to sell that lens so I want to try and get the best price for it, as I have the box, papers, but not the original cap. Personally I don't care what covers the lens, glad wrap for all I care, but unfortunately potential buyers do care about such things.

I will never buy another lens from the ZM lineup. My current biogon is terrible to foucs in the vertical position. I also have had two problems with it. The first was it developed that wobbly focus. The second is that there is black matter displaced inside the lens that I have had to had cleaned out. This was from a new lens. So, I am selling. Had enough of it.

I also don't care for the rendering of highlights. The transition at F2 from focus to out of focus is nasty.

It just taught me a valuable lesson. Stick with Leica, as there equipment has always stood the test of time. Also, the way that new summarit produces highlights is magical.

Thankyou everyone again for the suggestions. I checked popflash but they don't have the 43mm lens cap. So, I am just found the Zeiss website and will try and procure one through them.

Cheers

November 17, 2009

Thanks Richard. I will log onto that site and investigate their range. I have the Biogon ZM 2.0 by the way,

Cheers!

November 17, 2009

I was wondering if anyone knew where I could find a replacement front lens cap for my ZM biogon 35mm. I lost it recently and have checked ebay and other sites to no avail.

Thanks for any information on this.

November 11, 2009

Forgot to mention, if you want to use a 400 speed film for day, instead of the above suggested Neopan 1600, then choose from either TRI-X, Neopan 400 or HP5. HP5 produces the largest grain, with creamy tones as it still closely resembles the older film formula.

Neopan will be stronger in contrast, aka more hard hitting journalist look, but a little flatter with smaller grain. TRI-X's grain is somewhere in the middle.

Also, TRI-X seems to handle exposure/processing errors better than the other two, so if you don't like metering and are using an older Leica or rangefinder without a meter, then it maybe perfect for you.

November 11, 2009

Basically what Lex said. Also, Greg's suggestion of Neopan 1600 in Rodinal is an excellent one. I have done this a few times and the grain is super wire sharp with a classic noir look.

Most importantly, you didn;t mention whether you are shooting at day or night, as this will have a bearing on your methodology and film/developer/lens combination. For example, I have found that shooting Neopan 1600 at day is best when exposed at 600 on a sunny day and 800-1000 on an overcast day.

However, my preferred methodology was Neopan 1600 in D76 1:1 at EI 800 for 7 1/2 - 8 minutes, agitate 1st 50 seconds, then 1 agitation at the start of the minute or 2 for less contrasty subdued lighting. Keep the temperature DOWN below 20C for good enhanced shadow detail.

In addition, although some may argue otherwise, if you use modern multi-coated ZM Zeiss,Leica, Voigtlander glass then the contrast can become obscene and ruin the desired effect. I was using a 60's summicron a friend lent me and found that had a SIGNIFICANT bearing on my developer/film combination, hence the resulting contrast/shadow detail. I found that I had to shorten my times significantly when I moved from older generation Leica glass to modern multi-coated glass.

Another suggestion, is to use glass from the 50,60,70's to achieve a classic look that can in turn garner the required shadow detail. Overdevelop for the required contrast. I found this method easier than starting with modern glass then adjusting from there.

Also, Marco and Lex, you both mentioned Japanese photographers. Look up this guy in flickr under user: Junku Newcleus. He has had a number of exhibitions there (he is Japanese) and his work is gaining prominence for exploring Japanese nightlife. He uses a 50's Leitz Summarit 1.5. He also uses Neopan 1600 in D76.

I read an interview in a magazine where he was quoted as saying that he develops his film for 6 1/2 minutes at 26C. He manages to capture the heart and soul of modern day Japan, but with a truely film noir look. Technically his work is all about these fabuluous highlights that he manages to produce with some deep blacks. I think that his work is a must if you want to see what is coming from that part of the workd currently.

November 9, 2009

My procedure for Neopan 1600 is I shoot it at 800 then develop in D76 1:1.

I agitate for the first 50 seconds (Fuji recommends the 1st minute) but have found that unnecessary.

Then I agitate either twice at the start of each minute for lighting conditions that aren't contrasty, or alternatively only once for contrasty light.

Then I develop for a total of 7:30 at 20C. Try to keep the temperature between 19-20C.

I have found that this works every time. You may like to extend to 8 minutes with less agitation to give those shadows a chance to develop fully. The grain is excellent and you will be surprised at the smooth tones.

For Neopan 1600 at EI 1600, develop for 8:30-9:00.

September 1, 2009

Depending on how that lens was advertised - were those scratches adequately described in the initial ad? Just thinking that from here they don't look good and it maybe better to return and perhaps lose out on the postage. If there was false advertising then you have a right to return that. There will be a loss of contrast, but how much is anybodys guess.

That is a good chunk of change so I would try to return that. Some people may well argue that lens are for shooting, just use the thing regardless of condition, but in my case I had an elmar 2.8 that was nothing like the original description and it burned me up on the inside for 2 years as I could never reconcile that I had parted with hard earned money for something that wasn't up to par. My elmar still shot okay but wasn't as good as it could have been. I would argue that when you are spending money on quality equipment then try to get a deal that you are satisfied with.

My elmar was advertised as no haze and when I got it it was full of haze that wasn't showing in the photos. Anyway, good luck with that and try to get a refund if you can - just my personal suggestion!

August 13, 2009

Thankyou everyone for that fantastic response.

In response to some of your questions, the lens is quite hacked up on the front element and I had some film processed and the prints show the effects of this. I cannot show these now because I don't own a film scanner yet to do that. I purchased it cheap to play with, but was amazed at the craftmanship of this lens. I have seen numerous examples of it shot in black&white and it was what I was looking for.

I think Christopher's response has swayed me to selling and purchasing a higher quality lens on the internet. It is no point risking recoating when I could just sell and buy. Also, interesting what Paul said about the character changing with a recoating job. Just the answer I was looking for.

Also, special thanks to Kelly for taking the time to upload those examples. I appreciate the time spent to do that.

Thanks again everyone.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by drew_simons