andrew_brown7

<p>Normally the exposed end of the film develops black as it's been exposed before you close the back and the edge markings would normally show up after development as well. If the whole film was blank and clear then my thoughts tend toward the developer, but as you'd used it a couple of weeks prior that really seems an unlikely culprit; you would imagine it would do something!</p> <p>Probably not the done thing, but this post from the Flickr postings on GP3 might point you towards a solution (if you'll pardon the pun) ::<br> This is from Dan Flint Design on the Flickr page:<br> Hi I've been lurking in here a while. I've been having trouble getting a decent negative from GP3. I see lots of great looking examples from others, and think I finally stumbled on a developer combo that works for me.<br /><br />Yashica Mat 124, Shanghai 120 roll film. (GP3) ISO 100 + Formulary Wimberley WD2D+ Pyro Developer @ 8.5 min 68'.<br /><br />I may play a bit with this time to perfect it. It seems to strengthen the weak emulsion I usually get and takes a bit of the curl out.... I have about ten rolls in the fridge to play more.<br /><br />I still get a lot of scratches and pops. I need to be more careful with my dev process I think...<br> ======<br> Cheers. I use Rodinal for all my films and stand develop them for about an hour or so, so experiments along those lines might help a bit.</p>

<p>I have a pre-AI Nikkor 50/1.4 (with the fluted barrel). It may be thought cheap, but that's only the price and is one of the best lenses I've put on a camera. It's probably the best standard lens they ever made, but if it's too cheap for you you'd better buy the more expensive one, like the guy offered!</p>

<p>Hi,<br> The timings aren't as important as the tones you can see under the UV. You must be very careful of your eyes with the UV. <br> Continue printing until the highlights begin to show. AFAIR Cyanotypes are usually just washed and then let to dry.<br> Are you sizing the paper first?</p>

<p>Start Stand Developing and there's a lot less shaking going on to disturb the reel .</p>

<p>I've done a few copies from film to digital and use RawTherapee for the neg/pos change...just a question of switching the graph round and then altering everything you want with the positive. Bear in mind this is only for me and not for exhibiting in the National Gallery.</p>

<p>I'm sure people thought the same about the OM1; too delicate to be a real camera etc, but you could still buy a beauty today that will perform as well as ever.<br> I have a Nex 7and 6 ; they might look small and delicate and perhaps you couldn't bang nails in with them (I'd use one of my F bodies for that) but they seem well made and very functional. I've had both of mine for a couple of years now and I wouldn't trade or change either of them. I don't know about the disposable nature of digital bodies, but the 6 and 7 are metal bodied as far as I know and don't appear to have disposability built into them; I had a Contax S2 (spot metering one) years ago, and even though they had a good reputation, that (particular?) camera was awful and lasted about 3 months, so that turned out to be very disposable. Luck of the draw, perhaps.<br> I just have some Sigma prime lenses 19, 30 and 60 and a few old Nikkor lenses I use with an adapter and I'm wondering about a turbo Booster to add in, but I'm not sold yet.</p>

<p>E-bay itself seems to be a party to all the scams and crooked dealings that go on on it's site. I could never bring myself to use it as it seems such an untrustworthy organisation, unhelpful when there are problems with people who say they never received an item, or it was damaged etc etc.<br> Ive never understood why people use it all. Caveat emptor indeed.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I keep banging on about this Stand Development procedure which simplifies everything to such an extent that you can go for a walk or make tea while the film develops. I don't use any other method now.</p>

<p>Lovely pictures. Thank you for showing them. Certainly was so different in those times ; not necessarily in place, but certainly in feeling.</p>

<p>(I never read the post properly first and I don't know if this would apply to sheet development, but I guess there's no real reason why it shouldn't) Anyway apologies.</p> <p>I have never kept developer nor used it beyond one tank of film, so maybe I'm wasteful. But a few months ago on this site were a few posts on Stand Development and that only uses minuscule amounts of developer, so that is what I do now..just using 5ml dev or so per film. My 2p!</p>

<p>I have been buying things from them for 40 years. Phone and ask a question and you'll get an idea of how they are!</p>

<p>Is that her name? Holga?</p>

<p>The easel/masking frame I use has a kind of clamping action which holds the paper securely when the arms are dropped so that it is square to the frame itself if you put it in right! After that it's just a question of lining up the negative image with the arms to get it square with the paper. Perhaps I've misunderstood the problem though.<br> Re-reading your post, are you talking of taking pictures that are level? If your camera has interchangeable focusing screens then a grid pattern might be of value.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I read that FP4 was introduced in 1968 and FP4+ in 1990, so it may be that this is just very, very old film if it is FP4.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> !!<br> Maybe you could specialize in road signs until all the film is used up. Or, as you say, find subjects with some of the same grey-ness where you can hide the numbers. I imagine the problem doesn't go right through the film, just the first few pictures on each roll...perhaps abandon the first 3 or 4 images on a roll and see what happens with the rest.<br> Good Luck!</p>

<p>Hi,<br /> If they're missing the foil outer then it's light leakage, either Xrays or day/room/sunlight going through the paper and onto the film...the black numbering creates a 'shadow' image on the film, much paler, and then you develop the film and produce a print and the pale numbers are back. If you printed through the print you would get dark/black numbering again on the image produced.<br> There's a lesson in all this about buying from e-bay I think.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> Just typing in 'Xrays and 120 film backing paper' to Google brings up a lot of info and the Rangefinder Forum seems to have v similar troubles, but i cannot see the images posted there as I'm not a member!<br> Anyway it's a start and the consensus seems to be slack QC on the Chinese film, thin paper etc.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> The Yashica Mat doesn't have a little window, does it, for the film number? So that makes it more likely to be the film...I think on the other post the poster was using a 'respectable' film, so perhaps it's a bad batch. That now doesn't explain the Chinese film! It's not like they're making a million ft a week of it, so perhaps one smallish batch is enough for the global market for a year of so. <br> The backing paper pattern of numbers on the image looks like Fuji Color film(!) as it is very different from Ilford or Kodak patterns, so perhaps China are just copying that pattern; but the real question is how that pattern got on to the film itself.<br> Could it be the X-rays used to scan things in airports?</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I don't think this is wet backing paper, or a light leak through the red window on the camera back. However, if you waste another £1 on some film and take one or two pictures with the camera at 90degrees (on it's side, say)to how you do the rest, I think this will show you if it's the film or the camera. If it's the camera then the numbers will just carry on, although that seems very unlikely, but if it's the film, then I think they should turn 90 degrees as well. Strange to have the other similar problem on another post recently, but it's very hard to link posts together and I cannot remember the title. I think it's the faulty film from China .</p>

<p>Hi,<br> @ Wouter, I never read anything by the photographer that Lisa is interested in, I just glanced at the pictures on show and wondered what makes him stand out so much in her mind. Obviously I cannot know the answer to that!<br> I did look at his courses and thought they seemed reasonably priced and therefore mentioned them in my post. I never checked the dates! To my mind there are a great many other photographers who produce more interesting work; and thousands here on this site alone who produce stunning work and many I'm sure more than willing to share their knowledge with people such as Lisa who are interested in getting further with a nuts and bolts study of photography.</p>

<p>I know it's a bit delayed, but you could try turning the camera through 90 degrees on some shots to find whether it's processing or background lights etc.</p>

<p>He or they run what seem to be courses over in Italy and Sicily and if you are that keen you could think of one of those perhaps. Go on one of those and that would help you develop your own way of making pictures.</p>

<p>I have a NEX 6 and 7 and use my old Nikkors on both; manual focus of course, but the focus peaking (and I think Zebra stripes on the a6000) make it all very easy. The crop factor isn't a problem as I use mainly the 50mm on film cameras I have, so the 35mm Nikkor is about the same view as the standard lens on a film camera which is OK. I think the DoF may change, but it's not a problem; the Nex cameras are so balanced that they're easy to get used to using. The menu system is eccentric but I like it anyway! I have only a basic adapter which seems to do the job.</p>

<p><strong>Hi,<br /></strong><br> <strong>You may have already seen this site, but it may be useful if you haven't.<br /></strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>1.4 Kodak Panchromatic “Made in Belgium” film</strong><br> <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BuCi">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BuCi</a><br> <strong>help ID mystery kodak 620 film</strong><br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=836114">Jeffrey Lan</a><a href="/member-status-icons">http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons</a>, Apr 19, 2005; 09:02 p.m.</strong><br> i just purchased a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye Flash that held in it an exposed roll of 620 film. judging from the yellow backing paper<br> and pointing fingers at the beginning of the roll (i already spooled the film and put it into a tank), i've deduced that it's a kodak film.<br> i'm guessing that it's b/w. of course, the backing paper doesn't say the name of the film, so i'm looking for suggestions.<br> it does say "88A" at the beginning of the paper roll, and the sealing band at the end reads Panchromatic EXPOSED Panchromatic<br> (again, offset to the right of the first "Panchromatic) MADE IN BELGIUM the flash unit lists information on Verichrome,<br> Plus-X, Super-XX, and Kodacolor, Type A - i assume my mystery film is one of these. any suggestions? i have HC-110 on hand and<br> will develop in that if i can find a semi-suitable dev time for the film (or even something that would work for most of them,<br> if i can't get a positive ID). otherwise, it might be fog land with Diafine....<br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>Answers</strong><br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=144798">Robert Marvin</a>, Apr 19, 2005; 09:30 p.m.</strong><br> If its made in Belgium its probably Gevaert (long since merged with Agfa). IIRC I used to buy Sears house brand<br> rollfilm in the mid-60s which was made in Belgium (no doubt by Gevaert) so that is also a possibility<br> <strong><…><br /> Kodak? Gevaert?</strong><br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=785039">Alan Gage</a><a href="/member-status-icons">http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons</a>, Apr 19, 2005; 09:40 p.m.</strong><br> I've used both Diafine and HC-110 on old rolls of found film (oldest being from the 40's and most from the 50's).<br> I've had the best luck with Diafine. Yes, the fog is a little heavier, but the negatives are much easier to scan/print.<br> I suppose I could probably get equally good results from HC-110 by adjusting development time, but these aren't<br> really rolls you can experiment with and no two will be exposed the same. For me Diafine is the clear winner.<br> You can see some of my results if you look in my portfolio; there are a few presentations of found film rolls.<br> Good luck,<br> Alan<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=889981">Rowland Mowrey</a> , Apr 19, 2005; 09:55 p.m.</strong><br> AFAIK, the only films made in Belgium were Gevaert as stated above. At no time was any EK film made in Belgium.<br> EK plants in Europe were at Harrow England and at Vincennes (outside Paris) but now moved to Chalon in south France.<br> Ron Mowrey<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=508830">Scott Walton</a>, Apr 20, 2005; 12:05 p.m.</strong><br> It is B/W film and judging from the packaging, old, slow Verichrome type stuff. You'll need to push the stuff so<br> Diafine would be good with an addition of some Benzotriazole or (something a bit easier) Edwai's Liquid Orthrozite.<br> It is a benzo liquid restrainer buffered with Sodium Sulfite. Does a really nice job and has a REALLY long shelf life.<br> It also does a nice job with sulfite type developers to make the grain finer and a better gradation... handy stuff to<br> have in the darkroom.<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=502260">Jeff Adler</a><a href="/member-status-icons">http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons</a>, Apr 20, 2005; 02:25 p.m.</strong><br> About a year ago I was sent a roll of this same film on a 120 spool. It had been sitting in a Yashica TLR for decades.<br> It is probably Gevapan with a nominal speed of 100. I developed it in Ilford Microphen using the time for Ilford FP-4 Plus<br> and then I doubled the time. The negativs were quite dense and fogged. My enlarger does not have a glass negative<br> carrier so I was worried about the negative buckling during a long exposure. My solution was to use a Bogen 60mm f/4<br> Wide Angle enlarging lens. I printed wide open at f/4 and the results were not half bad.<br> If I had to develop another roll of this film I would still start with the Microphen (undiluted) time for FP-4 Plus but I would<br> multiply that time by 1.5 rather thah by 2. There was one odd thing which turned up when I first saw the negatives.<br> It seems that the ink from the backing came off on the emulsion side of the film because it sat for so long tightly wound.<br> If you scan the negatives and make digital prints you should be able to lessen the effect of this ink transfer.<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=1522918">Lynn Jones</a>, Apr 21, 2005; 01:16 p.m.</strong><br> Hi Jeffrey,<br> It is either Gavaert 30 or Gevaert Dandi Pan. They are both about ASA 64, really good films and work best in either<br> UFG or Acufine. The developing times in UFG were about 5 minutes at 68F and the Acufine would be about 5 1/2 minutes at 70F.<br> Gevaert did indeed merge with Agfa in about 1965.<br> Lynn<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=1631500">Helen Hockin</a><a href="/member-status-icons">http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons</a>, May 05, 2005; 01:44 p.m.</strong><br> Many thanks in particular to Jeff Adler! Your advice helped me develop a roll of 1950s Kodak Verichrome Pan 620 that<br> I was given from a box Brownie of my mother-in-law's. I developed it in Promocrol Fine Grain developer mixed 1:5,<br> time 11 minutes (as for modern HP5). Result not bad at all!<br> <strong><a href="/shared/community-member?user_id=1631500">Helen Hockin</a><a href="/member-status-icons">http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons</a>, May 05, 2005; 01:57 p.m.</strong><br> ...and for the record the temperature in an open-topped container started at about 68 degrees F, which dropped as the<br> process went on to about 60. If you do it this way, make sure you've got enough ventilation as it gives off fumes!<br> And I had to do this in total darkness, so make sure you're organised...</p> <p><a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004NHj">http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004NHj</a></p>

<p>Deniz,<br> If the scratches are on the same place on each film you have done, then I would assume it is the camera at fault, but the photo of the Ferris wheel hasn't any scratches by the looks of it and the one of the mountain has a scratch only extending half way into the image. I can't see if the scratching is on the emulsion side or not, but that is another thing to be looking at for an answer. <br> Just seen a short video of loading the M6. 1.Does the scratch go right to the wind on sprocket, or 2.do you stop winding the film before you get the tail in the cassette? The back plate looks like somewhere to hide a nick, too many bits of metal across the film.<br> Another thought has struck; last one. Leave the back panel open and run a waste film through the camera and then rewind it to have a look.</p>