andrew_brown7

<p>To get rid of the camera idea, just wind through a length of film and inspect that. You may well be able to see the scratches on it under a magnifier and strong light. If there aren't any on that, it means they are probably somewhere else. I would always be suspicious when something comes back from a service and this issue seems to stem from then.</p>

<p>Bill Brandt liked that constrasty looking sort of image. It might give you some pointers to find some of his work to look at.</p>

<p>Hi Ciaran,<br> I don't have a darkroom either at present, but I use a changing bag- the largest I could find because I find my hands sweat and make the film more awkward to load with a smaller bag.I use Paterson tanks and don't worry about the 20 deg side of things! I do at the start have the developer at 20 deg, but just let it sort itself out after that. I daresay this is not a system to use outside in the winter, but indoors things are happening so slowly that it hasn't seemed to matter so far...crosses fingers and taps head.<br> I recommend looking at the topic posted by Michael Ferron on April 16th this year (2015) called "Sometimes You Find That Holy Grail". I don't know how else to direct you there, as I found it by looking at my own posts. But of course one thing leads to another and there is so much info out there. I hope you can find it OK as it is very interesting to learn a bit more about this method.</p>

<p>1.After the wash in my Paterson tanks I take the lid off and empty the tank of the water, then dribble in a few drops of washing up liquid as I refill it. 2. Get plenty of bubbles going by lifting and lowering the centre post a few times. 3. Lift film out and unroll from reel. 4. Squeegee effect by pulling the film held loosely between 1st and 2nd fingers to clear off most of the slightly soapy water. 5. Hang to dry with a clothes peg on the bottom to stop it curling.<br> This 'method' has worked for me for the last 40 years or so (!); I'm just offering it up as yet another way to clean film.</p>

<p>I like slower films of 100/125 ASA. I use whatever is cheapest, and they all seem pretty good : FP4, Kentmere, Fomapan etc. If you're outside in the sun, then a slower film gives you a bit more leeway. I have always found too much grain in the faster film, even 400 ASA. I'm starting to do all my film with Stand development and that seems to keep the grain under control, plus you can make tea and watch the TV while it's doing it's stuff.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> you could try the digitaltruth.com page. it has boxes you input film type, developer and temperature<br> I typed this into google and got loads of info '''film development temperature chart'''</p>

<p>Slightly off topic, but I picked up tips about 'Stand Development' here and have done a few films with this system to date. I wouldn't go back to any other way now, as the advert might say.<br> 3 different films --Kentmere, Fomapan and Delta 100 in Rodinal, dilution 100 to 1 for an hour (the Delta was done for 1 3/4 hours in 200 to 1 just to see what happens) Agitation for a few seconds at the start and a few more halfway through, but nothing severe, just gentle. I am amazed, as it seems to go against all the things we've been taught. No grain and nicely developed. I recommend every one try a film they aren't too bothered about with this method, or even an off-cut with a few images on.....you are hardly spending any money on developer, so there's no waste to speak of !</p>

<p>I have 3 F cameras and an F2..all bought cheap....the meters weren't working, well, not till I put batteries in and I invested in those brass(?) collars you can buy to make a better fit for hearing aid batteries. The meters all work and the exposures are pretty good.<br> What beautiful functional creations they are. Over 40 years old and still as good as new really, to my amateur eye and ear anyway.</p>

<p>Hi Louis,<br> Perhaps I should have been more specific about who might need larger files ! Today I think Sony have announced an uncompressed RAW update (?) which will give those larger files if you want them. Back in the early Seventies I went through a period which lasted until about 2007 when I constantly felt the need for the biggest and best.<br> Now I have relaxed into a classic film camera torpor with Nex 6 and 7 additions and I honestly think I'm done with the chasing !</p>

<p>Back in the olden days I might make a 10x8 print and think that was good enough to go on our peg board for a while, but now we can get an image size of 6000x4000 pixels which is totally too big for my screen ! Most of the prints shown here are 6x4 or something and so now this is my question.<br> Do we really need 80Mb uncompressed images? Or larger still. I'm sure we do as you never know when they might come in handy but as a rank amateur I'm struggling to say to myself that the digital cameras I have are sufficient, more than that in fact; they produce really stunning images (well, to my eyes), but there is this constant itch to get the shiniest new toy and be dissatisfied with what we have and I'm fighting that.</p>

<p>I cannot really justify buying a scanner..I have thousands of 35mm and 6x6 negs (all black and white) , but really only a few would be worth doing anything more with, which carries me further into the question of the purchase of Photoshop or similar. Again, I think this a waste of money for the amount I'd use it!<br> However a couple of days ago I came across an open source program called RawTherapee which I installed and to my simple mind has all the makings of a great tool, once you begin to get the hang of it.<br> <br />I have used my Nex 6 and 7 to copy some negs, (using manual Nikkors and close up filters) which is all a bit haphazard until I sort out a proper holder for the negative strip.<br> RT inverts the negative with great ease. Obviously this is a serious project for the people behind it; what really amazes me is the extra manipulation you can make to a Jpeg image...the Sony RAW converter doesn't really offer much at all for Jpegs, but this is very interesting. <br> Well worth more study.</p>

<p>I never has a DSLR to miss, but still have 4 SLR film cameras which I use.<br> I really liked the look of the Nex 6 and have had one about 2 and a half years; a year ago I got a used Nex 7 as well. Both wonderful cameras which will always leave me trailing in the wake of their abilities. So, what with them and my old Nikkor lenses and adapter for the Sony cameras I figure I'm about set fair to try to take some reasonable photos. I'm hoping Sony will offer an app for Auto ISO when in Manual for these two which I think could be useful, but I'm not going to hold my breath. The A series have taken over and these Nex beauties will soon be forgotten.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> Coming late to this.....1 day...!<br> I've always used Paterson tanks and reels and I've been switched on to Stand Development via another thread here and so now there is no worry about leaking! I bought 2 different sized dark bags 40 years ago and they're still as good as new, and in fact the Paterson tanks are at least that old as well. Some may well be older as I bought them 2nd hand. An amazing quality of product.</p>

<p>If Nikon made a Nex 7 lookalike I would probably have bought it, but they don't, so I couldn't. I'm sure we are all biased in favour of one sort or make of camera over another and there's no logic to it; it just is.<br> My only concern is how long these modern cameras might last and whether they would be repairable in 30 years; my F and F2 cameras still function well (perfectly?) after nearly 50 years of use.<br> As regards quality of lenses, my guess would be they are nearly all the same, nowadays probably designed by the same Program, and anyway I'm of the opinion I certainly wouldn't know pictures taken by a 50 mm pre-AI Nikkor or a Canon FD or FL. In fact I'm biased, as I still use Nikkor lenses with film cameras and on the 7 and 6 that I have and I used to use the Canon lenses on my old F1.<br> We are always looking to validate our desires, purchases and 'wants' and it is really difficult to buy something and then wonder a few days or hours later whether you should really bought something else.<br> Anyway, best of luck with the search; as a final thought--if it feels right then it probably is right, regardless of make or model.<br> Mustn't ramble on.</p>

<p>My Nikon Fs were bought 'cheap' as the metering heads weren't working, but as I have a meter to use, I wasn't troubled by that; however the meters all came back to life with new batteries and those brass(?) collars you can buy.....so Thank you Rick Oleson ! and thank you Nikon for these amazing beasts.The heads all date from the late Sixties or early Seventies and they demonstrate sound electrical and mechanical engineering principles. As do all these other cameras rescued and put back into use. I can't see my Nex 6 being functional in 50 years!</p>

<p>With the Nex 6/7 (which I have) and the A6000 (which I don't ) and I guess any other Mirrorless camera with an EVF ....you get the best of both worlds---- a screen on the back and a TTL type view if the sun's at the wrong angle, or you just want to use a viewfinder. I don't remember how the Zoom lens was on them as I never figured out what focal length I wanted to take my pictures at ! and so I only use primes now as it's easier for my old brain. Using old manual lenses is a doddle, the focal length is stretched a bit, but made up for with the focus peaking and the visualizing of the exposure through the viewfinder as you adjust the aperture etc.<br> I still use some 35mm film, but the two Sony cameras will stay until the electronics melt as I think they are so good and could teach me so much if I wasn't so lazy.....</p>

<p>I have a Nex 6 and 7 and use Sigma primes on them 19, 30 and 60. I have a cheap adapter (£30 from SRB in England) for 4 pre-AI lenses I also use.<br> There is no automation of course, but focus peaking takes care of that in most circumstances and I haven't yet found any serious problems.</p>

<p>Just processed another film and by accident used the Rodinal at 1:200 dilution---- 3mm in 600ml. Worrying about the weak dilution I left it for 1 hr 45 mins and inverted it (slowly, and with a gentle tap) at 40 and 80 minutes and it's come out really well.<br> Well, from my usual casual standpoint, it's come out really well; nice contrast and so on.</p>

<p>Always relied on solid, sensible comment from you. Please don't stay away too long.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> You are certainly not wasting people's time asking questions about the film..all these are really interesting problems and the only pity is that you are having to try to deal with it !<br> I think this looks similar to some form of reticulation, but I'm only guessing.<br> On another post here is an item on stand development, to which after 40 odd years I have become an instant convert and I would be interested to see if a film done like that looks more normal..as with the stand dev there is no agitation, save a couple of turns halfway through the hour; there are also no worries about temperature either and you get fully developed negs which is ideal for a lazy so and so like me. <br> I am wondering whether there is too much agitation during the development and this new (very old) method would clear that part of the problem up for certain.<br> One other suggestion is to use a completely different film just to see if that's any better, perhaps an ASA 125 film and new developer and fix just to get a completely fresh start...and I will offer a plug for RO9 One Shot at 1:100 for an hour.<br> Good deving.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> just trying to post up a pic from the new 'old' development method Taken with an FTN and 50/1.4 pre AI.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Mark,<br> Before getting rid of your film stuff check out this thread here about 'the holy grail' and stand development.<br> As I read on the web this is how it was done before rush, rush, rush and I found out that one of my heroes Eugene Atget developed like this; and probably all photographers used their developers like this If it's good enough for him, it's certainly good enough for the likes of me!<br> I tried it yesterday on a film from the fridge and am knocked out by the ease of developing like this.<br> <br />I've only been taking photos for 60 years which is how I missed this.<br> <br />Andy.</p>

<p>I just tried this method after reading this post! I feel liberated and re-energized.<br> The film is Kentmere 100, developer is Rodinal and fix is Agfa ordinary. 6mm of dev and 600mm of (straight from the tap) water, left for an hour with 2 slow inversions at 30 mins and that was it. Camera was Nikon F with 50/1.4 (pre-AI)<br> I am amazed and delighted at the results and want to Thank you, Michael for the heads-up.<br> I don't have a scanner or Photoshop and have not been happy taking a digital image of the negative and reversing the colours in Paint...you seem to lose everything of value, so I'm open to ideas for a better way to get a digital result from these images. Any thoughts appreciated.<br> Andy.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I thought he specialised in combination printing and if this is the only album being sold, then those pictures are somewhere else. I think he used ye olde fotoshoppe and real adobe for most of his work.</p> <p>Andy</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I have a NEX 6 and 7. I bought the 6 new and then a 3N s/hand, which I traded in after a year for a s/hand 7. These 2 cameras with their EVF viewfinders seem to be a pinnacle of mirrorless design --clean lines, small, and yet filled with more features than one would ever need. Or me, anyway.<br> They seem to possess the same sort of classic square-cut solidity as the F and F2, but I must stop now as I am waxing a bit lyrical.<br> As David posted above, an adapter lets you use almost anything on it and I have my old non-AI Nikkors which I use.<br> One imponderable is how long a digital camera will last..my Nikon bodies are all 45 to50 years old at least and still as good as new in functionality, if a bit scratched up; I can't see the Sonys lasting that long, although I really hope they're as tough as they look and feel.<br> Good luck with your choice, I think that when you find a camera that feels right in your hand you'll know it!<br> Andy.</p>