simon evans.

DD-X should work well with Tri-X. There is a powder equivalent Microphen, but it's much more of a chore to mix up. Ilford recommend 1+4, and I've seen eminent writers suggest 1+6 and even 1+8. The best way is to try it yourself.

<br><br>

There are plenty of previous discussions on this combination. Try reading some of <a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tri-x+dd-x+site:www.photo.net">these google photo.net matches</a>.

Ilford's dev times (with the exception of Delta 3200) seem fine for my LPL colour enlarger and Multigrade IV paper.

For those using DD-X and looking to economise you could always try using 1+6 or 1+8 dilution instead of the standard 1+4. 1+8 was recommended here sometime, and I know 1+6 was used in an article on DD-X for Photo Techniques (I think it was by Phil Davies, when DD-X was first introduced). He published times and curves in the article, and preferred 1+6 for greater control, IIRC.

Sometimes you can try too hard to cut back on spending, and it can become a false economy. I would suggest choosing a developer primarly for its benefits (be they in terms of grain/sharpness/curve etc) over price.

You could try asking on the AP message boards at http://www.amateurphotographer.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl

A Google search turns up Pyramid -http://www.pyramidimaging.co.uk/filmprocessing.htm and a lab called Trumps in Edinburgh, who claim to be "the only photographic lab in Scotland offering Saturday mornings E6 process." - http://www.trumpslab.co.uk/

Also Mike Phimister Associates in Inverness -http://www.jagnets.co.uk/film.htm#Scotland and Photoshop in Aberdeen - http://www.maud.demon.co.uk/

Pick up a copy of the British Journal of Photography or Professional Photographer at WH Smiths and look in the classified ads at the back.

If you can't push to a Leica or Hexar, then the Bessa cameras may be the best bet - 35mm and 90mm can cover many things. The metal shutter is not quite as quiet as the more expensive models. A fixed lens RF like the venerable XA, Canonet or similar may not be flexible enough for you; and while serviced cameras are more reliable, we are talking about seriously old and somewhat fragile battery-dependent kit.

<br><br>

I had some fun in <a href="http://www.mawddwy.freeserve.co.uk/dublin.htm">Dublin (Ireland)</a> with an OM2n, 24 and 50mm and an orange filter. The minimal kit made for more photo opportunities, though a 90 or 100mm might have been useful.

<br><br>

If your subjects are reacting negatively you might like to consider either respecting their unwillingness to be photographed or try to win their confidence (easier said than done, I know).

Ditto Scott's comments. I've printed from both using VC papers, and Kodak T400CN has longer exposure times and lower contrast, often requiring grade 3.5 or 4 to get a good print. I'd choose XP2 for home printing any day.

Both films print well at minilabs, particularly where they are prepared to print on b&w paper. If you prefer, the helpful ones will dev the film only and cut it into strips. You can then produce a contact sheet yourself.

Is the Beseler a colour enlarger? If so, why not use the filtration values instead of Ilford filters?

You might try asking at a college with a photography course - degree, HND or City & Guilds. While they may or may not let you use their on-site facilities, they may have a list of public darkrooms.

<br><br>

Google search for the words "darkroom london", or the relevant page at the Photographers' Gallery - <a href="http://www.photonet.org.uk/sections.pl5?section=information:resource">http://www.photonet.org.uk/sections.pl5?section=information:resource</a>.

<br><br>

Mike Steel's links page has some pertinent information - <a href="http://www.mikesteel.co.uk/links.htm">http://www.mikesteel.co.uk/links.htm</a> (but bear in mind that this is a little out of date - Joe's Basement closed earlier this year).

Unless they look truly awful I doubt Jessies will reprint your stuff for free. I've only used the local shops Frontier a couple of times and wasn't that impressed, and even less so when they tried to print a roll of T400CN b&w film.

<br><br>

I have used Colab a few times. On one occasion they scratched my films (a single thin line down all 3 films) but refunded the processing, gave me vouchers valued at the same and 3 rolls of film. The latest film seemed a bit over-yellow, but it wasn't too bad. Otherwise they have been very good. I haven't used Peak for colour neg, but have heard good things. You might like to search and/or ask on the <a href="http://www.amateurphotographer.com/cgi-bin/wwwthreads/wwwthreads.pl">Amateur Photographer message boards</a>

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_online_print_services.php">http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_online_print_services.php</a> has a review of UK online print services

I number each roll consecutively, with a prefix to denote the type. A=colour trans, B=b&w, C=colour neg.

A27301 is transparency, roll 273, frame 1.

B112133 is B&W, roll 1121, frame 33.

This way I can number images individually - for example, when referenced on my website or slide mounts. It means I have both a record of the individual image selected, and can identify their originating roll if I need to locate similars or other shots taken on the same day/roll.

This system can accomodate 9,999 rolls in each format without exceeding the 8-character limit for burning CDs with the ISO 9660 cross-platform standard (just in case). If I use another format or digital camera images I can substitute a different prefix.

Prints from this film should show less grain than conventional ISO 400 films like HP5 Plus or Tri-X. The C-41 films (XP2, Kodak T400CN and Fuji's new CN emulsion) will show more grain when underexposed. This, plus the excellent overexposure latitude of these films are the reasons why people often suggest rating XP2 at 200asa - overexposing by 1 stop. It could be that your meter is causing underexposure. The best way to check this is to either bracket your exposures or make a contact sheet. A well-exposed contact sheet will demonstrate how accurate your exposures are.

If you are getting your prints done on a Frontier machine ask the operator to switch to mono to produce your prints (IIRC Frontier can be set to "mono-mode" to print greyscale). A local Kodak Express minilab will print my films to b&w paper for an extra £1, so it might be worth asking around.

If you think you might one day want to print your own with an enlarger stick to XP2, as the Kodak films have a denser film base that makes hand printing more laborious. The Portra BW film has a particularly strong orange base and is designed specifically to go through on the same colour settings as the Portra colour films.

Fuji's new film, developed in conjunction with Ilford, is apparently based on XP2.

Are you truly enthusiastic about your photography? Then you are a photographic enthusiast. So the cameras, films, paper etc you choose become less important than your photographs.

<br><br>

Do you like the results you get from XP2? If so, stick with it. You don't have to use it for all your work, you can keep stirring the chemicals with other films. After all, it's the result (and your vision) that counts.

<br><br>

I like developing my own films - I feel involved in the making of the negative just as I do the print - but am happy to use C-41 mono films now and then - usually for people photos or to get 6x4" prints quickly and painlessly with my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=191078">Stylus Epic</a>. Pick the right tool for the job and don't get hung up on the mechanics. Surely convenience only cheapens one's art if it compromises the result.

There is more than one flavour of Portra. Portra NC is 'normal contrast' - good for skin tones, with slightly lower contrast than most print films (personally I think this is a benefit). Portra UC is more jazzy and punchy. Both are classed as professional films, and the price will reflect that.

<br><br>

Royal Supra (aka Royal Gold) is a good film, and cheaper than Portra. You can see an example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/650491">here</a>, taken with my Stylus Epic.

<br><br>

I particularly like Porta NC for portraits and general scenes, but I will never expect everyone to agree. Your choice will be down to two things: your personal tastes and the quality of the d&p service you use. Don't be brow-beaten by some know it all who insists X brand is best. IMHO printing has a greater effect on the final results than any other part of the chain.

<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=cross+processed">matches for the words cross & processed at Google.com</a> (hit the 'images' tab if you want, plenty to see there too)

<br><br>

Vlad, get a life.

In my limited experience Paterson's recommended times are a little on the short side for HP5 in FX-50. However, your description does suggest you may be using insufficient developer.

Check you have the correct proportion of dev for your total volume. Unfortunately I don't have the tech sheet here or I would take a look.

I'll also vote for the UK magazine 'Black and White Photography'. This is now the only photo mag I buy regularly.

<br><br>

It is image-led, and spends less time on equipment than most titles, and it's not crammed with adverts either. They can now boast a column by Michael Johnston, formerly of Photo Techniques. His recent comments on this magazine and others are <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-10.shtml">here</a>.

I would suggest Delta 100 (in ID-11 or the suprisingly good Econotol 2 perhaps) @ EI64, or perhaps FP4 Plus in the same dev.

Since you are happy with XP2, it may be better if you find a C-41 processor who can take good care of your negs. Even some minilabs do a good job, the answer is to find an owner/manager who listens and gives the right answers to your questions.

Which is better? Both. Neither.

A recent magazine tester commented that the differences between XP2 and Kodak T400CN (v. similar to Portra) were there but not important.

To paraphrase Scott Eaton's advice: if you're printing on b&w paper in a darkroom, use XP2. If you're using colour paper at a lab use Kodak. *This* is the deciding factor.

If this isn't good enough, then buy a roll of each and make your decision based on which negs/prints you prefer.

I think a portrait film might be a good idea. The light could be harsh, the colours are already bright. The last thing you need is a contrasty, punchy film that sends it over the top. I would suggest something that provides a reasonably natural rendition.

To that end, Kodak Portra NC or Fuji NPH400 are great films, as are their 160asa siblings. I've not tried the Portra VC films or Kodak Supra. Fuji Reala is often recommended at 100asa, though I have never used it. I suggest you try out a roll of two or three types before you leave. Also, where you get them printed will make a big difference to the appearance of the prints.

I have always used Ilford's method and have had no problems. I often use 10, 10, 20, 40 inversions for peace of mind.

<br><br>

I remember finding one photographer's in-depth report on the web that investigated Ilford's method. The conclusion was that it was an effective method of washing films. It is still available, and is linked from this page:

<br>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/5693/photogra.html">http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/5693/photogra.html</a>

I have done a few weddings, and getting pro prints from 35mm is a right pain. 645 may be better, but 6x6 is the easiest.

The local wedding pro who processes my films has recently gone back to Hasselblad after never being entirely happy with Mamiya 645. He now prints everything to 8x8", none of this "what shall I crop out?" worry, whether at the shooting or printing stage. I don't blame him.

My twopence: if you think 6x6 works better for you, then either find a C330 in nice condition or get a Bronica SQ. I suggest you don't buy on the basis that you could get more system for your money.