hwa_goh

A bit late to see this thread, but for what it's worth, a few comments as I used this film quite extensively from the late 1980s till the mid 2000s.

Even recently I've been using some which were frozen when it was discontinued.

Excellent film, one of my faves. Very chunky grain, which was it's look really. At 800 it was quite flat but pushed to 1600 or 3200 was excellent. 6400 was about as far as to be realistic. Beyond it didn't look that great, but pre D3s and modern digital, it was all we had.

I used D76, HC110 and TMAX dev, all excellent, even D76 at 1:1. I even experimented with Rodinal but at the lower ASAs, interesting look esp if you're a grain junkie!

Important note though, a terrible film to "stash" as even in the freezer, the film fogs quite rapidly (relatively to say, TriX or Tmax 400). According to Kodak literarture, it's to do with background radiation. Also definitely one to hand inspect when passing through airport Xrays. Pretty much all my "stashed" TMZ has pretty high levels of base fog even though it has been deep frozen since being bought fresh at the time. Also keep cool as the heat does very much does affect the fog levels.

Very very happy to be able to get fresh rolls of this, though admittedly these last few years have been using DELTA 3200 which is pretty nice too.

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Just saw this and will add 2 time combos to help out future visitors...</p>

<p>FP4+</p>

<p>@ 320 ASA - D76 1:1 29min 22'C......good<br>

@ 400 ASA - Ilfosol 3 1:14 12min 24'C ...... still a bit thin...better at maybe 16 min...<br>

agitation 2 inv start of every minute with a water pre-wash</p>

<p> </p>

<p>thank you very much to all replies above.<br>

Dave, good point about the texture on scans. I also have had issues with keeping dust at a decent level with print scans on the V700. mainly on the glass. I think I'll go for the copy set-up with the prints. <br>

Someone I spoke to mentioned that it was important to get the print interpretation too, and while definitely not suggesting that I am even vaguely close, the example given was: if given the choice between copying a Gene Smith print or scanning his neg, he'd would pick the print....oh, if only to get an opportunity to look at a Gene Smith neg!<br>

Thanks again all. </p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've done a search on this topic and most, if not all replies concern the often asked issue of scanning negs or prints.<br>

So please bear with me, as my case is slightly different.<br>

If, however someone out there knows of a thread or site that already deals with this please send me a link.<br>

I am looking at producing a book of images. The final size will be no larger than A4.<br>

I have the images required as final, exhibition quality fibre-based prints that have been spotted and flattened. The sizes range from 8"x10" to 20"x24".<br>

I am required to submit digital files for the printing.<br>

The question is:<br>

Do I have to scan all the negs of the images and work on them in Photoshop and then output, or can I reproduce from the prints? I was thinking of shooting the prints on a HighRes DSLR like a D800 with a 60mm Macro lens in the classic copy set-up ( 2 flashes at 45 degress etcetc) which I have done commercially for many painters. <br>

This will allow me to keep all my prints' looks like burning in, dodging etc and with a quick bit of leveling and WB be ready to go.<br>

Is there an advantage to say, flatbed scanning the 8x10s?<br>

Please note that I will be using the artwork as 1:1, (in case of 8x10) or reduction, in case of 20x24 prints.<br>

I am not looking to enlarge off the digital files.<br>

I am a working professional photographer, so have decent kit for the work, in this case:<br>

Nikon Coolscan 5000, Epson V700, D800, Nikkor Micro Lens, Enlargements on Agfa Multicontrast Classic FB and Ilford MG-FB with ApoRodagons etcetc. and access to a standalone Durst Neg scanner for Med-Format and 35mmnegs.<br>

I will capture (scans or camera) for working in 16bit and/or RAW.<br>

Any tips will be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi there,<br>

Just a note which may be slightly off topic, but in regards to the 35mm f/2AFD.<br>

I have been and still am a full time working photographer after 20+years, and with especially extensive experience of the Nikkor 35s. I've had the 35/2 in it's various guises (AI, AIS) as my primary lens since the mid 80s when at school with it mounted on FM/FM2s. Since the AF age (and I stuck with Nikon thru it's pretty bad early AF days even though sometimes I would be issued with AF superior EOS kit), I've had to switch to the AF version. After many copies of both the AF and the MF lenses and thousands and thousands of shots, I have noticed that the AF version is in fact inferior to any of the MF versions. Even the Series E f/2.5 is better or equal wide open (admitedly f/2 vs f/2.5).<br>

The faults are generally softness off centre (esp wide open) and terrible durability.<br>

Having said that, I still have 3 copies of the AFD, as I it is the only thing that will AF from Nikon in it's class. Terrible that there aren't any good Nikkor AF primes, though the 24/1.4AFS does look well sexy.<br>

In reality though, pretty much all my work now is done on zooms as the nature of shooting on a daily basis, different scenarios are met easiest by the modern fast (and expensive) zooms. I do carry multiple primes on jobs where I can get away with it, such as with assistants, or out the back of a car, but running round with multiple DSLRs, large zooms, multiple SBs and baterries etc give my back enough as it is.<br>

Shooting on my MF bodies though, I use the old AIS ones, tough and sharp. Though I am about to get a Ultron40, as it does sound good. The problem with the 35/2AIS is that it is bit big and heavy.<br>

So I shouldn't be disappointed by it's quality then?<br>

Thanks</p>