traveler_101

<p>The link to Feestyle's listing of Fomadon R09 indicates that is not the developer I have, or at least, it has neither the same bottle, nor the same labelling as what I have. I see also that the formula mentions 1:25 or 1:50 dilution, while I just found a slip of paper that accompanied my bottle saying that it should be diluted 1:20 or 1:40. Ok, I just went to the Foma site and the same bottle and technical specifications are listed there as on the Freestyle site: http://www.foma.cz/produkty-fomadon-r09-detail-158<br>

I have to conclude that I must have the old formula Fomadon R09; actually I think that this is similar to the "one-shot" formula of the Compard product you linked. It has a very limited shelf life . . . and I see also that my bottle expired almost exactly one year ago. I am going to dispose of it. Just ordered a new bottle of Fomadon R09. This should be the new formula -- rather than this old stuff.</p>

<p>Thanks, Charles, for looking all this up. It is news to me that AP 400 and Tri-X are NOT the same film. I simply accepted on the internet scuttlebutt that they were identical. I see the point of testing and working things through, but at this point with just 20 rolls of AP 400 left and considering the fact that Freestyle has discontinued it, I will simply avoid using R09 with this film. I bought a brick of Tri-X on my last trip to the States and will start working with it, leaving the AP for other proven developers.</p>

<p>Chris, I'd love to get that my hands on that Agfa Rodinal. I really wish these companies stayed in business rather than dropping by the wayside because of a temporary dip in the market (lol).</p>

<p>Mike, that would be so cool--make your own! I have a feeling--just a complete guess--that acquisition of chemicals is restricted here. I should check it out.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff. Why Rodinal? I think I should explain. Actually my "standard" developer is D-76 and that is owing to the nice tonality with Tri-X and AP. D-76 is cheap and because it is a powder I can bring it back here from the States. However, I am trying to develop a "palette" by matching films and developers in order to get certain looks. (I hope that this doesn't sound too pretentious.) At times, with certain scenes I want to have grain. At other times I want heavy contrast, etc. etc.</p>

<p>Jeff, I am interested in other looking at other films; thanks for your recommendation. I googled APX 100 and this is what I found: "Jeg har ikke sett denne filmen til salgs noe sted i Norge, men den lar seg jo enkelt bestille fra Tyskland." To translate--"can't find this film for sale in Norway, but it is easy to order from Germany." Sure, but it is very costly to import anything here. What I did find was Adox Silvermax 100 at around $9 a roll. That's double what I pay for Tri-X or T-Max in the States, but perhaps it is worth it. Any good?</p>

<p>Well, something else just came to my attention. If one assumes for a moment that Arista Premium and Tri-X are identical (as is often stated), then it should be noted MDC has Tri-X 400 at <strong>13.5 minutes</strong> in Fomadon R09. Applying the 15% less rule for pulling we get 11.5 minutes, again this should be at 40:1.<br>

If this is right, I needed 2.5 minutes (or nearly 30%) MORE development and at a considerably stronger concentration of the developer. My intuition tells me that this would have done the trick. </p>

<p>"From the list AP ISO 400 @ EI 200 in Rodinal 1:50 is 9 minutes at 68°F." That's right, Charles, and I checked that before developing. I believe my confusion came from equating R09 with Rodinal: they aren't the same. i should have known better. Didn't think to check Freestyle, that was useful. Thanks. It has Arista Premium 400 at 11 minutes in Fomadon R09. If I use the 15% less rule for film pulled one stop that would make it around 9.5 minutes; so I was not that far off. HOWEVER, according to Freestyle, I should have been mixing it at 40:1 instead of 50:1. That seems like a pretty significant difference, but I'm not sure that accounts for the problem. It seems to me there is still a good chance that the developer may be weakening as well. <br>

Chris, I developed at 20 C (68 F) and I was very precise with measuring the temp. The thermometer is good.<br>

I just ordered a new 250 ml bottle of R09. Very limited choices up here as chemicals must be shipped via ground transportation. Anyone use Adox Adonal? It is very expensive here but if it keeps well I may try it.</p>

<p>Thanks--looks like I was using the wrong time table. Just a couple of clarifications: I was shooting Arista Premium, not Arista Ultra. The Premium is the rebranded Tri-X. The recommended time was from a post on this forum just three years ago so it does refer to modern Tri-X.</p>

<p>I decided to try Tri-X, well actually Arista Premium 400, in Fomadon R09. I followed a formula and procedure I found on an old thread (http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00YD14):<br>

"Tri-X 400 (E.I. 250) in Rodinal 1+50 9:00 minutes. First minute continuous then every 30s 1x agitate, slowly." Only difference was that I exposed at 200 instead of 250--meaning even greater overexposure. <br>

The result was disappointing. I got under-developed negatives; not awful--just greyish--not enough tonal separation. I know they are under-developed because the film identification marking is slightly faded.<br>

Question: is this due to pulling (over-exposing) the film? Perhaps pulling requires even more development--(but I had assumed that overexposure would require less development and thought if anything I was erring on the side of over development); or is it due to the effectiveness of the developer, either improper mixing (perhaps it is supposed to be at 1:40 instead of 1:50), or perhaps a loss of potency? The developer is past date, but it is based on the Rodinal formula (apparently) and is supposed to be effective for a long time.</p>

<p>Reviving this thread . . . I need some advice . . .<br>

I decided to try Tri-X, well actually Arista Premium, in Fomadon R09. I followed this formula and procedure: "Tri-X 400 (E.I. 250) in Rodinal 1+50 9:00 minutes. First minute continuous then every 30s 1x agitate, slowly." Only difference was that I exposed at 200 instead of 250--meaning even greater overexposure.<br>

The rest was disappointing I got under-developed negatives; not awful--just greyish--not enough tonal separation. I know they are under-developed because the film identification marking is slightly faded.<br>

Question: is this due to pulling (over-exposing) the film? Perhaps pulling requires even more development--(but I had assumed that overexposure would require less development and thought if anything I was erring on the side of over development); or is it due to the effectiveness of the developer, either improper mixing (perhaps it is supposed to be at 1:40 instead of 1:50), or perhaps a loss of potency? The developer is past date, but it is based on the Rodinal formula (apparently) and is supposed to be effective for a long time.</p>

<p>My advice is to shoot b&w film and learn to develop and scan it yourself. With a simple tank for developing and a decent flat bed scanner, you will be amazed and delighted at the results and it will not cost you an arm and a leg. Like you I also do digital and I think its best to designate certain kinds of shooting and goals to film: b&w versus color is a typical division, street shooting versus general photography is another. Film shooting and processing takes a lot more time, but it's worth it. Just don't over do it and don't let the pessimists on this and other fora tell you that film is on its way out, etc. etc.. B&w film sales are actually up in the last few years. I've managed about 75 rolls so far in just under two years. Still going strong . . .</p>

<p>What's wrong with a CV 25/4 "Snapshot Skopar"? You aren' going to pay any where near $600, that's for sure, and you will get high quality photos. The one thing I must say about CV on the Barnack cameras (I have the IIIf) is that the Voigtlander viewfinder blocks view of the Shutter speed dial--hard to remember what your setting is. </p>

<p>Thank you, Robert! It seems then that the designation "R09" can mean different substances; thus it is merely a label rather than a specific chemical formulation.<br>

I went to Foma's site and looked at the specifications for their new R09. The recommended standard dilutions are 1:25 and 1:50, just the same as recommended for Rodinal and UNLIKE the Foma R09 old formula which recommends 1: 20 and 1:40. Obviously the bottle I have is the old formula and subject to the much talked about "sudden death" syndrome. I am ordering the new formula Fomadon R09 right away.</p>

 

 

<p>Film will survive indefinitely . . . assuming of course we don't overheat the earth's atmosphere, or deplete the water table across vast regions, or start a nuclear war over control of Africa's vast resources. Who can think about permanence? It is reasonable to wonder about the medium term, but then is there need to worry? Look what Robert says:</p>

<p><strong>Well being distributor of Foma I can say that B&W is stable, maybe a very light renaissance in Holland. But color C41 is still going down and E6 slide is dramatically bad. Not talking about RA-4 DIY which have an extremely low demand.. . . Summarizing: A big multinational has to go out to keep the rest alive. Maybe time for Kodak Eastman to leave this market. </strong></p>

<p>More evidence of what has been emerging over the past couple of years: b&w film is widely perceived as a unique medium and is becoming an established niche market alongside of digital, even as the mass film market disappears. Kodak will eventually sell or lease its film patents to another company and we will continue to see the little yellow boxes long into the future. Of course all niche products are expensive . . . so if you want to keep shooting film expect to pay a lot more for it in the future.</p>

<p>If it were me I would re-establish that beautiful dark room in a flash. You are so fortunate, Lutz, to have all that nice equipment.</p>

 

 

 

 

<p><strong>I have several bottles of R09 in storage awaiting use. I have seen a thread somewhere that said that R09 was exactly the same as Rodinal re. longevity.</strong></p>

Would that it be true . . . because I am very happy with R09. Although I haven't been able to find (at least not yet) the source of the rumours I stumbled upon recently, I did find this from back in 2005:

 

 

<p>"Rodinal is bottled under inert gas atmosphere, wich means it doesn't start ageing (e.g.: change color) till you open it. R09 is pitch black bought new. . . .That's a simple reason why Rodinal is said to last longer than R09: Less contact with oxygen means longer shelf life. When Rodinal is stored unopend there's _no_ oxygen to react with. While there is enough to turn R09 black."<br>

Could it all be a matter of packaging? </p>

<p>Yes, but the problem is that Rodinal is classified as a "ORMD. Due to shipping regulations these items can only be shipped via Ground in the Continental United States." Consequently I cannot bring it back here by plane when I visit the States. Powdered developers are no problem so I have quite a bit of D-76.</p>

<p>I just need some advice about when I should throw away my now 40% used up bottle of Fomadon R09. Heck, I only just recently stumbled on a thread from a different forum alerting me that unlike Rodinal, R09 has a short shelf life. Ugh. I thought I had a developer that I could sit on.<br>

I bought the R09 bottle 1.5 years ago and the expiration date is June 30, 2013. I just took chance with it a week ago and it is still active. I got good results. I like it with Tri-X 400 despite the grain.<br>

What should I do with it now? Throw it away--kind of goes against my grain, you know? In the long run I face the choice of (a) giving up on Rodinal type developers; (b) replacing R09 every year or so or © paying an arm and a leg for Rodinal, which I guess will keep. I don't know how frequently i will use it sine D76 is my standard developer. If anyone reading this and is in the Oslo area and knows how to get Rodinal, please let me know.</p>

<p><strong>Mark,</strong><br /><strong> Most of the time, you'll get what you paid for. I personally do not think there are true bargains on ebay. Good Luck!</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong>Hi Kin! I agree: the age of bargains is over as more and more "legacy" lenses are aquired by digital camera users in search of an alternative to the clinical digital look. Instead of embracing digital for its inherent qualities they are anxious to appropriate film's qualities. It would be far better or us if they started shooting FILM--assuring market demand!<br>

I am happy with the lenses I have managed to get into my collection and I do the best I can to find other lenses I can afford--when the need arises. In this case I want to take a series of portraits of my daughter as she matures. If I cannot afford the Rokkor-M, I will find another 90mm lens I can afford. There are, by the way, other places to look besides e-bay.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Thank you for the explanation Arthur. I see what you mean and I will follow along with your advice and look for the Minilta CLE version. I suppose that this run up in prices has much to do with owners of the MILCs looking for good manual focus lenses.</p>

<p><strong>Bad news. True 90 mm f4 CLEs (serial no. on the barrel) are no longer "cheap". I just look up on ebay, two true, good condition 90 mm CLEs all from UK are asking from 666 to 739 USD plus $35 for Royal mail.</strong></p>

<p>Hopefully no one will pay them that much for the lenses. One just sold in the U.S. for 299 USD.<br>

http://www.ebay.com/itm/170975005797?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649</p>

 

<p>Yes, from all appearances and reports the Rokkor-M is a nice lens. I am looking for the latest Japanese version as that seems to be the safest bet. I love Leica but I don't see anything wrong with high quality Japanese products and I am, after all, planning on using a Bessa with this lens. However, I have assumed all along thanks to Steve Gandy's effusive praise-- <strong>"the Bessa T has a long effective baselength rangefinder [and] can accurately focus even the super fast 50/1 Noctilux, the 75/1.4 Summilux, or 135/3.4"</strong>--that there would be no troublefocusing a 90/4.<br>

Arthurseems to imply that this might not be the case: "<strong>I don't know how the ramping of the Bessa is compared to the gradual ramp of the Leica M series (more gradual than the Leica CL), but for portraits you probably want all the RF accuracy you can get (hence the gradual ramp) . . ." </strong><br>

Anyone have any experience with the Bessa T and long lenses?<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Thanks for the clarifications. It doesn't seem as if I should have trouble using either lens on my Bessa. I realize that the difference between performance--Weitzler versus Minolta--is slight, but which optics is ghenerally preferred for portraits or landscapes? Any opinions on that?<br>

When I finally make the purchase this will be my first M mount lens; I have five LSM lenses and a IIIf is my primary camera. I never thought I would make use of the Bessa T's M mount, but from the prices I've seen this lens is a very good buy, and seems to offer better value than what it costs to get a clean 9cm Elmar LSM.</p>

<p>Art,<br>

CV is clearly stronger at the wide end. I have the 15/4.5, the 25/4 and the 35/2.5, all in screwmount. The 15mm is a great lens. Yes, you have to learn technique to use it properly, yes you can get your finger in the photo (has happened to me a couple of times), and yes people at the edges of the image are distorted--so it has its hazards--but used properly it gives wonderful images; it focuses easily and is fun to use! Highly recommended. The 25/4 is a very sharp lens, a little less contrasty than the 15 (or at least mine is), which is arguably preferable. Because I tend to favor the 15 I have had some difficulty deciding how to use this lens, but it is useful for architecture and many people like it for street. The 35/2.5 Color Skopar is a good lens, but since I got my IIIf and Elmar 50/3.5 combination I have not used the Skopar 35 as much as I had earlier. I like the images from the Elmar better and have begun to see the value of the 50mm FOV. Note--I shoot black and white film--just moving into color now.<br>

I should point out that all these VC lenses are compact, though nothing compares favorably to the Elmar in this regard. Also I should say that it takes a while--and some experimentation with different FOVs--to find what really suits you. The best part of it is that these lenses retain their value and if you don't like it you can sell it very easily.</p>

<p>I am considering this lens (to use on a Bessa T), but am somewhat confused. After much digging on the internet, there appears to be two distinct Rokkor 90s under the Minolta brand. One was produced by Leitz for use with the Minolta CL; it was marked "Made by Leitz" on the front ring. The other version was apparently made later by Minolta in Japan in conjection with the CLE camera. They both take 40.5mm filters and hood (which I happen to have), unlike a closely related lens the Elmar-C.<br>

Can anyone confirm that there are two different Minolta branded lenses, and if so is there enough of a difference in performance to worry about?</p>

<p>Thanks for the information, Bill. Just to clarify in case I am misunderstood: the last thing I would want in a RF camera is AE.</p>

<p>". . . <strong><em>l</em></strong><em><strong><em>ets</em> be frank about it. The Zeiss rangefinder was cheaply built (and overpriced for its quality)</strong></em>."<br>

--<em>Luis Rives</em><br>

"<strong><em>As much as some boasted of its 'large bright' rangefinder I thought it was a joke (no offence intended)</em></strong>.<br>

--<em>Bill Blackwell</em><br>

No offense intended and none taken, but I was surprised by the expressions of hostility and not knowing anything about the Ikon I looked into it. I found immediately an ostensibly "favorable" review that manages to advance dismissive criticisms, starting with an interesting bit of pedantry about the "meaninglessness" of the camera's name (lol). Then I came to this.<br>

"It has AE with exposure compensation. The control arrangement of the shutter-speed dial, AE setting, ISO settings, and exposure compensation settings (which incidentally I suspect Steven Gandy might have had a hand in suggesting—I might be wrong) is a further elaboration on that of the CLE, and similar to that on some of the Voigtländer rangerfinders, and is about the most elegant, logical control layout I can think of for these functions. I like this aspect of the ZI."<br>

An icon to the glories of Zeiss's past with automatic exposure added for good measure, along with a bit of intrigue attributed to Cosina's American distributor and marketer. </p>

<p>"Film enthusiasts who couldn’t afford a Leica found themselves with a high-quality alternative that was still fully compatible with all of their favorite M-Mount lenses."<br /><br /><br>

Well, I think this has it all wrong. People of limited means, such myself, can afford Leica bodies. There are plenty of used ones out there. What is unaffordable are Leica M mount lenses--for the most part. So this camera wasn't really responding to market demands (just a guess).</p>

<p>Check the lenses carefully yourself, but in terms of the camera unless you have time and are mechanically inclined I would simply send it to Youxin Ye. His CLA service is $160. You can write him directly at <br>

wye7@yahoo.com</p>