edward_isaac

<p>I acquired a F3 and XD11 (XD7 where I live) at different times. I thought of them as back-ups for my Leica M6 when I didn't want to take it with me for some reason, but now I often take the XD-11 along instead of the Leica. The Nikon F3 is an absolutely solid camera, and the lenses are great. My "problems" with it may seem petty. I don't like focusing the lenses in the opposite direction to all my other lenses, and I'm not crazy about the flash mount and dedicated flash, which is peculiar and unwieldy. I like to use an off-camera cabled fill flash. The XD-11 beats the Leica, there, too, because of the Leica's lousy screw in the flash mount that blocks a cable connector...</p>

<p>This is going to sound weird but the XD-11 is my favourite 35mm camera, and I'm comparing it to my other two main cameras, the Leica M6 and the Nikon F3. I sold my XD-11 and all the lenses before I figured that out. I went back through all my favourite shots over a certain period and realised that 3 out of 4 were taken on the Minolta. Had to go back and buy the camera and lenses back....<br>

All of the Minoltas under discussion in this thread are relatively cheap, so go for the XD-11 if you can. Repair is not worth the money, unless its seals and/or the mirror cushions, which you can do yourself. With the Rokkor lenses the XD-11 system is a real gem!</p>

<p>Old thread but I'm just going to add that one obvious situation to try DBI in is when experimenting with custom developer formulations or for example using paper developer to process negs--for which development times are not generally available. Have fun, exercise your freedom and creativity, do it any way you want.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the responses, and for the links to the other threads. I did try to search up an existing thread on this but I guess I was not familiar with some of the key terms.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

This just came to my attention, apparently some film shooters are eschewing scanners in favor of using a DSLR with a macro lens to make digital images of their negs. You need to make a number of images that you then stitch together (and reverse them, obviously).<br>

This guy's run some tests and claims the results are superior to a V700 scan:<br>

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/<br /><br />This appeals to me because a) I want to digitize only a small percentage of my negs and b) I dislike scanning for various reasons.<br>

I'd be curious if anyone has had any experience with this technique.</p>

<p>My M6 TTL has just exhibited this problem. Thanks, photo.net members, for clarifying what the problem most likely is.</p>

<p>OK since you seem to have solved/resolved my initial question, here's a follow up: how long after initial fix can you usefully re-fix? A few days? A month? Two years? To prevent (further) deterioration. Thanks, all.</p>

<p>Thanks again for all the helpful answers, esp. from the venerable members of the photo.net community. I guess I will just re-fix the things I absolutely don't want to lose. Kind of a no-brainer, eh? I'll see if I can attach one of them.<br>

The lesson for me is one of record-keeping. I know I should have been doing it from the beginning, but I've now got a log sheet pasted at face level in the darkroom where I write in the date I change chemicals, then log each roll I process. I tend to stick to HP5+, and avoid T-MAX, so that will make calculating the number of rolls I can process safely.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Bethe -- this is the kind of info I was hoping for.</p>

<p>Thanks to those who have replied. The negatives in question look just fine, so I won't scan and post. Given the amount of film I process, I won't be discarding fix after every roll (which I find kind of nuts).</p>

<p>Folks -- is there a way to assess whether already processed, rinsed, and dried negs have been properly fixed?<br>

I recently realized a batch of fix I had been using was pretty depleted, and a few rolls back had some magic shots that I don't want to deteriorate over time. But I don't want to re-fix if I don't have to, since it's a pain.<br>

Is there some visual clue, or a chemical test that can be easily applied on a sample neg (in the manner of the Hypo-check for liquid fix)?<br>

Thanks anyone/everyone.</p>

<p>I shoot pretty much exclusively HP5+ at box speed and develop with D76 1:1 for 13 minutes, just like the specs call for, and the results have always been great. In high contrast light you obviously have to make exposure compensations, however. But agree with other posters that you should try different options out until you find what works for you--this is always the only solution.</p>

<p>Just wanted to add a recent experience. Flew from JFK last night to Europe (where I live). Asked for a manual inspection of my rolls of exposed (but unprocessed) 35mm film. The security personnel were more than happy to oblige. They were not exposed to x-rays.</p>