carsten_hoefer

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions! I tried ferrotyping once many years ago, but failed miserably. But as I wasn't aware that ferrotyping improves the blacks I'll try again. For FB paper I use longer development times than with RC paper, but still the results are often unsatisfactory. The blacks do become (a bit) deeper, but sadly the main effect of prolonged development seems to be to turn the whites into a mushy grey. The more underexposed the negative, the more pronounced this effect :-) Well, maybe I should attend a darkroom class.

Hello everyone, There’s one thing that’s been puzzling me in the darkroom: I much prefer FB paper, but many B&W images actually turn out better on RC paper, because in my limited experience RC paper gives richer blacks. Everything else (filter, paper grade) being equal, a negative printed out on FB paper will often look flat and muddy, whereas the same negative printed on RC paper will give much better contrast. What might be the possible cause? I’ve been using Adox MMC paper for several years, which seems to be manufactured according to an old Agfa recipe. As vintage Agfa prints often look wonderful, I assume there’s nothing wrong with the paper and that it’s just a matter of my questionable darkroom technique. Or is FB paper just generally more difficult to handle, and RC paper more tolerant of faulty (under-)exposure? Or are there other FB papers that give results closer to RC paper? An easy solution of course would be to stop using FB paper, but apart from the deeper blacks I dislike RC paper, it looks and feels too plasticky for my taste. I use old cameras (mainly a Rolleiflex TLR built in the 1950s) and I’ve noticed that vintage prints are often less contrasty than contemporary images, but of course the masters of old knew how to print decent blacks. Any hints appreciated, Carsten

<p>Fellow tourists, second attempt.</p><div></div>

<p>Fellow tourists.</p>

<p>On the roof of the tower during the day.</p><div></div>

<p>There were lots of people taking photos of the tower and the nearby illuminated office buildings, but I seemed to be the only one wih an analog camera.</p><div></div>

<p>The Guangzhou Tower is a 600m landmark serving no discernible purpose. There's a viewing platform on top but other than that the building is hollow (apart from the elevator shaft)</p><div></div>

<p>Hi everyone,<br /> I've been following this forum for a long time but rarely post. The reason I'm posting today is that after years of lurking I thought I might as well share something. One lens I'd love to own but can't afford is a 50 Summilux. Instead I've mostly been using an old Contax mount Zeiss 1.5 Sonnar with adapter that's probably even older than my M3.<br /> Fully open the lens is a bit soft, but given the fact that lens and adapter cost only about a tenth of a new Summilux I consider that a reasonable compromise. Even stopped down to f2 the lens is very sharp. I took the camera, the Zeiss and a 24mm 3.8 Elmar on a recent business trip to China. As I had forgotten my tripod, I tried a few handheld night shots - and was surprised how well they turned out. I loaded the camera with a roll of Ilford Delta 400, shutter speeds were 1/8 to 1/30 at f2 (Sonnar) and f4 (Elmar) . Now I feel I have less need for a Summilux :-). <br /> Carsten</p><div></div>