Jump to content

rexmarriott

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    128

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rexmarriott

  1. rexmarriott
    I've also taken to metering Fomapan 400 at 200 and developing as per 400 in Ilfosol 3 and the results are a lot better than if I follow Fomapan's recommendations. As it happens, I just bought some more bulk film and there was no Fomapan 400 in stock, so I got Kentmere 400 instead for about £75 for 30.5m. This is a film I can shoot at box speed. My first impressions are favourable. Perhaps there is life after HP5.
  2. rexmarriott
    What of Fomapan 400? The price of a 30m roll in March 2022 was £40.25; today it costs £56, an increase of 39.1%. After the holiday, I think I might be getting in touch with Ilford.
  3. rexmarriott
    Today being a bank holiday I'm at a bit of a loose end, so I've been rummaging through old invoices to find out how much the price of Ilford HP5 has risen in the UK in recent times. I bought a 30m bulk roll in June 2022 for £69.17. The cost today, from the same supplier, is £105. I believe that this is a 51.8% increase in price 10 months. Gor blimey.
  4. rexmarriott
    I checked out prices for bulk rolls of AgfaPhoto APX 400. The Kentmere is cheaper here.
  5. rexmarriott
    I've got a bulk roll (30m) of Kentmere 400 on order. Cost me £75. I'm also now using Kentmere paper instead of Ilford MGRC. As I understand it, Kentmere is now owned by Harman Technology, who also own Ilford. The Ilford Photo website says Kentmere 'follows the same high quality processes that are used to make all Ilford Photo films and papers.' If so, that'll do for me.
  6. rexmarriott
    Today I turned to my trusted darkroom supplier to order a bulk roll (30m) of Ilford HP5 Plus and found it now retails at £105. It seems like yesterday that I was paying £60. I like this film, find it versatile and have got used to it, so it's with a heavy heart that I conclude that I can no longer afford it. I've been using Fomapan 400 recently. I find that if I shoot it at 400 ISO I get images that are seriously underexposed, so I have to overexpose by at least 1 stop. The other alternative for bulk loading I see is Kentmere 400. Does anyone feel the same way as me about HP5? If so, what has been your chosen alternative? This is probably going to be a UK only thread, but you never know.
  7. rexmarriott
    Thank you, Rodeo Joe. Clearly, it was high time I revisited my technique; I'm going to put your advice into practice.
  8. rexmarriott
    Thank you, Rodeo Joe. I started processing my own film 8 years ago. I think I got my method from a leaflet that came with a Paterson developing tank, and refined it on the basis of my reading. Am I using the daft figure of 8 method? I hold the tank in both hands, invert it, twisting it at the same time, then right it, twisting again, and then bang the bottom of the tank 3 or 4 times. I have, from time to time, had problems with 35mm film whereby the sprocket holes show as light ghosts within the frame, along the long side. I read up on this, and found various different suggestions as to the cause. The one that sounded the most plausible was that the agitation was too vigorous and the ghost sprockets were caused by water gushing through the holes. In response to this, I adopted a gentler approach, and have not seen the ghosts again. All of which is to say that I'm now split as to how vigorous the agitations should be. What do you say?
  9. rexmarriott
    This sounds spot on, Dustin. I will make the necessary adjustments this evening. Many thanks.
  10. rexmarriott
    I've twice recently come across this fault that I had not seen before - cloudy blotches, here along the left-hand edge of the negative. On the two occasions I've seen this I was using different cameras and different films (Ilford HP5 and Kentmere 400), so I'm assuming that the fault lies with my developing process. Can you help me identify the cause?
  11. rexmarriott
    I'm going to use up the cassettes I've bought, and then I am going to use your suggested method, Niels. I never fully rewind the film, preferring to cut the end of the film in the light, so I might not need a film extractor, but...
  12. rexmarriott
    ... I am keen to try out this work-around, JDMvW. Thank you for sharing that. When using non-reusable cassettes, even though I leave some film hanging out, I see a need for a film retriever: when the bulk roll ends and I inevitably wind the last roll fully into the cassette. Waste not, want not!
  13. rexmarriott
    Since my original post I've had a reply from Kaiser, acknowledging that it is possible that parts of the felt they use may come loose over time and suggesting I check the felt each time before use.
  14. rexmarriott
    So, Niels, if I understand correctly, I could buy a single roll of film and, when exposed, instead of prising the cassette open, pull the film out and load it straight on to a developing reel. When I reach the end, I would cut the film, leaving a little bit protruding onto which I would tape my bulk film. In this way, I could continue using the cassette indefinitely. In your experience, do these regular cassettes moult less than the reusable ones?
  15. rexmarriott
    Sage advice, thank you.
  16. rexmarriott
    I say hoover, or Henry.
  17. rexmarriott
    I've been bulk-loading film for several years without any problems. Suddenly, this year, I am finding negatives regularly being ruined, presumably by loose threads from the light seals in the film cassette. I've attached an example below. I've been using Kaiser film cassettes. I contacted Kaiser and received no reply. Am I correct in assuming that the cassette light-seal is at fault? Is this a common problem? Does anyone reading this who bulk-loads film know of a reliable brand of cassette? I'm based in the UK. Thank you in advance.
  18. rexmarriott
    A follow up question, JDMvW. I've spent a lot of time recently trying to understand why my negative scans appear so much crisper/sharper than my prints. I am now coming to the conclusion that maybe it's not the prints that are inferior, it's the scans of the prints. Is it possible, then, that the same scanner (Epson Perfection V550 photo) can make nice, crisp scans of negatives and dog rough scans of prints? I scan 6x6 negatives at 800 dpi and 8x10 prints at about 400 dpi.
  19. rexmarriott
    Thank you for your response, JDMvW. Ironically, prints I'm making from 35mm negatives are closer in overall sharpness to scans of the same negatives than are prints I've made from 6x6 negatives. I'm going to use the scan as a yardstick and aim to get prints as sharp. That should keep me busy for... well, the rest of my life, I guess.
  20. rexmarriott
    I have a question for you, JDMvW. I apologise if you've already answered this elsewhere. I have been making gelatin silver prints for three years. I scan negatives in advance of printing sessions rather than making contact sheets. Bizarrely, it is only recently that I have started making direct comparisons between digital scans of silver prints and digital negative scans. Much to my disappointment, the negative scans are vastly superior; the silver print scans are muddy by comparison. I'm now in a process of elimination, working to find the nub of my problem. I suspect that enlarger alignment is the main fault, but suspect that there may be others. My question is this: are negative scans made with my Epson Perfection V550 Photo scanner inherently better than any silver print that I could make from the same negative?
  21. rexmarriott
    OK, it's a pretty short list, then. I like that; I tend to favour the underdog.
  22. rexmarriott
    My brother worked as a photojournalist from the early '80s to the mid-'90s. He used all Nikon kit (not strictly pro, though, he preferred the FM2n with an MD-12 motor drive). I only ever remember him praising one other camera, and that was the Olympus OM (either the OM1 or 2, I can't remember). I suppose it was inevitable that I would eventually want to see what appealed to him about this camera system and I bought an OM1n. I think it's a great camera and I love the fact that it is part of a system. I like the looks, the compactness and the results, which I can't fault. If this isn't a pro camera, I'm a banana.
  23. rexmarriott
    Thank you, Ken. Very interesting. This whole exploration has opened my eyes to the issue of camera shake. I'd been relying on the old chestnut that if the shutter speed is the reciprocal of the focal length of the lens, I don't have to worry, ie with a 50mm lens, 1/60 sec and faster is safe. I have, nonetheless, read some writers on photography who have questioned this wisdom, most notably Barry Thornton in his book 'Edge of Darkness', which is really a quest for sharpness in photographic images. I'm now remembering a shot of a beach scene I took with the Mamiya C220F fitted with a 100mm lens, which I liked and uploaded to Flickr. The more I looked at it, the more I realised that it was too muddy to pass muster. I took it down without thinking any further what the problem was. I'm in no doubt now that it was camera shake. I like the idea that the tripod is the best lens in my collection; it suggests that achieving sharp images is about getting the simple things right and doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.
  24. rexmarriott
    When I first read this I thought: 'Ken, you're just being a killjoy.' Now I'm thinking it's sound advice.
  25. rexmarriott
    I've now got three medium format options for my portrait work: the Hasselblad 503CW with a CF Sonnar 150mm f4 T*, a Mamiya C220F with Super 180mm f4.5 and a Mamiya Universal Press with a 100mm f3.5. If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the one that serves me best is the C220F. I've used it a lot and am very happy with the results. I like the fact that I can get in really close, even with a 100mm lens. That said, I've used it almost exclusively on a tripod. I went away on holiday for a few days last week and thought long and hard about which camera to take with me. Much as I'd have liked to shoot medium format, I ended up taking the most compact 35mm camera I've got (Olympus OM1n) for two main reasons: we were travelling by train, so had limited capacity for luggage; we were staying in people's houses and I didn't want the photography to get in the way. I love the results I get with the Mamiya Universal, but it is a very large and ugly camera. I'm quite a shy photographer (maybe this will pass with time), so the MU does not get the use it deserves. I've looked into both the Zeiss Super Ikonta and the Mamiya 6 folder and much as I am attracted to these cameras' greater portability, something is holding me back from shelling out on them.
×
×
  • Create New...