tim_brown

A digitized 35mm scan can have apparent grain reduced and acutance increased (along with lots of other manipulations). The resulting print will look smoother and crisper than a conventional print from the same negative. Digital manipulation cannot however replace information that's not in the original negative. An excellent MF slide/neg will have that extra detail. (Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby!) Just scan a slightly out of focus negative and apply sharpening to see what a high acutance & low detail image looks like. MF can be scanned too. Conventional color printing - why bother?

I have a Beattie (2 actually) with a split image. The image is much brighter. I almost always focus with the split image.

A Canon MF body just for macro? They'd probably sell one of these for every 10,000 35mm bodies. IOW an insignificant market for a company the size of Canon.

I've been using the reel twirler / spin stick for 20+ years with no

problems. Four gentle back and fourth twists in a 5 sec. interval. My

tanks sit in a water bath. Lifting them out to do inversions would be

messy.

Yoni,

 

<p>

 

It would help alot if you described what the negatives looked like.

First, you will not really get iso 6400. You will get ei 6400, which

means a hopefully acceptable image when your exposure meter is set to

6400. Exposure lattiude will be tiny. Subject contrast will make a big

difference. Start with 2-3X your normal development time. Use a higher

processing temp to save time. You will have to test and adjust. No one

can give you some magic time that will make images acceptable to you.

It would help to use a speed increasing developer like Microphen, DDX

or Acufine.

I haven't used Microdol in years (I'm an Xtol guy now) but 1:2 and 1:1

dilution also give interesting speed/grain compromises. I found 1:3

too slow working.

Sorry to hear that Dan. I mix Xtol 5l at a time. I used to develop a

strip of test exposures in each new batch. Now I just develop a piece

of exposed leader in a beaker to verify each batch. I order my 5l

packs from B&H and have never seen this underexposure problem. I

dilute 1+2.

I'm glad you got there. I've been getting nothing but excellent

results for several years using Tmax films and Xtol. In fact, I really

hated Tmax film until I developed it in Xtol. I've done well with many

other films and Xtol but the Tmax films have the edge in sharpness,

grain and speed.

I get great results with Xtol but the manufacturer's recommend times

(Kodak and any other company) are intended

to be a starting point only. You have to adjust development time

to get the results you desire, using your equipment

and techniques.

I get great results with Xtol but the manufacturer's recommend times

(Kodak and any other company) are intended to be a starting point

only. You have to adjust development time to get the results you

desire, using your equipment and techniques.

I dole out my Photoflo from a dropper. One drop per 2 oz of water, use

once and discard.

A green filter will accentuate skin blemishes. It's good for

adding "character" to a male portrait. Yellow, orange and red (in

order of increasing effect) will reduce blemishes and make skin tone

lighter. Look out with light complexions.

You might also want to give this a try: Microphen diluted 1+5, EI 32,

develop 14 min. @ 75F, agitate 5/30 sec.

Worried about fogging the film by unwinding the end of the paper? I

briefly used a lab (Ron Com in DC) for color film that kept fogging

part of the last frame on the roll. Turns out they were unrollig the

roll IN THE LIGHT until the end of the film showed to start loading

it in their processor, then shutting a light tight door. They claimed

it was my camera fogging the frame. As I said, I used them VERY

briefly. Anyway, don't worry about unwinding a couple of inches of

paper.

I develop at 75 deg. F and keep all the subsequent baths within 2

deg. The last time I was casual about temps was about 20 years ago I

put some Plus-X from 68 deg. fixer to 80 deg. wash water and it

reticulated.

As Scott says, you'll do better with a speed increasing developer. Microphen is another one, that I prefer.

The manufacturer's times are intended to be starting points. You must

learn to adjust to your individual situation. I generally use Xtol

10-20% longer than Kodak recommends with various films.

I'm guess they differ in HD curve shape (pick a toe, any toe) and

spectral sensitivity. These are things you can't make up for in

exposure and development. It's OK, just use what looks best to you,

we won't tell anyone...

You can get my program that generates DOF tables <a href="http://www.aseonline.net/~brownt/photomain.htm">here.</a>

If you're not developing your own film use 400+ or T400CN. These you

can drop off at the one hour lab and they are very forgiving with

exposure.

I often copy line drawings with 6x6 TMX developed in 1+2 Xtol. The

results are plenty sharp. Fine details I need a magnifier to see on

an 11x14 print.

I use Xtol. Stock mixed with distilled water. Diluted 1+2 with tap

water. No presoak. 1/2 strength indicator stop. I use Patterson tanks

with the reel "twirler". Never had bubbles in 4 years.

The A-1 is a step up from the AE-1. It has aperture and shutter

priority auto exposure and (more significant to me) longer shutter

times (to 30 sec.) and a viewfinder shutter for using AE on a tripod.

The T-90, if you can afford it, is the Mercedes of the manual focus

Canons. It's my favorite of the FD's. It has a built in spot meter

system, a dedicated TTL flash and (most significant to me) a high

flash sync of 1/250 sec. It's a beast though, nicknamed "the brick".

There's a wider selection of lenses with the

Canon.<br><br>www.aseonline.net/~brownt/photomain.htm

The Mamiya C330 with a 180mm lens works for me. One nice thing about a TLR or rangefinder is that you can see the image at teh instant of exposure. Also, the Mamiya focuses closer than most rangefinders.