jimnorwood

Hi I own a lovely black FE2 that has an odd problem. When not used for a while often the first shot will result in mirror lock up. Then all following shots work fine. Does anyone know what might cause this ? I also wanted to ask about the camera leather. Mine is very slightly loose on the front below the FE2 id. Is there a way to stick it back down or is it best just left alone ? Thanks

Dear All I wonder if you can help me. I’m new to Silverfast and can’t seem to find recommended settings for scanning 35mm black and white negatives. I‘m scanning TRI-X on an Epsom V600. I’m not printing but viewing on my Mac. I’m scanning to TIFF. Hoping someone can share their experience/ recommended settings or a link where this is explained. Thanks

Finally two shots of the famous door that John Lennon stood in Hamburg that was used for the Rock & Roll album cover. Here I took 1 shot at ISO 200 and one at 400. Personally I prefer the look of the first one shot at 400.

Now possible over exposure / thick negatives ? These shots are grainy and lacking in detail

If the roll is well developed then this is an example of under exposure / a thin negative ? This is at our dining room table with only the table light as a light source. I took an incident light reading with the white sphere facing the camera lens ? Should I have metered differently ?

Thanks to all who replied. I have developed my second ever roll of film ! Both were shot using a Leica M2 + Leica Elmar 50mm 2.8 and developed in D76 1:1 for 9:45 min. Scans are using an Epsom V600. Next time I will add the extra development time that has been suggested above. Generally I'm happy with the results but believe that I am under and over exposing too many shots because I am not using the light meter correctly. Perhaps not exposing for the shadows ? I post these examples hoping for some helpful suggestions for improvement. I'm interested to know if I'm evaluating the negatives correctly. Please go easy on me I'm new to this !!! Almost all images needed adjustment after scanning using the V600 usually to brighten. I've included a picture of the original scan (tiff) which was scanned with all auto improve options off. Ok so I understand that if I can find one frame that is well exposed and developed then the whole roll is well developed and I can forget about the processing end. Apologies for the bad quality photos of the negatives. Would you agree that this photo is properly exposed and developed ? Image 1 33.tif

As a follow up I did fix this problem with my new Rollei. My problem was that the spring was no longer attached to the silver top plate. I had a spare camera. I saw the spring is actually connected to the top plate (soldered). Anyway once fitted it needs to be tensioned as described in the thread above and then worked fine. But !! The frame counter sticks at 18 and jumps back each time I take a shot. If I squeeze the back gently it continues. As user Godfrey pointed out in a separate thread on the rangefinder forum there can be multiple reasons for this problem. https://www.rangefinderforum.com/node/4754118#post4754167 Several possible points at which this can fail include: Changing the back ... A back from another camera may not have the counter wheel and finger shimmed to the correct tolerance for the body. Deformation of either the back or the body ... The Rollei 35's biggest fault was that the outer shell is very light metal and can be deformed and/or dented with remarkably little force. Having a back which is slightly deformed can put the exposure counter wheel out of reach of the finger. Finger not operating correctly with the film wind/shutter cock mechanism ... Most likely due to dirt or sticky grease causing it to not retract properly. A bent actuating finger ... If the body is set down on a hard surface with the back off such that the finger is in the shutter released state, the finger can be slightly bent to one side or the other and thereby miss the gear wheel, again out of tolerance for the reach. Indicator gear wheel with stripped teeth ... If the gear's teeth are stripped or deformed, the finger cannot engage properly. Dirt or sticky grease in the indicator wheel ... This can cause the wheel to be too difficult to move. That little finger does not exert a heck of a lot of force. In this case I believe the camera had a fall (dent visible) and the back is not 100% flush.

I didn’t fix it myself but it was fixed by a technician. However it’s quite a coincidence you address this as I inherited a used Rollei that has this frame counter problem. I would like to ask anyone who has attempted this fix how the spring is actually shaped. Is there one hooked end and one looped ? I found this thread which might help

Well one thing I’m sure we can all agree on is that it’s not really obvious what Kodak means ! Still thanks to you all I now finally understand what they recommend and why. Next time I’ll add the extra time. About the temperature I do have an immersible thermometer. Perhaps wrongly I thought it easier to develop at room temperature which resulted in a chemicals temperature of 19 degrees, ensuring temperature consistency throughout the process rather than mess around with warming to 20 and perhaps risking a temperature drop. Perhaps my logic is flawed ? Is there an advantage to developing at 20 deg rather than 19 ?

Thanks for taking the time to reply. Sorry I wasn’t clear. The sheet that I was looking at that includes the extra 10% development time suggestion is the Kodak D76 developer. https://imaging.kodakalaris.com/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/pro/chemistry/j78.pdf It’s rather confusing that this is not included in the Tri-X sheet or do the tables already include the extra 10% ?

I’m new to 35mm film development ! I’m using Tri-X shot at 400 and plan to develop in D76 1:1. The Kodak data sheet states for 1:1 “If you process one135-36 roll in a 237 mL (8-ounce) tank or two 135-36 rolls in a 473 mL (16-ounce) tank, increase the development time by 10 percent (see the following tables)” I use a two reel Paterson tank using 300ml of 1:1 developer for a single roll at 20 degrees so do I need to increase developing time 10% from the recommended 9:45 to 10:43 ? I did search for an answer but couldn’t find a clear answer. Secondly if I’m developing at 19 degrees do I just take the middle value (10 1/2 min) between the Kodak suggested 20deg time (9 3/4 min) and 18deg (10 3/4 min) ?

Thanks again for all the tips. [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] I learnt a lot from your replies. Thanks. My daughter has been taking film photos for years and produced fantastic results with a Rollei 35. It was me that thought she might like to have more “artistic control” with an SLR. I know these are the risks (joys) of buying a used film camera. Environmental impact is an interesting theme which I know too little about. Has it been proven that buying and using a used film camera has greater environmental impact than the manufacture of a new digital film camera ? One would think so but I suspect it's not so clear cut. Anyway I just wanted to point out that most of the younger generation I know getting interested in film photography don’t seem to be doing so “on a whim” but recognise both the magic and the frustrations !

Here is a picture of the lens bloom

Thanks so much [uSER=2403817]@rodeo_joe|1[/uSER] and @SCL I’ve sent your comments to my daughter. One question about the iris. As she was taking these shots in manual mode (not aperture priority) wouldn’t the iris be closed down as soon as she manually sets it ? So to check this she just needs to stay in manual mode and make sure the Iris adjusts as she sets different f stops ? I’m a bit worried that the fingerprinted castle shot might be caused by the lens bloom I mentioned although this is on a small part of the lens glass. She’s 21 and had perfect eyesight ! I suggested she replace the battery as you suggest.

Thanks for your help. Appreciated. Here are some from the same roll that look fine. Same lens. Sorry for the multiple sheep pictures ! If the focusing screen was off would this effect all photos ? The last looks quite washed out to me.

Of course I meant an Olympus 50mm not 500 ! I notice here that the sky is washed out on these bright sunny days were I would have expected more blue.

Hi I gave my daughter an OM2n as a present. The first film developed seemed fine with one or two pictures that looked out of focus. I presumed this was due to her learning how to focus properly. However she's had two further films developed and in each there are a number that are blurred. The odd thing is that some taken at the same location are perfect and other not. She wasn't using aperture priority but manually setting aperture and exposure using the OM2 light meter. I noticed the 500mm lens did have some bloom but I wouldn't expect this to effect the full photo ? I´ll post some examples. To me they look over exposed and washed out. So I am suspecting that this is due to the settings rather than a hardware fault ? I'm interested to know your opinion.

Thanks. I will not be developing myself but sending to a lab so I have no idea what they’ll use. I’ve read elsewhere that 80 to 100 asa is more suited to this film (which also aligns with my daughters underexposed shots metering at ISO 400).

Dear All Is it correct that I can shoot this film without an IR filter at ISO 400 for “normal” black and white shots ? I ask because my daughter shot a roll at ISO 400 and it came out very underexposed. Has anyone here shot this film as normal black and white and has some tips ? Thanks

Thanks for this very interesting thread. I'm using a Polaris light meter + Leica M2 and was recently told that my last black and white film was over exposed. I was using the meter in incidence mode where possible. I've been brushing up on how I use the light meter to make sure this wasn't the source of the problem. I used to use a Nikon FE2 which I thought metered very well. I presumed the relected light meter in the FE2 had some evaluative metering which allowed it to suggest the right settings for images that were mostly all white or black. Yesterday as a test I metered a white wall with the FE2 and got a matching reflected reading with my light meter. Incidence reading was different. Same test grey wall all three meter the same. So does this show that both the FE2 and the relected light meter presume the white wall is grey and do not provide the right setting ? This would lead to an underexposure ? Only an incidence reading would be correct? I was intetested in what Tim stated above. If the incidence reading presumes a neutral grey subject then if your subject is very bright or dark then you have the same problem and need to adjust the suggested exposure? Are there typical mistakes you can make using a light meter taking incidence readings that can lead to over exposure ? I'm lost !!!! One other question I still don't understand why for and incidence reading you need to point the meter at the camera. You are measuring the light falling on the subject which is not linked to camera position? Sorry for the silly questions!

I use a Polaris light meter in incident mode. The camera has recently been serviced so should be fine. Previous colour rolls were ok. The Rolleiflex 400 black and white film that is shot at the same time using the same meter turned out fine. So I’m a bit confused as to what went wrong.

I asked the lab and they replied that the film was developed in Rodinal and that the film was significantly overexposed which caused the grain.

Thanks to all who took the time to reply. I have developing my own black and white films on my New Years resolution list but this film was developed by a lab. I just wanted to check that I or the lab hadn’t done anything wrong and I judge from the answers this is just the way Tri X is. Am I right that Tri X is more suited to overcast and window lighting than bright sunshine ? It’s funny in a way because going through old films I picked out two I really liked because of the grain and contrast. Those photos were shot with Fuji 1600 PR. I was frustrated that there didn’t seem to be equivalent films available now. Tri X though is even more extreme ! Anyway to end on a positive note here are some shots included which I’m really happy with. Generally I’m really enjoying the simplicity of the M2. My daughter handed me my trusty FE2 to take a shot and it suddenly seemed complicated ! I’m still not convinced the rangefinder focus is easier and those focusing tabs definitely aren’t. I still sometimes take shots with the cap on. Despite this minor niggles I’m inspired to work more with this camera. Learning how to use the camera and a Rolleiflex 3.5 F really helped my through a difficult year so thanks for all the tips.

Dear All I am really enjoying my M2 and received a Voigtlander Norton 35mm 1.4 MC for Xmas. My first film was a recently purchased Kodak Tri X. I use a Polaris light meter which I had set to iso 400. I wanted to ask your opinion. My daughters (who also shoot 35mm film) love the results and there are some classic shots. I know Tri X can be grainy but this seems to be extremely grainy. Is this normal or did I do something wrong or is this perhaps a development problem ? This was a misty morning overcast sunset This is an example of the problem that I see. Very grainy and focus is not at all sharp This was taken inside using light from a lamp at 1.4 or 2.8. The image seems sharper. I like it but am surprised by the grain

Thanks. Proving once again that one man's horrible is another man's beautiful.