Question on film

On 21 Mar 2006 05:26:33 -0800, wrote:

Last night surfing I found Efke 25 and Rollei 25 , any word on these ?
the Efke is cheap. $3.00 a roll cheap..."supposedly" it is not a
"modern" film and supposedly has a high silver content.

And while I know there is much heated debate (on the net) about silver
content old stly vs new stlye film etc etc.

The differences in silver content between two films are inperceptible
and do not add or detract from the quality of the image. It's
plausible that a higher film speed can be attained with both larger
grain and higher silver content.

What I am looking for is pictures like my grandfather shot, he isnt
around anymore to ask but his photos were absolutley amazing, the B&W
was so crisp with no grain visible

Any negatives ? Any idea what format he was using ?

Another question on what you and another were saying about developing,
I apologize for my ABSOLUTE ignornace when you say a 1:1 dilution , I
mixed the developer with 1 gal of water as the instructions said , do I
then mix say 1 pint of that solution with 1 pint of water again ?

Exactly. Technically it's 1+1=working solution.

Do I want a slower/longer developing process or a quicker one to avoid
the graininess ?

Medium. 10~20 minutes is fine.

Also is it better to do this in a Tray or Tank for clarity ?

Depends on the film format and volume.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On 21 Mar 2006 11:28:41 -0800, wrote:

I think, the consunsus is, isnt a lack of grain I am looking for but
rather the "sharp acutance" of wich you speak.

I HATE on fast color film where it looks like its been shot through a
sandstorm, I have som 30 reels of Europe that were shot in 800 when it
first hit the makret, ugh....everyhting looks like its in a haze or
sandstorm, like monet's...

That can be good. I once took some 1600 and ran it through my Minoilta
X700 on which I had mounted a Soligor 70~210 (really bad lens) and 2 5
element 2X tele-exteneders. Ran the aperture wide open but of course
the extenders caused the light hitting the film to drop to the
equivalent of f/16. Made for some nice soft images. Lots of flare and
abberations.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:57:58 GMT, "Richard Knoppow"
wrote:

The developer that probably is most often satisfactory
for exagerated acutance effects is Agfa Rodinal

How about D-19 ? Dektol works about the same as Rodinal. Try it at
1:100.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

wrote:
I am beginning to agree, I was looking for a sharpness I associated
with no grain, it does appear however it may be more of a contrast
issue.

So tho that end any suggestions on the fellows post above regarding
"Acutance" ?

I should also say Ive learned more in this forum in the last 24 hrs
than I ever expected to for a washbin hack this is fun...

Looking at your other posts, you seem to be using a Rollei rollfilm
TLR, 120 film, and an old enlarger and enlarging lenses.

You seem to be lacking a certain sharpness/"snap" in your resulting
prints (you don't actually say so, I'm just assuming so based on your
comments and wording going from grain to acutance.)

In my experience, the weak point in your chain stopping you from
getting prints with "snap" and acutance is going to be your enlarger
lenses and light leaks. Make sure your safelight is appropriate for the
paper you're using too.

Flare in cheap-o 40-year-old enlarger lenses (that probably were
low-end to begin with) will cause the light in the negative (dark area
in the print) to spread out and hit areas on the print that are
supposed to be light in the print. The overall result is drab and not
impressive. Light leaks and/or the wrong safelight will do you in too,
as will old or poorly stored paper.

With skill in choosing paper contrast and dodging and burning, experts
can make pretty good prints with cruddy lenses. It's still not ideal in
detail sharpness but it can be a worlds better than a straight print
using the same equipment.

The lens on the Rollei camera may or may not be coated... if not coated
a lens hood can really help with flare there, especially outdoors in
the sun.

Tim.

Thanks, Nice bike by the way, I am building an XR750 (Harley) Just got
the frame back from the platers, wow I forgot how much work it was.

I am using an Omega 2 enlarger, but I have done a fair bit of small
contact prints so no lense problems there.

In 35 mm I am shooting with and Alpa, on a Leits short tripod. The
medium is a Rollei, both in tip top shape, np problems there, lighting
np, etc.

I am going to try some of the films metioned above, but I am VERY
curious about the developing process, when you said about using Dektol
, you were talking about the film correct ? and a 1:100 dilution, once
again thats from the stock solution ?

I use the Kodak products as they are the only thing available near me
and theyre cheap....

I shot a roll with the Alpa last night paying particular attention to
EVERYTHING, the light, shadows, etc with TMax100 (TMX100)
"Professional" and followed the times on the d76 (6 1/2) minutes etc
etc, the negative are visibly better than the last set with the Rollei,
although I am wondering about the light leak someone metioned, I either
BORKED it TOTALLY last night but cant remeber when but there was an
entire 120 roll exposed, and I was REALLY carefull at every stage.

So tonight I am going to print well see how it goes, but I am really
curious about if you are talking about using the Dektol on the film,
and the 1:100 is from the 1 Gal stock solution (that seems REALLY weak)

Thanks

Chris

On 26 Mar 2006 17:31:50 -0800, wrote:

Thanks, Nice bike by the way, I am building an XR750 (Harley) Just got
the frame back from the platers, wow I forgot how much work it was.

I believe you mean the one on the front page at xs750.net. That's
Henriks. Quite the custom job. Mines at

http://www.xs750.net/mybike.html

For something a little quicker :

http://www.xs750.net/mefizzer.html

I am using an Omega 2 enlarger, but I have done a fair bit of small
contact prints so no lense problems there.

In 35 mm I am shooting with and Alpa, on a Leits short tripod. The
medium is a Rollei, both in tip top shape, np problems there, lighting
np, etc.

I am going to try some of the films metioned above, but I am VERY
curious about the developing process, when you said about using Dektol
, you were talking about the film correct ? and a 1:100 dilution, once
again thats from the stock solution ?

I use the Kodak products as they are the only thing available near me
and theyre cheap....

I shot a roll with the Alpa last night paying particular attention to
EVERYTHING, the light, shadows, etc with TMax100 (TMX100)
"Professional" and followed the times on the d76 (6 1/2) minutes etc
etc, the negative are visibly better than the last set with the Rollei,
although I am wondering about the light leak someone metioned, I either
BORKED it TOTALLY last night but cant remeber when but there was an
entire 120 roll exposed, and I was REALLY carefull at every stage.

There are different degrees of exposure. Was the film completely black
?

So tonight I am going to print well see how it goes, but I am really
curious about if you are talking about using the Dektol on the film,
and the 1:100 is from the 1 Gal stock solution (that seems REALLY weak)

Yep. Extremely weak and highly alkaline. Dektol is loaded with
carbonate. Extremely grainy. You can play with it just as many do with
Rodinal.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com
www.xs750.net

Plus-X doesn't have super-high resolution or super-fine grain, but I
find its grain structure very pleasing, and it has high accutance in
D76 1:1. If you're shooting 35mm it will produce quite nice 11x14s.

Rate it at 100 or 80 instead of 125 and don't change development. It
needs more exposure than 125 to capture shadow detail well, and it does
quite nicely in highlights.

On 27 Mar 2006 19:11:35 -0800, "Neal Currie"
wrote:

Plus-X doesn't have super-high resolution or super-fine grain, but I
find its grain structure very pleasing, and it has high accutance in
D76 1:1. If you're shooting 35mm it will produce quite nice 11x14s.

To qualify that above statement I would say that of course everyone
has their opinion as to what "quite nice" is. Sebastio Salgado has
many of his images enlarged to incredible sizes and for many people
the drama of the image completely overwhelms any technical
considerations. I tend to agree though I think they would look better
at 16X20. As far aas enlarging any 35mm 3.5x9.5 is about as far as
I'll go without seeing some image compromising.

==
John S. Douglas
Photographer & Webmaster
www.legacy-photo,com (currently down (again))
www.xs750.net

True. I should have mentioned that I shoot 35mm only so my standards
are of course much lower than those who shoot MF & LF - but I was tired
and brain-dead so neglected to do so.

I hate to say this, but if you really hate grainy images or grainy
color photos then you really, really should consider a digital camera.