friedeye Posted January 3, 2014 Share #21 Posted January 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would like to strongly second James' reply above re: Tri-X curling. I use a flat bed scanner, and the curling can ruin the scans of an entire roll. If you're doing your own processing, you might be able to correct this -- and if you make your own prints with an enlarger, this can certainly be handled. But I don't, and this has been a major issue using this film. T-Max is excellent and I love Acros 100, which pushes very nicely to 400, if needed. NeoPan 400 is great, if you can find it, and pushes well to 1600. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 3, 2014 Posted January 3, 2014 Hi friedeye, Take a look here B&W recommendations?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pico Posted January 3, 2014 Share #22 Posted January 3, 2014 Interesting. What are the qualities of the Agfa films that are over and above those of (for example) Tri-X and Acros 100, which are my current favourites? I just swapped my iPhone and I cannot remember if I responded to your inquire. Forgive, please. I bounced about with films and was happy with Kodak Tri-X for a decade until they changed it. My faith, for better or worse for Tri-X was lost. I was led to Agfa through MF photography using Rodinal, my favorite chemistry followed closely by D76. So there I am, ftp://digoliardi.net:goodwill@digoliardi.net/public/girl_n_bike_001_web.jpg Sorry the web cannot show the actual image scanned from a print, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 3, 2014 Share #23 Posted January 3, 2014 Agfa film isn't what it used to be. Once upon a time, before 2005, APX100 was the best film (of its speed class) for rich mid tones and fine detail. I always felt it was more suited to medium format than 35mm where a more graphic look can be better. But since the collapse of Agfa the film marketed under the name is made by other companies and APX400 added. It is a shadow of its former quality, although still not bad generally, so beware reading old reports about APX100 and thinking today's is the same stuff. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad Maestas Posted January 3, 2014 Share #24 Posted January 3, 2014 I shoot a lot of Arista 400. It's very cheap, so cheap in fact that I no longer bulk load because of it. The emulsion is very similar to Tri-X. I'm also fond of much of the Ilford stock. Delta 100 gets regular use. When I'm shooting something special I use Agfa and the Rollei stock. I soup in SPUR developers, mainly Acurol-N these days. I have been using the Epson V500 for quite a few years now and when you really dial in your settings and setup, you can make some nice files. I shoot a decent amount of 6x6 and 6x7 so I got the flatbed but I'm saving for a dedicated neg scanner. That said, I can recommend the Epson V500 and above if you're on a budget. Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith (M) Posted January 3, 2014 Share #25 Posted January 3, 2014 I would like to strongly second James' reply above re: Tri-X curling. I use a flat bed scanner, and the curling can ruin the scans of an entire roll. If you're doing your own processing, you might be able to correct this -- and if you make your own prints with an enlarger, this can certainly be handled. But I don't, and this has been a major issue using this film. T-Max is excellent and I love Acros 100, which pushes very nicely to 400, if needed. NeoPan 400 is great, if you can find it, and pushes well to 1600. The curling (I tend to think of it as 'bowing' as it curves laterally rather rolling back up on itself) is a pain in the proverbial. When the negs are dry and cut into strips, I'll make a preliminary scan (V700) just to see what I can expect. The strips will then be sleeved and placed under a pile of weighty tomes overnight prior to making a final scan. I persist with Tri-X (and Rodinal) because I much prefer the character/results to those from other ISO 400 films. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 3, 2014 Share #26 Posted January 3, 2014 Delta 100 in D76. T Max 100 also and TM400 for sports. Delta 400 is beautiful in Xtol or DDX. Use nothing else or the results are horrid. Tri x in D76 for indoor. Expose both at half box speed and cut development time 20%. You get lowish contrast negs with full shadow detail, perfect for scanning. Works for enlarging also. Use Diafine and tri x for around 1250 iso . You will pay a big grain penalty, but get a decent speed boost. D76 is my favorite because I am very familiar with it, and I mix a liter as required from raw chemicals, metal, hydriquinone, sodium sulphite and borax, You need a scale. It lives for 6 months in small full one time use bottles, 120 ml. After that it starts to die slowly. I have done careful tests to determine this. This all depends on you priorities. Developers are either good for speed, fine grain, or sharpness. Pick one. D76 1:1 is middle the road, not outstanding or poor in any category. ID11 is the same Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jean99990 Posted January 3, 2014 Share #27 Posted January 3, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) For me it's T-MAX 400 only. Ilford DD-X or HC and my new Epson V600 (after 7 years my 3170 broke). For post process, Aperture and Silver Efex Pro 2. Yes Sir ! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenton C Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share #28 Posted January 3, 2014 My local camera shop has the v700 flatbed, at . . . Almost $700. The Plustek 8100 is available online at less than half that. I understand it scans better, but more fiddling, one at a time scanning. When having photo enlargements made, do you guys have the shop work from a scan or the negative? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalHeMan Posted January 4, 2014 Share #29 Posted January 4, 2014 My local camera shop has the v700 flatbed, at . . . Almost $700. The Plustek 8100 is available online at less than half that. I understand it scans better, but more fiddling, one at a time scanning. When having photo enlargements made, do you guys have the shop work from a scan or the negative? Yes, the Epson is considerably more, but then it is also a 'normal' scanner as well. Once you get used to the plustek, scanning one at a time isn't too much of a pain. You typically won't be scanning all 36 shots anyway. I send the scans to the printer - reason being I have typically done some post processing in Lightroom or sfx pro anyway - but if you are going to so this make sure you scan the negs in as tif for max image quality Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenton C Posted January 4, 2014 Author Share #30 Posted January 4, 2014 Hi Simon, That's an excellent point...two excellent points in favor of better resolution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 4, 2014 Share #31 Posted January 4, 2014 My local camera shop has the v700 flatbed, at . . . Almost $700. The Plustek 8100 is available online at less than half that. I understand it scans better, but more fiddling, one at a time scanning. I have both a Plustek and Epson, but I use my V700 for medium format as well although it is also useful for low res 35mm digital contact sheets. However the Plustek should be used in a similar way, scan your whole film in a lower resolution, and the Plustek will zip through this even with manually feeding the film, then assess the small pictures before going back and picking out those to do a full high resolution scan. Its equivalent to darkroom practice, you wouldn't print 36 8x10's as a routine, just the good ones. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted January 4, 2014 Share #32 Posted January 4, 2014 How long Steve in total does it typically take with the Plustek to preview your 38 images? I got my first films back from the lab today but haven't sat through the scans yet, contact sheets look promising though. I haven't decided yet if I should pay for my own scanner or get the lab to do them (Noritsu job). Pleasantly surprised how nice the colour looks from the cheapo Poundland Agfa vista 200 and the XP2 he developed for me in B&W chemicals with a 2 stop push worked surpisingly well. I am resisting the urge to spend several hours in front of the computer dissecting the scans Cheers Neil Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted January 4, 2014 Share #33 Posted January 4, 2014 XP2 he developed for me in B&W chemicals with a 2 stop push worked surpisingly well. Cheers Neil XP-2 is designed for C-41 processing, the results with a conventional B/W developer are suboptimal and as the silver is left and the dye cloud not developed IR dust removal on scanning can't be used. XP-2 can/should be run through conventional C-41 colour chemistry are you sure this is not what was done? Minlabs, presumption as Noritsu scan mentioned, can be made/adapted for B/W chemistry but not a swop you would contemplate for a single roll On the speed of scanning a roll I select by running pre-scan which takes seconds and gives a preview the downside that it is not sharp so you can select a "good" shot for full scan then be dissapointed that the focus really was out, conversley the "proper" scan focus is a pleasant surprise, usually:D It takes longer to tag and upload to flickr than to scan!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AB007 Posted January 4, 2014 Share #34 Posted January 4, 2014 I shoot a lot of Arista 400. It's very cheap, so cheap in fact that I no longer bulk load because of it. The emulsion is very similar to Tri-X. I'm also fond of much of the Ilford stock. Delta 100 gets regular use. When I'm shooting something special I use Agfa and the Rollei stock. I soup in SPUR developers, mainly Acurol-N these days. I have been using the Epson V500 for quite a few years now and when you really dial in your settings and setup, you can make some nice files. I shoot a decent amount of 6x6 and 6x7 so I got the flatbed but I'm saving for a dedicated neg scanner. That said, I can recommend the Epson V500 and above if you're on a budget. Sent from my BNTV400 using Tapatalk I also shoot with Arista Premium which some people say is repackaged Tri-X. It is no longer available at Freestyle Photo. I have some bulk Arista Premium 400 films in the fridge. I mostly shoot with Tri-X, HP-5plus, Neopan 100, Porta and Fujicolor Pro 400H. I somehow do not have the skill and patience for scanning so I rarely scan even though I have an Epson V700 and a Nikon ED9000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted January 4, 2014 Share #35 Posted January 4, 2014 How long Steve in total does it typically take with the Plustek to preview your 38 images? To be honest Neil I can't remember much because I started doing my contact sheets with my Epson. And I only do B&W and colour being three channels will take proportionately longer, but as I recall a low res 1000dpi scan would be about eight seconds once you start rattling through them, but you need to add on the time to swap neg strips. A full res scan (B&W) 2800 or 3600 dpi depending on your interpretation of resolution and sampling, maybe takes two minutes plus setup time of a minute, but of course nobody gets 38 keepers, do they? I think the thing is I do my own processing and feel like I want to be in control during the whole process, if I sent my film off for developing I might want them to scan at the same time. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJH Posted January 4, 2014 Share #36 Posted January 4, 2014 Thanks Steve, I don't think anyone ever got 38 keepers on a roll. A very long time ago I did manage to get 3 shots published in a local newspaper, don't like to think what keeper rate that represented . Chris the pushed B&W dev on the XP2 seems to work OK, some of the shots on another roll put through standard C41 that I knew were underexposed look very weak/mushy grey on the scan and very thin on the negative, its claimed to work from 100 to 800 but I don't think I will be letting go over 400 again (exposed for ground/shadow etc so much more exposed than digital). He told me that years ago Ilford XP was developed for the press and this could give some interesting results, I read elsewhere about some people pushing it 2 stops and developing in B&W chemicals. I will upload a sample tomorrow. Next stop some traditional B&W film, tempted to buy a load of neopan 400 and acros 100 purely because I have a bad feeling about fujifilms film production future and would like to experience those films for myself whilst there still available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted January 5, 2014 Share #37 Posted January 5, 2014 I use HP5,FP4, APX100,Orwo UN54 (iso100) and any out of date film given to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
topoxforddoc Posted January 6, 2014 Share #38 Posted January 6, 2014 Lots of HP5 and Neopan 400 (sadly no more). HP5 is really flexible and is my stock film. I shoot mostly low light at gigs etc and it's perfect for pushing to 1600 in XTOL 1:1. I scan and wet print at home, depending on time etc. Tried Tri-X, but just found it a bit too contrasty esp when pushed 2 stops. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted January 6, 2014 Share #39 Posted January 6, 2014 Lots of HP5 and Neopan 400 (sadly no more). HP5 is really flexible and is my stock film. I shoot mostly low light at gigs etc and it's perfect for pushing to 1600 in XTOL 1:1. I scan and wet print at home, depending on time etc. Tried Tri-X, but just found it a bit too contrasty esp when pushed 2 stops. Have you tried HP5 in DDX ? Thats what i use never tried Xtol Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 6, 2014 Share #40 Posted January 6, 2014 Steve, I am olde skool and don't do contacts. I use something like this and simply punch the very edge of a frame I want to explore through a print. The clear downside is that I keep only 6-frame clips, but nobody really wants to see my contacts. It's not like I'm a Magnum photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.