Convince me to buy a film M

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Bernd, as I still have my 2 digit cam , sometimes I shoot to compare with pictures coming from my 2 analog

I still keep my digit cameras, not sold ! That's my experience since 5 years

Please look at "I like film" thread in "Other" ! you are welcome

 

@Shica EpsonV700 has a DMax 3,6.  It's a good scanner for 135 and MF specially b&w enough to print in A3

I have compared Epson versus Nikon (DMax 4) in a thread with Ian (Wattsy), Pete (Steak)...  but I can not find it.

Andreas has probably removed when he changed the server LUF > LF.

Best

Henry

[fielden]

Hi all,

 

This thread has become an interesting read. 

 

I am halfway through my first roll with the M6 and hope to finish it off this week and get it processed by a lab. I am loving the camera, it just feels so nice to use. But wading through the "I love film" thread has convinced me I am doing the right thing. (Upton pg34 so a long way to go yet!)

 

Back to my situation, having been convinced to go down the film route, I need to consider my next steps and would love to hear advice regarding best chemicals to start off developing film, best film scanner and A3 printer for b&W, currently torn between the epsons and canons with the extra grey inkset. Enlarger and full darkroom will have to wait till later.

 

Thanks for your contribution to this thread already. Your continued advice is much appreciated.

 

Graeme

 

P.S. Any darkroom "mentor/teachers" in the manchester area who would be willing to show me the ropes?

[Doc Henry]

Hi all,

 

This thread has become an interesting read. 

 

I am halfway through my first roll with the M6 and hope to finish it off this week and get it processed by a lab. I am loving the camera, it just feels so nice to use. But wading through the "I love film" thread has convinced me I am doing the right thing. (Upton pg34 so a long way to go yet!)

 

Back to my situation, having been convinced to go down the film route, I need to consider my next steps and would love to hear advice regarding best chemicals to start off developing film, best film scanner and A3 printer for b&W, currently torn between the epsons and canons with the extra grey inkset. Enlarger and full darkroom will have to wait till later.

 

Thanks for your contribution to this thread already. Your continued advice is much appreciated.

 

Graeme

 

P.S. Any darkroom "mentor/teachers" in the manchester area who would be willing to show me the ropes?

Graeme for you below

It's easy and good to develop himself b&w ...  and also color the next step

Advantage : good work , well done by yourself , no scratches and cheaper !

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFbTFz6sSIM

http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Developer=Ilfotec+HC&mdc=Search

http://filmdev.org/developer/show/1019

 

For the print , buy an enlarger second hand , it's cheap now , better than inkjet

and how pleasure to see and print himself on photographic paper 

(not the same process as the deposit of ink on paper)

 

For the scanner Epson , Nikon ... or other brand (I let LF friends to answer you)

Good photos and bon courage

Best

Henry

[indivisualist]

I need to consider my next steps and would love to hear advice regarding best chemicals to start off developing film, best film scanner and A3 printer for b&W,

 

If you want the best scanner, you're in for something like the Hasselblad Flextight X5, which sells north of $20,000. If you scan for the internet, you'll get away with a cheaper solution like an old CanoScan 8800F (less than $100). You might want to set your budget here ...

 

With chemicals, it's a lot easier. I'd start with one of the tried and tested developers: Ilford ID-11, Kodak D-76, Rodinal ... there are a lot more. The thing is, that stuff has been used for decades, so you'll find a lot of recipes and tutorials on the internet. Since they behave in different ways, especially with different films, there is no "best" developer. Some goals are mutually exclusive in film development (like fine grain and sharpness).

[hepcat]

I'll leave the scanning and injet printer thoughts for others.

 

To process film, first you need a dark place.  Completely dark; no light leaks.  The easiest way to do it is to use a "dark bag" or "film changing bag."  You need a church-key can opener.  Then you need a tank and reel.  I prefer the old stainless-steel Nikor tanks and reels, but the Patterson-style plastics work just as well. 

 

You put the tank, lid, and reel in the dark bag along with the church key and your roll of film.  Zip it up, stick your arms in... pop the lid off the film cannister, pull it out, tear the tap at the spool, and then spool the film onto the reel.  When you're done, put the spool in the tank, put the lid on... and you're done in the dark.  Pull your arms out, open the bag, and you're ready to daylight-process film.

 

It's that simple.  Now, however... in for a penny, in for a pound.  Here's where it gets tricky.  The developer you use will depend on the brand of film, the speed of the film, and how you want the film to look afterwards...  fine grained, or high ISO  (over-developed or "pushed.")  There are literally VOLUMES written about the "best" way to do the chemical processes, and which developer(s) to use,  and that is something you'll need to figure out for yourself... and give thought to for each roll that you process.

 

The reason for hand-processing film is so that YOU get to decide what your film looks like when you're done.   Automated processing machines <mostly> have a one-size-fits-all approach to processing.  Sometimes it works ok, other times not so much.

 

Good luck! 

[pico]

May I add one opinion: good 35mm development is highly dependent upon the reel(s) and tanks, and most systems just plain suck. 35mm requires more finesse than most newcomers can handle. In fact, larger formats are more forgiving in development.

 

This is not do discourage home development but to advise newcomers that many of the development equipment that is 'easy to load' is just crap. Easy to load does not equate to even development.

.

[hepcat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

May I add one opinion: good 35mm development is highly dependent upon the reel(s) and tanks, and most systems just plain suck. 35mm requires more finesse than most newcomers can handle. In fact, larger formats are more forgiving in development.

 

This is not do discourage home development but to advise newcomers that many of the development equipment that is 'easy to load' is just crap. Easy to load does not equate to even development.

.

 

Pico makes a very valid point.  

 

Whatever film tank and reel system you choose, take a roll of film (either waste a new one or use an un-cut exposed roll that you don't care about) and practice loading that reel.  Practice it in the light until you can do it with your eyes closed, and then practice it in the dark (or changing bag) until you can spool that roll of film without creasing it and without thinking about it.  There are pitfalls that you'll inevitably encounter until you've practiced enough.  On metal reels, if the film isn't clipped in straight, it'll spool crooked and then you'll either stop, or you'll crease the perforations.   Or you'll try to force two wraps of film into the same slot with the film in contact with itself.  Of course, where the film touches itself, chemicals won't reach the emulsion and it won't develop.   For me, metal reels are a snap to load film on but I've been using them for forty-five years.  I struggle with the plastic reels and their side-to-side motion...  I'm sure it's just the opposite for other folks; but the bottom line is that you need to practice with whatever you use until you're completely confident that you can spool the film in the dark 100% of the time. 

[semi-ambivalent]

Hewes.

 

That's all I'm sayin'

 

s-a

[ramarren]

I've taken to doing all my 35mm and 120 film processing in the Agfa Rondix or Rondinax tanks. They're a cinch to load, load in daylight on the kitchen counter (no darkroom or dark bag required at all), and produce very good results. They make processing film a pleasure. 

[sblitz]

May I add one opinion: good 35mm development is highly dependent upon the reel(s) and tanks, and most systems just plain suck. 35mm requires more finesse than most newcomers can handle. In fact, larger formats are more forgiving in development.

 

This is not do discourage home development but to advise newcomers that many of the development equipment that is 'easy to load' is just crap. Easy to load does not equate to even development.

.

Any suggestions among the products currently available?

[spydrxx]

I used a Rondinax for about 40 years...it was great in that I needed no dark place to load the reels and the tank held 7 oz of liquid. The downside was the time needed as the reel is half submerged (vertically instead of horizontally) therefore requiring continuous agitation - which in turn tended to boost the contrast. I always had consistently excellent results once I knew a film and developer. In the last 2 years I've begun using Paterson reels....easy to load (but dark room or changing bag required); the main reason for the change is that I've begun stand processing and it is easier with horizontally used reels than the vertical Rondinax reel.

[Matlock]

I have used Paterson tanks for over 40 years with no problems, you soon get used to loading the reels in a changing bag. I have tried most tank systems and I find Paterson to be the most consistent. As usual YMMV. 

[hepcat]

I've got a cabinet full of stainless-steel Honeywell Nikor (and clones.)  I'm sure there are similar products out there, and there's nothing wrong with buying used, as long as the reels aren't bent beyond repair. 

[BerndReini]

Whatever you can get your hands on will work. Rumor has it Capa developed film in his helmet during the war. Someone mentioned that 35mm is less forgiving than larger formats, which is true if you are fighting the uphill battle of low grain and ultimate tonality. I find that if I want that, I will shoot a larger format or the MM.

 

In 35mm I shoot Neopan 400 and I embrace the grain. It's hard to mess it up.

[DG Hawkes]

I've a pretty large archive of film from 35mm to 4"x5", mostly transparency, and I'm now moving more and more to BW using film - again 35mm to 4"x5". Looking at the price and reviews of scanners and after issues with 2 Nikons I used to own I'm wondering about setting up a dark 'tent' area with a (wall mounted, preferably) lightbox and using a macro lens to digress slides and negatives to the Sony A7Rii. It will also allow me to look at slides in all their (small) glory!

Does anyone either do this or have any experience of light boxes? I had a cheapish one before but I'd like to get one that offers a very stable and uniform light source. I'm particularly interested in the JL-P10B X-Ray Film Viewer Lightbox so wonder if I'm on the right lines?

[Martin B]

I've a pretty large archive of film from 35mm to 4"x5", mostly transparency, and I'm now moving more and more to BW using film - again 35mm to 4"x5". Looking at the price and reviews of scanners and after issues with 2 Nikons I used to own I'm wondering about setting up a dark 'tent' area with a (wall mounted, preferably) lightbox and using a macro lens to digress slides and negatives to the Sony A7Rii. It will also allow me to look at slides in all their (small) glory!

Does anyone either do this or have any experience of light boxes? I had a cheapish one before but I'd like to get one that offers a very stable and uniform light source. I'm particularly interested in the JL-P10B X-Ray Film Viewer Lightbox so wonder if I'm on the right lines?

 

That's the way I am digitizing my B&W negatives (35 mm), too - by photographing them with my A7R and Sigma 105/2.8 macro lens. I am using a LED daylight wafer light box (I got them from a friend of mine who brought me one from China, but you can find them also on Amazon). This light box is excellent, very bright and uniform light, light is "colorless". I am using f/11 and ISO 50 to photograph the negatives, with brightest light setting in the light box it is a 1-2 sec exposure time. 

[lleo]

I'm using Jobo tank and all Ilford products. I'm going to get soon another tank for 120, Jobo as well.

You can put in the count you'll burn some rolls, or they won't be processed correctly, but with some tries you'll be able to do it.

Regarding the time sheets, until now I've used the ones recommended by Ilford itself and I went good.

[tatetate]

Not sure about developing, however if you can get hold of old school Kodak Pakon 135+ , its amazing piece of kit!! Can Scan entire roll in 3/4 mins with ice applied to it. Auto feed.

[Jeff S]

It seems Mr. Puts has moved away from digital and now singularly embraces the film M as his weapon of choice.  For instance...

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/4f22d2125702582ec8f3826e3e077819-36.html

 

http://www.imx.nl/photo/blog/files/0ecb45e7cb822204d869ca7da6a19ab9-39.html

 

His opinions have become increasingly harsh, as when he writes in the first link above... "The SL is the camera that will presumably cater for the photographer suffering from featuritis and a big ego to accompany the size of the camera The S is for sumo wrestlers who need to impress their clientele." 

 

Ouch. 

 

Jeff

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[M9reno]

I'm not sure it's harsh as much as dogmatic.  Hard to be persuaded by dogma, but I don't think that he's trying very hard to persuade anyone.  The man clearly likes writing, and perhaps writes too much... perhaps a function of the blog age, and a bit like a digital photographer might be accused of pressing the shutter too much: is he really invested in so many dogmas, or just typing away?