Electronic Camera = Disposable Camera

Including Leicas, film or digital.

Shoot them as much as you can while you can.

• Electronics don’t last forever

• Interfaces change

• memory card formats change

• custom batteries become unavailable

• the same goes for electronic film cameras

That’s right. Your $10k Leica Digital will never become a classic. It’ll just become unusable.

Some people claim the old film Ricoh GR cameras are classics. That’s BS. They also just stop working. I’ve had two of them and both stopped winding film. End of life for that camera no matter how nice of a lens it has. Same story for Contax compact cameras. My advice is don’t spend money on these cameras! Saturday night live celebrities made them popular. They have enough money to just keep buying a new one every time one stops working.

I have two expensive paper weights now. Once in beige and one in black. Don’t make the same mistake.

TMax P3200 long term review

When this film came out a few years ago I got myself about twenty rolls. I wanted to see how it compares to Ilford’s Delta 3200. I used to shoot Delta3200 on and off and managed to get some decent results with it in Microphen. It was always a little too grainy for my taste. Contrast was also really low like all Ilford films in my experience. I had to shoot it at EI 3200 and overdevelop to get results that worked for me. P3200 on the other hands seems to be a slower and more contrasty film. Grain seems to be finer, too.

Over the past few years I just used P3200 interchangeably with Tri-X in my M2. I changed nothing! Whether I loaded Tri-X or P3200, I show the same way. Both exposed them both at EI 1600 and just separate the films for development. P3200 I develop in Xtol 1:1 for 17:00. It gives a little more shadow detail than pushed Tri-X but to be honest it’s not very apparent. The grain doesn’t seem that much bigger either, but I have only printed on 5x7 so far. I assume on bigger prints you can tell a difference.

I am sure you can get different looks from this film at different exposure indices. I am just too lazy to change things when I shoot. I like to keep things consistent. This seems to work, so why change it?!

Considering the results aren’t that different from Tri-X I will probably shoot through the rest of my stash and leave it at that. Tri-X I bulk roll, which comes out to about $4.50 a roll, or half of what a roll of P3200 costs. It’s a nice film and I appreciate it being there, but realistically it doesn’t offer me anything I don’t already have.

My slide film scans don't look good

Your problem is most likely scanning. Look at the film on a light table. How does it look there?

Remember the film was never designed to be scanned in the first place. You’re trying to force it to be something it’s not. If you want great looking images on your monitor, a digital camera will do much better. They have amazing preset filters nowadays.

Finding your favorite B&W film

Buy a few rolls of a readily available B&W film. Develop according to manufacturer's instructions and evaluate.

• Too flat?

  • develop longer

• too contrasty?

  • developer less

• too thin of a negative?

  • you underexposed, give it more exposure

• too dense of a negative?

  • you overexposed, shouldn’t cause any issues but expose a little less. Too dense just means you need more light to read your negative. Meaning more exposure under the enlarger.

• too grainy?

  • probably because you underexposed and overdeveloped. Give it more exposure and less development. Also try to agitate less during development. If that doesn’t help move to a lower ISO film. That will give you smaller grain.

Buying a bunch of different films and comparing them to each other makes no sense. You’ll need to spend time with each film to learn how YOU have to develop and handle it to get results to YOUR liking.

Developing B&W film is a personal thing. If you have to send it off to a lab that sucks, but you can work around that. Stick to the same lab. That will most likely guarantee consistency in developer and process. Refer to the list above again to make adjustments to your look.

Remember, it says “film for B&W prints” on the box, not “film for B&W scans”. Scanning adds another huge variable to the look of your film images. If your results sucks it might just be the scans. Look a the negatives. Get them scanned somewhere else, scan them yourself or stop scanning and print your film.

Need a spare 35mm M-mount lens

I have my everyday M2 with a v2 35mm Summicron.

Works great -

About a year ago I picked up a second beater M2 for a relatively good price. The idea was to have a spare camera when my main one is going in for repair. I used to hate switching to a complete different system for 2-3 months while my Leica was being serviced. You might say this doesn’t happen to often anyhow; I say, when it does it sucks. 2-3 months is a long time. I carry my camera everyday and while Leica’s are tough cameras, they do break.

Anyhow, having a spare body is no good if I don’t have a spare lens.

So I’ve been thinking what to get for the second body. I like the Summicrons, but I don’t want to spend that kind of money on a ‘spare’ lens… but then I like them…

I considered the following lenses:

1. 35mm Summicron v1:

   1. Built quality and looks are great

   2. Price is just crazy. $5000+ for a lens from the 60s that probably needs repair

   3. don’t like the infinity focus lock

   4. don’t like the softness

   5. don’t like the flare

2. 35mm Summicron v2:

   1. this is what I have now, would be great to get another one, but boring and also not exactly cheap at around $2000

3. 35mm Summicron v3:

   1. same as v2 but different focus ring and made in Canada. I love this lens, but it’s basically the same as v2

4. 35mm Summicron v4:

   1. nice and small

   2. don’t like the plastic hood

   3. don’t like the new square font (doesn’t work with the M2 old font)

   4. don’t like the focus ring

   5. had it before, and hated the flare. Actually thought it was broken and tried to return it. that’s how bad the flare is compared to a Zeiss Biogon 35mm

5. ASPH v1 and v2:

   1. too clinical pictures for my taste

   2. too expensive

   3. WAY too big, especially the newest one

   4. much heavier

   5. plastic hood on v1, plastic focus tab (for that money???)

6. Zeiss Biogon 35mm f/2.8:

   1. I shot this lens for over a year about 5 years ago. It was great! I sold it because people on the internet got into my head and I thought I need an extra stop of light. Can’t have non-Leica glass on a Leica camera.

   2. This lens was so good, I actually tried returning my Summicron. I thought it was broken. The Biogon has no flare whatsoever. It’s sharp as hell and yet pictures taken with it don’t look as clinical as the new Summicron Aspherical photos do.

   3. It costs $650 NEW!!! that’s insane!

   4. don’t like the third aperture stops and the 43mm filter threads. That’s really unfortunate.

   5. built quality is amazing. the focus is smooth but feels different than a Leica

   6. Leica die hards will look down on you

   7. This lens is amazing. I don’t care what people say. I am getting one now.

Film emulation presets

The fact that there are “film” presets for digital photos proves that all digital cameras are pretty much the same.

How else would you get the ‘same’ output from various inputs?

IXMOO light leaks

So I went to Russia for the first time. It was a prolonged stop over in Moscow on my way to Germany. I was excited. A country I’ve never been to, amazing architecture of Moscow and just got my M2 back from Kanto Camera.

I started using IXMOO Leitz cassettes to bulk roll film but didn’t want to take them as they might raise questions going through airport security. So I ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X from Foto Impex to my house in germany. For Moscow I was planning to use the few IXMOO cassettes I had loaded and take my chances with the X-ray machines. I that Japan is no Problem. They always inspect your film by hand if you ask nicely. I knew the Russians wouldn’t be that easy. In Russia my luggage was scanned after arrival twice in the airport! Then on the train from the airport then again when entering the subway stations. I just gave up and hoped for the best. I have no clue how many times my film went through xrays. It must’ve been at least 12-15 times.

When I came home and processed my film I was surprised to see light leaks that did not look like they were caused by xrays.

Light leaks from xrays are patters that repeat through the roll. Light leaks at the beginning of the roll would mean I didn’t close the little IXMOO door after loading and accidentally exposed the first few frames. OK. I fucked up this one. Lesson learned but what happened to the next?

Leaks at the end of the roll? The end is what you load first. This means my bulk loader is not light tight.

I need light when I cut the leader and tail. The rest of the bulk loading can be done in a dark bag, which I’m going to try next.

I really hope this is gonna help fix the problem. I love the IXMOO cassettes. They look and feel great, are reusable and are a perfect match for any M2 or M3.

Who will be the last film manufacturer?

Everyone says Ilford. I say Kodak is the first and Fujifilm the last.

Kodak wants to make it but their financial situation isn’t stable. They have posted loss after loss for the last few years straight. Kodak still makes the best film available and I’d hate to see them go but I think if demand drops again they are gonna be the first one to go down.

Fujifilm seems to not care because they discontinue films but they are the most stable out of all companies. Film represent only a tiny fraction of their revenues. Fujifilm made a remarkable turn around when Kodak went bankrupt. Fujifilm looked at their chemical patent portfolio and figured out how to profit from it other than with film. All that time spent figuring out how to make pigments in Gelatine prints last longer was then applied to cosmetics and how to keep skin from aging. Astia film became Astalift Creme. If you’ve ever watched one of their case study videos you’ll know they have also repeatedly stated that they will be the last company to make film. And Fujifilm can afford to make film just to make a point.

All that Fuji hate our there. I know. I’ve lived in Japan for long enough to know that tradition is extremely important here. Fuji’s tradition is film. Their name is FujiFILM. As crazy and controversial as this sounds to all other opinions out there, I truly believe Fuji will always be making at least one film. It may not be the one you like but they will have one. Probably some color negative consumer film at a crazy price.

Ilford seemed to be the one until they got bought out by this investment company. This is good and bad. It’s great for the aging staff that bought out the company when it collapsed. Their investment paid off on a personal level and the financial injections means Ilford now has more money to invest into R&D and advertising on social media. If you’ve been following them on social media you should’ve noticed a major increase in online presence. But! an investment company bought them out because they saw a chance to profit not because they love film. If film demand crashes again, that company will lose interest and Ilford employees would have to do another Management buy out. Is that really going to work a second time? Fujifilm just has more money. That’s a lot of doomsday talk. I really hope it’ll never get there. Ilford is a great company. I don’t personally like their films but many people do and I know their product is prime in terms of quality. I loved their paper until I switched.

And then there is Adox. These guys just have to be the most passionate film manufacturers out there. It’s small scale, they produce/bring back what people love and they are absolutely crazy about film. I personally support them as much as I can. I use their developer, stop and fix for paper and film. I print on their paper and tone using their toners but as passionate as they are about analog photography I don’t think they have pockets deep enough to outlast a giant such as Fujifilm.

I’ll shoot Tri-X as long as Kodak makes it. I won’t get into shooting expired film. I’ll just move to another brand should that ever be necessary.

Leica M6 to MP to M2

My old Leica MP after having the skin replaced with something grippier than the factory MP shark skin.

I bought my first Leica when I got tired of my Ricoh Gr1v breaking. Repair was so expensive and Ricoh stopped accepting repairs about 5-7 years ago. The M6 was so hyped up on the internet that I didn’t even look at anything else. Got one and liked it a lot actually. Then I learned about the MP and thought how nice it would be to have a more pure one with a metal rewind lever and brass plates instead of zinc. OK, sold the M6 and got an MP now. That one I actually shot from 2014 - now (2019). Never had an issue with it other than a dirty viewfinder or a few loose screws (lol). All easy to fix.

But in January 2019 I got my CFA exam results back and passed. I spent the past half year in my room studying after work until I went to sleep and only shot photos in the morning on my way to work. I was so happy to have passed the exam and rewarded myself with an M2! 

It’s been a dream of mine to buy an old M2 and have it completely rebuilt/refurbished by Kanto Camera. They guys do a great job but it’s not cheap and it takes forever.  

I had mine completely overhauled and painted black. It costs me ¥190,000 and took 5 ½ months...

Thats a lot of time and money. Whether that’s worth it or not depends on your budget and how much you shoot. I use my camera everyday. For me it was worth having a camera I really like using.

M2 when I dropped off for the overhaul.

I’ve been a Kanto customer before. Had my MP skin replaced there and my Summicron v4 35mm overhauled. I knew it would be expensive and take time but I also knew that the work they do is second to none. I spoke to Kanto about the project before I bought the M2. I told them what type of M2 I like. The lever rewind and self-timer bodies are my favorites. I don’t plan on using the self-timer but it can act as a nice grip.

Kanto also recommended getting one with a serial number over 1 050 000. I am not exactly sure I understood why, but it was something about the viewfinder. If the finder is bad it’s easier for them to fix it or replace it. The one I found was 1 086 XXX.

It worked fine before I dropped it off. The only thing I didn’t like was the lens mount didn’t click loud enough when mounting a lens. It definitely locked securely but didn’t make the assuring sound the MP made. Anyhow, Kanto said they would try to do their best to fix that. Unfortunately it didn't change that much, even after the overhaul.

New shutter curtains for my M2

Five months after dropping it off they started working on it. Overhaul at Kanto means they take the camera apart completely. Everything that can be taken apart is taken apart, cleaned lubricated and if necessary replaced with a donor part. Kanto told me they even manufacture certain parts that are hard to come by as donor parts in-house.

Matte black paint with off-white engravings

Once they started working on it, it took about 3-4 weeks. They stripped the chromed silver off the top and bottom plates, removed the old leatherette and replaced the shutter curtains.

There are tons of options to choose from when you go in for a custom paint job. I didn’t even bother looking at the ridiculous pink and red stuff. My choices were between olive drab, Luftwaffe blue/grey or black. I ended up picking black because they other two options leave the dials and levers silver. I wanted an all black camera, but even within that you have 3-4 different blacks you can choose from. The original black paint M2 bodies were a shiny black paint. I didn’t like that as much. I wanted something that matches the matte, toned down black of the summicron lens I was gonna put on it.

Then they ask you about the color of the engravings and even lugs. Lugs are actually also replaced by default unless you ask them to keep the original ones. For the top plate and dial engravings I picked an off-white. They even offer pre-brassing to make the camera look less factory-new but that was just too ridiculous. Who would pay almost 2,000 USD for a paint job and then ask the same people to take part of it off again before returning it to you. That seemed borderline crazy to me, but check their Instagram feed. About half of their customers do exactly that. I’ll see how long it’ll take for mine to brass naturally. All I can say now is that the paint feels extremely strong. I don’t see this coming off anytime soon.

The shutter release is smooth like butter on the M2. My MP was nice and smooth but nothing even close to the M2. The shutter speed dial was a little stiff when I picked the camera up.I told them about it and they adjusted that on the spot for me. So far I am happy with the camera. The “no meter” thing didn’t take nearly as long as expected. The only thing that bothers me is that the back door has a tiny little play. It shifts left/right if you push it. There are no light leaks and it works flawlessly but I’ll see what they can do about that when go there next time. I highly recommend Kanto Camera. They have fixed lenses for me that other places couldn’t fix or wouldn’t even accept. With this custom paint they surprised me again. The camera feels and looks brand new. I really want to support Leica with their current film bodies, but I just couldn’t resist getting one of these classics.

1963 Leica M2 all done! Complete overhaul, repaint and reskin. New shutter curtains. Basically a brand new camera.

TMax P3200 vs Delta 3200

TMax P3200 scanned negative  

Early 2018 I was going through some rough time and Kodak’s, out of the blue, announcement of the resurrection of TMax P3200 was just what I needed to cheer me up. 

I’ve more of less settled on Tri-X for most situations and rate Tri-X at 400 and shoot it with a yellow-green filter. Effectively that make it a 250 ISO film for me. Sometimes, 250 iso just doesn’t cut it and that’s when I used Delta 3200. An interesting film with lots of grain. A little too flat for my taste but I had to work with it. I figured out how to make it work for me but never really liked it as much as Tri-X. Delta 3200 is an extremely flat film. Super low contrast and HUGE grain. Some people prefer pushing Tri-X instead but pushing film makes for difficult to print negatives. If you only scan your film this will not be a drawback for you. For me it is, hence I opted for a faster film when I needed speed.

Delta3200 scanned image.  

Ilford recommends Delta 3200 at EI 3200 to be developed in Microphen ​Stock 1:1 for 9:00 minutes. I’ve tried that and got incredibly flat and boring results. I kept on increasing development time until I got to a contrast level that I liked. At 20:00 minutes, more than twice the recommended time, I was semi-satisfied. The grain however was horrifying. I like grain but this film is really grainy. 

Delta 3200 scanned image

When Kodak announces the return of TMax P3200 I was pleasantly surprised. I got back into film in 2013, one year after Kodak discontinued P3200. Since I never had a chance to compare the two films I jumped on it.

I ordered 20 rolls from B&H and shot test rolls in T-Max and xtol developers. I didn’t like it in TMax developer but that wasn’t a surprise. I’ve tried that developer before with Tri-X and Delta 3200 and never liked it. It blows out highlights too fast and makes for weird grain to my eyes. In Xtol 1:1 I got results I really liked. The grain is pronounced as you would expect from a film this fast. However, the grain structure was very pleasing and unobtrusive. The tones looked better than Delta 3200, too. In terms of speed I think Delta wins. I know neither one of these films is a true 3200 ISO film but I can get great results at 2000ISO or maybe 2500ISO with P3200. The Delta film I have to shoot at 3200 and massively over develop to get some contrast into the negs. 

As I shoot 35mm almost exclusively TMax P3200 is the clear winner. It’s a dollar cheaper per roll, Xtol is a fraction of any of the Ilford Developers and the film is sharper and less grainy than Delta. Hands down, TMax wins.  

TMax P3200 printed on MCC110 paper.  

Why you should not develop color film at home.

Developing B&W film is like making a pasta sauce or salad dressing. Developing color film at home is like cookie cutting. It’s a repetitive and standardized process. 

No doubt, if there’s no lab around, by all means develop your color film at home. Other than that I don’t understand why people do this at home. Developing color film is boring. It’s always the same procedure. If you deviate you get bad results. You can’t try new things like in B&W. You just have to follow the procedure. The process is meant to be done by machines. It’s simply not fun. Even if it works out and trust me, most of the time it won’t.

With color film you cannot easily change contrast for example. I think there’s a way with masks etc but it’s an advanced concept hardly ever used  nowadays. With B&W film you can tweak so many variables by altering the way you process your film. If you deviate with color film you get color shifts. Color shifts are ugly. They are so ugly that it’s almost gag reflex inducing. My advice is: leave color film processing to the labs and enjoy B&W at home. It’s a much more rewarding process. 

Flat Tri-X processing

I keep on hearing about how much Tri-X curls and how people don’t like it for that. I never noticed that issue myself and was always wondering what people  are talking about. It turns out I didn’t notice the issue because I don’t use anything that requires flat film  I stopped scanning my negatives a while ago and make contact prints instead now. I then just scan my prints if I want or need a digital version. Even before that I was using a Pakon and Frontier scanner which pretty much didn’t care about flatness. These scanner take curly film just as well as flat film. In the enlarger it’s obviously also not an issue since you sandwich the film in the negative holder anyhow.  

So i don’t need flat negatives but my Tri-X negatives are still flat as a pancake. I believe this is due to the way I process my film. A while back I got really fed up with purple negatives (see my rants on the blog). I eventually figured out how to get rid of that damn purple/pink stain and in the process I’m also getting flatter negatives. Developer might play a role too but I’m not sure about that.  

They key to flat negatives seems to be the hour long soak in plain water I do before I dry my film.  

In anycase this is my process step by step.  

1. Develop in xtol 1:1
2. stop bath
3. neutral fixer  
4. quick rinse
5. Hypo clearing agent 2 mins no agitation  
6. 1 hour soak in water. No agitation.  
7. Photoflo
8. Hang to dry  
9. flat negatives.  

Scanning with Google PhotoScan

Scanning film really isn’t much fun. It takes so much time that could be spent shooting. My Frontier and Pakon Scanners made the task a little bit easier but it still takes way too much time. Over the past few years I sort of started drifting away from scanning all together. I used to be obsessed with getting good scans. Especially color negatives were difficult. The scans just never looked as vibrant as the prints unless I had them scanned by a professional lab. Consumer scanners just don’t work for negative film. Even black and white film somehow doesn’t look right. At some point I had 20 some un-scanned rolls and just couldn’t get myself to scan them. I also realized that the look I like the best is what I get from my darkroom prints. I‘ forget how, but I stumbled upon Google PhotoScan in the AppStore and scanned a few of my prints. This app is absolutely amazing. I scanned old polaroids, old 4x6 color prints. The app even color corrects faded photos.

I then tried it on my 5x7 B&W prints. Super quick and easy. It really beats any flatbed scanner.   

B&W print on Ilford Art300 paper.

Lith print on Fomatone 131 paper.

I now stopped scanning my film altogether. I make a contact sheet of every roll I shoot and print the frames I like best. If I want to share anything I tape the print to my wall and pull out Google PhotoScan. No more long evening spent working with shitty scanners. Some may say I spend more time in the darkroom now but that’s what I prefer. I already spend hours in front of a computer at work everyday.  I much prefer the smell of developer in my darkroom. 

Fujifilm Acros 100 in D76 1+1

Been wanting to shoot more B&W film this summer. I recently gave Silvermax a try but somehow that didn't work for me. I'm sure it would've if I gave it a bit more thought or tried their dedicated developer. But! Silvermax is not readily available in Japan. There's only one online retailer in Japan that sells this film and it's out of stock right now. It's summer and I wanna shoot. So this didn't work for me and I decided to give Acros a try. 

Acros is readily available in Japan and it's cheap (585 yen/roll) . I know Fuji recently announced the discontinuation of Acros but it is still available now. 

I decided to just stick to D-76 1+1 for my developer. I expect to shoot this film only in harsh contrast on sunny days anyways.  

Basic Test: 

1.  Find rough developing time
2. Shoot test shoots at different EI
3. enlarge test shoots onto paper and pick best one.  

bracketed test roll exposed at different EI settings for N, +3, -4. We are looking for a set of the frames where the -4 exposure barely starts producing density on the film. The +3 exposure should be nearly black. Anything greyish here would mean underdevelopment and probably a low contrast final photo. 

blank piece of film enlarged onto paper to determine min time for max blacks. 2s, 4s, 6s, 8s, 12s etc. Around 12 seconds we're reached max black. Longer exposure will not give deeper blacks. This means that exposing my negatives onto this paper for 12 seconds should be enough to give nice deep blacks.  

meter at 100 ISO, +3 stops over exposed frame enlarged onto paper to determine dev time. top: 11'15", center: 10'30", bottom 12'30". Here we are exposing the near black super dense negative onto paper. Right half is covered up completely and hence purest white the paper will produce. The left side is the dense negative at 12 seconds. This should be dense enough to barely produce any tone onto the paper. Just a shade away from white is what we are looking for. Anything darker here would mean low contrast final results. 

bracketed shots at 150ISO, 100, 75, 50, 32, 25 top to bottom, left to right. All exposed at min time for max blacks (12 sec here) with grade 2 filter. These pictures prove the theory. Too dark means underexposed. Too dense highlights mean too much development. 

As you can see from the above tests, this film works best at an exposure beteeen 75-100 ISO.  At 100 the final print is too dark. At 75 I get prints that don’t look dark anymore and at 12:30 mins developing time I get nice contrasty highlights without the need to burn anything in. 

This film is very fine grained in D76 1+1. Maybe a little too fine grained for my taste. I usually only print on 5x7 and at this size the film just looks too clean. For bigger enlargements it is probably a nice choice. If that works for you I highly recommend this film. Get it while you can. Fuji stopped making B&W films and it’s only a matter of time until the current stock runs out. This is the end of a long era. Fuji Neopan films were superb!

Film developing notes

The below film developing notes are meant as a reminder for myself. I’m posting them here to also share with others. Times have been determined by doing a maximum black for minimum time test on fiber paper in my darkroom.

Kodak Tri-X:

• Exposure 400 ISO
• Xtol 1:1 distilled water at 20 degrees Celsius
• 12:30 mins
• 1st minute constant agitation 
• 3 inversions every minute
• Citric acid stop 30 seconds
• Quick Rinse
• Alkaline fixer 5:00 minutes same agitation as above
• 5 min wash in Paterson Tank
• Let sit for 30-60 minutes in tap water
• Driwell or Photoflo then hang to dry.

Alternatives: 

Tri-X at EI 400 in TMax developer 1:7 dilution for 12:30 minutes  

TMax P3200 at EI 2500 in Xtol developer 1:1 dilution for 22:00 minutes .

TMax P3200 at EI 2500 in TMax developer 1:4 for 15:00 minutes.

Ilford Delta 3200 at EI 3200 in Microphen developer 1:0 dilution for 20:00 minutes. 

B&W film & Developer combos that work well

I have been shooting more B&W recently. Mainly because I can print them easily at home. I used to print color at home too, but with no dedicated darkroom that became a little bit too much. I lent my Nova processor to 120love.me for now and concentrated on B&W at home for now.  

I switched from Dektol to Polymax T developer because it’s as cheap if not cheaper and it’s conveniently liquid. I dump my developer after each print session and mix up what I need when I start. 

So far I cannot tell any difference between Dektol, D-72 and Polymax T.  

I still print on 5x7 paper exclusively except for contact sheets. The films I shoot the most are 

• Tri-X
• Tmax P3200
• Delta 3200

I figured out recipes for each of these films. Each grew out of a simple but tedious min time for max black test. I don’t like testing films or cameras but it’s a small price to pay for having easy to print negatives in the darkroom. The more you print in the darkroom the more you appreciate a good negative. While I like the contrary and gritty look of pushed film I absolutely hate printing those negatives. It takes ages, costs me more paper to get it right and just isn’t as much fun. I found that I can get similar results with well exposed and developed film by playing with contrast filters, paper exposure and paper developing times. If I want to print the same negative with a less gritty look I can. With a pushed, thin negative I have no such option. I’m any case, when you go beyond scanning negatives you will learn to appreciate good negatives. 

To get good negatives I had to run some tests. That’s the only way to find out what really works and I encourage everyone to do so too.  

The times listed by manufacturers are usually on the low side to be safe. For Ilford Delta 3200 I found that I need 20 mins in Microphen stock solution instead of the 9 mins they say it needs.  

Ilford Delta 3200

• Exposure Index: 3200iso
• Developer: Microphen stock
• Time: 20.0 mins
• Agitation: 1st min continuously then 3 inversions every min.  
• Temperature: 20 Degress Celsius  

With the above method I get great negatives at 3200 ISO. The results are  contrasts and grainy but that’s to be expected when shooting a 3200 iso film. Even on my 5x7 prints I can clearly see the grain. I like it!

Delta 3200 dries flat and has no color cast to the film base.  Not that that matters much if you print instead of scan.  

 TMax P3200

• Exposure Index: 2500iso
• Developer: Xtol 1+1
• Time: 22.0 mins
• Agitation: 1st min continuously then 3 inversions every min. 
• Temperature: 20 Degress Celsius 

I’ve tried 3200 iso but that gives really crushed shadows and makes for difficult prints. At 2500 you still get contrasty negatives with deep blacks but manageable. This film is definitely slower than Ilford’s 3200 speed film. Grain is also a little more tamed than Delta 3200. I like the results but I haven’t shot enough of this stuff yet to really say much about it. If you want gritty and grainy pictures go for Delta3200. 

Tri-X 400

• Exposure Index: 400iso
• Developer: Xtol 1+1
• Time: 12.5 mins
• Agitation: 1st min continuously then 3 inversions every min. 
• Temperature: 20 Degress Celsius

This is my go to film. In combination with yellow and orange filters I can make this work even on really sunny days. With Xtol I get real box speed out of this film. Extremely versatile film and especially with an orange filter it looks great. The grain seems finer than HP5 plus.  

BW Tips and Tricks

A few things I found working out well for me over the past 4-5 years.
Maybe this could help some new people out there.

All film/dev combos have been determined using distilled water at 20 degrees in Paterson tanks. Everything is based on min time for max black on Adox MCC110 fiber based paper in Dektol 1:2. (I don't print everything, for scans, I found that the development process is much less important)

• Delta 3200 shot at 3200 in Microphen stock for 20 mins. (The 9 mins recommended by Ilford result in very thin negatives for me)
• HP5+ shot at 800 in Microphen 1:1 for 15 mins.
• Tri-X shot at 500 in Microphen 1:1 for 11 min 30 sec.
• Anything that was shot on my Holga gets Rodinal 1:100 stand development. with 1 agitation at 30 mins. (Delta 3200, Tri-X, etc)

Agitation scheme used: First min continuous agitation. 3 agitations every min after that.
I shoot all B&W films with a yellow filter. Sometimes orange.

Film Development:

• I don't pre-soak my film
• I use citric acid stop bath for 30 sec.
• I fix in neutral fixer for 5 mins.
• Rinse film quickly after fixing
• Soak in HCA for 2 minutes (Fuji Quickwash)
• Wash film for 10 mins (continuous exchange of water)
• Fill tank with water and let stand for 30 mins to 1 hour
• Fuji Driwell 30 sec for film to reduce water spots (maybe a Japan only product)

--> film comes out much flatter, pink/purple dies completely wash out.

Fiber Paper Development:
Adox MCC110

• Develop in Dektol 1:2 for 120 seconds constant agitation
• Citric Acid stop batch - I don't really time this
• Fix in Neutral Fixer for 60 seconds
• Let is sit in holding tray with flowing water
• HCA (Fuji Quick Wash) for 120 seconds
• Wash in flowing water for 15-30 mins
• Soak in Fuij AgGuard for 30 sec
• Hang on one corner with laundry clips to dry over night (5x7)
• Hang on two corners with laundry clip to dry over night (8x10 and up)

--> I've tried the screen drying with emulsion down, but that usually curls a lot more than hang drying them.
When you hang dry paper you eliminate local spots of water that I believe are responsible for a lot of the curling.
You will get small marks on the corners from the clips, but they don't bother me much.
I believe the AgGuard may play a large role in keeping the paper flat, too.

**Stand development:
worked well for a while. Using the min time for max black technique I got about 500-640 ISO out of Tri-X. The problem was inconsistency that I failed to notice for months. I know people swear by it, but it will surprise you one day. For Holga shots I don't care much. I can't control the exposure anyways, so I run that film through stand development and generally like the results a lot.

Reviewing B&W film scans

You can review color slides very easily. They all go thru the same standardized process no matter what lab develops the film. We all look at the same non-interpreted results on a light table. B&W film on the other hand has waaayyy too many variables. To review a black and white film you would have to explain your process in detail so it can be replicated by the person reading your review. 

For example:

• Tri-X exposed at EI 400
• Developed in D76 1+1 using distilled water at 20 degree Celcius
• Using 3 agitation cycles every minute after initial agitation 20 cycles within 1 minute.
• Total dev time 12:00

Film was then printed onto

• Adox MCC110 glossy 5x7 paper
• using Adox MCC developer 1+4 dilution with distilled water at 20 degrees
• constant agitation for 2:00 mins in developer
• on LPL 7700 enlarger with a filter head and a Nikkor 80mm lens

Developing a few B&W films according to the massive dev chart and reviewing scans of the negatives makes little sense. Scanners are different. I don't like scanning yet I have five scanners:

• Nikon Coolscan 5000 something
• OpticFilm 8200i
• Canon Flatbed Mark II something  
• Pakon F135
• Frontier SP500

I get very different results from the different scanners. What scanners also do is auto-correct badly exposed or developed negatives.  So when I review B&W film in the future I'll try to concentrate on the negatives and how they print and how they scan rather than comparing scans of one film to another. 

In case you didn't know. Ilford Delta 3200 in Microphen is magic. 

Yellow & Orange filters vs pushing B&W film

Yellow, Orange, Red etc. are contrast filters for B&W films. Most modern film is panchromatic, meaning it's pretty much sensitive to all colors we can see with our eyes. This is great, the first black and white films were orthochromatic and didn't see red, which would just show as black no the print (clear on the film). Actually exactly what your black and white paper does.

People call these black and white contrast filters. It is true that they change the contrast of black and white images but not the overall contrast, just selected contrast. Panchromatic film sees all colors more or less at the same brightness, meaning a blue sky and light grey cloud of the same brightness appear almost the same shade of grey. We see color contrast between different colors and on top of that the color yellow will always look brightest to us, blue always darker. Even though the blue sky may have the same brightness as the cloud it will always look darker to us and hence the white cloud stands out. A person against a grey concrete wall is another good example. The grey wall may be the same brightness as the skin of the person, but the skin will always look brighter to the human eye. What you want to do with your b&w film is mimic this. You add a yellow filter for example and all light that hits your film now has to travel through the yellow filter first and will mix to a different color. 

The opposite of yellow is somewhere near blue on the color wheel. So the blue sky will now look very dark on your film. The white cloud is a mixture of all colors so a lot of that light will pass through and it will look very bright. A yellow leaf will almost pass through 100% and hence look white on the film (actually black on the film, white on the print)  Human skin has a lot of yellow and hence will look much brighter when adding a yellow filter. This works for all races by the way. Human skin regardless of tone always follows a mixture of Red>Green>Blue or Cyan<Red<Yellow.

Some people may say that pushing film will give you a similar effect but that's not quite true. Pushing film will increase the overall contrast of the picture. Filters will selectively increase contrast. 

For really interesting results, try pushing Tri-X two stops with a red filter. Have fun!

Adox Silvermax in D76 1+1

We're in the middle of the raining season here in Tokyo, which means summer is around the corner. I was thinking I'll shoot some more b&w film this summer and wanted to test a few 100 ISO rated films for those really bright days. I almost always shoot with a yellow or orange filter, but even with that my usual Tri-X is just too fast for a day in the sun. So I tried out a few 100 speed films that I had lying around still. Fomapan 100, Ilford Delta 100 and Adox Silvermax.

I am going to review the Silvermax here and the other two in a follow up post. I didn't want to mess with too many developers, so I decided to soup them all in D-76 1+1, same formula I use for Tri-X. Since I print a lot of my negatives in the darkroom I do appreciate an easy to print negative. For people who only scan their film this may not be worth reading at all. 

I shot a test (half-roll) setting my cameras meter to an ISO, then shot one normal exposure, one +3 stops over, one -4 stops under.

Daylight scene: (100, +3, -4), (200, +3, -4), (50, +3, -4)

Grey surface: (100, +3, -4), (200, +3, -4), (50, +3, -4)

The film was developed in D-76 1+1 at 20 degrees for 11:00. 

I judge my personal film speed from the shots of the grey surface. At -4 stops I should see some density starting to build up. The first set, shot at 100, +3, -4 has basically no density at the -4 bracket (frame 29). Over to the 200, +3, -4 set. Frame 35 above is basically clear film base, so this is not it either. Over to the 50iso set.  The -4 frame has a decent amount of density showing up. Maybe even a bit too much for my taste. I like my shadows! So I am guessing that for my developing technique with my tanks and my water and my agitation and my room temperature etc. this film's speed for my taste is somewhere between 50- 100 ISO. Let's say 64ISO.

To confirm, I expose the corresponding frame of the daylight scene (frame 17) onto paper. I do this using minimum time to get maximum blacks. If the print is to dark that means I was wrong and the frame is underexposed. If it's too bright I was wrong and the frame was either overexposed or over developed. In my case frame 17 actually prints OK, but with very low contrast. I can increase the development time to get denser highlights and increase the contrast. (or mess with the contrast setting on the enlarger, but the goal is to get an easy to print negative) Increasing dev time unfortunately does almost nothing to the shadows, hence no change in film speed here. I could keep trying to change the dev time until I get the contrast I want or just use the Silvermax developer they offer, but I decided not to. 64ISO is a little bit on the slow side for my taste. I was looking for true 100ISO and actually found that in Delta 100. I'll review that in a future post.

Adox Silvermax is still a fine film. In D-76 1+1 it exhibits extremely fine grain. By increasing the development time by 20% it will probably have good contrast too. The film has a very clear base, no tint whatsoever, which makes it easy to print or maybe even reverse develop into slides. The only thing that slightly bothered me is that Adox seems to use a half frame perforator to print the edge marking. Not a big deal, but I am used to the proper 36 exposure codes of Ilford and Kodak. Foma also uses half frame markings. Interesting choice, considering there's very few people shooting half frames.

** So reading Kodak's D-76 tech sheet it seems that you need at least 237ml of stock D-76 for each 135-36 roll of film. At 1+1 in 300ml I only have 150ml. According to Kodak I either increase the development time or the tank size. That explains the underexposed negatives above.