The scratches I get are very very fine; you can't see them with the naked eye, and they run along the length of the film, and they go away with nose oil completely. I get them on pretty much everything and attribute it to normal friction of the film going through the gate, because I don't squeegie my film with anything. I do print with an Omega condensor enlarger; next time I get a negative with them I will try to remember to print it on my D2 w/coldlight to see if that helps.
And not all diffusion heads are the same. My 10x8 colour head is noticeably more diffuse than Robin Bell's 6x7 colour head. His grain is somewhat more visible and he can generate more contrast than I can.
My old condenser, which I hardly use now, is a full two grades higher contrast than my 10x8 colour head.... and my filters are fine!
Patrick, thanks. My reply above was a bit too self centered, and I should have thought about it in broader terms.
However, my own printing suggests that the improvement I saw was more down to the lens design, than to be using a longer focal length lens. As I fitted the enlarger with a decent Nikkor 50mm lens, that difference was no longer visible. I'm not really arguing that you are wrong, absolutely not, but can you quantify what differences you saw? I saw 'sharper corners' mentioned, for example, and I was silently thinking that perhaps that was more of an alignment issue than anything. Was there anything else?
I'm just curious to learn what you know, as you seem to have considerable experience and a keen eye.
BetterSense; You should get the pressure plate of your cameras checked out. Scratches, however small they are, are not normal.
I would love to get a point light source Durst one day just for giggles, but I am always afraid of the amount of spotting I would end up doing!
As an aside, since I have spent so much time thinking about these things in the last few days since this thread started, I found that one of my lenses is a little decentered. Bummer!
That's something I definitely didn't think of. Great suggestion! Upon closer inspection (today) of one of my negatives that I printed last weekend, I actually found one Tri-X negatives with a scratch running the length of the film strip I was using. It does not show in the print.
Maybe your prints would be a little bit too good, Patrick!
Thomas,
You make reference to D3200 being such an excellent film (I'm sure it is), but considering your previous association with Tmax 400 I'm sure you must have tried TMax 3200. I'm curious what D3200 has going for it that you prefer it over Tmax 3200?
Dave
Hey, another svensk (Swedish person) on the thread.Kom in i stugan.
Thanks Thomas. I have to admit that I have only shot a couple rolls of TMax 3200 and that was developed in TMax developer. It had some pretty good grain as I expected it would. I'm kind of interested in trying it again and developing it in something like Microdol-x just to see the difference.
It makes sense that if you are pleased with Delta 3200 and have it "dialed in" there is no reason to jump to another similar film. I was just curious.
I would expect your Delta 3200 in Rodinal to have some real crunchy grain.
Dave
Härligt, inte ofta det skrivs på svenska här. Kul!
Just this evening I did some enlarging with the V35 using some old (well, at least a few months) negatives that I´ve enlarged before on other enlargers. The difference is striking, I used some very old Agfa Brovira-Speed paper that really has a rich dark-black tones. On the precious prints most of the darker part in the images have lacked details but now I get both rich black AND good detail in these areas as well. The prints truly look great. Too bad I´m running out of that type of paper. If anyone can recommend a good or at least half-good replacement for it I would be most grateful..
Regarding Tmax:
I have shot a few rolls of TMax 3200 as well, developed in D76 1+1. I was quite supprised at how detailed the film was even with a developer that may not be suited for it. Of course there is grain but I´ve done 24*30cm enlargements from it with very good result, most usable.
Brovira. Good luck replacing it! I have never used it, but hear that its amazing contrast and cold tones are virtually irreplaceable with today's paper. It's probably best to look for something different, but that you like equally much.
Fomabrom Variant is pretty much 90% of what I use. I like matte papers. The 112 is probably the exact opposite of Brovira. It takes a fair bit of negative contrast to make that paper exhibit the kind of contrast you'd get from Brovira with normal contrast negatives. They are totally different. That doesn't make the Foma paper worse. Just different. I think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.You are probably right, the Brovira has a very special look and especially the deep black tones are truly amazing. My thought was to replace it with some other bromide paper. Here in Europe it´s quite easy to obtain Foma´s Fomabrom papers for instance. I haven´t tried it yet but that is first on my "replacement tryout list". Apart from being an "old style" paper it is also very cheap and that is for someone like me, very good.
I bought my V35 with VC head and Focotar lens for $400 shipped. But I still have to repair it, because the arm doesn't move smoothly. It's in fact very hard to raise and lower the enlarger head, so I still owe Leitz/Leica in New Jersey a box full of my enlarger.Thomas; In what price-segment does the V35 belong over in the US? Darkroom equipment here in Sweden is generally very cheap I think...
I have never used TMZ. I've always used Delta 3200, mostly because it's available in 120 too, and I like the results so much I have no reason to look elsewhere. Delta 3200 is a fairly low contrast film. So to get the right contrast for my prints I have to develop it for a fairly long time. I see no reason at all to use anything but the 1+25 dilution of Rodinal, as it seems that 1+50 would yield counter-productively long developing times. As it is, at 1+25 I process for 10-12 minutes, depending on lighting, and I shoot it at 1600.When it comes to Tmax3200 I haven´t tried it in Rodinal yet but will within the next few weeks. I have always imagined that developer to make the grain in that film to be a little to much but maybe I am wrong after all. I'm looking forward to try it. What time/dilution did you use?
With all of your guy's waxing ecstatic, the V35 will be selling for several times that for a while!
Thomas,
Yes, I would be interested in seeing a partial scan of your 16x20 print at your convenience. I was just looking at my TMax 3200 negatives last night (scans), and no, I haven't printed any of them yet, mainly because they don't look sharp. The film was exposed at 1600 and developed in TMax developer. I used my Pentax ME Super and about half were shot using my Vivitar Series 1 and the remainder were with my 50mm Pentax f2 lens, but nothing looked sharp. I've been scratching my head wondering why and what to try next.
Most of my shooting is under good lighting so I don't have need to shoot that much high speed film, but it would be nice to get decent results when the need arises.
Dave
Thomas: My bad, I knew since previous posts in the thread you hadn´t used the Tmax3200 but instead the Delta. My brain just missed that part when I wrote my reply. You said one interesting thing though, if the Delta has low contrast it would from my point of view be better than the Tmax which displays an extreme amount of contrast, at least it has for me with the developer and time I used (Massive Dev Chart´s recommended). I will just have to try the Delta, most interesting and thank you for the unintentional tip.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?