My little Argus 40 negs were developed today (Tri-X w/ a Y. fltr, and souped in TD-16 full strength). They're very similar to the shots from my Argoflex. Both cameras share the same Varex 3 element lens, but the 40 is front cell guesstimate focus, while the 'flex is a true TLR w/ unit focus. I can't see a dime's worth of difference between the two cameras' photos.
One thing I noticed, and it shocks me to say this, is that I think I prefer the Argoflex negs that were developed in Rodinal to these that were developed in TD-16. The 40 has a light leak which may have come from me snipping down the edges of a roll of 120 (the 40 requires respooled 120, while the flex takes either film size), and there's some vignetting that I suspect is from my filter/hood. I'll put a ground glass on the frame rails and see if that's the issue. It was a cloudy gray day, so there's not a lot of contrast here. After taking 6 shots in the Argus 40, I swapped the film into the Argoflex, and the last shot is from it. To me, they all look alike. If anything, the cheapo 40 has a sharper lens than the 'flex, but it's a PITA to shoot.
One thing I noticed, and it shocks me to say this, is that I think I prefer the Argoflex negs that were developed in Rodinal to these that were developed in TD-16. The 40 has a light leak which may have come from me snipping down the edges of a roll of 120 (the 40 requires respooled 120, while the flex takes either film size), and there's some vignetting that I suspect is from my filter/hood. I'll put a ground glass on the frame rails and see if that's the issue. It was a cloudy gray day, so there's not a lot of contrast here. After taking 6 shots in the Argus 40, I swapped the film into the Argoflex, and the last shot is from it. To me, they all look alike. If anything, the cheapo 40 has a sharper lens than the 'flex, but it's a PITA to shoot.
Last edited by a moderator:
