can't resist this one film

Roger Cole · Dec 16, 2012

I printed a ton of R prints back in the day, and found the results really good, comparable to Ilfo/Cibachrome or RA4 of the day, at least if the original wasn't too contrasty. I printed some of what was then called Cibachrome too and found the results quite comparable. The Cibachrome had somewhat higher contrast (usually a drawback) and a bit more saturation (sometimes good, sometimes bad.) The glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome was very glossy, and very expensive, so I mostly confined myself to the RC Pearl surface. I eventually switched over to it from Type R when the price became more closely comparable and I had a bit more money, but more for the simpler processing and near-room-temperature (amendable to being used at room temperature) processing than for any superiority of results.

Where it WAS superior was the fade resistance of the dyes, at least in dark storage. It could fade badly if exposed to UV (sunglight in a window for example) and there were concerns about the base on the RC material though I still have a few of those printed in the 90s that are in good shape.

Bottom line was that I think Type R actually worked very well, it's just no longer available.

StoneNYC · Dec 16, 2012

Roger Cole said:
I printed a ton of R prints back in the day, and found the results really good, comparable to Ilfo/Cibachrome or RA4 of the day, at least if the original wasn't too contrasty. I printed some of what was then called Cibachrome too and found the results quite comparable. The Cibachrome had somewhat higher contrast (usually a drawback) and a bit more saturation (sometimes good, sometimes bad.) The glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome was very glossy, and very expensive, so I mostly confined myself to the RC Pearl surface. I eventually switched over to it from Type R when the price became more closely comparable and I had a bit more money, but more for the simpler processing and near-room-temperature (amendable to being used at room temperature) processing than for any superiority of results.

Where it WAS superior was the fade resistance of the dyes, at least in dark storage. It could fade badly if exposed to UV (sunglight in a window for example) and there were concerns about the base on the RC material though I still have a few of those printed in the 90s that are in good shape.

Bottom line was that I think Type R actually worked very well, it's just no longer available.

Oh! I had no idea...

Gotcha, well, thanks for the lesson.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LJSLATER · Dec 16, 2012

Stone,

I'd love a scanner but I don't have one; for a time I was saving for a Nikon CoolScan, but they're gone now. The Epson 700/750 looks interesting, but I've heard comments ranging from "it's the worst piece of crap ever" to "it's the best scanner of all time". I've had commercial scans of my slides made from a few different shops but the results have never met my standards.

One of my pipe dreams for a while was having dye transfer prints made; I almost cried when I read that Ctein was going to stop doing them.

I have some Ektar in the fridge but I've yet to even try it. I guess for me C-41 film has a stigma associated with it, as I came up in photography being told that color negatives were merely a cheaper, amateur atlernative to E6. Of course I now know that that's not true and that negatives are superior in several ways. But my God the orange base is ugly!

StoneNYC · Dec 17, 2012

LJSLATER said:
Stone,

I'd love a scanner but I don't have one; for a time I was saving for a Nikon CoolScan, but they're gone now. The Epson 700/750 looks interesting, but I've heard comments ranging from "it's the worst piece of crap ever" to "it's the best scanner of all time". I've had commercial scans of my slides made from a few different shops but the results have never met my standards.

One of my pipe dreams for a while was having dye transfer prints made; I almost cried when I read that Ctein was going to stop doing them.

I have some Ektar in the fridge but I've yet to even try it. I guess for me C-41 film has a stigma associated with it, as I came up in photography being told that color negatives were merely a cheaper, amateur atlernative to E6. Of course I now know that that's not true and that negatives are superior in several ways. But my God the orange base is ugly!

Haha I agree I dislike the orange base, and I'm terrible at analyzing a negative color image.

The epson v750 is really nice but the holders suck, you have to buy the betterscanning variable height adapters and ANR glass. I've learned this the hard way and now have to re-scan because I was trying to be cheap

But of all the scans the Provia is the best, no grain and spectacular color. I just have trouble with the "advanced" silverfast software, the basic epson scan software is really easy.

Tomorrow night I can post an example.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

damonff · Dec 17, 2012

Technical Pan looks great in Rodinal. They have 150 ft rolls on ebay for about $175....

I tried out the new Silvermax, developed it in Diafine and immediately ordered 40 more rolls.

Roger Cole · Dec 17, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Oh! I had no idea...

Gotcha, well, thanks for the lesson.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Processing Type R was a PITA. I kept the chemicals in aluminum soda cans for temperature transmission and tempered them in a tub of water. Only the first developer was really critical but the color/reversal bath was "semi-critical." I'd start running hot or cold water over the can during the previous step to get it just right by the time I poured it in. Ilfochrome ran at 75F and was just as easy as black and white otherwise. Three steps - instead of develop, stop and fix it was develop, bleach and fix. The bleach and fix just went to completion so only the developer was really sensitive to time and temperature and you could run at cooler temperatures by extending the time a bit.

One thing that is seldom mentioned was that I found color balancing easier with reversal printing. In the first place, the process seemed to have more latitude or at least was less responsive. Ilford's printing filters for Ilfochrome only went down to 5 units, and that was fine for Type R as well. For color neg you want at least 2.5 steps. (Or .025 - different makers labeled them differently but they were clearly the same thing.) Plus, with reversal prints you had a reference starting point, which could be invaluable. Color neg allowed wider swings though, better correction of incandescent or fluorescent etc.

StoneNYC · Dec 18, 2012

damonff said:
Technical Pan looks great in Rodinal. They have 150 ft rolls on ebay for about $175....

I tried out the new Silvermax, developed it in Diafine and immediately ordered 40 more rolls.

Silvermax?

Quote Adox website:

"NEW AT PHOTOKINA 2012:

ADOX SILVERMAX

SILVERMAX has an increased silver-content compared to regular films.
This enables him to built up more DMAX and reproduce up to 14 zones in our dedicated SILVERMAX Developer.
This way SILVERMAX catches it all for you: brightest highlights and deepest shaddows.
SILVERMAX is incredibly sharp due to it´s anti-halation layer between the emulsion and the base.
The detail contrast is enhanced by this as well.
SILVERMAX features an extremely fine grain, comparable to tabular-crystal films.
His speed and covering effect comes from the high silver content.
SILVERMAX is coated onto clear triacetate and can be reversal processed.

Made in Germany.

Sizes:

35mm film 135/36

SILVERMAX is only available as a 35mm film and will not be manufactured in other formats."

StoneNYC · Dec 18, 2012

Since we're talking about resisting film ... why is Adox working on re-manufacturing 110 film? wouldn't 126 be much more appealing? or 127 for that matter. Get some nice 4x4's going. I'm sure SOMEWHERE I have an old 110 but it's not very good and the film is terrible haha. I've never gotten to use 127 nor 126 film, which both seem like a much more useful film, more surface area=finer images. Actually, there's something Kodak could do, if it came out with "retro packs" it could corner the market and then produce a line of cameras, basically what they used to do, except make a deal with like Urban Outfitters like holga/lomo but with better stuff. Ektar 126 baby! now that I couldn't resist.

Roger Cole · Dec 18, 2012

Shooting photos with 110 film cameras is remarkable for the same reason that tap dancing elephants are remarkable. What's amazing isn't that they do it well but the fact that they do it at all.

I agree. I'd much rather see, in rough order of preference, 1) 620 2) 127 and 3)126. I know you can respool your own 120 onto 620. You can also buy some films respooled but they're too expensive and a bit limited. I have some such respooled TMX loaded into a Kodak "faux TLR" my wife then-girlfriend got me, and I paid just over $10 a roll for it. I just shoot it for a lark though. A baby Rollei is pretty nice and there are tons of Brownies and such that can use 127. The baby Rollei will blow the lens off any 126 camera, which are themselves better than a 110 equivalent.

The cool cameras in 110 were the Minolta and Pentax SLRS. I admit they are kind of cool but the image size...ah, much rather have a Pen F half frame.

damonff · Dec 18, 2012

Silvermax

Yes, Silvermax! It is really nice film. It is making me forget about my TMAX 100 stockpile. Try some. You will believe! It is more expensive (and out of stock) at BH and Freestyle. I got mine at MACO in Germany.

StoneNYC said:
Silvermax?

Quote Adox website:

"NEW AT PHOTOKINA 2012:

ADOX SILVERMAX

SILVERMAX has an increased silver-content compared to regular films.
This enables him to built up more DMAX and reproduce up to 14 zones in our dedicated SILVERMAX Developer.
This way SILVERMAX catches it all for you: brightest highlights and deepest shaddows.
SILVERMAX is incredibly sharp due to it´s anti-halation layer between the emulsion and the base.
The detail contrast is enhanced by this as well.
SILVERMAX features an extremely fine grain, comparable to tabular-crystal films.
His speed and covering effect comes from the high silver content.
SILVERMAX is coated onto clear triacetate and can be reversal processed.

Made in Germany.

Sizes:

35mm film 135/36

SILVERMAX is only available as a 35mm film and will not be manufactured in other formats."

StoneNYC · Dec 18, 2012

damonff said:
Yes, Silvermax! It is really nice film. It is making me forget about my TMAX 100 stockpile. Try some. You will believe! It is more expensive (and out of stock) at BH and Freestyle. I got mine at MACO in Germany.

They only make it in 135 and I only really shoot 120...

It seems ALL the ADOX stuff is out of stock in general and even their website says they had stopped production, so what the heck are they making? I think they are in trouble... I really just want some adinol/Rodonol but can't find any in stock anywhere.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Dec 18, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Shooting photos with 110 film cameras is remarkable for the same reason that tap dancing elephants are remarkable. What's amazing isn't that they do it well but the fact that they do it at all.

I agree. I'd much rather see, in rough order of preference, 1) 620 2) 127 and 3)126. I know you can respool your own 120 onto 620. You can also buy some films respooled but they're too expensive and a bit limited. I have some such respooled TMX loaded into a Kodak "faux TLR" my wife then-girlfriend got me, and I paid just over $10 a roll for it. I just shoot it for a lark though. A baby Rollei is pretty nice and there are tons of Brownies and such that can use 127. The baby Rollei will blow the lens off any 126 camera, which are themselves better than a 110 equivalent.

The cool cameras in 110 were the Minolta and Pentax SLRS. I admit they are kind of cool but the image size...ah, much rather have a Pen F half frame.

I don't care as much about 620, if we are talking old formats, I care more about the ones you cant easily respool. That said, 116 or 616 would be my choice of "come back" films. Again you can re-spool 70mm onto 116 but even those are expired or limited. It's just that much bigger that it makes a difference.

I just don't get enough detail from 135 to make it worth shooting and 127 just seems like a better option. I heard someone still sells it, maybe leftover stock at freestyle or something.

126 is more a novelty. Just to have shot it, like more a fun camera to use at parties.

The point is mute, my 116 has too many bellows leaks, and I don't own any 127/126 cameras so if they did make any I would have to then search out a camera with decent lens options and get a whole new system. Lol

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Cole · Dec 18, 2012

Understandable. 127 is probably the film with good quality cameras available and almost no film, especially with Efke going under.

MattKing · Dec 19, 2012

StoneNYC said:
The point is mute, my 116 has too many bellows leaks, and I don't own any 127/126 cameras ....

Warning, pedantry alert!

Stone:

The phrase is "The point is moot" not "The point is mute"

Meaning: "The point is of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic"

Rather than: "The point is incapable of speech; dumb"

Sorry

damonff · Dec 19, 2012

Everyone is out of stock in the US. You have to get Adox and Rollei stuff from MACO. Their shipping isn't too bad considering the expected arrival date for the US stores is late January and they keep pushing it back.

Freestyle had Rodinal in stock.

StoneNYC said:
They only make it in 135 and I only really shoot 120...

It seems ALL the ADOX stuff is out of stock in general and even their website says they had stopped production, so what the heck are they making? I think they are in trouble... I really just want some adinol/Rodonol but can't find any in stock anywhere.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Dec 19, 2012

MattKing said:
Warning, pedantry alert!

Stone:

The phrase is "The point is moot" not "The point is mute"

Meaning: "The point is of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic"

Rather than: "The point is incapable of speech; dumb"

Sorry

No please correct things like that, I prefer to know how to speak properly

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StoneNYC · Dec 19, 2012

damonff said:
Everyone is out of stock in the US. You have to get Adox and Rollei stuff from MACO. Their shipping isn't too bad considering the expected arrival date for the US stores is late January and they keep pushing it back.

Freestyle had Rodinal in stock.

Oh freestyle does? Good to know, I couldn't tell if B&H was out of stock or if they simply lusted it that way because they can't ship it. I know some stuff can only be bought IN STORE so I was thinking of going in to see if they had it...

Roger Cole said:
Understandable. 127 is probably the film with good quality cameras available and almost no film, especially with Efke going under.

I think I saw some on freestyle.. Have to check.

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

wogster · Dec 19, 2012

damonff said:
Yes, Silvermax! It is really nice film. It is making me forget about my TMAX 100 stockpile. Try some. You will believe! It is more expensive (and out of stock) at BH and Freestyle. I got mine at MACO in Germany.

The film I love to shoot, has got to be PanF, yeah it's slow and it's monochrome, but because it's slow you don't get grain that looks like boulders in an 8x10 from 35mm....

damonff · Dec 19, 2012

Haha. So true. I shot some 3200 once and couldn't tell what I shot because it looked like a Seurat painting!

wogster said:
The film I love to shoot, has got to be PanF, yeah it's slow and it's monochrome, but because it's slow you don't get grain that looks like boulders in an 8x10 from 35mm....

StoneNYC · Dec 20, 2012

damonff said:
Haha. So true. I shot some 3200 once and couldn't tell what I shot because it looked like a Seurat painting!

SOOO funny, I JUST (as in 2 hours ago) got out of seeing "Sunday in the Park with George"!! A play mostly about George Seurat with some parallels of his points of light with modern TV screen points of light put together to create an image... Similar to film

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yashinoff · Dec 20, 2012

I couldn't resist Plus-X until they jacked the prices up before it was discontinued.

I couldn't resist Elite Chrome either...

Roger Cole · Dec 20, 2012

damonff said:
Haha. So true. I shot some 3200 once and couldn't tell what I shot because it looked like a Seurat painting!

Something's wrong then. I regularly shoot TMZ and Delta 3200 in 35mm (TMZ) and 120 (D3200) at 3200 and even, for TMZ, 6400. It's grainy yes but it certainly doesn't obscure the subject.

For some photos I LIKE grain. For other times and subjects, there's other films. Besides, films like TMZ and D3200 allow you to get the picture when the choices are a grainy photo or no photo (or a digital one, horrors!) Heck D3200 at 3200 in 120 sizes isn't even very grainy. It's reminiscent of old style Tri-X in 35mm.

StoneNYC · Dec 20, 2012

Roger Cole said:
Something's wrong then. I regularly shoot TMZ and Delta 3200 in 35mm (TMZ) and 120 (D3200) at 3200 and even, for TMZ, 6400. It's grainy yes but it certainly doesn't obscure the subject.

For some photos I LIKE grain. For other times and subjects, there's other films. Besides, films like TMZ and D3200 allow you to get the picture when the choices are a grainy photo or no photo (or a digital one, horrors!) Heck D3200 at 3200 in 120 sizes isn't even very grainy. It's reminiscent of old style Tri-X in 35mm.

Sadly digital has surpassed film in the high ISO capability vs grain. It's actually quite amazing what you can capture on non-film. At 6400 it's certainly a lower grain. I would post an example if I were allowed. Umm my website with the girl eating fire with her chest highlighted by the fire, that's at 5000 ISO www.stonenyc.com it's under the model section. (Please don't criticize the site it's been 2 years since I updated it). If anyone wanted to see. The newer version of my camera is even better at low ISO's.

Just gong with what he said about digital, it's a horror that it does so well in low light hahaha!

Sometimes I feel like you lose all the artistic lighting and the challenge and skill of photography when everything is so easy... But then it's also nice to get the shot...

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

damonff · Dec 20, 2012

Cool! Synchronicity is weird.

StoneNYC said:
SOOO funny, I JUST (as in 2 hours ago) got out of seeing "Sunday in the Park with George"!! A play mostly about George Seurat with some parallels of his points of light with modern TV screen points of light put together to create an image... Similar to film

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger Cole · Dec 20, 2012

StoneNYC said:
Sadly digital has surpassed film in the high ISO capability vs grain. It's actually quite amazing what you can capture on non-film. At 6400 it's certainly a lower grain. I would post an example if I were allowed. Umm my website with the girl eating fire with her chest highlighted by the fire, that's at 5000 ISO www.stonenyc.com it's under the model section. (Please don't criticize the site it's been 2 years since I updated it). If anyone wanted to see. The newer version of my camera is even better at low ISO's.

Just gong with what he said about digital, it's a horror that it does so well in low light hahaha!

Sometimes I feel like you lose all the artistic lighting and the challenge and skill of photography when everything is so easy... But then it's also nice to get the shot...

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know, and I agree - for pure technical quality under low light, digital absolutely spanks film. But I enjoy shooting film, I enjoy the challenges under low light, and I often enjoy the grainy look that film gives me. I'm going to go right on shooting my remaining stock of TMZ, maybe more as long as I can still get it, and the wonderful Delta 3200 in 120. I may try D3200 in 35mm and just switch entirely though. It's a great film that I enjoy in 120 and Ilford deserves our support.

can't resist this one film

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency