ninadp wrote:
I don't think the Hudson usually freezes! I've only lived here for 8 years, but even old timers seem to not remember it.
Farther upriver it certainly used to freeze over in some years -- people used to sail ice boats on the Hudson when I was a kid; I grew up near Croton-on-Hudson and I think most of the sailing occurred north of there.
retrofocus wrote:
Tested yesterday my oldest film camera I have - the Agfa Billy-Record Anastigmat-Jgestar with 100 mm f/7.7 lens manufactured between 1933-1942. It works with 120 film, so I added Ilford FP4+ 125 B&W film which I developed with Xtol. The camera produces an approx. 5.5x8.5 cm negative on the 120 film plane. Since this Ilford film doesn't contain the frame counter marking which the camera is designed for to look through the back plate, I had to estimate the winding needed after each exposure. I used 4 full clockwise rotations of the camera's winder which turned out to be good leaving space between frames (probably 3 to 3.5 windings might have been ideal since the space between frames I got was a bit wide, so I lost one frame).
Thanks - you can see that the left bottom one is a bit bent likely caused by some distortion of the border around the film plane. It is an old camera though! I was just glad to see it didn't have any light leak after all this time!
bjhurley wrote:
All the Ilford 120 films have frame numbers on the backing paper, but they're not very easy to see through the red window (or maybe they're not lining up with the window on your camera). They're fairly light gray. Fomapan films have the best backing paper -- those frame numbers are bold, black, large, and easy to read. The worst backing paper I've found is from Cinestill; the numbers are very faint, totally impossible to read through the red window, and not even easy to read in broad daylight after you've developed the film.
The backing paper on my Portra 160 VC is next to impossible to see via the red window. Super feint.
lifeandmylens wrote:
Agreed, I won't use it on film. If I want the look I'll use my 35 pre asph!
I use a Tiffen BPM 1/8 with both film and digital when and only when there is a strong point light in the background (street lights, setting sun) and love the effect. Without it there is a pronounced "white hole" effect. With it - there is a smooth circular transition from ultra bright to normal for such light sources and the scene overall. Also the effect is dependent on the focal length of the lens. The wider the lens the less pronounced the effect.
SergeyT wrote:
I use a Tiffen BPM 1/8 with both film and digital when and only when there is a strong point light in the background (street lights, setting sun) and love the effect. Without it there is a pronounced "white hole" effect. With it - there is a smooth circular transition from ultra bright to normal for such light sources and the scene overall. Also the effect is dependent on the focal length of the lens. The wider the lens the less pronounced the effect.
Thanks. Do you have any examples? 1/8th sounds a lot more reasonable. The 1/2 was way too strong. I’ll try a few out of curiosity with a 1/8.
First Holga shots. I have a few special effects filters in 46mm and tried them out on a few of these to see just how bizarre I could make them. All taken with Fomapan 400, semi-stand in Rodinal.
Cool to see how you've been able to get such good results developing these after so long.
I didn't see this, so the reply is a bit late.
Thanks, I'm surprised that when I switched to digital back in 2009, it was like a door shutting. I must have been really busy at work. So I found film in:
-A Nikon
-Two Hasselblad backs and
-Five 4x5 holders in the darkroom.
Plus I knew I had undeveloped 4x5 in the freezer. I tried 30 year old Rodinal on the 35mm roll (from 2008-16 years), and that produced high base fog. (Developer worked fine.) Then I tried 30 year old HC-110 on a recently shot roll, and the developer probably had about 1/2 the normal strength. I did a deep dive playing around with benzotriazole and cold temps to develop with less fog before coming to the conclusion that I can't use benzo on film that's already been shot. It kills film speed. Cold temp had no effect on fog. (60F.)
So the 120 B&W (from 2016) developed fine in D-23. Not much fog at all for sitting for 7 or 8 years. The unfrozen 4x5 (Efke 25) from 2011 seemed to lose it's latent image. I just hammered the negatives with extra strength developer and time and they were still flat. Images were there, but flat. I also tried two different developers. It's surprising the difference compared to Tmax 100.
The frozen 4x5 (Tmax 100) looks fine and I think that's from 2009.
I still have some 4x5 infra red to develop (probably 2008 or 2009) and I expect those will be fogged in spite of being frozen. I also have 2 sheets of Velvia 4x5 (in the freezer) and a roll of 120 (not frozen).
I'm really hoping I can figure out how to develop the infra red since I have two boxes of 4x5, and I think I have a number of 35mm rolls stuffed in the freezer too. I was slow to shoot that because my leather bellows was not IR light tight and it took a while to buy a new bellows...and then digital came along like a tempting mistress.
Mine does the same. It was so hard to half press shutter but if it nails the focus all the pics are pretty sharp.
I paid around $300 for mine. If up to $400 I would stay with the Samsung AF slim, L3AF or others.
@bjhurley super results! If you have not already done so, please post on the Holga thread.
Yours is the plastic lens version? I'm wondering how much difference there is to the glass one, seeing that my plastic lensed cameras - Reto UW &Slim, Kodak Ektar H35 - are plenty sharp in the center.
