_jim_ wrote:
When using 5222, do you have any issues with light piping? I find that that usually have small light leaks through the sprocket holes for the first two-ish frames of every roll. I don't have this problem with other bulk rolled stocks.
Jim,
I don't have that with my roll (only shot one so far). The base is really clear - almost as clear as Technical Pan, or Pantomic-X use to be - even around all the sprocket holes. I since purchased more 35mm from the same place, and 120 from Cinestill - which seems to be the only source in the US.
Jim
At Vito & Nick's - one of the contenders for the (imaginary) title: "Birthplace of the Tavern-Style Pizza." Very fun, old-school atmosphere. Wonderful pizza. Also a good reminder of how geographically large big cities are (I get spoiled by little old Portland) - Vito & Nick's was a two hour train/bus ride from where I was staying (closer to downtown)...and is still in a Chicago ZIP code.
James Markus wrote:
I don't have that with my roll (only shot one so far). The base is really clear - almost as clear as Technical Pan, or Pantomic-X use to be - even around all the sprocket holes. I since purchased more 35mm from the same place, and 120 from Cinestill - which seems to be the only source in the US.
One word of warning on the Cinestill 120 version of this film: if you are using it on a camera that has a red window on the back (to see the frame numbers), the numbers on CInestill's backing paper are so faintly printed that they are impossible to read through the red window. It's best to use that film on a camera that spaces its frames automatically, like my Mamiya C330.
bjhurley wrote:
One word of warning on the Cinestill 120 version of this film: if you are using it on a camera that has a red window on the back (to see the frame numbers), the numbers on CInestill's backing paper are so faintly printed that they are impossible to read through the red window. It's best to use that film on a camera that spaces its frames automatically, like my Mamiya C330.
Thanks, I ran into that problem in January. Fortunately, all my medium format cameras (folding cameras, and TLRs both) have auto spacing - except for the first frame on some. I solved one Agfa copies this way - may be humorous to you.
BTW - I looked at the Mamiya C330, C220, 645, 67 etc. The build quality looks amazing, and I am afraid of the damage it could do to my wallet, besides, I like fixing broken cameras. Current addiction is the Pentax 645 - what a great 1980s camera.
Couple more rescued frames from the new to me Pentax 645 and the 30+ year old Kodak Verichrome Pan film. I hadn't dissembled and cleaned the lenses yet - so I hope the fresh roll of Kentmere 100 & clean glass will let the camera shine like I suspect it can. For now, more garbage shots
The dirtiest lens - 150mm f3.5 - A simple 4 elements in 4 groups design
The dirtiest lens - 150mm f3.5 - A simple 4 elements in 4 groups design
James Markus wrote:
BTW - I looked at the Mamiya C330, C220, 645, 67 etc. The build quality looks amazing, and I am afraid of the damage it could do to my wallet, besides, I like fixing broken cameras. Current addiction is the Pentax 645 - what a great 1980s camera.
I like my C330 a lot, although the images tend to be a bit too clean and perfect; I'd love an old Rolleiflex for more character but can't afford it. I dd a portrait shoot recently with the C330 and when my subject posted the photos on her Instagram and Facebook she didn't mention they were shot on film. I'm sure everyone thought they were from a digital camera.
Starting with some B&W. I've recently been trying to include people more often in my images - not that easy to do if you still want clean compositions (surprise! )
These first two are from a test roll (Kentmere 400) in my ex gf's old Minolta Riva Zoom 70. Missed focus on both, but the lens on that camera is not exactly sharp anyway except at 35mm dead-center.
Lovely pics and would not have been any better if you used a $$$$F6 instead of your F65.
This is why these now very affordable AF slr film cameras are the best deal in film photography.
Desmolicious wrote:
Lovely pics and would not have been any better if you used a $$$$F6 instead of your F65.
This is why these now very affordable AF slr film cameras are the best deal in film photography.
Yep and it also weighs absolutely nothing. The Canon 3000N with the 40mm f2.8 is also really nice for the mountains, I think the whole package weighs approx 500g?
Recently, this huge moth (Antheraea Polyphemus - about 7 inches wide) was waiting on my door jam as I went to get the mail. According to the web they are related to silk moths, and eat 86,000 times their weight as caterpillars. They coast on reserves as a moth, and have a non-functioning mouth. I never touched her, but coaxed her into a Corningware baking dish with no corners, and "vanishing wall" edges. Problem was she filled the 9"x9" dish. I delayed her for only an hour, and she seemed rather lethargic the whole time. After resting on the porch a few minutes she flew off. I recorded it with my digital camera, but had the Pentax 645 set up on a very low homemade desktop support. I was adapting the Nikon 6T - an achromatic doublet close up lens to one of the two Pentax lenses I have. Either the 55mm or the 150mm. Here is the result using Kentmere 100. Oh, and the Pentax 645 metering and exposure are spot on - my medium format technic needs work.
Roll 181: Tech Pan in Rodinal (5 mL + 900 mL = 1 + 180). I had done a previous test roll in 10 mL + 950 mL = 1 + 95, which gave ISO12 but a very high contrast, so I was hoping I could tame the contrast by using less developer. Unfortunately both contrast AND ISO crashed pretty hard. I'll do a roll with actual subjects next using 1+95 to see how troublesome the contrast actually is. If it's an actual issue, perhaps I'll do a test roll using 1+95 but at 7 minutes rather than 10 minutes. I am not sure if these data confirm that a roll of 120 needs >5 mL of Rodinal (a guideline I have been following ever since switching to Rodinal).
theHUN wrote:
Roll 181: Tech Pan in Rodinal (5 mL + 900 mL = 1 + 180). I had done a previous test roll in 10 mL + 950 mL = 1 + 95, which gave ISO12 but a very high contrast, so I was hoping I could tame the contrast by using less developer. Unfortunately both contrast AND ISO crashed pretty hard. I'll do a roll with actual subjects next using 1+95 to see how troublesome the contrast actually is. If it's an actual issue, perhaps I'll do a test roll using 1+95 but at 7 minutes rather than 10 minutes. I am not sure if these data confirm that a roll of 120 needs >5 mL of Rodinal (a guideline I have been following ever since switching to Rodinal)....Show more →
Many years back, the rule was one sheet of 8X10 had the same amount of emulsion as two sheets of 4X5, one roll of 120 or one roll of 135. So the 5ml minimum for 135 should be the same for one roll of 120. Maybe 7.5ml will give you the right results?
)
