The soviets answer to the panaramic camera.

I have a twitter feed, Photomi7ch, during the middle part of last year. I
started to see references in my feed to a camera call FT2. My first thought was
they were talking about Nikon's Nikkormat FT2 as it was the only camera I knew of by this designation but the tweets did not make sense. I had some
how missed part of the plot.

 It was a wired sensation to note that the internet search suggested what I
stated above. In among all the Nikon references was a single mention of a
Russian camera call the FT2 panoramic things were starting to make sense.

On further investigation there is a whole world of soviet cameras that I was not
aware of. Obviously I knew that the eastern block produced cameras but not
such a plethora, the most well known being Zenit, Zorky and Prakticar The
dismisive way people treat these cameras from the soviet era in general is
unfounded. They are well made in what could be called an agricultural way and
do the job simply in comparison to the finesse of western offerings. I think
we spend to much time comparing and not enough time using them to there
best. It is a hang up of an art form that requires tech to produce the art work.
Loosing sight of what is important. The photograph.

The FT2 was produced between 1958 and 65 producing 16,000 of them during
that time. They made two main models series 1 and 2 the difference between
them was a leaver on the base plate that allow you to adjust a spring that
calibrated the shutter speed.

 The FT2 is a swing lens panorama camera with a fixed length 50mm f/5
industar. The turret moves from right to left traversing the image across a
curved film plan. The shutter speeds are set by the positioning of two brake
leavers on the top of the body. This allows the lens to swing at 1/60,
1/100,1/200 and 1/400 of a second. These are set independently of the film
advance. Uses 35mm film set for use with 36 exposure canister's. This gives
the user twelve exposures of 110 mm long.

 

Now we know what the box does, what is it like? It has a substantial feel to it
weighing in at 643 grams empty. It is a flattened cube measuring approx
120mm long, 85mm wide and 50mm deep with a simple fold up view finder.
When you are looking down at the top of the camera in both hands it reminds
me of those wind up cine cameras . A definite feel of purpose when being used.

The camera has been sitting around for sometime waiting for me to come up
with a plan of action. It is not straight forward to use film wise. It comes with
four special film containers that you have to load with film. That cannot be
loaded from a bulk film loader. As the canisters have a different wind on
connection.

 

 

I decided to play it safe and unreel a loaded film. I say safe it was a very out
dated roll of Agfa APX 100. I came at it from the point of view that if I balls it
up completely it would not matter so much as if it had been fresh film stock. In
a blacked out darkroom I transferred the film into the FT2 film canister's. It

went surprisingly well including the loading of them into the camera still in
complete black out. By doing this you dont not loose a frame to daylight which
would suggest thriteen frames insead of tweleve.

With the camerachallenge fast approching I was ready to take part camera
check, black and white film check, topic season.
It was a birght early morning with the sun not that high off the top of the ridge
at south common with some wonderful mottle cloud against a blue sky. As
suggested I used the camera hand held, pointed it in the direction of scene I
wanted to capture and pressed the shutter button. In the blink of an eye the
lens had traversed a 120 degrees of view clonk I don't know what I was
expecting but was a little disapointed with the action.

It takes three and a half turns of the winder to pull the next frame into place. I
noticed straght away that it felt like the film was slipping, that maybe the spool
was not holding the film firmly enough? Now't I can do so carried on.

 
Before I new it the film was finished.

To the darkroom, it was a little bit of a struggle to relice the back from the
body of the camera. Apart from that the rest went smoothly. Three quaters of an hour later the wet film was hanging up drying.

 I had nine good looking negatives I think that maybe the three and a half turns
was to much and the slipping did not help. Next time I will allow for it. Under
the cercumstances it was a good result.

 I have always enjoyed the panoramic format of image making. It is more in
tune with the way we see the world but more detailed.

 

Techinal data:

Agfa APX 100 developed at box speed in HC110 for 6 mins 1+37. 

Pictures and article are the Copyright Mitch Fusco 2023 

 

 

 
 

 

Passion for 35mm film reignited

 It was the suggestion by an acquaintance on Twitter that had me reaching for my Nikon F.5 and macro zoom. It has been a very long time since I hefted this brick of a camera and lens combination to my eye to make images. In that time, my 35mm film stock has gone from fresh to very out of date. Where have the fresh years gone?

The thought of looking at large subjects and small detail had my imagination in a spin with ideas. I needed to slow down and think - but I didn’t! I ran with all the ideas, poking my lens here and there in a scatter gun approach, in the hope that it would provide me with some interesting pictures.

Even with a very itchy shutter finger, it was time to take a deep breath, slow the heart rate and enter the creative zone. Macro photography can be quite tricky with its very narrow depth of field. Getting the point of focus right can, in some cases, mean just a knife edge’s worth of refinement. Small aperture (large F number) settings play an important part in increasing the area of sharpness, along with hyperfocal distance. The good thing about film cameras is you can check what is in focus by pressing the shut down button on the camera body, or, in the case of my Bronica, the lens.

Macro photography is not just about what is in focus. Undoubtedly, this is where the eye will be drawn to first, so it is important to get it right. However, you should also give consideration to what is in soft focus and the patterns of those areas. It is the combination of all these focus points which combine to make a good photograph.

I surprised myself with the number of frames that looked interesting as the wet negatives were hung up to dry. What is more extraordinary, and something I have taken for granted, is that this is the first time I have used HC 110 with Agfaphoto APX 100 @ISO 100. I chose to use a dilution of 1+31 for 6 mins at 22 C. I had no choice really - it had been swelteringly hot for days, making it difficult to reduce the temperature of the water and it was too hot to argue. It has provided me with a toned set of negatives that look very fine grained. All I need now is a break in the weather so I can print them in the darkroom. 

A few days later, the heavens opened, the clouds banged together as the rain fell from the sky and the ground sighed with relief, producing that delightful aroma of damp that pervades the air after a hot spell.

The darkroom was scented with the smell of freshly diluted chemicals after its summer clean. Which negatives should I print first? Six of the thirty six took my eye straight away, so I made them the focus of this printing session. I chose Fotospeeds RCVC paper. The contact print I had made earlier with this paper showed that the negatives had normal contrast, which in my case is in the region of grade three. The segmented test prints were where I had expected them to be at around twenty seconds. Things were moving along really well and time and several cups of tea slipped along.

When I am having a good printing session I do not normally like to change makes of paper or size as it upsets the rhythm of the process. This time, however, I did because I was so taken by the photographs of the peaches in the dappled light. I increased the paper size to 9.5 x 12 and pulled out some FB warmtone by Ilford. When using these papers, time slows down and everything takes longer. The only thing that stayed the same was the grade set at three.

Thanks to Jason’s suggestion, it has reignited my interest in 35mm again.

 

 

Technical data:

Nikon F.5 with Tamron 80-210 zoom macro lens, Film Agfa APX 100 at box,developed in Kodak HC 110, Scanned from prints made on Fotospeed RCVC and Ilford warmtone Mk 4 FB gloss, both developed in Ilford multigrade.

  

 

RO9 special/studional six months from dulition.

Fomapan 200 test negatives.

I'm now six months down the line with this litre of RO9s/Studional and nine completed developments to date. With it now being three months on from it's suggested 'best before' time I started this processing session with the last seven frames from my out of date Fomapan 200, to check that the developer was still viable.

 The Fomapan was in the developer for eight minutes this included the 20% compensation for developers age. For me anyway this developer was now in completely unknown territory and the 20% adjustment was under review again. Although the last time I used the developer the urge to increase was very strong, I considered it again and dismissed the idea very quickly this time. Remembering what I had said last time.

Agfa APX 100 negatives

As soon as the film had been fixed I pulled it out of the developing tank to check. On first look it looked like it had not worked but on closer inspection there was a very good looking negative peering back at me. Great! Now I can get on with the others.

including the 20% and a roll of Fomapan 400 which stopped me in my tracks for a while as I had no suggested development times for it. Ah! What to do? I was processing this for someone else. Don't panic Mr Mannering. I checked through the Massive dev charts 400 ISO film times for Studional with dilutions of 1+15. It was saying that between four and eight minutes. Which is quite a leeway to pair down. I then looked at the Agfa and Rollei times for 400 ISO film to try and shrink the time difference. This helped a lot, it was suggesting five and a half minutes as an average. So me being me rounded it up to six and added 20% which worked out at a bit over seven minutes.

 I intended to develop for seven minutes and ended up doing eight I was interrupted loosing track of the time. It is possible that the mix up has made for a better developed set of negatives which may have worked in my favour this time. Which leaves a dilemma for the next roll - what time should I use?

Fomapan 400 negatives

All in all this out of date developer has proved its self to be a good performer, out of the three newly processed film the Fomapan 200 is disappointing in that the negatives are a bit thin. Some of this is to do with bad exposure and not the development. On closer inspection of this last length of film it looks as though the surface has been contaminated with sweaty finger marks, some scratches and a lot of dust marks on the negatives. Not surprising really seeing that the film has been cut into sections on three other occasions.

It turns out that the Agfa APX 100 has been over developed. I have also noted that the negatives are a bit more grainy than they should be. This could be the down side of using the RO9s outside the three month best before date.

So what now? The developer is good for another three film but I think it will be discarded for a new batch. The reason for using this developer in the first place is because of it's finer grain. If I want it coarse looking I'll use RO9.