Using the camera from Dresden part 2

The camera from Dresden has been a joy to use. A little quirky at first as my fingers got used to the placement of the controls. But, once mastered, it became intuitive when using the light meter and shutter. It is obvious that the controls lack the finesse of its Western counterparts, but that is part of its character.

CLICK! As the last frame on the Fomapan 200 is exposed - with this camera more than others I have used, you need to hold it correctly with your left hand supporting the body and lens, while the right grips the body and actuates the meter and shutter. With the camera turned upside down, I press the button that releases the wind on and slowly rewind the film back into the canister.

Now, to develop the film, it was always going to be HC 110 as it is the new kid in the darkroom. The more I use it, the better my understanding of what to expect from it with different film manufacturers.

The technical bit: Dilution 1:31 in 300 mls which equates to 9.7 mls of developer. The film was exposed at 200 ISO box speed, which means a time of 3 1/2 mins, but I extended it to 4. I also prolonged the fix time to 10 minutes after checking the film halfway through, as it still showed signs of fog. 

At first glance, the negatives appear to be on the thin side (under exposed). I think this is due to the built-in light meter. I noticed that if you held the meter on for more than a few seconds, the needle started to fall. I did, on occasion, allow for this - whether I should have or not, I’m not sure.

At the time of writing this, I still have not had the chance to contact print the negatives in the darkroom. This is the real test of how good your negatives are - this point being borne out by a new member of the FADU forum who has switched from scanning his negatives to processing them analogously and is having trouble getting his prints right. This illustrates just how much the scanning process compensates for the differences between the highlights and shadows.

I use the hybrid system myself (analogue to digital) and know it is far easier to get the results you want than in the darkroom, especially if there is a problem with density. But I prefer the wizardry of chemicals on paper to the click of a button on a screen.

Even though I’m not happy with the way these negatives look, I will still print some of them. As I print them, I consider the sense of disappointment I feel. Why should I be disappointed? The negatives are less than technically perfect, but what about creatively? In our pursuit of knowledge on the best way to produce our images, our minds become polluted with other people’s expectations of what constitutes a properly produced picture. Photography is, by its nature, technically based, but should we be sacrificing creativity for technical excellence? That’s my personal view, even though I am not for one minute suggesting sloppy workmanship.

My disappointment with these negatives is because they do not resemble what I have come to recognize as well exposed, but this should not be the whole story. When I started out with the MTL3, it was to be an adventure - some fun with out-of-date film. I, however, ignored the golden rule of not using old film that has been opened and partially used, which is asking for trouble. 

Taking into account all that has gone before, this film is a triumph in that there are images to be printed. In the old days I would have just filed these negatives, never to be seen again. Nowadays, I keep an open mind as to what may be possible. I am pleased that I did.

Technical data: 

All the black and white images were scanned from the contact print.

 

 

 

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.

Green Developer?

 ID11 used with Fomapan

In the normal run of things the colour of your developer as you pour it out at the end of the developing period is nothing out of the ordinary. You just get on with the next stage of the process. That is until it comes out emerald green!. What was just another film processing session has just thrown up a number of questions of doubt, or has it? This is possibly the first time for quite a while that you have taken any notice of what colour the used developer was supposed to be. So what changed? Your film make?

Basically what you are seeing, if you have not used a pre-soak, is the anti-curl and/or the antihalation coatings, washing off in the developer. It has no affect on the developing process which is the first thought most of us have when presented with something out of the ordinary. Different developers can present varying colours depending on which film manufacturer you use.

RO9 used with Fomapan

Why add these dyes?

The halation dye is added to the back of the film base to stop reflections coming off the backing (Acetate or Polyester) into the emulsion, causing exposure affects, usually visible to the eye as halos around areas of brightness. Sometimes the halation coating is sandwiched between the film base and the emulsion or added to the film base itself giving it a slight tone. This in no way alters the way the film acts with the printing process.

So which film developer combination gives you this wonderful Green?

Fomapan is responsible for the green tinting of the used developer. The developers I have used - ID11 and RO9 have produced this colour, so suspect that this film may affect other developers. Although Foma produces the most striking colour, other makes also add a tint to varying degrees to the developer during the process.

Four film how well did they develop.

Film development.

It has taken quite a time to reach this point. There have been numerous interruptions, not all of them good, but the results are in and there are some surprises.

The different makes side by side

All the films are 120 format and 6x6 negative size. They were exposed at box speed and developed in the same way with the same thirty month old batch of stock ID11. When I checked the date I was Shocked. It did explain the slightly wheat looking tone to the developer. To be honest I did not give a second thought as to whether it would work or not. The developer was diluted 1+1 and used only once at a temp 20c, No pre-soak was used. All inverted for the first thirty seconds this is equal to twelve inversions and then four inversions every minute this is equal to ten seconds. Then stopped, fixed and washed as normal.

FP4+ negs

I chose to develop the FP4+ first. This is the film all the others are going to be judged against, so there was no pressure to get the development spot on. The suggested time by the manufacturers is eleven minutes, but I find my negatives tend to be a bit thin so process for fourteen minutes. While the negatives were drying I looked over them to see how well they had turned out. I was surprised to find they are some of the best negatives I have produced. Let's hope I can keep this standard up for the rest.

Rollie 400s negs

The next film to be loaded into the developing tank was the Rollei 400s. This did not have a very auspicious start after loading the film into the back of the camera. I had mistaken the noise it was making for the film coming off the spool. I am so used to the sound FP4+makes when being wound on. I checked to see if it was OK in a blacked out darkroom and it was. This lead to four frames being lost. The suggested development time for this film in ID11 is eleven minutes. I must say I had my doubts but developed it for the said time anyway. Need I say they look thin; will have see how well they print!

Fomapan 100 negs

The five litre can of ID11 is getting very close to being used up and the developer is getting darker in colour each time I use it, could be a close run thing as to whether there is enough to do two more films. Next into the soup was the Fomapan classic exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested development time for this speed is eight to ten minutes. This is another film I have no previous knowledge of, so which is it 8,9 or 10 minutes?. With the thin looking Rollei negs at the front of my mind I've chosen ten minutes I feel it may produce better results and it did. My calculated gamble paid off this time. Producing the density of negative I like and very close to the FP4+ results.

Adox chs negs

The last one to meet the spiral was the Adox CHS exposed at 100 ISO. The suggested time for ID11 at this speed is 7.5 minutes. I took no notice of this time at all. Boyd by the results of the Fomapan I pushed the time to ten minutes. Where did this time come from? The previous results indicated that a longer development time would produce denser negatives so I decided to do the same for this. Was I right? NO! I should have gone longer. These are the thinnest negatives of the lot. Again, will have to see how they print.

Experience and knowledge has played it's part in the development of the Fomapan, 400s and Adox but even so the later two's results are 'off' by my standard. The times suggested for developing the films are from a trusted source. So I am a little disappointed that they did not turn out better than they did. Having said that it maybe the developer losing its potency as I start to scrape the bottom of the bottle. It is, to a certain extent, a gamble when using old material, combined with ones I have not used before. All is not lost, it just means that the thinner negatives will be a bit more of a challenge to print properly.

How are they going to print?

Finally the Id11 ran out before I had a chance to do another roll of the 400s. If I had, I would have extended the time by three minutes. With the Adox I would have increased the time by five minutes.

Four Film

The Plan.

This is the first time I have four different manufactures of black and white film in 120 format in stock. To mark the occasion I'm going to compare them to see if there is a noticeable difference between them. This comparison is not about which is the best film to use but to do with creativity and what each emulsion may bring to the party. Choosing a film in the first place is very subjective, you can ask as many questions as you like and look at loads of pictures that are the product of it's exposure but you will not truly know how it looks until you use it for yourself. FP4 was the first roll of film I chose to use and has remained my favorite ever since. At the time it was a close run thing with Kodak's offerings.

The protagonists are, of course Ilfords FP4+, Fomapan classic 100, Adox CHS 100 and Rollei retro 400s.

FP4+ has been the main stay of my median format work and therefore I know how to get the best out of it. The Rollei 400s and Fomapan classic are the two out of the four that are unknown quantities when it come to exposure and development. So to a certain extent the results will also have a first impressions flavour. Not always the best way to judge a product. I have used the Adox before in 35 mm format so I have an idea what to expect and in that case was not favourable but I will not let that taint the use of its bigger brother. I am also aware when loading Adox film it needs subdued lighting as it fogs easily in bright conditions. The Fomapan classic when processed with certain combinations of fix and developer can be susceptible to pinholes appearing in the emulsion but then I have had this with FP4+ in the past.

All the pictures will be made on a Bronica SQAi. I will not be replicating the same twelve views across all the films. I prefer to make pictures when the opportunity arises. They will all be exposed at box speed and developed in ID11 and processed as normal, then printed on an RC paper that will be chosen at the time of printing. I decided to keep things simple and use materials that I have a good understanding of, making it easier to tell how well the two unknown films have been exposed and developed.

All we need now are the exposed and developed film. The links below will take you to the follow up posts.



The links below are the follow ups to this post.
The developed film

The prints