Видео

This seems so interesting. Doesn’t seem like they are made anymore. I’ve been using the mod 54 and for stand development I’ve been getting funky streaks and negatives.

Great result, I loved that final decision!

A question: What do you expect/focus of that developer, or other developer testing ? So to say: What are you looking for? Background to my question: Back with starting in mid 80s, I primary used for (95%) 135 films of Ilford FP4/HP5, Forte 100/400, Neopan 400/1600 just lford Microphen in push. For rarely used Ilford Pan F: Ilford Perceptol For rarely Tmax 3200: the Kodak Tmax developer Rational was simplify handling, gain experience/confidence and last not least to reduce time, costs & waste. -- Today, back to analog, primary with 120 film (with many Fomapan 100 and now new also 400 (pushed to 800) ), I switched to Ilford ID-11. Why no more Microphen?: Two reasons: Costs (Microphen you get just in small package nowadays) and with 120 film, I want less the grainy (push) look. Overall and to be honest: I understand the "Ansel Adams" concepts of different development of different sheets. But with any roll film you are lost here, as long you don not change film per light situation. At least I have no plans to take 3 120 film backs on my back with me for low, medium and high contrast scenarios with one film. Not talking about to double this for 2 film stocks. ;-) Yes , there are difference in the developers, but I found them always more minor compared to the difference in film and mostly: the light situation at shooting.

Film is so much fun, I developed some Kodak tri-x from the 60's. left in a camera, had some construction site shots from the late 60's. Just waiting to be developed....

Would it be possible for you to create a video or video series that outlines the process of making color carbon prints? I would appreciate a comprehensive guide that covers everything from capturing the photographs with filters to producing the tri-color carbon print. Thank you for considering this request!

Type 55 usually works. Type 54 however is almost always sand. Makes me sad you're just tossing the print though, for me that's the whole point...

Thanks for the follow up test Andy! This matches my longevity tests as well. You should be able to shoot Pan F at box speed. Sidd over on Photrio shot it at box speed and developed for six mins.

been watchin ur videos for a bit now coool stuff! keep it up. also what green jacket do have in the video?

good photo amazed how long that film lasted.

Good old Panatomic X. Lovely shot and it turned out well. It would have been interesting to shoot a sheet of Panatomic X out of your 4x5 stock to compare against. Maybe another video is in order.

Truly remarkable is right Andy Love it!!!

Question: I have a couple of similar aged Type55s but they have been in the freezer most of that time. I planned on selling them but someone told me that because they were in the freezer the film was completely ruined. So I pulled my listing and they still sit in the freezer. What do you think? I don't want to sell something I know is bad.

Great stuff! Use to use it for test shots mostly in the studio, until I realized how great the negatives were.... still have a box of 55 and N55. I'd better use em up fast, tick tock tick tock

Incredible.. film never ceases to amaze me.

great video thanks

Thanks for the video. Just so someone says it, those parts of a balustrade are called 'balusters'.

Amazing!

I got FP100c, worked good. I tried type 667 , it was a disaster. I dream to use type 55 I was not sure before your video

Gotta love some chemistry!

FX-55 is my favourite developer. But from time to time im using PC-Tea since ive got like 200ml left that i mixed 2 years ago. A comparison between FX-55 and PC-Tea, lets say on HP5, would be interresting! They use similar developing agents..

Goot effort in recovering the sheet of film to make a print out of!

You have some serious bellows sag issues!

His results are to be expected. The storage medium, propylene glycol, does not hold dissolved oxygen. By heating this to 80 degrees C before dissolving in the two developing agents, any water previously in the propylene glycol is driven off. As a result, there is nothing in the "A" solution which can oxidize the developers over time. The accelerator, borax, is in the "B" solution and is not significantly affected over time. Once the two baths are mixed for use, the working developer solution will start to degrade, but this is not one of those formulas where you have to use it within an hour or two, or it goes bad. You would want to use it as a "one-shot", discarded after use. The extra density in his negatives are probably from shooting his Pan F at half box speed as much as anything else. I'd use distilled water for solution B dilution to avoid introducing anything from tap water which might oxidize the ascorbic acid once the working solution is mixed, but that is a fairly extreme caution unless convenient to do. The developer can be a bit of a hassle to mix the stock solutions, but one batch of solution A is a huge supply. It is very cheap, lasts forever, and will provide extremely high roll to roll consistency.

Hi, I found your channel through the large format photography forum, in the topic of x-ray films and filters, and I wanted to know if you have ever used a polarizing filter with blue-sensitive film? thanks!

thank you for the formula

Just got the link from Photrio, fantastic work.

coincident i watched ur 15month old pc-512 video yesterday where u said at the end: „gotta try it with some panf 50“ :)

nice photo andy.

Very neat Andrew, really like the carbon transfer

Your negatives look great ! What film material did you use at which ISO rating ? D How do you avoid scratches ? Background: - I use Fuji UM-MA HC (a singe sided mamo film) in 18x24cm since two years, cut to 9x12cm. - I shot and developed in Rodinal (I failed with Xtol from Adox) more than 400 of those 9x12 so far. Despite I dislike the one shot developer due to the developer waste volume it generates. - I develop in the US FR/Doran tank with 12 sheets at once, but I am again and again not always) unhappy (with uneven development as you can not rotate the - tank. And this despite I filled extra space and holes (for 4x5) with spacers which made it better but not always. - Being in the construction process of an 30x40 / 24x30 *) camera I wanted to train with the x-ray film, but found my love also with that x-ray film **) in that format. *) max size of mamo films. **) yes, core reason is that it is cheaper than even 6x6 on Foma per shoot - For protection against scratches and non even development I am considering: - to mock the FR/Doran tanks with an Jobo lid - make thin open tanks in 30x40 and frames (like Kodak 4x5/8x10 rails so that I can develop one sheet after the other . That "thin" requirement out of volume/cost/time reasons is another thing what I dislike on Rodinal, because I would like more volume (still single sheet) and do the developer stock reuse method like with Ilford developers I do for 135/120 since ages.

My TMY has a base fog of 0.4, how much benzotriazole (2% solution) would you recommend putting in 500 ml of Tmax developer? Two to five ml of the solution?

👏😄Очень круто!!! 👍

Once again, love the carbon transfer look

I'm curious: why 14x17? 11x14 is almost as big and film should be more commonly available as well as possibly less expensive. They're both pretty square.

Thank you, wonderful video! What pigments do you use for each color? Please write the specific composition of the emulsion of each color.

Stunning

Beautiful !!

NICE PRINT!

Could you use a Kodak tray siphon? It would save bickering wash water , hook right up to faucet.

Pro tip #64; if you point your camera down wind, your bellows will inflate....oh , and its pronounced; recent property, because you're broke from owning too many cameras and buying too much film.. next pro tip is #f90 soon to be lost in time reciprocity failure. Were all fallible , keep up the good work and laughing at our foibles. On a serious note, put snaps on the camera top to match ones on the dark cloth... no clips but added wieght.

wonderfull Andy

Thanks for sharing. Who is the manufacturer of your 14x17 camera?

The clips that I am referring to in the video, were to hold the focussing cloth on the camera, to keep it from sliding off. I actually didn't forget them...They were in the pack, with the 8x10, in the car! 😆

Your lighting at the church was very nice that day. Softer light and nice blue sky with little clouds. I hope you took some color there with light like that. Your print turned out well and reminds me a bit like the scans i got when I was there back in July. I noticed this time you used a more traditional composition. Its a great shot. Ill have to go back in early fall to get the colored leaves and softer light. I noticed you were tripped up about reciprocity haha. Look forward to your next video of the other half. Did you shoot some color there?

That came out very well. I do like the carbon prints, although I've not seen one in person.

Do you use a padded pouch to carry the ULF camera in which you put it into? Every time you use the camera, do you need to take it by car to the location nearby first?

Any 8x10 tessar type lenses that could remain on the canham while it's folded for transport? thanks also I really enjoyed your super chill review of this camera

Andy, thank you so much for the great videos! But I have a problem! Please help me someone) I do everything exactly the same way, but after development, inhomogeneities and stains from agitation are noticeable on the film. I check this on an evenly exposed sheet (Dmax=2.0+). I've tried everything: a flat-bottomed tray, stand development, active agitation, vertical development, pre-soaking, other films, other developers, but the heterogeneities remain in one form or another. and this is due precisely to the movement of the developer in tray, the non-exposed film is absolutely clean.....(D-23 1:2,20°C,10 min,Carestream 18x24 (8x10) min-R s one-sided emulsion X-ray film, flat-bottomed tray 20x28)

just another brainfart, happens ;P