Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,908   Posts: 1,584,629   Online: 840
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40
  1. #31
    kreeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Missouri USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    53
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by jim appleyard View Post
    It's something to do with adding some Bromine to the soup. I'm not a chem nut, but maybe one of them will see this and explain it like I can't. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find it in my notes.
    I think you meant to say "bromide" to the developer or "soup". Silver bromide remains present in the developer if you are using two bath developers like DIAFINE or with replenished developers, such as TMAX RS or ACUFINE, instead of one shot developers where all the bromide goes away when you dump the developer down the sink.

    Processing fully exposed film accelerates the process and in the end takes the edge off the developer's activity to certain extent which can lead to more desired compensating effect. After a few rolls normally the same effect takes place, it was just good advice if that's what type of developer you use.
    Last edited by kreeger; 09-01-2013 at 08:18 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    One clarification - Acufine is NOT a two bath developer. DIAFINE is a two bath developer. Acufine (they are made by the same company and the name of the company used to be Acufine as well as the name of one of their products but I don't think this is the case anymore) is a pretty conventional but active developer, PQ I think, which can be used replenished or diluted and used one shot but is not normally a two bath.

  3. #33
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,136
    Quote Originally Posted by Simonh82 View Post
    I've had this problem with the Lomography Lady Grey film. It's rebranded Tmax 400 and I thought I was getting a bargain.
    This was shot with a Mamiya C330 so I can't blame the red window.
    The 35mm Lady grey I got was packaged by Kodak, but the 120 is made in China! I bought three rolls and the first one I shot has the print thru problem, again shot with a Yashica D which is red-window-less. The backing paper talks about "Analog Love" and the film has "LOMO" printed down BOTH sides, so they have had their supplier tool up to package it. BUT the print through problem is a hard one to contain.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  4. #34
    kreeger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Missouri USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    53
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    One clarification - Acufine is NOT a two bath developer. DIAFINE is a two bath developer. Acufine (they are made by the same company and the name of the company used to be Acufine as well as the name of one of their products but I don't think this is the case anymore) is a pretty conventional but active developer, PQ I think, which can be used replenished or diluted and used one shot but is not normally a two bath.
    No question Roger, I meant DIAFINE and didn't catch my mistake, I changed it above.

  5. #35
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,211
    Ah, yeah, I should have seen you listed Acufine separately. Sorry to nit pick.

  6. #36
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,262
    Sorry to resurrect this old thread.

    I finally used a roll of Ultrafine Plus in 120 that I had requested for my birthday (I also got TMAX and Acros). Well, I got the dot and number transfer to the emulsion. I'd expected it, and had wanted the film because it was cheap and I ran out of expired film to learn/experiment with. My Bronica GS-1 is very different from any 35mm I've used, so I am learning to use it.

    In this regard, the film is good. As it was, only 5 shots came out because of user error; not having a good feel for the camera while experimenting with low-light photographs. This is something I know I can do with my 35mm w/o problems.
    I'm glad I did not use more expensive film to get the feel for the lens' DOF, experiment with "dragging" the shutter (something I'd not been aware of until APUG), or even have 10 identical shots with only minor variations. I'll probably experiment with metering snow next - I've never taken B&W pictures of snow.

    I kind of like it. This film would be nice if not for the easily avoidable (at manufacture) problems. Also, when people mention the curl problem, I did not think it would be along the horizontal axis
    Truzi

  7. #37
    Photo-gear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Montréal (Québec)
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    306
    Images
    9
    It looks like there should be a distinction to be made between 2 Ultrafine films: Xtreme and Plus.

    The Ultrafine Plus (100 & 400) is most probably re-branded Lucky film while the Xtreme (100 & 400) is more likely to be Kentmere films. Speaking of 35mm films, of course.

    Concerning the 120 format, I wonder whether it is the same sort of films for both "Xtreme" and "Plus"... I haven't shot the 120 format yet.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    622
    Truzi,
    At least you knew what to expect and unfortunately got it. Many folks thought they were getting a useable film only to find out it was junk to start with. It's not only the number bleeding that's bad, but it looks like the emulsion is loaded with mold/fungi when examined with a 10x loupe. Still say the retailer is doing folks an injustice by not disclosing the flaws since it has been reported to them several times already. I suppose it still makes a good practice film and should be sold as exactly that. Just my 2 cents! JohnW

  9. #39
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,262
    I had hoped I'd not get the bleed-through, but knew it was a possibility, so was not upset.
    Truzi

  10. #40
    destroya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    san jose
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo-gear View Post
    It looks like there should be a distinction to be made between 2 Ultrafine films: Xtreme and Plus.

    The Ultrafine Plus (100 & 400) is most probably re-branded Lucky film while the Xtreme (100 & 400) is more likely to be Kentmere films. Speaking of 35mm films, of course.

    Concerning the 120 format, I wonder whether it is the same sort of films for both "Xtreme" and "Plus"... I haven't shot the 120 format yet.
    the xtreme 100 in 35mm is a great film. the best B&W neg film for reversal I've shot. I also think there is a chance that this could be Orwo 54 if it's not kentmere.

    The 120 xtreme 400 is not a bad film. reminds me quite a bit of HP5 in 120

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin