Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,683   Posts: 1,548,541   Online: 964
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I like it so far, I don't know why film packs weren't the standard and why sheet film is the main thing
    Cost.

    PE and I were just discussing film packs at lunch on Thursday at the George Eastman House. As I understand it, it turns out the US Military was the last major user of film packs.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    US
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,060
    Plus pack film was thin and curly and hard to handle. Soon as you plop it in a tray of developer it curls up like crazy. And you need glass negative carriers because it's so thin.

  3. #23
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Cost.

    PE and I were just discussing film packs at lunch on Thursday at the George Eastman House. As I understand it, it turns out the US Military was the last major user of film packs.
    Ahh, ok, fair enough (plus the thin sheet thing Tom said makes sense).


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,413
    Blog Entries
    2
    i can't tell from the photograph if hte FR tank is complete ...
    there should be the lid, the 2 inserts that adjust the size of film
    the LOADER ( this has a long slot in it that allows you to to slot by slot and more-easily load the film )
    the bar that goes ontop of the film to make it so it doesn't rise out of the tank
    the baffle ...

    i use a FR tank mostly for stand development and have loaded every slot with the loader-thing.
    it takes practice and isn't as easy as tray devlopment, but easier than unsticking sheets of film in a tray

    i have read some use the FR tank and roll it slowly on a pencil and they get even development ..
    as mentioned i usually use it for stand and semi stand and never have troubles ...

    if you have allergies to developer, you might look into using sprint film developer, it is a METOL FREE d-76-type developer
    i have used it off and on for 31years and it gives very nice results ... easy to mix ( 1:9 ) easy to use ( they have massive charts on their website for nearly every film you can think of )

    and it is nearly impossible to over devlop/ blow highlights with it ... which might make ita great combination with the FR tank
    seeing over agitation sometimes leads to blown highlights ...

    good luck with the goodies !
    john

  5. #25
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    i can't tell from the photograph if hte FR tank is complete ...
    there should be the lid, the 2 inserts that adjust the size of film
    the LOADER ( this has a long slot in it that allows you to to slot by slot and more-easily load the film )
    the bar that goes ontop of the film to make it so it doesn't rise out of the tank
    the baffle ...

    i use a FR tank mostly for stand development and have loaded every slot with the loader-thing.
    it takes practice and isn't as easy as tray devlopment, but easier than unsticking sheets of film in a tray

    i have read some use the FR tank and roll it slowly on a pencil and they get even development ..
    as mentioned i usually use it for stand and semi stand and never have troubles ...

    if you have allergies to developer, you might look into using sprint film developer, it is a METOL FREE d-76-type developer
    i have used it off and on for 31years and it gives very nice results ... easy to mix ( 1:9 ) easy to use ( they have massive charts on their website for nearly every film you can think of )

    and it is nearly impossible to over devlop/ blow highlights with it ... which might make ita great combination with the FR tank
    seeing over agitation sometimes leads to blown highlights ...

    good luck with the goodies !
    john
    John, how can you tell if there's uneven development with your images lol, half the time I can't even tell what the image is...

    Also sprint is terrible and doesn't allow for much control, hence why it's great for students, it's fool proof.

    Anyway guys, I am fine and prefer a sealed container so I'm going with a MOD54 after the pack film is done.

    I already wear a breather mask and chemical gloves and I like that method. Thanks.

    Oh and yes it's complete, the pics are pretty clear, I showed everything on them, or tried.


    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #26
    Whiteymorange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,296
    Images
    26
    Stone,
    The FR tank is, as noted, not the best invention to have come down the pike. That said, it can be used to get the hang of things with 4x5. I, too, am allergic to photo developer and always wear gloves. Though John says Sprint is Metol-free, I have not found it to be very nice to my skin. HC110 is better for that, though once you start to wear gloves, it's easier to simply put them on no matter what chemicals you're using. I have not found the pack film to be so thin as to cause a problem. The agitation routine for that tank is to gently slosh it back and forth parallel to the access of the film in the tank. Doing it in the other direction can cause the film to dislodge and stick together. It does work best for stand, or semi-stand development. I use 1:150 Rodinal for 1 hour with one slight agitation every 15 minutes.

    I used a number of film packs with a Speed Graphic and found I liked the convenience. I was shooting a 90mm on 4x5, focusing with the rangefinder and not the ground glass, so I could leave the pack in for 16 shots- pretty nice for street shooting! They most certainly can be loaded in room light -- most 35mm canisters say "load in subdued light" too. They just want you to avoid direct sunlight, which may get in through a felt light trap as you handle the pack. As you pull each paper, after exposure, you will probably want to tear it off, since the flap hanging out is sort-of in your way. Each one is numbered. I have kept the packs and paper backing and want to try reloading the pack, though I'm not sure why...maybe just to see if I can.

    Oh, and if you want to see Jnanian's more focused work, try his website and look at the portrait and editorial stuff- not all is smoke and blur, honest.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    16,413
    Blog Entries
    2
    bummer ... i was under the impression that it was
    as close to a hypoallergenic developer as it gets ... oh -well

    like whitey said if you go to the architecture + portrait areas of my website
    you'll see b/w work and some of it swam in sprint ...
    and it's all "normal / mainstream" work that has sometimes been
    garnered for federal / state archives or for a publication ...

    (hate to suggest this, but pretty much every developer is foolproof, the problem
    is people don't have the patience or will to learn how to use them ...)
    Last edited by jnanian; 07-15-2013 at 11:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #28
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    556
    Stone: I have MOD54, it's ok for four sheets, not for six, at least for an old fumble-fingered fart such as I. I have more luck with a Nikor tank or even with the taco method. I also have an FR POS tank. not pretty… Don't even think of using a MOD holder for the pack film, it is the same thickness as 120 film, it won't work. good luck

    m
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  9. #29
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,363
    Images
    225
    Thanks guys,

    Good to know whitey, thanks.

    It's old stuff so I don't want to stand develop it, would rather use ilfsol 3 or HC-110 to cut down on base fog.

    These are 40 year old packs so they are bound to be bad, but I would still like to salvage if I can.

    Depending on when paychecks come in vs when the camera arrives, will determine if I order the new version of the MOD54 or not. For future sheets.

    I should probably order some regular sheet film too, I only have one pack of Acros100 (20) and then of course my Shangrelah (spelling?) of saved films, a box of Velvia 50 and a box of Astia (think its 100?)

    But would like to shoot some lesser priced stuff after the two packs are gone, maybe Ilford since I love them so lol.

    Any sheet film to be aware of that is really thin? (Besides rollei IR400 which I'm aware is super thin).




    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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