HA HA, When I started my first job in as a darkroom printer in a pro lab along time ago. The first thing I learned was the nose grease trick. A seasoned pro was training me. I remember him saying that's why I eat French frys with my lunch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Can we talk about film?
- Thread starter mollyc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I just used to idly try to rotate the rewind crank, to check that there was film loaded. It got to be almost a nervous habit if I was walking around with my camera for a while and not shooting. Without even thinking about doing it, I'd find that I was checking the rewind crank to make sure there was resistance there, and it wasn't rotating freely.
Chalk it up to a photographer's nightmares. Dreaming that you're shooting something great and then you find that the camera had no film in it.
The older manual-wind SLRs had the visual indication that the film was winding on, through the film rewind crank rotating with every wind. Which was good, because film advance indicators weren't always reliable. When auto-wind cameras become popular, there was no way of knowing it the film had actually physically advanced. That said, I had no major issues with such new fangled cams. The Nikon F4 and F5 were the last 'professional' advanced film SLRs that had actual manual rewind cranks. I liked that about them (I have both). Still plenty of actual mechanical systems, in a world of full automation. Canon's AF SLRs were all auto-wind and rewind. I never found them to be quite as robust as Nikon's offerings, for all the bells and whistles. I have an original Canon EOS 1, and it's fairly substantial, but still quite plasticky especially compared to the tank that was the F4. I bought an F100 a few years ago, the baby F5, to replace my broken F801s ( 😪 ), and it's pretty nice, although more plastic than its big brother of course. It's quietly pretty much one of the best film cams ever imo, in terms of function and ergonomics, but for some reason I can't really warm to it. Sames with the F5 v the F4; the later cams just feel a bit 'sterile'. Of course, none of this should matter at all (the F5 has better ergonomics than the F4, plus improved AF, metering etc), but it does; the tool should feel nice to use, intuitive, a part of the process rather than an obstacle. This is why I loved the FM2, because it's so stripped down and simple to use. Nothing to distract from the picture taking process.
This is quite a good piece on the F4 v F5:
Nikon F4 versus Nikon F5 and the Camera as a Tool
It's the Nikon F4 versus Nikon F5 in this article, a battle between two of Nikon's high speed heavyweight professional tool cameras.
casualphotophile.com
When I was first using my FM2 (my first Nikon SLR), others had the F3. A friend had one. Many, many people adore the F3; it's as legendary a cam as any, including Leicas (
). I never got on with it. It felt more fiddly, less intuitive, it had a slower top shutter speed, a much slower flash sync speed, and you needed an adapter to fit a standard ISO mount flash (unless you had the F3 Press model, but nobody did). Yes, it had a better (and interchangeable) viewfinder. And a much faster motordrive(if you needed such a thing, I never did). It was even more solidly built. But I still prefer the FM2. To my mind, it's surely one of the best cams ever made, by anyone.
The F6 has one too(and IMO it holds the title of best SLR ever made).
It's funny too how polarizing some of these Nikon cameras can be. I seem to really hit it off with the even numbered bodies-the F2, F4, and F6. The F is fine but clunky, while like you I don't really like the F3 for several reasons(funky metering pattern, dim little hard to see LCD meter read-out). I don't have an issue, per se, with the F5 but it's just too big and heavy for my liking and in 2022 I don't need its frame rate. The F6 in a lot of ways feels like the best of the F100 and F5 put together, and it has enough nice touches that I really enjoy using it and it's honestly one of the two 35mm film SLRs I actually use these days. The other is one particular well worn F2SB.
Some of the earlier Nikon auto advance cameras like the N2000/N2020 had a little doohicky on the back connected to a roller that rested near the take-up spool. It would spin when the film was advancing so you knew it was going, although it wasn't as obvious as the rewind crank.
Canon had a nice touch but massively overengineered rewind crank on the New F-1. It has a clutch that won't actually properly engage unless you flip the crank out. It will still rotate to show you the film is advancing, but you can't do anything with the film unless you fold it out. Supposedly that was a safety issue with the high speed motor drive, although Nikon generally managed similar speeds and didn't need one.
I totes forgot the F6! I think it's cos I (and many others) don't consider it a 'true' F-series cam. It's a digital cam body with film gubbins stuffed in. A big part of the cost was the quite frankly useless data recording function that required special softwares etc and never ran on Macs. Nobody ever used that. Don't get me wrong; it was a very good cam, a great tool, but just a bit meh. It's more of a souped-up F100 than an F5 replacement. the F5 is better ergonomically, as the built in grip design makes using larger lenses more comfortable. F4s and F5s run on normal AA batteries; the CL123 batteries the F6 used weren't as globally ubiquitous as AAs; good luck finding them in some village market in some far flung corner of the world. It had better AF, better light metering (as if you could improve on the original Matrix Metering anyway), but so what? It wasn't as versatile a photographic tool as its predecessors (the interchangeable viewfinders enabled specialist/scientific photography much more).
I intend one day to own a set of F cams, from the original F to the F5. I'm just not interested in the F6. Soz.
You mean the F301/s? Great little cams them. I considered one (s/h) as a student, as they were relatively cheap for a Nikon. I actually ended up with a Vivitar V2000, a cheap, basic SLR, quite plasticky, but with an incredibly simple metering indicator; green led dot for correct exposure, with red plus and minus for over and under. Imo, even better than the FM2's indicator. Completely mechanical; it was essentially like a cheap plasticky FM2 really. Pentax K mount, so loads of cheap lenses. Brilliant little cam; survived years of use and abuse, always worked. I've seen far more sophisticated and expensive cams fail, but not that little Vivitar:
Mine still actually works! And I have the Pentax 50mm f1.7 SMC-M lens for it. I should use it really...
Sorry, didn't realize you were the arbitrer of what makes something a "real" F camera. On the other hand, I've not known someone who owned one and used it who didn't absolutely love it.
You call the data recording useless while praising the F5 and F100, I guess not realizing that those two cameras(along with the N90) have that also. Nikon's official way of retrieving data was to use the little CF reader(which also works with the other data-recording cameras) which will pull all of it as CSV file. That's about as cross-platform as you can get. I don't think that the F6 will work with Photo Secretary, but I can't test it as I've never actually found a copy of the software. It certainly did come in a Mac version, and in fact I managed to find a cable on Ebay several years ago. The since discontinued Meta35, which is cross platform, also works with the F6.
I appreciate not needing a reference chart to set custom functions, as they are in plain text and not cryptic numbers like on the F5 and F100. I like that I can actually get matrix metering with all lenses I can mount on it, although it's not as easy as matrix metering on the F4.
As for the interchangeable viewfinders, how many people do you know who actually have used anything other than the standard eyelevel on an F5? I have quite a selection of F/F2/F3 era finders, and they really become important in the F and F2 because the meter is tied ton them. I know a few alternative finders were cataloged for the F5, but I don't recall seeing many for sale second hand. That's quite telling to me, as things like a 6x chimney finder for an F2 or F3 are quite easy to find relatively speaking.
The CR123s make the camera lightweight and last plenty long enough for me. If you want you can get a battery grip that will take AAs or even the same rechargeable batteries as the D2/D3 use. The F5 batteries don't last as long, and it's a lot easier to tuck a spare set of CR123s into my bag than 8AAs(or even 6 for the F4s, which is the most common one in the US).
Ergonomics? The F5 set the design language used on all subsequent Nikon SLRs and DSLRs. The F6 shows the result of 6 years of evolution and sculpting. I find it more comfortable in my hand than the F5 or F100. You can add a vertical grip if you want, and it's actually a lot more useful and functional than the one you can get for the F100.
The F-301 was called the N2000 in the US, and the N2020 was the F-501.
The V2000 was made by Cosina and the same basic camera was sold as the Nikon FM10, Canon T60, and a few others. They're good cameras-I have an FM10-although it's definitely a lot less sturdily built than the FM series and the like. I'm not sure what you mean about the meter being "better" than the FM2 as it's exactly the same(3 LEDs) with the small tweak of making the the null indicator green and the other red(the FM2 is all red).
This is strictly a personal hold-up and I can't explain why, but I have an aversion to metering/viewfinder information on the left side. I actually prefer it under, but the FM an FM2 having it to the right is more tolerable to me than to the left like on the Cosina cameras. The Canon New F-1 still has my favorite manual exposure display(the original F-1 and the FTb have a very similar display, but the New F-1 has some refinements to make it easier to read than the other two while also giving more information). Oh, all of those are on the right...
Nikon decided to retire the F-series after I told them my thoughts. That's why there was never an F7...
YOU prefer the F6, fine. I was expressing a personal preferrence, not attacking you personally for your choices. Lighten up a bit. 🤣
I've known many, many photographers. From professionals to occasional holiday snappers. Not a single one used the F6 (I do know someone who was lent one by Nikon, but gave it back after a very short while as they preferred the older models). So. Fact is it came out too late; digital had already taken hold for many pros, and enthusiasts didn't see the point of spending lots of money on a film cam by that point. The F6 was designed as a 'bridge' to digital; the contemporaneous digital cams still didn't produce images of the same ultimate quality as film. It served as a test bed for new technologies such as iTTL flash, and the CLS system. It was, as I said, a fantastic photographic tool. I'm just not enamoured with it as you clearly are.
CR123s weren't widely available globally, was my point. Many pros, particularly photojournalists, preferred cameras that could use readily available batteries. But the F6 was never aimed at such photographers really. And a set of 8 AAs last for ages in an F5 ime. So...
Quite a few actually. Well, certainly on the older F-models. The waist level and magnifying finders were particularly popular. I've seen F5 used in science labs for recording purposes (also using the rare bulk film backs, 250 exposures!), linked to video systems and all sorts, as well as being used for simple copying work. Place I used to take my slide film for processing, used an F4 then F5 for duplication purposes. I have a waist level finder for my F4. So...
This wasn't meant to be an argument. I was simply expressing opinions based on my own and others experience of using all sorts of Nikon cams, over decades. I'm sure you have your own. All that said, I still prefer the F4 over the bells and whistles of the F5, even if the latter is a technically better cam. Go, as you say in the US, figure.
Quite why the US has to be different to the REST OF THE WORLD when it comes to the nomenclature of certain cams(weren't Minolta Dynax cams called 'Maxxum', in the US or something?), I'll never know. Hey ho.
I preferred the indicator system. I like the 'green for go, red for stop' type indication. Larger too. Very nice. I do like the incremental over and under indicators of later AF cams though, cos you can see how much over or under you are.
It's funny how Nikon released that basic Cosina cam so long after the myriad other brands that had done the same. In the 1980s...
The meter on my FM10 decided it didn't want to work, so I can't show it, but I like the view through the FM2n viewfinder awfully well
![IMG_2589.jpeg]( "IMG_2589.jpeg")
The FM10 actually lacks something the FM and FM2 have, which is the aperture readout in the finder.
With that said, my beloved F2SB gives you everything nice and plain across the bottom of the finder. The F2AS gives you more or less the same view except you get the aperture via the ADR light pipe, and unlike on the FM/FM2 they put it at the bottom of the finder. Still, though, the older non-AI finder will light up the aperture read out with the illuminator, where it's hard to read in low light with ADR.
![IMG_2590.jpeg]( "IMG_2590.jpeg")
The FM10 actually lacks something the FM and FM2 have, which is the aperture readout in the finder.
With that said, my beloved F2SB gives you everything nice and plain across the bottom of the finder. The F2AS gives you more or less the same view except you get the aperture via the ADR light pipe, and unlike on the FM/FM2 they put it at the bottom of the finder. Still, though, the older non-AI finder will light up the aperture read out with the illuminator, where it's hard to read in low light with ADR.
This is a factually incorrect for a couple of reasons, not the least of which that by the time the F6 came out, digital was already firmly in place and there were few pro uses for 35mm film that digital didn’t do well enough if not better. Larger formats stuck around longer, but pro 35mm was basically dead after the turn of the century.
iTTL and the like came with the second gen Nikon DSLRs, which were on the market before the F6.
The design goal of the F6 I’ve seen stated was really an SLR “swan song” to make the most refined camera Nikon could make.
BTW, I specifically asked about finders other than the eye level for the F5, and you cited one you had seen in use. My original point was that I rarely see them on the secondary market, which tells me few were sold. I never contested their use on the earlier models, and in fact I have all of them that were cataloged for the F and all but the flip up waist level(which I don’t find particularly useful in 35mm especially compared to something like the 6x chimney) for the F2. Someone so inclined could spend an afternoon on EBay and likely find every F, F2, and F3 finder.
Erm, that's actually what I said. So are we both factually incorrect? 🤣
I think you're just arguing for the sake of it now. The inclusion of i-TTL and CLS on a film cam was to see how well it could perform, as digital cams still weren't quite up to it with things like very bright highlights and that. Film was still king for ultimate image quality, and remained so until quite a few years later, possibly with the introduction of full frame digital with the Canon 5D I think. Anyway.
Sure. But it was aimed at enthusiasts, rather than pros. And this is why I don't consider it a 'true' F-series cam. But that is entirely a subjective opinion, I'm not stating fact at all.
A quick search on Ebay reveals a few F5 finders, the DA-30, DW30 and DW31. I've actually seen a number in use. And I know of others being used. Some would have been adapted specifically for certain scientific equipment and recording devices. It's very likely the DA-30 was used by NASA and other such agencies, for use with helmets and stuff. So whilst it's probably true they didn't sell in huge numbers, they existed and were sold. People did actually use them...
I have an FM2, yet it flash syncs at 1/250". It has the 'honeycomb' Titanium shutter, yet the serial no. indicates it's a plain FM2. Strange. Perhaps it's super rare and valuable! 😲 Wonderful cam; the only way it could possibly be improved is with a high eyepoint viewfinder as found on the F3HP. The FM3a was released far too late (2001??) and really wasn't an improvement; it did at least allow FM2 fans to buy a 'new' camera that was almost identical to the original. That larger viewfinder and Matrix+Spot metering would have been the icing on the cake. Had it been released in the late 80s/early 90s.
The FM3a is more of an FM2/FE2 hybrid than it is an "updated" FM2n considering that it has aperture priority AE, something the FM series cameras never had. It also uses the needle-type meter from the FE cameras. I'd say it would have been more fitting to call it an FE3 were it not for the fact that it can work without a battery at all speeds.
It's an interesting camera but one I've never owned, mostly because I've had a hard time justifying $600+ on the secondary market for what it does. If they ever come down in price(not likely in the current climate) I'll buy one. I do have the "special" lens for it, the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P.
As for the F6, I'll just continue enjoying mine, and I'm sure everyone else who has one and actually uses it will do so also. Funny enough, I know quite a few F6 users and they were the ones who put me over the fence on buying one in the first place.
It's an interesting camera but one I've never owned, mostly because I've had a hard time justifying $600+ on the secondary market for what it does. If they ever come down in price(not likely in the current climate) I'll buy one. I do have the "special" lens for it, the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P.
As for the F6, I'll just continue enjoying mine, and I'm sure everyone else who has one and actually uses it will do so also. Funny enough, I know quite a few F6 users and they were the ones who put me over the fence on buying one in the first place.
I'm getting ready to have my first go at home developing tomorrow - I have a roll of Kentmere 400 shot at box speed ready for my first attempt with my Paterson tank and HC-110 developer. I was going to try Dilution B, 6 minutes at 68F (as per the Massive Dev Chart), and 1 min initial agitation and then every 30 sec (as per Youtube videos I've watched...). But an amateur photographer I know suggested 8 min.
I think I am going to try 6 min - any tips/ suggestions before I plunge into this tomorrow?
I have a second roll to try as well, Tri-X 400 - but there is a hitch, as the camera was set to ISO 320 when I was given it with the film loaded up already. So that will require pull-processing? Maybe not a good beginner roll!
I think I am going to try 6 min - any tips/ suggestions before I plunge into this tomorrow?
I have a second roll to try as well, Tri-X 400 - but there is a hitch, as the camera was set to ISO 320 when I was given it with the film loaded up already. So that will require pull-processing? Maybe not a good beginner roll!
I haven't developed (or shot) Kentmere, so can't advise you on that, but for your tri-x just develop it at 400; you aren't even a half stop overexposed at 320, so it will be fine. 🙂 I routinely rate color film one stop over and dev as normal; with bw it's not as common, but you won't see any difference from less than half a stop.
Good to know, thanks!
The Massive Dev Chart suggests between 4:30-6 mins for the Tri-X 400, so its seems like it and the Kentmere 400 are a pretty similar process.
I'd compare it with some Ilford films rather than Tri-X, since Kentmere is made by Ilford. I'd look at something like HP5 (which I have developed, but forget for how long).
Honestly, when in doubt, 5-6 minutes in HC110(b) or straight D76 will give you usable images out of most any film. It may not give you the best results, but it gives you something.
When I've had unknown film(the camera shop I use to hang out at use to give me or charge me a token price for bulkloaders that came in unmarked with film in them), this is often how I'll clip test it to get edge markings, although I've known of people who will do whatever oddball stuff they find(E4, C22, all the various Kodachrome processes) this way just to get a useable image out of them.
When I've had unknown film(the camera shop I use to hang out at use to give me or charge me a token price for bulkloaders that came in unmarked with film in them), this is often how I'll clip test it to get edge markings, although I've known of people who will do whatever oddball stuff they find(E4, C22, all the various Kodachrome processes) this way just to get a useable image out of them.
I thought I'd posed about development earlier in this thread, but perhaps not. Anyway. Film benefits from a longer development in a more dilute solution. I used to use stuff like Ilford ID-11 and Microphen to get the best results out of HP5 and FP4 etc. The basic science is that if you use a more dilute solution, then you can let the film sit in the dev for longer, and this helps to get a better tonal range, and more sharpness in the grain. HC-110 is a high contrast 'fast' developer used for the newspaper industry, where as quick a dev as possible was needed to get pics into print asap. The loss of detail and tonal range wasn't important, as photos printed on newsprint are never going to look their best anyway. HC110 was favoured by colleges and photo courses cos it enables students to get quicker results, so more people through the darkroom etc. It's about speed and convenience, and cost, not about ultimate quality. It's worth reading up on film devving, as it can significantly improve the quality of your images. I'll see if I can find some details of my alchemy, and post them up later...
HC110 is a solvent developer-it dissolves the edges of grains, which gives the appearance of finer grain. Affect is dilution dependent, with more dilute solutions giving lower contrast but better acuity.
I tend to favor D76 when I do a lot of film development, but HC110 is great since it keeps forever in concentrate. For me, D76 1:1 or HC110 in the unofficial Dilution H(half the concentration of Dilution B) is pure bliss paired with the long-departed Plus-X. It's also my go to for TXP320, which unfortunately is no longer available in roll film. I do really like the contrast of regular Tri-X in it also.
BTW, the science behind more dilute developer giving lower contrast isn't directly related to spending more time, but comes down to a phenomenon called local exhaustion where at lower concentrations, the developer immediately adjacent to the film is depleted faster and slows down in activity in regions of high density. It happens at all concentrations, but of course is more pronounced the lower concentration. Excessive agitation defeats this effect to some extent. Interestingly enough, developing at higher temperatures also reduces the local exhaustion phenomenon as larger amounts of Brownian motion at higher temperatures just move the developer molecules around more.
Of course it all comes down to preference too and photographer's image. One particular photographer I know well and respect a lot preferred high contrast and would go straight to fairly concentrated Rodinal and often still end up at a grade 4 or higher print to get it to his taste. I liked the end result even if I wouldn't get there that way.
I tend to favor D76 when I do a lot of film development, but HC110 is great since it keeps forever in concentrate. For me, D76 1:1 or HC110 in the unofficial Dilution H(half the concentration of Dilution B) is pure bliss paired with the long-departed Plus-X. It's also my go to for TXP320, which unfortunately is no longer available in roll film. I do really like the contrast of regular Tri-X in it also.
BTW, the science behind more dilute developer giving lower contrast isn't directly related to spending more time, but comes down to a phenomenon called local exhaustion where at lower concentrations, the developer immediately adjacent to the film is depleted faster and slows down in activity in regions of high density. It happens at all concentrations, but of course is more pronounced the lower concentration. Excessive agitation defeats this effect to some extent. Interestingly enough, developing at higher temperatures also reduces the local exhaustion phenomenon as larger amounts of Brownian motion at higher temperatures just move the developer molecules around more.
Of course it all comes down to preference too and photographer's image. One particular photographer I know well and respect a lot preferred high contrast and would go straight to fairly concentrated Rodinal and often still end up at a grade 4 or higher print to get it to his taste. I liked the end result even if I wouldn't get there that way.
Thanks. I used to know stuff like this, but have forgotten a lot of it! I can't find any info on my old development, but I know that dev times were 20'+ for HP5 @ 400 ISO. I had my own formulae for pushing HP5 to 1600 and 3200 ISO. Suffice to say, dev times were loooong. Reducing agitation also helps retain sharpness, so I was getting lovely sharp, full toned images that required no filtration on Multigrade paper, although I also used graded stuff too. Thinking back, the combinations were myriad and complex. Fibre based paper! Absolute bugger to use, as you needed to dry it very carefully, but gave such lovely results. I think many people getting into B+W film photography these days, just go by standard info, and don't know about all the alchemy. Which is a major part of the fun!
Whew, it's been a busy week in 'real life' but I was able to to finally have a crack at developing some of my B&W rolls.
Last weekend I started with a roll of Kentmere 400. I developed it with HC-110 Dilution B for 6 mins @68F as per the Massive Dev Chart. Regular water as a stop bath. 8 minutes in the fixer (time scraped from some YouTube videos). Everything went perfectly - loading the roll onto the Paterson reel went far more smoothly than I feared.
Last night I tried again - this time with a roll of Tri-X 400. I see a LOT of different times listed for this film in HC 110 Dilution B @ 68F...3:45 from Kodak, Massive Dev says 4:30-6mins. I went for 6 mins. My basement is chilly so I reasoned that erring on the longer side might be a good idea. I fumbled a bit more with the reel this time but got it on in the end.
Both look like they developed successfully, I am setting up my scanning rig today for a proper look. It feels a little like magic to see images I took and developed myself.
One question: I washed in Photo Flo as a final step...any tips on the best way to do this final wash and hang to minimize drips and such?
Last weekend I started with a roll of Kentmere 400. I developed it with HC-110 Dilution B for 6 mins @68F as per the Massive Dev Chart. Regular water as a stop bath. 8 minutes in the fixer (time scraped from some YouTube videos). Everything went perfectly - loading the roll onto the Paterson reel went far more smoothly than I feared.
Last night I tried again - this time with a roll of Tri-X 400. I see a LOT of different times listed for this film in HC 110 Dilution B @ 68F...3:45 from Kodak, Massive Dev says 4:30-6mins. I went for 6 mins. My basement is chilly so I reasoned that erring on the longer side might be a good idea. I fumbled a bit more with the reel this time but got it on in the end.
Both look like they developed successfully, I am setting up my scanning rig today for a proper look. It feels a little like magic to see images I took and developed myself.
One question: I washed in Photo Flo as a final step...any tips on the best way to do this final wash and hang to minimize drips and such?