-The Dave- wrote:
Same reason I sometimes shoot 120 or 35mm in my 4x5. To do something different.

Different from what?

Lots of people use 35mm in MF toy cameras (check those hipster "lomo" sites); I figured it was because perhaps they did not have money for or access to 120 film. This makes sense for kids playing around with a Holga or a Diana which you can buy for $12.

But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?

annie lomowitz wrote:

hey, Twinka without Imogen /to those who know\


I've heard that she was a great model.

annie, way too young to know ...

She was...in fact I shot her again just last year when she was 66 I believe. And the shot I linked of her was shot around the same time Judy Dater did the one of her and Imogen Cunningham together. Same area too.

Flash N Burn wrote:
Sprocket holes look dope yo.

Do Americans in the digital/instagram age now have a fetish for film, which film photographs themselves are not sufficient to satisfy unless it's patently obvious that they were shot with "OMG REAL FILM"? Serious question.

V Laroche wrote:
I have a ton of Kodak Ektar 100 in 120. Why are you putting 35mm in your MF camera? I don't understand the point...?

If no one ever put 35mm in their medium format camera, the world would never have known images like the one posted in the OP. Would the world be better off they didn't exist? Is it up to you to say?

V Laroche wrote:

Different from what?

Lots of people use 35mm in MF toy cameras (check those hipster "lomo" sites); I figured it was because perhaps they did not have money for or access to 120 film. This makes sense for kids playing around with a Holga or a Diana which you can buy for $12.

But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?

I shoot digital to make money, I shoot film to have fun.

And as a 49 year old kid, I still love using my Holga 120s too.

And just so ya know, I don't really care if the picture is perfect or not when shooting film. Film is imperfect by nature, that's one of the things that make it great.

AgX wrote:
Are you using bulk C-41 chemicals, or one of the prepackaged kits? If the latter, which one, and how have you found it?

Roy Hubbard wrote:
I'm using the Tetenal C-41 1 liter kit. It's more or less as simple as black and white, and I've found the results pleasing. The chemicals can knock you for a bit of a loop if you don't have decent ventilation and keep at it for an extended period.

I bought a few boxes of Velvia 50 in 4x5 the day Fuji announced they were discontinuing it, going to try Tetenal's E6 kit at some point soon.

I've tried the Tetenal C-41 kit just once and got a lot of grain. I shoot so little color that it's often just easier to take it to a pro lab several blocks away to have them process and scan. I do have a slew of Portra and Fuji 400H in the freezer, so maybe I'll do some autumn foliage and buy another kit.

AgX wrote:

AgX wrote:
Are you using bulk C-41 chemicals, or one of the prepackaged kits? If the latter, which one, and how have you found it?

I've tried the Tetenal C-41 kit just once and got a lot of grain. I shoot so little color that it's often just easier to take it to a pro lab several blocks away to have them process and scan. I do have a slew of Portra and Fuji 400H in the freezer, so maybe I'll do some autumn foliage and buy another kit.

I'd definitely recommend playing around with it some more. The first few rolls I did were less than stellar, also, though I'm still not exactly sure why. After a color spree the past few weeks, I'm really happy with the results I've been getting.

This is a scan from Portra 160, 15 second exposure:



And a crop:

V Laroche wrote:
But it appears the OP uses 35mm in his Bronica fairly regularly, too. I just don't understand why. Wouldn't it be a lot easier, and have a better final product, to just use 120?

They are almost always landscape shots. No sense in wasting film that's going to get cropped down anyway. And the sprocket holes aren't always there - they are sometimes cropped out as well.

V Laroche wrote:
Do Americans in the digital/instagram age now have a fetish for film, which film photographs themselves are not sufficient to satisfy unless it's patently obvious that they were shot with "OMG REAL FILM"? Serious question.

I don't know about the instagrammers (I never left film entirely), but for me its the superior dynamic range, exposure latitude and size of the film that sets it apart from digital.

Roy Hubbard wrote:

I'd definitely recommend playing around with it some more. The first few rolls I did were less than stellar, also, though I'm still not exactly sure why. After a color spree the past few weeks, I'm really happy with the results I've been getting.

This is a scan from Portra 160, 15 second exposure:



And a crop:

Those are a lot finer grained than what I was getting with my first couple of iterations. Maybe you're right though, I should give it another shot.

PhillipM wrote:
RB67 w/50mm, Arista 100 iso. 
Arista Developer
Printing in my new darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB paper +2.5 Filter

Yes, I'm in heaven.

Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.

Tony-S wrote:
Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.

What you need to do is sell your place and buy something with an extra bathroom that you can subvert permanently.
Priorities man, priorities.

Tony-S wrote:
Now that daylight savings is done, I can start printing again. I have to lug my Beseler 23C XL Dual Dichro upstairs to the bathroom to make prints. It's a real pain in the backside.

Yeah, Tony, that would be a bitch to deal with off and on.  I converted a storage room at the west end of the studio into a DR.  I don't have running water in it yet, but that will come. 

It's hard for me to continue to edit my day to day stuff, because I want to get in there and print.  What a kewl feeling to dodge and burn, and see that image come up on the paper in the soup..  

I've only printed (1) 8x10 so far, the rest are 5x7's, because I wanted to get a good work flow and process grooved first before moving to larger prints.

PhillipM wrote:
Yeah, Tony, that would be a bitch to deal with off and on.  I converted a storage room at the west end of the studio into a DR.  I don't have running water in it yet, but that will come. 

It's hard for me to continue to edit my day to day stuff, because I want to get in there and print.  What a kewl feeling to dodge and burn, and see that image come up on the paper in the soup..  

I've only printed (1) 8x10 so far, the rest are 5x7's, because I wanted to get a good work flow and process grooved first before moving to larger prints.

As you get into more refined, complicated printing techniques, you will find that, to a point at least, larger prints will be easier to make.  This is especially true when it comes to selective dodging and burning of smaller details.  I printed some 8x10 for the first time in forever for a friend of mine and was continually frustrated by the lack of room, where as an 11x14 seems just right.  Also, as the head is further away, your exposure times are longer.  If doing split grade printing (especially if combined with a dodge or burn move) it's easier to divide up the longer time into sub exposures during which time you will be completing a secondary task. 

For example, if your base exposure is 40s but you want to lighten the faces on two people by one stop, then you would have to dodge each of their faces for 20s.  So you set your timer for 20 instead of 40 and do each move independently.  The 20s exposure allows you to to move your dodge tool around enough, long enough, that you don't leave any tell tale traces of the move (unless of course someone is familiar with darkroom printing).  On the other hand, if your base exposure is 10s, you now have to split that up into two 5s intervals.  This can also be done well if you have a bit of practice under your belt.

But what if you don't want to lighten the faces by a whole stop.  What if you want them a half stop brighter?  Or a quarter stop?  Well, now you're dealing in increments of 2.5s or less.  I don't care who you are, that becomes difficult.  A 1.25 second dodge is VERY difficult to do well.

PhillipM wrote:
RB67 w/50mm, Arista 100 iso. 
Arista Developer
Printing in my new darkroom on Ilford MGIV FB paper +2.5 Filter

Yes, I'm in heaven.

I'm loving the hell out of my RBs. I like a 180mm for portraits n that 50 is just so sweet.. focusing from 4" to infinity.. yum! Beautiful razor sharp images.. count the hairs on a fly's ass!

I see you are all setled in Phill.. soon they'll have to crow bar you out of the darkroom?

Nice work!

Click Click Click wrote:
Mamiya 67RZ Kodak Ektar100

Damn that's NICE!!

PhillipM wrote:
My shoes...

Very expressive, loved it.

Carioca wrote:
Linhof 4x5, through a barrel lens built in 1905, shot on TXP, developped in X-tol.

http://bit.ly/KzZ6Gi

This is beautiful. It needs nothing else.