Its getting CLEAR NOW..

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

Hi..just wanna share with u..

10 years ago, I did my own B/W developing in my little bathroom. Got sick of it and gave up. Had been sending to lab with varying results.

I heard from someone that if u use Leicas, I should develop the films myself.

10 years on, I developed my first few rolls.

Heres what I found.

I shot a roll using M3 and voigtlander 75/2.5 HP5+ using ilforso S 8 mins 1:9. Negs turned out flat and lack contrast. The prints were like film shot on delta 100..no grain, but SOFT, VERY SOFT.

I shot again using M3 and 50 sumicron, developed with the same materials and time. The negs this time were BRILLIANT. I could see the sharpness of the negs without a loupe and the contrast is totally different from the previous. The negs GLOW, let me tell u.

I can see it very clearly now...leica negs rates an 11/10 on my light table. And mind u, the 75/2.5 voigtlander is quite reputable.

just wanna share my experience.

;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002

Answers

Hello Travis,

would like to believe in the unbelievable, but perhaps there was a different aperture/ time setting altogether when exposing.

Maybe you try a second M and shoot identical subjects with the same settings alongside each other. The results - as far as density of the film etc. is concerned - should then be comparable. With the latest V/C-lens and an older LEITZ-lens the V/C-results ought to be even better.

Good shooting

-- K. G. Wolf (k.g.wolf@web.de), February 27, 2002.


only the lens is different here. SAme body, same film, same developer, same afternoon light, same location. F5.6 1/500 all the way. Almost the same subjects.

I will try again to prove myself wrong. ;)

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.


Travis, try shooting a roll of slow slide film with both lenses and see if you see the same difference. My experience was very different from yours, but then you might have gotten a dud of a lens with 75/2.5.

Good luck!

-- Alexander Grekhov (grekhov@wgukraine.com), February 27, 2002.


Can you post an example of each ? When you get flat negatives , it would seem more likely that it is a chemical problem . Maybe there was a timing error in development ?

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 27, 2002.

I will double check my developing routine again..timing has to be consistent, i know.

-- Travis koh (teckyy@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.


Just develop them at the same time .

-- leonid (kotlyarl@mail.nih.gov), February 27, 2002.

Travis- Leonid is right- it sounds like a dev. problem. He's right, too, when he suggests shooting a roll through each lens and running them together in the same tank.

Myself, I'm no big fan of Ilfosol F. Try Rodinol, Acufin, Microphen, Microdol X, or HC110, Dilution B

-- drew (swordfisher@hotmail.com), February 27, 2002.


Aww - come ON, guys! I can see a difference between my 90 TE and 90 'cron negatives: same film, same tank, same time. And those are both LEICA lenses - of the same focal length and built in the same era!

Travis - don't let them spoil your epiphany! Actually, I had mine looking at (boo hsss!) Contax-G negatives, but it's the same feeling.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), February 27, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ