review

What I learned Shooting #15: Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro

in ,

What I learned Shooting #15: Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro

Zone Imaging has gotten a lot of press for bringing 510 Pyro to market in 2021/22 - when you search for it, most of the first page of results are press releases or online retailers offering it for sale. There’s a near total total lack of objective reviews. However as I’ve dug around for more information on Zone Imaging’s 510 Pyro, especially in the shadow of some deeply troubling claims by Zone Imaging’s founder James Lane that 510 Pyro is almost non-toxic - which flies straight in the face of any information I’ve ever read anywhere about the nature of Pyrogallol. I feel a duty to report/publish my own experience with the developer as a volume shooter, and the inquiry around the level of toxicity that 510 Pyro contains.

Some of the blotchy development - Tmax 100 @ 64 - overexposed 2 stops.

Some background on 510 Pyro:

510 Pyro was first formulated in the early 00’s by Jay DeFehr - you can find a pictorial planet article here if you’d like to attempt mixing up the developer for yourself. In fact here’s a video of Jay mixing the developer himself using less than standard safety protocol - you can even see the exact moment where Lane discovered 510 Pyro here, in the comments section.

I was given a 500ml bottle of Zone Imaging 510 Pyro for Christmas, and have no affiliation with Zone Imaging, James Lane, Jay DeFehr, or Catlabs (where this bottle was purchased from). 
I want the developer to work: it seems like a great solution (1 bath, 1 part pyro), and most of the marketing materials and reviews around the developer make it seem like a magic bullet. I had contacted Zone Imaging about bulk pricing, if the first bottle worked out. Bulk pricing being a necessity, when a 500mL bottle costs $135.

As of writing this, I’ve developed 130 sheets of 4x5” film, and ten rolls of 120 in Zone Imaging 510 Pyro. 

The films I’ve developed are: 

Hp5+ (in sheet), 

The new Rollei Retro 100 available from Blue Moon Camera (in sheet)

Tmax 400 (in roll), 

Tmax 100 (in both sheets and rolls.) 


For my other chemistry I use a water stop, and TF-5 fixer - as recommended by Zone Imaging. All of Photographer’s Formulary’s products are really consistent - I was a regular user of TF-5 before this.


My results and reports are based both on my findings of the film, scanned, and wet printed.

Disclosures about me, and what I’m looking for: 

I’m not a pixel/grain peeper, I care more about tonality, and how well I can use a given negative to make the final image I want, and the ease and consistency of my working system - due to my working environment where I need to turn in 40 strong images a month. I’m a photographer, not a lab tech, nor am I an amateur chemist who enjoys spending his time mixing custom developers from powder. I prefer to spend my time photographing and printing, rather than optimizing a process for marginal gains. If you find that custom making/mixing your own developers either home brew or from a recipe (a la Anchell and Troop) is a helpful and important part of your photographic/artistic practice, I’m not here to detract from that.

My ideal developer renders good tonality (shadow detail and low-midtones especially), is easy to work with, prints as well as it scans, and works the same every single time. Bonuses are: giving full film speed (allowing for box use, or N-1 development for decreased contrast).

HP5+ @ 100, push to 400 — if you look carefully you can see odd flow/bubbling marks.

Here are my findings, laid out in a numbered list:

1. If you buy 510 Pyro from Zone Imaging or any of their retail partners, you will get 510 Pyro.

It is what it says on the tin.

2. Pyro of all kinds is toxic, and potentially damaging to your general health. 

Zone Imaging (as of writing this) seems to be jumping up and down making specious claims that it’s non-toxic and that they’re working with the EPA/ECHA to prove it. According to Alex Luyckx, (who talked to/recieved help from James Lane) 510 Pyro (apparently) less toxic than the most eco-friendly developer - Xtol, which is directly contradicted by rival manufacturer Bostic and Sullivan’s MSDS on the same developer. Additionally, TEA - another core ingredient of the developer - is also highly toxic in the kinds of dosage found in 510 Pyro, especially once water is introduced in the formulation of the concentrate.

If you look at Zone Imagaing’s MSDS - it obfuscates the danger. There’s no immediate callout to its immediate toxicity outside of “acute toxicity 4.” There should be some note via the standard symbol of skull and crossbones. Worse than the data sheet - There’s nothing on the bottle that indicates that it can be immediately toxic or poisonous in its concentrated form - just mutagenic (which is still problematic) Zone Imaging fails to put the skull and crossbones upfront to warn users.

Lane’s claims of non-toxicity are centered around the developer at working strength i.e. 1:100 or more dilute (which is, of course, considerably less toxic) rather than in concentrate. This is deeply problematic, because you’re most likely to come into direct contact with the developer as a result of it’s poor workability- which I’ll testify to below in #3. Ironically the most honest/upfront description zone imaging gives of the toxicity of the developer is on page 15 of the development technical info sheet.

If Zone Imaging can provide real evidence, i.e.: a published lab report by a trustworthy independent lab confirming low toxicity of the concentrate or actual evidence of correspondence with the EPA and ECHA confirming that the toxicity of the concentrate is negligible or near negligible, or a video of Zone Imaging’s founder drinking a bottle of 510 Pyro, I’ll retract this segment.

TMax 400 in 120 @ 200.

3. 510 Pyro is miserable to work with due to its thick consistency.

It’s hard to measure and a pain to get out of the bottle. When doing my first couple batches, I had to load and then unload the 5ml syringe at least ten times to get exactly 25ml for a 1:100 dilution. My solution was to use my 100ml measuring beaker to measure out roughly 25mL, and measure my water out in proportion to whatever did or didn’t make it into the beaker. The developer is so viscous (especially at or below 20º C – it’s almost a solid) it actually broke the measuring syringe provided by Zone Imaging with the bottle. I pulled back on the plunger, the syringe filled a little over three quarters of the way, then *burst* spitting developer directly backwards. I feel very lucky that the developer hit the wall behind me, rather than me. 

510 Pyro struggles to mix with water due to its extreme viscosity. I can get the syrup to incorporate - but it’s a pain, and I often wonder if I’ve successfully managed to mix it correctly, despite sitting there and stirring the working solution for 2-5 minutes. To ameliorate this problem, I float my bottle of 510 Pyro in another mixing jug with 25º-30ºC water for 10 minutes before starting my developing sessions. I store the bottle in that water bath between development cycles, to help ease the viscosity. The tempered water bath helps much less than you’d think or hope though.

HP5 @ 200 - a damn shame about the blotching - I really like how this turned out otherwise, give or take some shadow detail.

For a video of someone else measuring out their 510 Pyro, and seeing how inconsistent and difficult it is (non-Zone Imaging, but the same developer) - I’d recommend checking out Analogue Andy’s Videos on the developer here.

This is not a beginner developer - honestly, I’d say mixing up a 2 bath or 2 part solution of a less viscous liquid or syrup (the consistency of Rodinal or HC-110, or more liquid than that) would be safer, easier, and more reliable. 

4. It’s bad with sheet film in a spiral tank.

I’ve had lots of issues with the developer moving around inconsistently. After using the semi-stand agitation method and the Ilford method, I have found this splotchy development problem occurs with both modes. The problem doesn’t crop up in roll film, when I tried it on T-Max 100 or 400 in semi-stand.

I’m far too clumsy with my hands, and impatient for tray development - so I cannot speak to its efficacy there. It seems impertinent to splash around in a known toxin in a pitch black room, even if it is fairly dilute by the time I’d be using it.

5. The shadow detail/retention in 510 Pyro is awful.

I rate my film at half speed, then develop for box speed. I believe that Lane’s claims of 510 Pyro being a full speed developer to be untrue, or that for some reason chemically - it’s just really bad at developing shadow detail. In either case - a significant dealbreaker for me.  I’ve found that the photos I made with 510 Pyro that do have reasonable shadow detail, are typically images that were overexposed 1-2 stops beyond my initial half speed rating, because I was compensating for something - snow, long exposure, weird light pattern.

6. The Darkroom benefits of the film are vastly overrated.

I find no significant advantage over Xtol, Rodinal, or PMK - I didn’t find my negatives significantly easier to print. I also found no real bonus to sharpness or microcontrast. To put this to the test I made the largest possible enlargement (with my current darkroom setup) from the negatives I had: a 22x28” enlargement from a 6x7 negative. It looks around as grainy as any of my other negatives in a non-pyro, non-staining developer. At roughly 10x, the image does start to look grainy. I’d like to note, I did use the “optimal” method described by Zone Imaging/Rudiger Hartung is semi-stand development, for the negatives that I put to this test.

(Check right for my print comparison.)

7. I get no advantage out of 510 Pyro over Xtol, Rodinal, or PMK when scanning.

(full image vs 100% crop pictured to the right.)

The main claims on the FAQ page for 510 Pyro is that it’s good for shadow detail recovery and that you can pull a 20x enlargement from your negative - both qualities are hard to prove. Most scanners (and software) are pretty good at pulling more a balanced tonal range out of a negative than you’d easily be able to print in a darkroom without pitch perfect negatives, and some careful dodging and burning. Likewise - the claim of 20x enlargement via scan being possible seems difficult to prove - and easy to write off if someone makes a claim against it. I might also venture to guess 20x enlargement may just be the standard. At home on my epson v850 - I found that I started to see grain at a 100% zoom on a 2400dpi tif scan - which is normal. I think both of these claims are specious - If someone has an independent, unbiased test that can contradict this in a meaningful way, I will retract this.

HP5+ @ 200 - Uneven development strikes again.

What’s the takeaway here?

510 Pyro is nothing special at all. Avoid this developer. 

It’s bad for beginners (despite being marketed otherwise), hard to work with, and problematic with sheet film. I really hate how it handles shadow detail. When it works, it really works - but that’s another deal breaker for me - it’s not consistent. Any photographer with the slightest shred of process control will tell you the best systems are the most consistent.

If one needs to continue to use a staining developer I’ve been informed that both PMK and Pyrocat-HD do the job just fine,  Pyrocat-HD being the best (i.e. most consistent) of the staining developers for sheet film. I don’t think I need a staining developer for most of my current uses - though I do like a staining developer for the work I’m doing by a river (on roll film) - this is what inspired me to pick up 510 Pyro in the first place, after having tried PMK. 

If you must use 510 Pyro, mix your own from dry chemicals or buy from Bostick and Sullivan.

Fun Sidenotes:

Foma films scan poorly, but wet-print amazingly well. Look for an article on that at some point. I’m fairly certain that the new Rollei Retro 100 isn’t really close to APX 100 or RPX 100, despite the claims of Rollei - it seems to be a rebadged Fomapan 100 - my main argument for this is that the film has the same notch code as Foma films, as well as the exact same sickly green washout/base as Foma. I don’t mind this - rebadging is kinda part of the game at this point, especially when the price is so good; but it’s a little disheartening - I really loved the original German Agfapan APX 100.

If you’d like to support frozenwaste.land - please pick something up from the shop!

What I learned Shooting #010: Neopan Professional 400 Review and/or Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 Review

in , ,

What I learned Shooting #010: Neopan Professional 400 and/or Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8

I managed to nab a few of bricks of Neopan at my favorite camera store/hoard house in Maine -- I sold a few to an acquaintance (hopefully I can get him to contribute a review/or some input down the line about the Neopan), but kept about twenty five rolls for myself -- accidentally destroyed one roll, and gave one away  -- which is a bit on the short end for what I usually test, or at least test and then give a writeup to. On that same trip/visit, I was also offered a Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 at a price I couldn’t refuse.

The background: Neopan Professional 400 is (was) a black and white 400 speed film made by Fujifilm. Neopan Professional 400 (or Presto in Japan) was Fuji’s answer to Ilford HP5+ or Kodak Tri-x 400. It’s a fairly neutral, balanced tonal scale balanced film with tons of flex-room. It’s got nice sharp grain, and it’s tonality is a little more on the contrasty side, closer to Tri-X than HP5+ at box speed. I’ve tried scouring the net for data on the film, but there’s not much to be found, if any. There’s a few forum threads, but mostly, it’s as if the film never existed, which is a bit of a shock, as I think it was only discontinued 3-4 years ago. Owing to the fact that photomarket is basically a hoard-house I’m about 90% sure that this batch of film is the same one that I was shooting in high-school, with an expry of 2011 — though I find that black and white film doesn’t really go bad at the same speed as color film does, nor does it go off in nearly as grotesque or terrible ways.

The Rokkor 35mm 1.8 was from the second gen of MD lenses from Minolta specifically designed for the XD series (which you can read more about here) so pretty much perfect for me, because that’s basically the only 35mm camera I shoot. I’ve actually never really shot a 35mm before, or at least not extensively so it was a learning experience.

So what did I learn about Neopan 400 and the Rokkor-W MD-X 35mm 1.8:

Neopan 400 is or was an undeniably great film. It may actually be my favorite 400 speed film that I’ve ever shot, I know I’ve slowly been doing the rounds of extensively testing 400 iso emulsions to work with for my BnW work. This detour might’ve been ultimately the biggest disappointment to date, not because the look is disappointing, but the odds of finding the film again, in a large enough capacity are slim, and I can’t shoot it. It’s a super flexible film, and can actually, truly be shot and developed from 200-3200, at least in Kodak XTOL 1:1. The johnny patience method does work for it, but it doesn’t seem to really need a whole lot of overcompensating to get a decently contrasty performance, at box speed.  I’ve broken down a gallery below of the film in Xtol with different iso ratings (all shot on the Minolta XD-11, with the MD-x Rokkor-W 35mm 1.8). I really like the film at base, and at 1600/3200. 800 seems like a bit of an odd trade off, and you might as well reach for 1600 for the extra contrast and grit at that point. Also of note is that the Minolta XD-11 kind of craps out in terms of metering ability right around 3200 at night — and while I’m sure anyone would recommend a handheld meter, if you’re only using a it as a rough guide, you might be better off just shooting at 1600 with it then overdeveloping extra or just knowing if you go one stop under whatever the thing reads

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at box in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 400.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 400 and/or 800 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 800.

Fuji Neopan 400 Professional shot at 1600 in Xtol 1:1, developed to 20% over the listed development time for 1600.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600/3200 and developed to 3200 plus 20% for safety.

The next major finding I had was unrelated to the film -- it was about Xtol. Xtol, despite being the newest commercially available developer from Kodak, still has a fairly old/outdated data sheet - despite it being “updated” in 2018. Most film manufacturers don’t recommend that you develop anything in temperatures over 75ºF or 24º C, but anyway, the Kodak module for Xtol (available from Kodak here) gives development times with temperatures going up to 80ºF. The module also has times for now extinct films like Neopan 400, and Plus-X Pan. I do a lot of push processing, exclusively in Xtol, so knowing that I can use it up while warm, up to at least 80º is a pretty big win, because it helps cut down some pretty steep developing times with HP5+ and Bergger Pancro (rated at 1600-3200) hitting between 30 minutes to an hour in Xtol 1:1, even up at 75º. 

Please find below a set of photos shot at 1600ish, and then pushed to 3200 in Xtol @ 80º -- I did shoot these on the Minoltina AL-s -- which doesn’t have a working meter. This is also a loose representation of how flexible Neopan 400 is, and how much you can over/underexpose it. The grain is pretty big/chunky here, but all in, it’s still okay in my book.

Neopan 400 shot at 1600ish developed to 1600ish, In Xtol 1:1 at 80º F for 11 minutes

Likewise my next finding is common knowledge to basically anyone who does a lot of development, but it bears repeating here: Rodinal is just god awful on everything 400 speed and above. I know Bergger Pancro 400 looks good in rodinal but that’s an extreme rarity. It’s particularly awful for Neopan Professional 400. Normally I’m not the guy who notices or particularly cares about grain, but like, shit’s rough and kinda gross. Almost as bad as Kentmere/Harman AGFA APX 400 in Xtol. I know rodinal is pretty finicky, and gets worse at higher temperatures, and with more agitation, but I actually went out of my way to use 68º water, and give the film maybe one or two turns at most every minute, along with only agitating the film for a 30 second period for the first minute, rather than the standard full minute you need with Xtol, or any mainstream developer (I know or have read on unblinking eye that Pyrocat and variants are a lot touchier than Rodinal). The tones are really good, but once you get bigger than say a standard social media post/sized print it’s a little rough on grain.

Fuji Neopan 400 in Rodinal 1:50

Also of note, This was my first extended period shooting a 35mm focal length. I’ve shot some 40mm on the minoltina AL-s but not enough to really dig into it as a daily shooter. Its a good little camera, but it’s not nearly as sturdy or stable as the XD-11. At any rate, 35mm is something I’ve largely avoided, it never seemed like a good fit for me, and I’d gotten really comfortable shooting and composing for a 50mm or a normal -- and on paper a 35mm lens never really seemed “right” or like it would be a good fit for me. That said, when I was able to buy a really nice 35mm (the minolta rokkor -- Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 -- at the right price -- about ⅓ the standard market value) I jumped at it, and thought if it didn’t work out I could easily flip the lens for a profit, and it’d be a no harm no foul transaction.

Compared to the 50mm, a 35mm feels a bit like drunk driving --  It’s got buffer everywhere and it just feels out of control, or like I’m spinning out everywhere. After a while, resetting my eyes, it began to feel more natural, and in a lot of cases a really great fit for shooting in an urban environment -- i’ve come to prefer it to shooting a 50mm for a lot of uses -- it’s expansive enough that I don’t have to doublethink or think too much about framing, or moving myself to get the shot I want. That said, I’d still trade some headroom for a little more compression, and like the look of a 40mm a bit more than 35mm, but it’s a minor nitpick. Theoretically 35mm is a wide lens, but in most cases after getting used to it it just feels like a normal with reach — though sometimes the distortion does creep in or get to you. That said, if you like wides, and you like Minolta lenses, especially Minolta Wide Lenses — I’m sure it’d be a great every day shooter for you too.

My only real complaint about the Minolta MD-W Rokkor X 35mm 1.8 is that, as much as you’d think 1.4 wouldn’t be that much different or, like It wouldn’t play out super differently, but starting at 1.8 and then having to jump to 2.8 is not my favorite. I like that on the MC PG-x Rokkor 50mm 1.4 it’s 1.4 then 2, and 2 has a significant jump in depth of field/sharpness. The gripe is fairly small once you factor in the increased DOF by being a wider lens, and the fact that at least the MD-W 35mm is actually really sharp even at 1.8, as you can see in the lowlight/push tests, but still it bugs me a little.

In other weird sidenotes, because this is more a blog than a formal test -- because let’s be honest formal tests are boring, and if you really needed dry facts you’d probably head to APUG or one of the other cranky old man forums to read over data fast, I’ve actually never bothered to use Kodak HC-110. A lot of the reason is that I’ve basically found that Xtol and Rodinal work for me, and do the jobs I need them to do well -- Pushing and clean medium speed film for Xtol and Contrasty, sharp grain development. Everything I’ve ever heard and seen from HC-110 is that it’s good for pushing and it typically makes nice but chunky grain -- but hey, I was clearly wrong about what I’d think about 35mm, so I might be wrong about HC-110. It might actually be up my alley.

The only other musing worth sharing that I can think of is that, after testing it the illford wash process actually works pretty well. A couple of my rolls had really dark bases, and I quickly realized that I wasn’t adequately washing the film by letting a slow stream of water run through the tank. However the ilford wash, 5 inversions of clean water, dump, then 10 with a new set of water, then 20 with another fill, actually did the trick fairly well. Also, my fixer went bad faster than I’m used to -- or I ran more film through it than I typically do, Either way, I’ll probably keep better track next year.

As of right now I have half a roll of Neopan 400 professional left in my camera. It’ll be a disappointment when I can’t shoot it anymore.

Anyway, thanks for reading! If you’ve read any article on here this year, mine or otherwise, I really do appreciate your continued readership and support.

What I Learned Shooting #008 -- ORWO N74+

in

ORWO N74+

Is a black and white german cinema film manufactured by Filmotec under the ORWO brand. It’s available in Europe direct from filmotec in lengths of 100ft or more, exclusively in 16mm and 35mm, and in the US from ORWO NA provided they either have stock directly on their website  -- if they don’t have any stock listed, they’re super friendly, and I’d still recommend reaching out to them to double check. You can buy the film from some other sources/places but there’s definitely a markup -- I can confirm that Lomo Berlin Kino is N74+ -- the edge coding is the same, and even includes “n74” with the only difference being the addition of individual frame coding. Apparently, it also used to be Bergger’s house brand (BRF+) of 400 speed film and Bergger’s dual layer approach/style comes from Orwo N74+/BRF’s. 

I’ve had my eye on N74 for quite some time, I always thought the concept of it was fascinating, and from what I’ve seen the tonality of it was pretty great.

Here are some of the reviews that got me interested in the film (click through):

Colin Barey for Japan Camera Hunter’s Review

Emulsive’s Review

Alex Luyckx

Wide Angle Living (honestly this was the hard sell set of photos that really made me want to shoot N74+)

Prone to distraction I wandered off and found myself having trouble committing to ordering the film (this was before I started bulk rolling). After the announcement of Lomo Berlin Kino, (the supply all over Ebay had dried up or jumped in price), I scrambled to find some at an affordable price, and made a priority of finding it and shooting it, in my quest for a true daily shooter.

I doubled down and ordered two 100ft Reels of 35mm. I regret nothing.

My Basic Test Benchmarks are: 

The film was shot at 200, 400, 800, and 1600, and pushed to 800, 1600, or 3200. There’s a chance some of the film got divebombed to like 5000, but I think that’s unlikely considering the developer, etc.

I only used the film in the Minolta XD-11, and the only lens I shot was the venerable MC PG Rokkor 50mm 1.4.

One of the rolls was exposed to some slight radiation via the WTC’s X-ray machine. I can’t really tell a difference in it though.

33/35 rolls were developed in Xtol 1:1, at a variety of ratings and techniques.

2 Rolls were shot in Rodinal, of those, one was shot @250, and developed to 500, and the other was shot at 400, and stand developed in rodinal 1:80 (with two rolls of tri-x, the 1:80 is to avoid complications with a minimum amount of Rodinal)

(Rodinal 1:50 shot @250, Developed to 500 pictured to the left.)

So given all that, what did I actually learn shooting 35 odd rolls of Orwo N74+?

  1. If you’re going to pick a daily shooter that isn’t digital, make sure you can find it reliably. I know this is a somewhat lost concept on a lot of film shooters -- a lot of people like variety in their film diet, and I’d even argue for some people, using a heavily variated slew of different films is part of their process. But if you’re going to make the commitment to having one consistent look for your photography (and I’m sure this seems really obvious typed out like this) you really need to be able to easily access the film and developer you’re shooting. The availability of Orwo at affordable prices is spotty (in the USA), so while I liked the results, it’s a bit difficult to honestly recommend or think about. Take for example my trip to New York, where I burnt out of my film in maybe a day and a half, and ended up having to run out and buy a couple of bricks of Tri-X to replace it.

  2. Obscurity isn’t superiority. So, there’s a strong chance that you’ve never heard of N74+ before this review, and it’s not due to ignorance, or lack of being generally informed -- this film is pretty obscure -- sure there are a handful of reviews of reviews out there on the film, and you can definitely find some published data on the film from Filmotec, and the Massive Dev Chart, but it’s by no means an easy film to find or acquire. N74+ is definitely a high quality film, but after having tested it fairly extensively, I can honestly say I don’t think it’s any better or more useful than say HP5+, Tri-X, or even it’s bastard-son still successor (and personal favorite) Bergger Pancro 400, nor is it really cheaper than any of those films, especially when one factors in the cost of bulk rolling supplies for standard 100ft rolls, or even the difficulty of potentially chopping down/up a 400ft roll or 1000ft roll of the stuff. 

    1. TL;DR -- ORWO N74+ is a great film, but it’s not necessarily so unique or so much better than any of the other mainline 400 speed films, despite it’s obscurity.

  3. Cine film and still film are two different animals. So, point of order, I actually had a cinematographer tell me this, verbatim, maybe seven years ago. Unfortunately that comment didn’t stick. Anyway, the two films actually respond differently because, go figure, they’re typically used for different purposes. Per David Hancock’s video on Kodak 5222 (double-x) they lack reciprocity failure info (not that I’ve ever particularly cared about long exposures, or using a tripod.) Also, minor detail, but somewhat relevant: the perforations between the two film types are different. The only real other relevant commentrary I can give is that the film is maybe a little more touchy when it comes to playing dumb games with processing and exposure.

  4. The Johnny Patience Methodology isn’t foolproof, and doesn’t work with every film. I’m a big fan of the Johnny Patience Zone System is dead methodology -- I’ve probably linked to it too many times here, or I should write my own article on it or my findings -- not that I really have enough data (for my own standards) to really refute, argue, or agree with him. The method is really strong, and I think it bears repeating or using. Johnny promotes using it across all films, and while I think it’s probably legitimate for still film, I ended up running into problems left and right with it for the Orwo N74 while shooting in daylight, either because the scenes I was shooting were way too bright, or perhaps too contrasty to begin with. So, another nod to the aforementioned David Hancock video on 5222, is that he found that the exposure window of the film was pretty narrow -- or that if you developed the film at a certain shot ISO it had to be developed at it, because the film was essentially meant to do reversals or be reversed, and that seems to be the case with N74 as well. Most of the film I shot at 200, then pushed to 800 was almost too thick to scan, and likewise on the day shots I shot at 800 and pushed to 3200, I suffered a similar problem. However I definitely got usable results pushing from 250 to 500, and from 800 to 1600.

  5. Really refining a shooting/developing system is hard. Like harder than I’d initially anticipated, especially if you already have a system in place that works. So to reiterate, I’ve gotten pretty firmly adapted to shooting 1 stop over my target and then pushing 1 stop over the target to get the best possible tonality out of my film. For most dedicated still film, the system works really well, especially with bulletproof/indestructible films like HP5+ -- but unbeknownst to me, it can actually fail. Now instead of trying to re-think my methodology, because this film behaved completely differently than anything I’ve I tried, I kept using my normal method and system, to middling at best success, and only tried to retrofit the film to my existing system rather than realizing it was different. Making those adjustments is even harder when you’ve got a fairly slim technical document to work off of, a limited understanding of the numbers and figures in that document, and on top of that there’s a very small set of published data available, from the manufacturer, or otherwise on the massive dev chart.

  6. Be careful using or re-using bulk-load canisters, and bulk loaders. So, up to now, I’ve had pretty good, or even excellent luck with my bulk loader, and my reloadable cartridges. I used to own a bobinquick/AP/Kaiser design (would highly recommend), but it broke, so I decided to try out a lloyd loader. The lloyd loader worked for a while (it’s what I used for my APX 100 reviews) but by the time I’d gotten to chopping up the film for Forte 400, the loader had some kind of odd leak, or alternately, my used 35mm plastic loading spools had gone bad and started giving me intermittent light leaks in odd places from light piping.

  7. Rodinal can actually be okay or acceptable with 400 speed film, but you really have to mind the dilution and temperature. I actually really like the roll of ORWO I ran in Rodinal 1:50, I prefer the look of the XTOL 1:1 rolls (or like I prefer the Xtol once I realized if you shoot at 800, you can only really push to 1600 or 800, or if you shoot at 400, you can only really develop to 400, in this case), but overall, I think the rodinal roll at 1:50 was actually a decent or acceptable look.

  8. Night photography without a tripod is cool. I think tripods take away a sense of urgency, especially during night photography, so getting out at night and into night-shooting handheld shenanigans was really fun, and actually pretty informative to how exposure works, or I guess how bright highlights can be, even when you think they’re barely going to read at all.

  9. Lomography can be kind of a rip-off with good packaging. I know I’m peripherally in/around the film community, and this is a bit of a hot-take. But after confirming by hand that N74+ and Lomo Kino Berlin are the same film, but at over twice the price (in 35mm), it puts a bad taste in my mouth. I will give them huge props on assembling the huge amount example photos for the film -- check it out here (if you look carefully you can even see “N74+” on the edge coding in one photo on the page). That said, I just found out they’re going to be making Berlin Kino in 120, along with the existing Potsdam Kino, and quite frankly 10 dollars is expensive for b&w 120 film, but, armed with the understanding that there’s no real easy way to respool master rolls into 120 film, or cut 70mm film into 120 film without dedicated equipment, I think the price (for both emulsions in 120) is justified.

XTOL TESTS (all 1:1)

Shot @200 (Day) Developed to 800

Almost too thick to scan, but once you’re through that, the tonality isn’t too bad, provided it’s not a complete blowout.

Shot @ 400/800 (Day) Developed to 800

Can blow out, but less blowout/not too thick typically.

Shot @800 (Day) Developed to 3200

Almost too thick to scan, the contrast is crazy but in kind of a neat way. A bit of a double edged sword.

Shot @800 (Day/Night) Developed to 1600.

For my uses, this is probably optimal. How I’d shoot/use N74+ From now on.

Shot @800 (Night) Developed to 3200

The two stop push here might be a little overkill, but it seems to work out okay, would recommend, if you’re only doing night photography.

So, what’s the word on the film:

I’d recommend it but with some pretty hefty reservations. ORWO has fairly unreliable availability in the USA, even if the company is friendly enough, that and the other options are to buy the film at a not insignificant markup from LOMO, FPP, or even Silberra (not hating on Silberra, they seem to be doing god’s work as far as developing or reviving new black and white emulsions goes, I’d just rather order one of their own original emulsions, rather than a respool from another company). I like the results I got from ORWO, it’s neat stuff, and I’d argue of a very high quality, and assuming you do properly expose and develop it, it has a really nice look, and 35 rolls later, after having had to re-configure my system for it, I’d still consider buying and using it. That said -- it’s a bit finicky, and the ease of blowing it out makes it kind of hard to recommend here in LA where it’s bright sun all the time -- but if you’re in a climate with darker and softer lighting, like say New York, or Maine, or Germany, and either don’t binge shoot 30 rolls in two months, don’t mind the hassle of chopping down a 400 or 1000ft roll of film (you can get some real huge savings here), or don’t mind taking a price hit, it might be worth your while to check out.

Likewise, this film made me want to go back and shoot more Bergger Pancro 400, but like N74+, Pancro is pretty hit or miss on availability, as of writing this, none of the major outlets seem to be holding any stock of Pancro in 35mm. So far the compromise (not really a compromise) to swap over to Tri-X, has actually been really good.

I definitely will try the film in 120 format when available from Lomography (don’t worry I’ll check the edge coding of the 120 to see if there’s any hints or tips of the hand -- there may not be). That’s of genuine interest to me, even if it is mostly a curiosity to me at this point.

Anyway, if you’ve enjoyed this article, go ahead and pick something up in the shop.

What I Learned … Scanning #007: Epson V600

in ,

What I Learned ... Scanning: #007 Epson V600

AKA: Andrew D. McClees slowly goes insane.

When shooting film, in 2019, printing and sharing photos in person is dead. Sometimes we do still print photos (or sets of photos), but largely most of photography has migrated to being consumed on screens, either Mobile via instagram, or on Computer, probably also on instagram -- I feel like Flickr is dead, I’m sure there’s a bunch of people who disagree -- but really, IG is the premiere online platform for photography in 2019 (Given, instagram isn’t really aimed at, nor is it actually for photographers -- that’s another essay though).

Anyway, circling back, when shooting film there are really only two ways to get your film images off the negative and into a computer: 1. You (or your lab) use a scanner, to scan your negatives into your computer. 2. You use a DSLR/Mirrorless Rig to take pictures of the negatives, then subsequently process/invert them in photoshop. I think collectively, most of us who scan/digitize negatives can all agree this is probably the biggest, most obnoxious bottleneck in our workflows, regardless of how we go about doing our scanning.

For all intents and purposes many people will argue that using a DSLR setup is “easier” and “faster” than owning and operating a scanner. And while I definitely can believe it is faster, and produces a better result for the owners of quality DSLR’s who also have a good understanding of Macro Lenses, light tables, and setting things up, the combined price of all those things kind of blows the price of the scanner out of the water. Given, most people own a digital camera, but factoring in a good dedicated macro lens (I mean, how many non-product/non-macro photographers, regardless of digital vs. film use a macro lens, or have one just sitting around?), a light table, a decent tripod, and enough space to build a setup, this to me is not a largely feasible solution for most shooters, or most of us with limited time/space/budget requirements.

So let’s talk scanners. If you’ve ever gotten film commercially developed (and if you’re reading this you probably definitely have), you’ve probably gotten scans back from whatever lab you sent your film to. Those scans were probably at least fairly decent, if a little expensive. The color correction is good, and the general scan quality is pretty okay, and definitely good enough to share on instagram or even make 3x5 to 5x7 prints. On top of that you didn’t have to work that hard at getting the scans, and you probably got your film turned around really quickly. Lab quality scanners are great, they can process a bunch of film really fast. Unfortunately they’re really expensive (remember they used to be an industrial good that everyone actually *needed* rather than wanted), and rapidly either dying off due to age, OR lack of compatibility with modern computer drivers, and connections -- making them almost a non-solution. In the bottom of the film collapse you could buy a pakon 135+ for maybe  -- I’ll link a Matt Day video here about it -- 300-400 dollars -- pakons now retail for 900+ dollars easy (go look at the Pakon user group on facebook), and that’s for a basic, “low-res” model. And that’s if you want to own a scanner like that at home -- the price of scanning will inevitably bleed you dry if you keep sending both your color and your BNW to the lab. Honestly, any good lab should still save you time and money if you’re scanning color -- but the cost of entry at a given time, or just the sheer size of your backlog may stop you from sending your color or slide film to a lab (this has definitely been me, and is me right now -- Buy a t shirt?)

I’m sure some seasoned professionals will chime in here about paying for quality, or that “the only real way to print or do photography is hand printing” or “what about drum scanners, or flextights.” And yeah, those are all great options, but as feasible everyday solutions, they’re not really viable options. Besides, do you have like 10k minimum sitting around? Didn’t think so.

So now we’re down in the realm of consumer-grade (not that the average “consumer” is really using any of these) film scanners. Let’s say this market caps out at 2k. Let’s do a quick rundown of the options/archetypes over on B+H: you have the crazy expensive plustek -- which usually can only do 35mm film (lest you want to pay another 1k for 120 capabilities) -- but gives really great results. You have the Flatbeds (read Epson V600+V800/V850) which are in the exact right price pockets, but aren’t really hyper specialized to scanning film like the plustek designs. And then you have the non-photographer style scanners, which seem to be okay, but otherwise are pretty weak, and pretty small with no real option to scan or accommodate 120/medium format film.

Looking at the options, by the statistics -- the Epson scanners are the right buy, unless you know you’re only going to shoot 35mm film, in which case you should buy a plustek and be happy. Epson has a basic model for getting into scanning (the v600) for about 200 dollars that can theoretically get you scans big enough for pretty much any kind of display you’d need to do, and a more upmarket one (the epson v800) with better resolution, and a larger scanning area if you’re so inclined to shoot large format, up to 8x10 for like 600 dollars. And then an even more premium one than that -- the epson v850, which is (to the best of my knowledge) basically the same, but with 100-200 dollars worth of nicer features. Given that -- it sounds like the V600 is a great deal.

The Epson V600 is a great deal. But, it’s the only so-called deal in town. The epson v600 “works.” It delivers adequate scans at an adequate size, and the software supplied (epson scan) is easy enough to use, and at 200 dollars, maximum, it's a stomachable purchase. And that’s about the end of the nice things I can and will say about it.

If you’re reading this, and shoot film, there’s a pretty good chance you own, have owned, or have friends who own an epson v600, and while opinions may vary, I think to some extent we’ll all agree on this:

The Epson v600 sucks. It sucks a giant bag of dicks.

If you know, you know.

If you know, you know.

but it’s the only affordable, relatively versatile (meaning it can do both 35mm and 120) scanner available, so it still gets bought, sold, recommended, and used.

Here are my main three complaints, in order of frustration.

  1. The software has a learning curve, and color is a massive pain in the ass.

  2. It’s slow.

  3. It’s a jank piece of shit in terms of engineering and coding.

I’m not typically the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to learning technical procedures, or doing finicky bullshit.

I think that qualifies me extremely well to deliver my first criticism. The Epson V600 has a really annoying learning curve, and getting good colors out of it is finicky. I’ve shot and scanned mostly, if not entirely fujifilm -- apparently kodak scans better -- and while I’ll take some of the blame for the faulty scans/negatives, being too blue due to home processing -- the amount of time it took just to kinda scoop and shape the negatives into an acceptable color-correct version was steep. Again, I’ll admit I’m a beginner to color scanning, but the fact that it took me a good chunk of time to even get mildly palatable results using the auto-correct as a baseline is telling.

When scanning color, the scanner is even slower than it is when scanning black and white; and it usually takes me an hour to scan a roll of black and white film.

120, 35mm, whatever, it takes a fucking hour. That’s fucking bullshit. I’ve gotten into this argument repeatedly with people who “like scanning” but do you really want to sit there while you wait for your negatives to appear on your computer? Like it’s barely even grindwork, it’s just sitting there, waiting for your negatives to process. And while I know the flatbeds can be slow because of their design, it’s extremely frustrating to have to sit there and do next to nothing while the stupid thing loads. And that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re like me, and your scanner has the driver error where you need to constantly click the software icon to make it scan your negative move on from each individual scan, it can easily take even more than hour if you forget you’re scanning, or that your scanner’s automatic batch scan doesn’t work, or that it just randomly decides to stop working.

The epson v600 is a janky scanner.

It’s made of cheap plastic which, I’m sure, helps keep the cost down, and it comes with crappy plastic film holders for scanning, which again, do their job fine, but don’t feel good to use. Those complaints pale in comparison to the fact that you have to A. patch the scanner driver so that the batch scanning function (ie scanning multiple negatives at the same time) works properly, B. hope to god that the patch works, because otherwise it’s the same business as usual and you’re stuck clicking the button to make the scanner advance, and C. Fanatically clean the scanner, or else you end up being stuck with weird bands of black or gray or color running through the middle of your images (which don’t appear until after you’ve finished scanning), forcing you to have to stop, clean the calibration area, and hope that the banding will go away. I have one friend who had to essentially get rid of his V600 because the calibration area couldn’t be cleaned and the banding just wouldn’t go away. By my Standards, items B and C make it a clear failure of a product.

So those are my complaints with the Epson V600. I don’t think I’m alone in them. I don’t think epson will do jack shit to fix their product or make a better scanner. I don’t think epson is out to get film shooters, nor are they indifferent to us, but I do believe we/the scanner market is such a small portion of their income, they’re probably not going to bother to make a newer better scanner -- if anything they’ll rehash the same exact scanner they have for the past two generations or fifteen years (yeah, seriously, the epson v500/v550 is more or less the exact same scanner as the v600), and we’ll all keep buying it.

Usually I write about positive things I’ve learned in these articles, but really all I’ve learned how to do is push a button and tweak things the same way I would in any other photo-editing program. I haven’t learned anything about photography here, except that the scanner market is incredibly poorly served. I’d prefer not to end this on too sour of a note, so let me fire off one last hot take:

I don’t care what film Kodak brings back next, or even that they bring any film back at all. Ektachrome and an overspecialized 3200 speed bnw film mean absolutely nothing to me.

Kodak should bring back the Pakon.

But bring it back with USB-C/3.0 Mac OS/Windows 10 (that’s the current OS right?) software and drivers. Most people shoot mostly 35mm if they shoot film. Personally I think lowering the bar (and the costs) to entry of efficient and good home scanning/and shooting would go a lot further towards keeping film alive than paywalling it behind obsolete products. The original pakon’s had great quality reasonable scans, and they had Kodak’s proprietary color science/scanning technology which enabled some really great color interpolation, easily. But above all that the Pakons are fast, and don’t seem to need a whole lot of handholding to do their scans. If they could make a new model capable of doing 120 film, even better, but I’d take just 35mm.

Anyway, all food for thought. If you liked the article and also hate your v600, share this article. If you hated it, and think I’m an idiot fight me in the comments.

If you’re feeling generous, or you liked this content, go pick up a zine or shirt in the shop.

Thanks for reading!

What I learned shooting #005: Pentax 6x7 (MLU)

in ,

What I learned Shooting #005: Pentax 6x7 (MLU)

I deeply resent that I have to write this article. I deeply resent the fact that I paid 200 dollars for a broken Pentax 6x7, and then had to throw another 100 bucks to get it to work. I resent the fact that the Pentax 6x7 is the it-girl camera (or at least, it sure seems like it) in medium format right now, alongside the Mamiya 7ii, the evergreen favorite.

I know your first instinct as a reader will be to ask “why bother writing it if you hate doing it, or that you have to do it” -- and to that my response is simple: reviews, specifically camera reviews for in-demand cameras get website traffic. Likewise with film reviews for permanent favorite emulsions, ie your HP5+, your Portra 400, your Ektar, your Fuji Pro400h Reviews. I’m not above a little commercialism, I’d even argue it’s healthy.

That aside, The Pentax 6x7 (MLU) or non MLU is a great camera, and I do really like it, a lot. Some of the images I’ve gotten from it, like the glassy more-than-real, but still organic images it produces when I’m shooting at the heights of my abilities (not trying to be egocentric, it just seems like the highs that come out of this camera are really, really really high). I’m probably never going to sell it, if for no other reason, than I could probably never afford to buy the dumb thing back.

To save you the trouble of reading *another* fawning. Pentax 6x7 review:

The Pentax 6x7 is a big clunky steel machine with no frills. The lenses are my favorite general look of all the medium format systems that I’ve seen, or had access to so far. It’s capable of taking some really amazing photos that would be very very hard to replicate in 35mm. I think the best examples currently posted up on my website are the photos in Feature #4: Apocalypse Gulch. I think my (current) flagship Editorial Homecoming (Mourning) is great, and it shows off the optics, but not quite as clearly as the Salton Sea photos.

For a slightly different perspective, I think this review by Daniel J. Schneider is probably more helpful to an actual potential buyer than my post/review/essay this is going to be.

My Best/Worst about the camera, with brief explanations:

Here’s my top five favorite things about the camera:

  1. The Lenses, and their rendering. I know in terms of pure sharpness the Zeiss lenses on the Hasselblad probably blow the Pentax 6x7’s to shit, as well as the painfully sharp Mamiya RB/RZ or Mamiya 7 series glass; but I think the Pentax lenses have tend to have a certain (still super sharp/high resolving power, if that’s your bag) human look that suits my own particular need/style of photography really well.

  2. The Viewfinder is kinda magic. Not like it makes you better, but just having a giant bright image makes it really nice to compose and shoot on. I guess I have some (minor) complaints about the focusing because the depth of field tends to be super thin, but overall, the viewfinder (ground glass) just shines. I haven’t had a chance to use a dedicated waist level finder or chimney on the Pentax 6x7, but when I’ve just stared down through the ground glass it’s pretty amazing.

  3. The Aspect Ratio. The Pentax 6x7 has a nearly perfect 4:3 ratio, which, for what it’s worth makes it pretty perfect for darkroom printing on the common sizes, ie 8x10, 11x14, 20*24. Beyond that I think the the boxy, relatively even aspect ratio also lends itself to a more thoughtful, slow composition style, as opposed to the more dynamic ratio of 3:2 (ie 35mm). I know cropping is always an option, but usually the way the box or viewfinder

  4. It’s Imposing. I know I typically tout the Minolta XD-11’s nice compact feel in hand, and the form factor is small, so this may come as a surprise. But I like that the Pentax 6x7 is a big, gnarly, imposing camera, that makes a loud-ish, clack, when the shutter fires. It makes you, and to some extent, the subject (if you’re doing portraiture) take the camera seriously. It feels like an event, when you shoot and work with the camera, but maybe not as involved or static as one would when shooting and setting up a large format.

  5. (hypocritically) Flex Value. I’ve pissed and moaned a lot about price here (or if you keep reading I will), but there’s something kinda nice about owning an expensive piece of gear, and one that seems to be retaining it’s value, or even increasing it. I typically scoff at the Leica community, more for the idolatry of the red dot and the flex around it, but it’s kinda nice to brag that you got a deal on your (now expensive) camera, and show it off some. But not too much, nobody likes a rich prick.

Here’s some stuff I don’t love about the camera:

  1. It’s heavy. Not so heavy that it’ll break your back, or do permanent damage right off the bat, but the thing is definitely very heavy, and after a long day of hiking with the thing, you’re not going to feel great. I don’t actually care that the camera’s big or (relatively) loud -- I’m not really a street photographer, or at least what I do in street photography is so irrelevant to disturbing people that the noise and physical size/threatening look of the Pentax 6x7 don’t really matter that much.

  2. It’s expensive, and the price of replacement is just going to keep going up. A big reason why I’ve never even bothered to experiment with another system is that I don’t think I’d get enough money back selling whatever else I tried to buy back my original equipment if I didn’t like it -- and the camera’s good enough for what I use it for that I guess it doesn’t matter, but I still don’t like the thought of paying another 500 dollars to shoot the camera.

  3. The Eye level finder only covers 90% of the frame. It’s a perfectly nice finder/prism, but missing 10% of your image can be kinda tough, or like easy to forget about. Usually the image is pretty much exactly what I shoot, but that extra 10% has definitely snuck up on me before, requiring me to go back and crop back in, which overall is fine, but definitely a little demoralizing or frustrating.

  4. The flash sync speed kinda sucks. There’s no real good way to shoot flash with the camera, handheld, even with the specialized leaf shutter lenses, it’s still a pain and a lot of button clicks to get everything right, and not really anything you’d want to do handheld. I’m not a huge flash shooter or anything but this is admittedly, a significant border to entry for me.

  5. I’m now part of the medium format community, or like, if I want to share something (like this or one of my features/editorials) on facebook to a group to kinda get more eyes on it, I have to wade through the sea of shit that is the group of dumb, stubborn, fucks with no discernable taste who see fit to constantly criticize anything they neither understand nor like for not meeting their narrow, boring, and tasteless criteria of good photography, that seems to reek of being a professional hobbyist who approaches photography as an engineering question than an art. On top of that, the belief that they could be wrong is so foreign to them, that they refuse to try to see anything in a light that doesn’t favor them. There are plenty of perfectly nice people in the groups, but I get burnt out pretty quickly from the constant trolling, or dickish “criticism” which contains no palpable or helpful criticism that tends to hang over the board. (If this is you, you can kindly fuck right off my website, thanks.)

That brings me to, the eponymous section of the review/column:

So, what did I/have I learned shooting the Pentax 6x7:

  1. It’s probably way overpriced for what it should be, or like, I remember looking into buying one three to five years ago (I wasn’t ready for one) and it was like 200 bucks, maybe 300-400 with a lens. Tops. I know the whole film market has grown, and I should be happy, but as someone who’s been a (relatively) long-term film shooter, it kinda chaps my ass that all these johnny come lately kids are (un-intentionally) jacking the price of gear way the fuck up. I guess I should just be glad I don’t give a fuck about premium point and shoots.For a point of comparison, and SEO ranking, even the price of my beloved Minolta XD series cameras, have shot through the roof. Five years ago, when I got my first one, it was basically in mint condition, and I paid maybe 50 bucks for it. To get one of a decent quality, now, it’s something like $150 -- and even then the internal guts of the thing are a crapshoot. Additionally, it’s not like there’s a lot on the US used market either -- so you’re stuck gambling on Japanese eBay, which isn’t totally unreasonably priced, considering convenience of being able to just order the camera, but it’s always 30-40% over whatever budget I have for a camera or lens. Paralleled to the Pentax 6*7, even when I was buying mine, I remember the market being about 400 for a body only, with an unmetered prism, if you’re lucky. All this should probably be couched in “Andrew is an aggressively cheap bastard when  any purchase over $100 dollars is involved -- and his sense of value is way way stunted.”

  2. I like the camera and love the images it produces but I have yet to really bond with the camera in a meaningful way, or build a real relationship aside from “this camera is a tool, a really good tool.” My only real hypotheses are that 1. I haven’t gotten Stockholm syndrome’d by the camera yet -- it’s only been a year and some change, which leads into 2. The weight and expense of the camera, ie the price of 120 film (development and scanning, too), having repairs and CLA’s done (the big name Pentax guy charges $300 bucks for just a CLA -- I’m sure it’s basically a rebuild, but still, it doesn’t sit well with me -- see “I am a cheap bastard” above.), and just the dead weight of lugging the Pentax 6x7 (with lenses) around is prohibitive to me shooting enough with it to really gel with it beyond “camera make photo.”

  3. Right now, I really only take the camera out when I do “serious project work” -- and even then, because I seem to have a nasty habit of accumulating (and shooting) 100 foot rolls of 35mm film, I still seem to end up using the Minolta XD-11 for a good chunk of my projects. That being said I do lug the Pentax 6x7 with me to do landscape photography when I travel -- and it’s definitely been good or great for that -- I have some stuff coming up to show that off, I’m almost done re-scanning all my photos from one specific trip to show that off.

  4. Bracketing is for chumps. Admittedly I haven’t fully incorporated this lesson into daily practice all the time, but typically, the amount I bracket shots has radically decreased way down. Typically (with limited exception) I tend to fall into the category or thought pattern of “first shot, best shot” and it’s borderline madness for me to re-shoot something better the second time when I’m overthinking it, but traditionally I still do or have a lot. Having only ten frames on a roll definitely cuts way down on the amount that I’m tempted to re-do something, if for no other reason than budget.

  5. Having a bigger/better camera doesn’t make your work better. I know this is something I say a lot, but I definitely have gotten some better shots out of the Minolta XD-11 than the Pentax 6x7, on the same day, just because I wasn’t working hard enough at getting the Pentax 6X7 framing right, or I just flat out didn’t have the right/wide enough lens for it. You can’t always make your new fancy toy work out for everything, as much as you want it to.

Thanks for reading this! If you’ve enjoyed this content, please buy a zine in the shop, or commission a print. It helps keep the website up and running.

What I learned shooting... #4: Agfapan APX100 (35mm)

in , , , ,

A thorough review and overview of one of the last batch of Agfapan APX100 in 35mm. Tested primarily with the Minolta XD-11, and Rokkor MC-PG 50mm 1.4 lens, and to a lesser extent the Minoltina AL-s. Primary Developers used were Kodak Xtol, and Rodinal.

Read More