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 Photographing #13: Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm f/2, Rokkor-M 28mm f/2.8, and Rokkor-M 90mm f/4

in ,

What I Learned Photographing #13: Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm f/2, Rokkor-M 28mm f/2.8, and Rokkor-M 90mm f/4

For the gear fiends (or anyone unlucky enough to be pulled here via SEO) - here’s the actual wrap up of the Minolta CLE and lenses, so that you can read it and leave, and not suffer all the philosophizing:

The .58x rangefinder base length is really nice and makes shooting with a rangefinder manageable with glasses (NB: I mean manageable, not really enjoyable - for me), the 40mm is one of the best looking lenses I’ve owned. The 90mm was neat to use, but also kinda whatever. It was neat to use a 28mm and be able to see the whole frame, but also nothing super notable either - like it’s cool but also whatever.

I pretty much exclusively shot the camera in aperture priority or program or whatever it is. It worked out fine, pretty much every time. The meter is good, and provided your cable doesn’t give you issues, using off camera flash is easy and the auto metering is fine there too. Pretty sure I went over all that in the “hey look, I photographed some weebs - the results are alright, I guess.” article, but thought it’d be worth running back here.

Honestly it’s one of those things where, “everything’s fine, there aren’t a ton of problems” is about the best thing you can say about a camera - you know nothing strange will happen, the thing just kinda does it’s job, you don’t have to worry. The small size is low-key enough that you can sneak around doing street photography without worrying much, if that’s your thing. It makes it easy to carry, or pocket, if need be. Personally, I find the handle annoying and useless - don’t pay the extra money for it, also it stops you from using a tripod, so you have to unscrew the handle, then attach your tripod, then try and keep track of a small plastic thing (always a recipe for disaster) - granted if you’re using a tripod, you’re probably not using this camera, but it’s an annoyance.

There’s  not a good direct substitute for it, give or take the even more maligned Leica/Minolta CL, short of ponying up a kidney and getting a Leica MP/M7 with the .58x baselength rangefinder, - but even then, neither of those cameras has the 40mm framelines. Compared to a Leica I don’t really notice much of a difference in “feel” as far as the mechanics go. I guess the plastic on the CLE is “cheap” but it feels fine to me, but I’m a profligate. I got my Minolta CLE in the Collector’s edition briefcase, with all three lenses, and bonus items. It’s pretty neat, and honestly having a purpose specific case, that holds everything neatly makes storage much much more convenient. 

The Minolta CLE w/ 40mm Rokkor-M F/2 was my grail camera/setup for a long time. I used it, it’s a great setup for the most part, but: if you have glasses, are a left eyed shooter, work mostly in landscape photography, and you’re an SLR dork - or are any or all of those things - like me, even the Minolta CLE won’t elevate your images, or make you faster, or help you at all. I do really wish I could get the 40mm in some kind of SLR compatible package. After all that I ultimately found that I just don’t care that much about it either. At this point, I’ve kinda given up buying new cameras, and check in as ambivalent at best on most equipment.

 A camera’s a camera, stick with stuff you don’t second guess, the limit is you. Go figure.

If you want something more affirming, or helpful, or poetic go visit any of these reviews - they’re probably a much better guide:  

https://casualphotophile.com/2016/05/23/why-i-choose-the-minolta-cle-over-any-leica-m/

https://www.35mmc.com/08/02/2019/minolta-cle-review/

https://www.kenrockwell.com/leica/cle.htm

https://www.macfilos.com/2021/04/12/forgotten-innovation-minolta-cle-with-40-2-28-2-8-and-the-21mm-wide-angles/

Anyway, here’s the musings and notes or, like, what I learned on a more theoretical level:

I guess this isn’t a long review - more or less a page? I covered a lot when I did a writeup on shooting an anime convention. I think that honestly does a solid enough job of like “this is the camera on an actual shoot weekend.” I will include a bunch of landscape pictures here, just to give examples. I don’t really have much to say about working in landscape photography though — I’ll get to why.

Rangefinders are neat, they definitely give you a certain “feel” while working, I’d wager to say that’s like 75% in your head to be sure. Then again, most art is “in your head” isn’t it? Rangefinders do a reasonable job of getting you out of your head, because they’re one step abstracted by default (what the Viewfinder sees is not exactly the same as the lens, and then you compose around the framelines rather than the bounced image) - but combined with learning to see more broadly, and understanding that even through an SLR viewfinder, the image you think you’re capturing is about half the final product, you can kinda use whatever camera suits your purpose best. 

Other quick notes I don’t think I got around to during my Anime Convention writeup: working quick on rangefinder is easier when you’re doing candid stuff, but squaring up for a direct portrait is not great, especially if you have to look for the stupid little rangefinder patch, while holding a flash, and moving the lens tab. I generally find the instant feedback from the slr is more manageable squared up with someone in front of me.

Rangefinders generally use slow lenses with fairly limited apertures (yeah, sure the noctiluxes/summiluxes are things, but realistically, who even owns or shoots with those?). This shouldn’t really be a surprise to anyone who likes cameras, or y’know is looking for a review of a secret handshake camera. I didn’t realize how much I liked being able to go to 1.4 for a thin/dreamy or abstracted look, until I was stuck at f/2 on a moderately wide lens or f/4 on a mild telephoto. Add on to that, most RF lenses also seem to have pretty miserable close focus distances too. I know Mark Steinmetz does god tier street portraits (if you really wanna limit them to being just that) with a gw690, which is both slow and has a crappy close focus distance.

On the whole, I’ve come to the conclusion you can essentially use any camera for landscape photography. It truly doesn’t matter. Make your frame, square up, Shoot. Are you composing with lines that forecast what you’re seeing, or a viewfinder with somewhat limited coverage? Either way, doesn’t really matter. SLR or Rangefinder. For the most part, nothing in your frame is going much of anywhere any time fast. Theoretically Rangefinders are lighter, but honestly, unless you’re a mountaineer, or a long distance hiker, up to medium format - the difference in weight is negligible. That said, I seem to excel in toting heavy items long distances,  massive grain of salt right there.

The idea of the image or like the skeleton of the image based on your idea seems to be the most critical factor - what you do or make with it along the way, and what the scene and every subsequent step tells you - or what you learn from it seems to be the best determining factor for the final photo and what that final photo is used in. Not to to get too woo-woo, but honestly, I’ve come to really believe in “trust the process” - not like put blind faith in mindless repetition or serving the goal or just proceeding forward, but like actively taking part in the imagemaking process and really mining into all the insights you find along the way - that’s where the money or at the very least, the interesting images, seem to be at.

I’m wholly willing to admit at this point, I’m just not cool enough to be a rangefinder person. That being said, I’m kinda over *cool* photographers. I’m generally pretty bored sick of the edgelord mentality that plagues a lot of street photographers (and I suppose photographers at large?). You can make really sharp, out there, hardcore content without being an edgelord, or at least making that your whole public persona or internet persona. We get it, you’re cool, you’re hip, you’re in the street.

Left eye dominance, then glasses, is just kind of a mess. The viewfinder’s nice. One thing that’s big in street photography shooting that I’m lucky enough to have learned early on and made use of over time is keeping both eyes open when looking through the viewfinder - it lets you see/compose/be aware beyond the given frame, and makes squaring up a lot easier. Kinda lets you cheat the rangefinder effect of seeing “around” the frame via the framelines.

Swapping to my non dominant eye was really good for breaking up my usual shooting patterns. I can’t keep both eyes open when I use my off eye,  because it’s not over trained. Eventually I could keep both eyes open but my right eye doesn’t want to fully focus like my left eye does, when both are open but one’s using a viewfinder. It does beg the question to me, how long does it take to build up that strength - assuming it’s an optical/muscular issue.

The Rokkor-M 28mm F/2.8 is a 28mm. The big viewfinder makes it easy to use. I dunno, it’s fine? I don’t really know what to tell you - it’s a lens angle/focal length for me - I’m generally a 24mm guy if I shoot a true wide these days. The Rokkor-M 28mm works fine - even with the known schneideritis issue. I have no real complaints, it’s just not my thing. 

The  Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 is less goofy to use than you’d think through the giant .58x rangefinder.  I can wrap my brain around Saul Leiter’s process now. I don’t think I could replicate it or perform in his style, but I think I can kinda see inside his head on this one, if you’ll bear with me - by using ultra tight super tiny boxes in a or normal finder, it lets you make the strongest simplest composition, because you couldn’t possibly work out the textures - because of that you get really tight, really sharp shape and line based compositions that usually work out well because the large compositional elements of the photograph are strong, because you’re essentially limiting yourself to only being able to guess at the fine detail - it goes back to that idea of the “idea” of the image, and an element of chance.

Calibration is obnoxious, as is repair. Had to send my camera into two different techs. Avoid Dave of Dave’s Camera Repair in Michigan at all costs (I’m definitely not alone in this - it’s well documented on the net) he might steal your gear or it’ll get stuck in limbo - I had to spend the better part of a month chasing him down. Can’t say I much cared for the other tech either - I got much the same treatment, as Dave did to me - he (apparently) had some health issues, and we’re at least loosely in the same social circle, so I’ll avoid naming him here. Generally I have good luck with camera techs, so it’s good to know or be aware of. I’ve definitely taken having a reliable camera tech for granted. Anyway, just be careful looking for a tech. Most of the camera *should* be easily repairable/adjustable, the one twist is of course the electronics, but that’s a known risk.

Weird side takeaway - even if the rf calibration is fine, I did find out real fast that not all epson v600’s are created equal (I mean, consensus is they kinda suck, but still) - my old one that I had in LA was actually really reliable, and the focus was set correctly. The last one I had here in maine was rough. Add another reason onto the pile of why I hate the V600.

I feel pretty confident returning to my XD11 for my daily shooter/carryalong - it’s great. It’s still (relatively) cheap if I need to replace it. I get along with it. But all that being said, I spend most of my serious work time on my Pentax 6x7, and having a good chunk of cash sunk into a package that I just don’t use or don’t use optimally seems like a waste. I dunno.

As always, we run completely on merch sales and donations! if you’d like to support this kind of non-review review, or our much more helpful interviews, Grab a shirt or zine in the shop, or consider joining our patreon!

We’re very excited to bring you an interview with Alana Perino (@lanapino) about their upcoming book: “Go to the Land and I Will Show You.” An incisive look into the hidden and overlooked histories of the American People, and their
From "A Quick Visit" available in our shop or by shooting us A DM! #mdrnwstlnd #maine #acadianationalpark

What I learned shooting #11: FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)

in , ,

What I learned shooting #11 - FOMAPAN 200 (35mm/120)

Pentax 6x7 -Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Xtol 1:1 at 200.

Pentax 6x7 -Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Xtol 1:1 at 200.

I think I’ve chickenshitted around this review for three years now - if you’re coming here from instagram, and you’re a long term follower or person I talk to, drop a comment on how long I’ve talked about writing up a general overview of Foma 200.

Fomapan 200 is made by Foma Bohemia - I think that’s apparent from the name. It’s not an expensive film - in fact probably one of the cheapest films on the market. That being said I’d argue none of the Foma films are truly “budget films” - like, they’re not as sharp as newer tech films like modern Tri-X, HP5, or Fuji’s Acros - but they have nice grain (like the quality of grain is nice) and tonality overall - I have heard reports of Foma or the house rebrand - Arista EDU - having some quality control issues - but I’ve actually never run afoul of them, personally. I tend to think of Foma, and Fomapan as being “old tech” which accounts for its relative cheapness - where I tend to think of Kentmere and other Harman private label runs (Agfaphoto APX, Rollei RPX, and Adox CHS - Fotoimpex even outright acknowledges that Kentmere is the same film as those three lines) - as being markedly inferior versions of Ilford HP5+.

Foma 200 - Xtol 1:1 Minolta XD-11

Foma 200 - Xtol 1:1 Minolta XD-11

Foma 200 is a bit of an odd duck even amongst the normal Foma line - it’s a half delta/tabular grain film (Think Kodak T-MAX, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji ACROS), but with the traditional grain of the other Foma films - so it has that “old” look. Add to that that the film is nominally rated at 200 - though Foma’s Netherlands distributor Fotohuis - pops up on almost any forum that the film is mentioned on and quickly discounts that rating, giving a nominal *actual* speed of 100-160 depending on developer - anyone who shoots the other Foma films will know that’s pretty much par for the course and be more or less unsurprised by that.

I’ve used the emulsion on and off for a few years now - probably at least the three I’ve mentioned here before - maybe longer - so this is probably a broader or less specific “what’d you learn.”

Foma 200 - Rodinal 1:25 - Minolta XD-11

Foma 200 - Rodinal 1:25 - Minolta XD-11

Equipment Used: 

(for those who aren’t familiar, or like me demand pretty much every possible vector for variation be revealed):

35mm: Minolta XD11 35mm Camera - MC-PG-x Rokkor 50mm f.1.4, and MD-W Rokkor 24mm f/2.8

Minolta CLE, with the CLE M-Rokkor 40mm f/2, as well as the CLE M-Rokkor 90mm f/4

120: Pentax 6x7 MLU, Takumar SMC 105mm f/2.4, Takumar SMC-II 55mm f/4 - final version,  and the Takumar SMC 45mm f/4 - second version.

So, what did I learn shooting: Fomapan 200?

1. Rodinal isn’t an all purpose developer for 100ish iso films. Some of the Fomapan 200 is 35mm, some of this is 120. It should be clearly marked. I didn’t keep a good track of what I developed in (ie writing or noting everything on paper), but after deep frying (honestly, really just developing normally) some in Rodinal at one point - i’ll point it out, don’t worry - I found that Xtol was just a far far better developer for the film. Most of or all of the film was developed in Xtol 1:1, it’s a pretty broad testament to that developer - that being said, I think given the additional negative size of 120, the negatives from Rodinal would be less ugly in MF - though it seems to be the grain itself.

The key learning point here is that rodinal doesn’t work for everything - I mean, given it’s common knowledge that Rodinal is a rough choice for most films over 200, but on paper, one wouldn’t necessarily guess that a film with a rating of 200 box, and colloquially 125-160, or even 100 would look as rough or gross as it does in rodinal.

I’d chalk that up to being a tabular or hybrid tabular grain film, but across the board, I’ve found that against initial first thought, - ie rodinal is old and super low tech, tabular grain is new and shiny - that rodinal gets along well with Delta 100 and original Fujifilm Acros (miss me with that ACROS II shit) - I can’t really speak on T-Max.

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Xtol 1:1, shot at 200 pushed to 400/800

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Xtol 1:1, shot at 200 pushed to 400/800

2. Sometimes the colloquial film speed ratings are actually right - or at least they usually are when speaking about the mainline Fomapan films (100,200,400). Most of the time I tend to balk at a lot of the conservative film-speed ratings for black and white emulsions given by the various codgers on the forums - they’re probably not wrong, but I value speed, and I don’t think there’s usually a big enough sharpness loss, to justify knocking at least half a stop if not more off my film’s default rating - typically because I like a ton of contrast, or nice dark black, I tend to overcrank (that’s what I’m calling it now - sorry Johnny Patience) my film where I’ll shoot it at 400 and develop way over to 1600, or 800 to 1600 or 3200, or even just go way out at 1600 or 3200, as the base speed. At any rate given my usual choice of developer (xtol, rodinal) film speed is usually more or less box, or me cranking the shit out of it for fun and profit.

However, in this case, as I noted before Fotohuis is actually correct - Fomapan 200 should probably be shot at 125 or 160, maybe 100, unless you’re doing it for effect. The dark, dark shots here are shot at 200, pushed to 400, or possibly even 800 - I don’t mind the push or the contrast, but like, some of it is a bit too rough for even me.

3. Medium Format (120 film) is better than 35mm. Controversial opinion to most of the other younger folks here, but to any of the adults, you know exactly what I mean. Don’t get me wrong, I have a deep, deep love for 35mm - I think in terms of practicality and daily use, especially for street photography, or projects where resolution doesn’t matter so much as being out and capturing critical moments is the key goal, it’s a much better system. That being said, negative for negative, once you get used to shooting and composing for medium format - because there is a learning curve, perhaps a longer one than one might initially expect - the images from, and negatives that one gets from medium format, just have a certain shine or sharpness, that can’t really be replicated by 35mm images - maybe some zeiss or leica lenses can render as sharp on 35mm as say a 6x45 camera -but I have a really hard time believing they can make the jump to 6x6 or bigger (prove me wrong).

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Takumar 55mm/4 SMC-II - Shot at 160, developed to 200

Pentax 6x7 MLU - Takumar 55mm/4 SMC-II - Shot at 160, developed to 200

4. Rangefinders need calibration regularly, and so do their lenses. So, on a bunch of these (the Minolta CLE images), I got lucky because I stopped way down to 8 or further, which let me cheat the focus, however there’s sort of weird focus issues all over the place with a bunch of the images which leads me to believe, rangefinders can go out of calibration after a year, and even the lenses do as well. It gives kind of a neat infrared look - or there’s something else wrong here. I don’t think it entirely negates the examples here though.

5. Commitment to a system does pay benefits - I really like that all my photos look the same with the same system. It gives a better overall feel. I’m sure I’ve groused about this at length back on the Orwo N74+ “What I learned.” Luckily from years of shooting Fomapan 200, and in two formats rather than one, 

6. Original Acros has no replacement - I had some film community/camera selling bigshot joke that nobody shot Acros, and that Foma 200 was a fine replacement from Acros three or four odd years back. I think I groused about it on my travelogue about Huntington Beach. I might delete that travelogue, but it’s linked here anyway. He was (is) wrong. He also looked like Varg Vikernes wearing a hawaiian shirt. Take that how you will.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 , Shot at 160, developed to 200+30%

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 90mm F/4 , Shot at 160, developed to 200+30%

7. I don’t know why I don’t just shoot HP5+ all the time. Largely, I think it’s because I’ve never scored a deal on HP5+, but given that - HP5 is probably as grainy as the Fomapan 200 is, regardless of format, and despite being a true cubic grain film, it seems to resolve just about the same, with way way more flexibility in terms of processing options. 

Going back to systems, it might take some more time to get a really finely dialed in HP5+ system, but it seems like the payout is probably more worth it, - especially given you’re essentially adding two stops on with little to no downside - assuming box speed for hp5 rather than the practical speed of 100ish for Fomapan 200.

8. You can push a 100 iso film to 400. I don’t *love* shooting-to- push 100 ISO film, but it can be done. All the Fairground stuff is shot that way - and it turned out alright. It definitely could’ve used more exposure in some places, but it’s not completely unacceptable. I mean, I guess I technically push Acros (Original) - but at the same time my process is a weird semi-stand thing, so it doesn’t *feel* like pushing.

9.  I don’t write these reviews for any kind of deep fulfilment, or because I’m actually trying to be useful to anyone other than myself, it’s mostly to force myself to review my process and photos at length - ie “am I making photos that I want to make,” “are these photos showing enough progress?” “Did this piece of equipment work well for me?  Also to boost my SEO presence. Sorry. If you’re reading this, there’s about a 50/50 chance you’ve become accustomed to that.

10. I don’t know why I don’t just commit to shooting HP5+ for all my black and white stuff. I don’t really give a shit one way or another about grain, I want my contrast to be dialable rather than bricked all the time, and more often than not I end up needing the two extra stops, minimum.

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm CLE - Shot @ 100, developed to 200+30%

Minolta CLE + Rokkor-M 40mm CLE - Shot @ 100, developed to 200+30%

Slipping into actual review territory for a half second:

-- The film is fine, like, I’d probably rather shoot it than t-max, maybe Delta 100. I think it’s a bit neutral toned for me, though the new auto algorithm for Epson Scan 2 is a ton contrastier. That being said - I don’t think Foma 200 is totally right for me - it’s not a bad film overall though, like if you like what you see, and you like the price point, it’s honestly, a solid choice.

If it makes it sound like this film is bad - it really isn’t - both of my actual dedicated travelogue zines were shot on it (in 120 format) - and while I think I’ve improved as a photographer and scan technician since I shot, developed, and scanned the film - I think the film performed perfectly adequate - and I’d probably pick it out over any other 100 iso film currently on the market.

Anyway. Buy a Zine in the Shop. Both Antelope Valley Poppy Reserve and Fairground were shot on Fomapan 200 in 120. I need to pay my bills for the website somehow. 

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 #006: Minoltina AL-S

in , , ,

What I learned shooting #006: Minoltina AL-s

I probably haven’t shot quite enough to be a truly definitive authority on the Minoltina (Minolta?) AL-s, but on the other hand, I feel like it doesn’t take super long to figure out a camera, as opposed to a film, because the mechanisms are largely the same across cameras. So I think i’m qualified to write a loose report on it, or at least what I learned shooting the thing. If you want to see the images/examples just jump down to the bottom of the page for the gallery.

So anyway, here’s the stats on the Minoltina Al-s/Minolta Al-s :

It’s a small, compact rangefinder camera (128x74x60mm), and weighs a little more than a pound including it’s 40mm 1.8 lens with a leaf shutter that runs from B, 1-500, and a solar powered meter, with an iso range of 25 to 800. It’s got a self timer (I never used mine). -- Stats taken from this overall review.

I bought mine on Ebay for around 40 bucks, all in. The cameras are definitely climbing in value (likely due to the exorbitant prices now commanded by Canonets, and other compact rangefinders, like the Minolta Hi-Matic 7), so I’d definitely encourage you to buy yours now, before they really spike in value. They might not, but given how everything film is getting kinda expensive, you’ve been warned.

So what’d I learn shooting the camera?

It’s nice to have a compact camera -- It’s the first time I’ve seriously considered picking up an actual halfway decent point and shoot based on how nice/convenient it is to have a small camera with a decent-ish lens, and be able to carry/use it as a serious camera without it being forced to have a full on camera-guy camera, etc.

40mm is a pretty ideal focal length, it’s wide (like 20% wider than a 50mm) (not really) but not so wide or broad that it ever feels “wide angle,” like 35mm lenses tend to. The Rokkor 40mm on the Minoltina al-s even has a really nice rendition (see below for examples).

Rangefinders are pretty ideal for documentation and street photography, because of the area around the actual capture area, and ability to read what’s going to be in your frame and around before it actually hits the frame -- I finally “get” the rangefinder cult that seems to pop up around those genres. I still stand by an earlier statement (here?) that I probably wouldn’t use a rangefinder setup for formal portraiture, or anything else needing a lot of setup, or where you don’t wanna deal with any possible.

Anyone saying you can take a decent exposure with 1/30 and steady hands, on a rangefinder or leaf shutter, is a liar. Or I just have super fucked up, shaky, hands. Could be both. Either way, I found most of my “reach exposures” were unusable due to motion blur/hand shake.

With a little practice, sunny 16 (and a taking quick incidental light reading every once in a while), can be as reliable or more accurate in a bunch of cases than the internal meter in a bunch of SLR’s, because of backlighting, etc. Also you start to get a better “feel” for lighting over time. That said, I have difficulty thinking you’ll ever really beat a well operated incidental meter/spot meter.

Leaf shutters are really cool. I like that they only really make a small “click” when fired. It was fun to pretend to do street photography and get right up to people without them noticing. Not really my deal, art wise, but it was interesting to see how that worked. Also, because I’m lazy and don’t have a super common flash, I didn’t get to try out the flash sync -- the camera doesn’t have a hot-shoe, so you need a separate sync cable, and apparently it’s hard to find one for my Minolta x-series flash.

Zone focus is also really interesting. The Al-s actually does have something like a lens-tab, like you’d see on a Leica, but maybe quite as obtrusive or really ergonomic -- that said, if you get a loose feel for the camera’s focus/focus range (2.6ft-infinity), and use a suitably small aperture, you can make zone focus work somewhat reliably. It’s not intended for that, and I wouldn’t go hard on a zone focus only project with it, but if you need to be inconspicuous, it can probably get you by.

Would I shoot it again?:

Maybe.

It’s not a bad camera by any means, in fact it’s a really really great camera, especially given the bang for the buck. That said, it can feel a little janky, and the rangefinder isn’t the greatest. It works, but it’s not the greatest. That being said, if you were looking for say, a Canonet or even the Minolta Hi-Matic-7, I’d heartily recommend it, over either of those cameras on price alone. The other reason -- and it’s a dumb one -- is that the camera doesn’t take straps easily, or like the loops for straps are really small, and mine didn’t come with said strap -- and here in LA coat/sweatshirt season is definitely over, so it makes it kinda difficult to carry around.

The camera also feels just a bit flimsy -- not bad by any means, and it is a solid camera (it’s all metal) but some of the parts have more give and shake than I’d like. However, that may also be a maintenance issue than anything else and the construction/joinery might be a lot more stable in a different copy of the camera.

The built in solar (photo voltaic?) meter is pretty good, probably a stop off  -- but if you’re like me and you typically rate your film at half box speed anyway, it’s sort of a non issue. I probably wouldn’t attempt to shoot slide film using that meter/metering combo though, or like, I don’t think it’s worth risking slide film on something that janky, or potentially just old/burnt out.

If I were good with my hands or had disposable income for doing really dumb stuff with, I might actually consider lopping the lens off to stick on a digital camera or slap on an m-mount. But that’s kind of a stupid/pointless endeavor. I just happen to really like the Minolta rendering, and 40mm is slowly becoming a favorite focal length.

All that considered, I still default to my Minolta XD-11/ Rokkor 50mm MC-PG combo for daily shooting, etc — partially out of familiarity, but also because it seems to work for me a bit more.

If you’ve enjoyed this content buy a zine in the shop, or come visit me at the Independent Art Book Fair in LA, on April 12-14th.

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... #3: Minolta XD-11 -- A Tribute

in , , , ,

I’m gonna switch topics from film to cameras and lenses here for the next couple weeks while I wrap up my 2 100ft rolls of Agfapan APX 100. (I’m at #17/36 as of posting this)

I have pretty much all the gear I could want or reasonably need. I have a full shooting set of lenses (and a few extras) in Minolta SR (the actual name of the mount, not MC/MD -- so help me god if I hear one more person call it that...), and in Pentax 6x7 for medium format.

Over the last five years I’ve shot a Minolta XD-series (XD, 11, and 7) camera with near slavish devotion. I’ll test out a new camera now and again --mainly an SRT 102 (seriously underrated), and the Minoltina Al-s (also critically underrated).

I may switch to a compact rangefinder (say a CLE with Rokkor 40/2) now that I tote a Pentax 6x7 around for most of my “serious” work, and use 35mm as a bts/quick journal camera, but I’ll never get rid of my workhorse(s). Also if I end up doing more portraiture or editorial work, and it wasn’t on Medium Format, I’d happily shoot it on my XD.

Let me put a few things out there right now:

  1. I love these cameras so much, when I had all four break on me, I nearly got their serial numbers tattooed onto my ribs (I didn’t -- a friend pointed out that that was kinda Holocaust-ey, and maybe I should avoid that -- thanks Jake.)

  2. I’ve always been a “Minolta guy,” my first camera, at age 15 was an XG-M, the repair guys at my local repair shop Walter’s Camera Repair -- http://www.walterscamerarepairs.com/ -- Call me “the minolta guy.” (not a paid endorsement, seriously, if you’re in LA and need honest repairs done at a fair price and pretty quickly, they can probably help you out.)

  3. Either by gross overfamiliarity or closemindedness, I really don’t like most of the other 35mm camera brands’ SLR’s from the pre-autofocus era. I hate the Canon AE-1, I think it’s a bad camera with a backwards meter, honestly Canon SLR’s on the whole before AF are just straight garbage. Most of the Nikons are nice but badly designed, clunky, or flat out backwards -- good lenses though. I guess Pentax is okay (for 35mm -- Medium Format is a whole different story). I don’t know shit about Olympus -- people who shoot them seem to really like them.

  4. I think most reviews of this camera kinda miss the point of it. Or at least haven’t run  give or take 400 rolls through the the thing. It’s always “Leica this, Minolta that.”

  5. My complaints on reliability are a little bullshit. I probably ran +/- 75 rolls through the damn thing this year. I don’t think most people run that much through their cameras or tend to flat out abuse or over-carry their equipment the way I tend to. I’ll probably keep stricter track next year.

After nearly a page of disclosures and complaints here we go:

Here’s why I love this camera:

  1. It feels really nice in the hand. -- It’s a relatively compact design, but all metal, and it’s weighted really evenly with the 50 1.4 MC, which is the lens I use most as of writing this. I realize this is probably a dumb thing to vaunt as it’s best feature, but it makes it much more enjoyable to use regularly.

  2. It has a quasi-mechanical vertical shutter. While it lacks a really fast sync speed -- like a Contax g2 or a leaf shutter camera -- it can do 1/100th of a second, mechanically. I can shoot any lens I regularly use with it, safely, and mechanically if I have a battery failure. Also 1/100th of a second is fast enough for *most* uses. I know HSS is a hot commodity, but 1/100th is usably fast for me. Also, for an SLR, assuming you get a good copy of the camera, it’s really quiet.

  3. It has three modes in order of usefulness, Manual, Aperture Priority, and Shutter Priority. It’s not easy to accidentally switch between the modes, and they’re all pretty reliable --- the camera actually has a hidden program mode which double-checks your exposure and fixes it -- steplessly.

  4. The meter is good down to EV 1 -- Which basically has you covered in most situations you’ll ever run into, unless you’re a hardcore night photographer, or shoot mostly backlit.

  5. Kind of a no-brainer, which is why it’s #5 on my list, but Rokkor lenses.

Complaints:

  1. It’s a hard camera to fix. My normal shop can do a bunch of fixes on it, but they can’t fix everything -- apparently the circuit board is kinda janky, or not an easy one to fix because of how early-primitive it is in its technology.

  2. It’s not nearly as reliable as a standard mechanical camera. I put way too many rolls through my camera, but I still probably have to send it out once a year for maintenance.

  3. People have started to get in on the camera, and the price of them keeps climbing. Also the number of Black Minolta XD’s keeps shrinking. And if you’ve seen the black finish, you know how great it is. The silver is fine, but the black finish is just better.

What’ve I learned shooting it?

A lot.

I’ve had one (of four) basically since I showed up in Los Angeles five years ago.

Basically, with the XD-11, I’ve used it to shoot everything: friends, the city, my drive across America, my first fashion editorial --- which I’m pretty sure never got released --- and every project I’ve done in 35mm. If you look at my instagram or any 35mm feature or story on here, it was most likely shot on the XD11.

It also showed me what I like and dislike in a camera, and it’s now what I bench my expectations around.

Anyway -- Thanks for reading! If you’ve enjoyed this -- please consider buying a zine in the shop. It helps me keep the lights on here.

What I learned shooting #01: Fuji Pro160s (35mm)

in , ,

What I learned shooting (#01):

Most film reviews are unhelpful at best, they tend to gloss over how the tester shot what they shot and what their own biases and predilections are. I often learn more about photography and a specific emulsion from shooting large batches of the same film over and over and reviewing it, rather than rapidly changing between different emulsions.

For these reviews, I’ll shoot no less than 25 rolls of a given emulsion.

Today’s Review:  Fujifilm Pro 160s (35mm)

Technical considerations:

The film was indeed expired when purchased, but well stored. I mostly processed in large batches of 6+ rolls at a time by either D+J digital imaging or (primarily) Fulltone Photo.

Everything was shot on a Minolta XD11 and the Rokkor 50mm 1.4 MC PG, 24mm MD 2.8, and 85mm MD 2.0. I shot everything handheld, and at higher shutter speeds to compensate for hand-shake.

I shot 2 100ft rolls bulk-loaded of the emulsion (+/- 35 rolls), and exposed all of it at EI 100 to compensate for the expiration date, and to slightly overexpose.

Initial Bias:

I like slow film, cool tonality, and relatively even or muted colors. Fuji Pro 160s should, by most guesses be a slam dunk for me. I shoot mostly landscape, travel, and street/diary type stuff on 35mm. I’ve also shot the same or similar emulsion in 120 and really really liked it. I absolutely love fuji pro400h and fujifilm provia as well.

What I learned:

For day to day shooting, it was fine, but I found that in many situations, storage dependent, the cool-tone reproduction was actually more of a curse than a blessing. If film is stored correctly from the beginning of its life, it tends to hold up much better post-expiration, and in bad conditions when shot.

Unless you’re sending a bulk roll to a dip and dunk facility, your lab may have to cut your roll (this happened multiple times) if it’s too long. You may also end up damaging a machine or causing an accident if your roll is improperly bulk loaded. Also the metal snap-top canisters, while theoretically more durable have a tendency to fall open.

Cool tone films are hit or miss at rendering bright sunlit days, and you need subjects or scenery with enough tonal warmth in them inherently to show any kind of brightness, as light alone won’t show through.  The nature/landscape of the west coast generally doesn’t render super well on this film, because of that cool tone reproduction.

Would I seek out more of it?

Not actively. It’s a nice film, but not so nice that I’d pay a premium or spend extra time seeking it out. If it happened to fall into my lap at the right price again, I’d snatch it right up.