So, anyone else become a really bad darkroom pack rat?

**ChrisPlatt** · 02-17-2014, 02:31 PM

FWIW I've always been a proponent of white walls and ceiling in the darkroom...

Chris

magkelly · 02-17-2014, 02:44 PM

Nope. Don't have the $$$ to go there. I want to try B&W developing actually but anytime I see used equipment it's listed for crazy sums. The people here seldom give away darkroom stuff for some reason. I wish. Even if I got tanks and that I'd have to order chemicals online. There isn't any place that sells that stuff here. I have a hard time just getting my rolls developed. There's only one film lab in the area and the retail stores and that they've stopped doing it. I don't shoot as much film lately. It's too expensive to do it a lot, shrug.

thibs · 02-17-2014, 03:23 PM

The EL Nikkor 50/2.8 is an excellent (and cheap) enlerger lens

---------- Post added 17-02-14 at 23:24 ----------

Originally posted by magkelly

There's only one film lab in the area and the retail stores and that they've stopped doing it. I don't shoot as much film lately. It's too expensive to do it a lot, shrug.

Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done

magkelly · 02-17-2014, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by thibs

Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done

Well, like I said that means ordering chemicals and stuff online. No photography supplies sold locally. I've been a bit worried about working with the chemicals too. I'm kind of sensitive because of a medical thing, but I've been reading a lot and I want to try B&W someday I think. But putting together a B&W setup isn't cheap when you're taking new and right now I need a new body for work so developing is kind of on a back burner. I have been scanning CL and that looking for cheap stuff though. So far, no luck. People here still seem to think their old film stuff is made of gold...

Jean Poitiers · 02-18-2014, 04:09 AM

Bonjour,

Question: Picked this one up at the thrift shop for "nothing" (1€?), but has element separation issues ... anyone ever printed with a lens in this condition ... should I trash it?! I asked in the different thread, but got zero return response ... any input would be greatly appreciated ... it's a Rogadon 80/5.6 and at least the plastic container is nice.

Merci et salut, J

Woolcott · 02-18-2014, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by thibs

The EL Nikkor 50/2.8 is an excellent (and cheap) enlerger lens

---------- Post added 17-02-14 at 23:24 ----------

Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done

I've always found developing to be so much cheaper done at home, but then I try to scan and just end up having to send it out anyway. So each frame of 35mm ends up costing the best part of £1.50 without even having any prints.

Too rich for my blood/inexperienced hands!

**ChrisPlatt** · 02-18-2014, 04:01 PM

Jean, your 80/5.6 Rodagon is probably excellent for 6x6/6x7 (120/220 film) negatives.

To use with 35mm negatives you would have to raise the head up higher than with a 50mm lens.
The image will likely be a bit dimmer than with your 50mm f/4 or f/2.8 EL-Nikkor lenses as well.

Chris

**PPPPPP42** · 02-18-2014, 11:13 PM

I have seen several enlarger lenses with separation issues, they are not useable. If you look through from one direction usually it looks mirrored at certain angles where its separated, and when you look through it from the other side it will look like you are looking through sunglasses in the separated areas, so it would give your photo patchy uneven exposure.

As far as focal length with 35mm I have a 50mm El-Nikkor N F2.8 that I use but I would love to find the El-Nikkor N F2.8 that was made in the oddball 63mm for less than the $200+ it always costs. It would allow a different head height for 35mm without going all the way up to the height for 80mm, which would be perfect for my Beseler 23c II due to bellows compression issues with the 50mm (well covered already in another thread).

thibs · 02-18-2014, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Woolcott

I've always found developing to be so much cheaper done at home, but then I try to scan and just end up having to send it out anyway. So each frame of 35mm ends up costing the best part of £1.50 without even having any prints.

Too rich for my blood/inexperienced hands!

Good scanning is a difficult (and expensive) task... Which is why I don't, I print contacts and then enlarge if good enough.
Since most of the time it is 4x5 inches negs, you really know if it is any good by looking at the contacts, where with 24x36, you really dunno know much and after 30 minutes you realize nothing was in focus

...

---------- Post added 19-02-14 at 07:21 ----------

Originally posted by magkelly

Well, like I said that means ordering chemicals and stuff online. No photography supplies sold locally. I've been a bit worried about working with the chemicals too. I'm kind of sensitive because of a medical thing, but I've been reading a lot and I want to try B&W someday I think. But putting together a B&W setup isn't cheap when you're taking new and right now I need a new body for work so developing is kind of on a back burner. I have been scanning CL and that looking for cheap stuff though. So far, no luck. People here still seem to think their old film stuff is made of gold...

I understand that.
As for trying (if you try one day), a stock of old but unused chemical is good enough.
At school we still have quite a number of old bottles of Rodinal, not made for years AFAIK (under that name I mean). I can say this old chemical works just fine

Maybe you'll find somewhere someone willing to part with his/her stuff for a cent or two. Ideally with some rest of chemicals. Then you're started.

As for you fear of chemicals, which is nothing but good, it is OK when applying basic precautions AND good ventilation in the room.
Typically the fixer is pain in the nose

Stop can be too. Some stops are marketed as being mostly odourless.
I dunno about mostly odourless fixers... (I'd be interested btw).

Jean Poitiers · 02-18-2014, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by PPPPPP42

I have seen several enlarger lenses with separation issues, they are not useable. If you look through from one direction usually it looks mirrored at certain angles where its separated, and when you look through it from the other side it will look like you are looking through sunglasses in the separated areas, so it would give your photo patchy uneven exposure. ...

Thanks PPPPPP42,

My thrift shop 85mm is like what you described (sunglasses, exactly) and here's maybe another image (which is not much better, but one can see the dark "sun-glassed" area and a line that runs across the front elements to more separation on the other side).

Shame that it is not usable, and I was afraid (read almost sure) that the separation issues would lead to uneven exposures, etc. Oh well, I will stock in away someplace else and keep the presentation/storage box it came in for my Rodagon 50/5.6 ... thanks again.

Salut, J

Woolcott · 02-19-2014, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by thibs

Good scanning is a difficult (and expensive) task... Which is why I don't, I print contacts and then enlarge if good enough.
Since most of the time it is 4x5 inches negs, you really know if it is any good by looking at the contacts, where with 24x36, you really dunno know much and after 30 minutes you realize nothing was in focus

...

[COLOR="Silver"]

I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots.

One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day.

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2014, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by ChrisPlatt

Jean, your 80/5.6 Rodagon is probably excellent for 6x6/6x7 (120/220 film) negatives.

To use with 35mm negatives you would have to raise the head up higher than with a 50mm lens.
The image will likely be a bit dimmer than with your 50mm f/4 or f/2.8 EL-Nikkor lenses as well.

Chris

Merci Chris,

Thanks for your input. If the 80/5.6 was good, I was planning to use it on the DURST M 601, since it goes to 60mm x 60mm ("Sivoneg" carrier) ... Too bad for that 80mm ... maybe another one will come along.

Salut, J

thibs · 02-19-2014, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Jean Poitiers

Merci Chris,

Thanks for your input. If the 80/5.6 was good, I was planning to use it on the DURST M 601, since it goes to 60mm x 60mm ("Sivoneg" carrier) ... Too bad for that 80mm ... maybe another one will come along.

Salut, J

Originally posted by Woolcott

I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots. One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day.

It will. It's not as if that kind of lenses were expensive...
They're quite common.

Jean Poitiers · 02-19-2014, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by thibs

It will. It's not as if that kind of lenses were expensive...
They're quite common.

Merci thibs ... Poitiers' swap meet in at the beginning of April, so maybe I'll find one there ... on verra et salut, J

thibs · 02-19-2014, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Woolcott

I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots.

I know that sound. And I even prefer that sound in company of the mechanical shutter sound

Originally posted by Woolcott

One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day.

Beware, once there, no coming back

Shooting with a view camera is nowhere near shooting with an SLR.
One need to do it at least one time in a life.

But heck the film is expensive...

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone else had a bad experience with cameraleather.com ?	Zav	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	42	06-07-2014 08:48 PM
Has anybody else had such a bad experience with a Kr	mellenby	Pentax K-r	7	11-11-2012 11:43 AM
I want a lens that flares REALLY bad	ChopperCharles	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	29	07-16-2012 02:08 AM
Nature Anyone else having a bad hair day?	photolady95	Post Your Photos!	24	05-20-2011 06:08 AM
anyone else with an epson 1400 printer? and if so...	jmdeegan	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	3	05-04-2008 01:20 PM

02-17-2014, 02:31 PM	#16
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	FWIW I've always been a proponent of white walls and ceiling in the darkroom... Chris

02-17-2014, 02:44 PM	#17
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Nope. Don't have the $$$ to go there. I want to try B&W developing actually but anytime I see used equipment it's listed for crazy sums. The people here seldom give away darkroom stuff for some reason. I wish. Even if I got tanks and that I'd have to order chemicals online. There isn't any place that sells that stuff here. I have a hard time just getting my rolls developed. There's only one film lab in the area and the retail stores and that they've stopped doing it. I don't shoot as much film lately. It's too expensive to do it a lot, shrug.

02-17-2014, 03:23 PM	#18
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	The EL Nikkor 50/2.8 is an excellent (and cheap) enlerger lens ---------- Post added 17-02-14 at 23:24 ---------- Originally posted by magkelly There's only one film lab in the area and the retail stores and that they've stopped doing it. I don't shoot as much film lately. It's too expensive to do it a lot, shrug. Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done

02-17-2014, 03:32 PM	#19
magkelly Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,901	Originally posted by thibs Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done Well, like I said that means ordering chemicals and stuff online. No photography supplies sold locally. I've been a bit worried about working with the chemicals too. I'm kind of sensitive because of a medical thing, but I've been reading a lot and I want to try B&W someday I think. But putting together a B&W setup isn't cheap when you're taking new and right now I need a new body for work so developing is kind of on a back burner. I have been scanning CL and that looking for cheap stuff though. So far, no luck. People here still seem to think their old film stuff is made of gold...

02-18-2014, 04:09 AM	#20
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Bonjour, Question: Picked this one up at the thrift shop for "nothing" (1€?), but has element separation issues ... anyone ever printed with a lens in this condition ... should I trash it?! I asked in the different thread, but got zero return response ... any input would be greatly appreciated ... it's a Rogadon 80/5.6 and at least the plastic container is nice. *Merci et salut*, J

02-18-2014, 04:24 AM	#21
Woolcott Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: London Posts: 79	Originally posted by thibs The EL Nikkor 50/2.8 is an excellent (and cheap) enlerger lens ---------- Post added 17-02-14 at 23:24 ---------- Which is why you should do it yourself, it is A LOT more economical, and not worse done I've always found developing to be so much cheaper done at home, but then I try to scan and just end up having to send it out anyway. So each frame of 35mm ends up costing the best part of £1.50 without even having any prints. Too rich for my blood/inexperienced hands!

02-18-2014, 04:01 PM	#22
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Jean, your 80/5.6 Rodagon is probably excellent for 6x6/6x7 (120/220 film) negatives. To use with 35mm negatives you would have to raise the head up higher than with a 50mm lens. The image will likely be a bit dimmer than with your 50mm f/4 or f/2.8 EL-Nikkor lenses as well. Chris

02-18-2014, 11:13 PM	#23
PPPPPP42 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Wisconsin Photos: Albums Posts: 947 Original Poster	I have seen several enlarger lenses with separation issues, they are not useable. If you look through from one direction usually it looks mirrored at certain angles where its separated, and when you look through it from the other side it will look like you are looking through sunglasses in the separated areas, so it would give your photo patchy uneven exposure. As far as focal length with 35mm I have a 50mm El-Nikkor N F2.8 that I use but I would love to find the El-Nikkor N F2.8 that was made in the oddball 63mm for less than the $200+ it always costs. It would allow a different head height for 35mm without going all the way up to the height for 80mm, which would be perfect for my Beseler 23c II due to bellows compression issues with the 50mm (well covered already in another thread).

02-18-2014, 11:14 PM	#24
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Woolcott I've always found developing to be so much cheaper done at home, but then I try to scan and just end up having to send it out anyway. So each frame of 35mm ends up costing the best part of £1.50 without even having any prints. Too rich for my blood/inexperienced hands! Good scanning is a difficult (and expensive) task... Which is why I don't, I print contacts and then enlarge if good enough. Since most of the time it is 4x5 inches negs, you really know if it is any good by looking at the contacts, where with 24x36, you really dunno know much and after 30 minutes you realize nothing was in focus ... ---------- Post added 19-02-14 at 07:21 ---------- Originally posted by magkelly Well, like I said that means ordering chemicals and stuff online. No photography supplies sold locally. I've been a bit worried about working with the chemicals too. I'm kind of sensitive because of a medical thing, but I've been reading a lot and I want to try B&W someday I think. But putting together a B&W setup isn't cheap when you're taking new and right now I need a new body for work so developing is kind of on a back burner. I have been scanning CL and that looking for cheap stuff though. So far, no luck. People here still seem to think their old film stuff is made of gold... I understand that. As for trying (if you try one day), a stock of old but unused chemical is good enough. At school we still have quite a number of old bottles of Rodinal, not made for years AFAIK (under that name I mean). I can say this old chemical works just fine Maybe you'll find somewhere someone willing to part with his/her stuff for a cent or two. Ideally with some rest of chemicals. Then you're started. As for you fear of chemicals, which is nothing but good, it is OK when applying basic precautions AND good ventilation in the room. Typically the fixer is pain in the nose Stop can be too. Some stops are marketed as being mostly odourless. I dunno about mostly odourless fixers... (I'd be interested btw).

02-18-2014, 11:58 PM	#25
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by PPPPPP42 I have seen several enlarger lenses with separation issues, they are not useable. If you look through from one direction usually it looks mirrored at certain angles where its separated, and when you look through it from the other side it will look like you are looking through sunglasses in the separated areas, so it would give your photo patchy uneven exposure. ... Thanks PPPPPP42, My thrift shop 85mm is like what you described (sunglasses, exactly) and here's maybe another image (which is not much better, but one can see the dark "sun-glassed" area and a line that runs across the front elements to more separation on the other side). Shame that it is not usable, and I was afraid (read almost sure) that the separation issues would lead to uneven exposures, etc. Oh well, I will stock in away someplace else and keep the presentation/storage box it came in for my Rodagon 50/5.6 ... thanks again. Salut, J

02-19-2014, 02:45 AM	#26
Woolcott Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: London Posts: 79	Originally posted by thibs Good scanning is a difficult (and expensive) task... Which is why I don't, I print contacts and then enlarge if good enough. Since most of the time it is 4x5 inches negs, you really know if it is any good by looking at the contacts, where with 24x36, you really dunno know much and after 30 minutes you realize nothing was in focus ... [COLOR="Silver"] I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots. One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day.

02-19-2014, 02:54 AM	#27
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by ChrisPlatt Jean, your 80/5.6 Rodagon is probably excellent for 6x6/6x7 (120/220 film) negatives. To use with 35mm negatives you would have to raise the head up higher than with a 50mm lens. The image will likely be a bit dimmer than with your 50mm f/4 or f/2.8 EL-Nikkor lenses as well. Chris *Merci* Chris, Thanks for your input. If the 80/5.6 was good, I was planning to use it on the DURST M 601, since it goes to 60mm x 60mm ("Sivoneg" carrier) ... Too bad for that 80mm ... maybe another one will come along. *Salut*, J

02-19-2014, 01:07 PM	#28
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Jean Poitiers *Merci* Chris, Thanks for your input. If the 80/5.6 was good, I was planning to use it on the DURST M 601, since it goes to 60mm x 60mm ("Sivoneg" carrier) ... Too bad for that 80mm ... maybe another one will come along. *Salut*, J Originally posted by Woolcott I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots. One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day. It will. It's not as if that kind of lenses were expensive... They're quite common.

02-19-2014, 01:10 PM	#29
Jean Poitiers Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Lost in translation ... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 18,076	Originally posted by thibs It will. It's not as if that kind of lenses were expensive... They're quite common. Merci thibs ... Poitiers' swap meet in at the beginning of April, so maybe I'll find one there ... *on verra et salut*, J

02-19-2014, 01:10 PM	#30
thibs Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Belgium Photos: Albums Posts: 7,001	Originally posted by Woolcott I don't think it helps that digital is at such a point where the convenience and ease of access to high quality output starts becoming too much of a lure. It's just a shame that the experience isn't quite the same. I'm just addicted to the feel of a film winder going between shots. I know that sound. And I even prefer that sound in company of the mechanical shutter sound Originally posted by Woolcott One day when I'm not slogging away on a student budget I will have to indulge myself and get a 4x5 and a decent flatbed scanner. One day. Beware, once there, no coming back Shooting with a view camera is nowhere near shooting with an SLR. One need to do it at least one time in a life. But heck the film is expensive...