Originally posted by Viking42 That sounds like a good way to go Mike. Won't take too many rolls until you twig it and can start trying new things.
You mentioned that you value long-lasted developers that don't go off in just a few months. If semi-stand and Rodinal don't work out with HP5, then there are other long-lasting developers that would work better for that film that you might consider. Kodak HC110 comes to mind, or the Ilford version Ilfotec HC. Both are said to hold for ages in the bottle as concentrates. Something to keep in mind...
Thanks for the info, Svend. Funnily enough. HC110 was one of the developers I considered starting off with, and I'd narrowed it down to that or Rodinal. It seems like there's a big following for HC110 and, hence, lots of developing data, which I find very reassuring. Ilfotec HC is quite a bit cheaper here than the Kodak formulation, though still more expensive than the Fomadon R09 "Rodinal" I'm currently using - but I see it can be used at 1+47 dilution with a similarly-forgiving dev time of around 9 minutes for HP5+ at box speed, so it's still very economical. When I'm ready, that's probably what I'll go for.
Originally posted by Viking42 BTW, is that Agfa your only film camera? Or do you have others? Reason for the question is that if you have, say, a newer camera with a more modern lens that has more contrast, then you're likely to see some differences in contrast and punchiness in your negs. I also shoot 1950s medium format folding Agfas (wonderful cameras!), and their lenses just render contrast differently to my newer ones, especially the triplet designs. So don't be surprised if you run across that one day and wonder what the heck is going on
It's not you or your film, it's your lenses
The Agfa was merely a recent impulse purchase that I picked up for very little money (GBP £10 including shipping, and it was fully serviced
). If it wasn't for that Agfa, though, I might not have started this whole journey into film. I desperately wanted to see the results it was capable of, so I bought a few rolls of film and resolved to shoot with it and use a lab for developing and scanning... but when I looked at the prices for those services, I realised it wouldn't take long for the costs to mount up. It seemed like a better use of my funds to invest in my own developing and scanning equipment, and learn some new skills at the same time. In truth, due to the low volume of film I expect to get through, it would probably have been cheaper to use a lab (at the very least, it will take me a few years to break even
), but the opportunity to learn something and have complete control over my results is worth it
Back to cameras... I'm an unapologetic gear nut / casual collector, and over the years I've acquired a number of film cameras, only a couple of which I've ever used - so this new-found interest in shooting and developing film gives me the opportunity and motivation to use them. Most are old and quite simple optically, so I'm not expecting much from them... but I've a Pentax ME Super and MX-10 that I can use with many of my K-mount and M42 lenses, and a Minolta Dynax 404si that works with my Minolta AF glass. Since I already know how those lenses perform on digital, it'll be interesting to see how they translate to film. My next outing, though, is with a little Olympus Trip 35 that I bought years ago and have never used. I've just replaced the light seals and tested the selenium meter (which is working fine), so she's ready to go. The Trip 35's Tessar-like lens is quite well-regarded, and the photos I've seen on Flickr suggest it has pretty decent contrast for its age and relative simplicity