[tuco]

Don't forget good old sepia tone!

You know, that is one tone I didn't use. I've tried it but instead I'd use Kodak's Brown Toner, a Selenium Toner or a Poly-Toner.

[gofour3]

67II & 6x7 Takumar 35/4.5 Fish-eye with orange filter, shooting Rollei Retro 400S:



Phil.

[g026r]

I need to find a better way of keeping the dust off my negatives. Generally not so bad on a regular frame, but cloning the spots out of panos is a bit annoying.

This was likely one of the slower shutter speeds, and it's showing the banding that I thought I had seen on some previous shots.



Horizon 202.
Efke KB100.

---------- Post added 2019-06-04 at 23:09 ----------

67II & 6x7 Takumar 35/4.5 Fish-eye with orange filter, shooting Rollei Retro 400S:

How did you find shooting it with an orange filter in general?

[gofour3]

How did you find shooting it with an orange filter in general?

Good it was the first time I shot Retro 400S on 120. I also did some shots with the lenses built-in red filter and they are fine as well, but a little darker sky.

Thanks, Phil.

[Cuthbert]

Land Rover Wolf.

Nikon F2A, Nokton 58mm f1.4, Ferrania P30.

Is the P30 too contrasty for your taste?

[cooltouch]

I need to find a better way of keeping the dust off my negatives. Generally not so bad on a regular frame, but cloning the spots out of panos is a bit annoying.

This was likely one of the slower shutter speeds, and it's showing the banding that I thought I had seen on some previous shots.

A comment and a question. These new microfiber cloths do a great job of removing dust, I've found. Something like that might help with your dust problem.

Q: what did you use to develop your film? I had a banding problem once and it was because I was using a tank with a twirling thermometer for agitation -- a Yankee tank, as memory servers. Apparently, I got too aggressive with the twirling. Rather than take the chance again, I decided to switch tanks. I use a Paterson tank now with the regular old inversion technique. The problem has never reappeared.

[g026r]

A comment and a question. These new microfiber cloths do a great job of removing dust, I've found. Something like that might help with your dust problem.

That might be worth checking out. Thanks.

Q: what did you use to develop your film? I had a banding problem once and it was because I was using a tank with a twirling thermometer for agitation -- a Yankee tank, as memory servers. Apparently, I got too aggressive with the twirling. Rather than take the chance again, I decided to switch tanks. I use a Paterson tank now with the regular old inversion technique. The problem has never reappeared.

I use a Patterson tank, usually with inversion instead of the agitation stick. This roll was stand-developed, as I found that Efke takes well to that. Though that does remind me that that technique does sometimes result in streaks coming from around the sprocket holes. I'll have to try my next B&W roll through it with more regular development and see what I get.

[tuco]

.... This roll was stand-developed, as I found that Efke takes well to that...

I'd say it's the developer that allows you to stand develop or not. I've said before why we have to agitate our film in the first place. And to not agitate your film means that some kind of process moves exhausted developer out of the boundary layer of the film and replenishes it automagically. Stand development is inherently risky for uneven development when the area of the film increases in the larger formats.

[tuco]

Testing RPX 100 @ EI 200 as "normal developing" in Rodinal.

GX617, 90/5.6, Rodinal 1+50





After shooting this film for the first time outdoors and reducing the box development time some, I felt it still too over exposed. So I did a zone 1 speed test ( target density 0.10 above base + fog) and it came out to be EI 200. Strange.

[crossed-up]

Nice pic, so is the Zenitar K a good investment for a Pentax K system?

.

Thanks Cuthbert. Yes, I really liked the Zenitar, I bought mine direct from the Ukraine at a very good price but not sure how they compare now. Obviously its more of a UWA on a crop sensor digital body, but a proper fisheye on film. I eventually sold it to fund a DA10-17 for a bit more flexibility.

Here's another with the Zenitar on the P30 shot from the top of a dam in Wales:

[stevebrot]

Nice pic, so is the Zenitar K a good investment for a Pentax K system?

I will chime in as well. I own the K-mount fishy zen and shoot with it on both film and my K-3. There may be better 180° diagonal fisheyes out there, but not with the combination of the zen's compact size, price, and image quality. Mine is on my "never sell" list.


Steve

[gofour3]

I will chime in as well. I own the K-mount fishy zen and shoot with it on both film and my K-3. There may be better 180° diagonal fisheyes out there, but not with the combination of the zen's compact size, price, and image quality. Mine is on my "never sell" list.


Steve

Does the Zen FE have a special filter rear mount filter set or were they built-in filters?

Thanks, Phil.

[crossed-up]

Does the Zen FE have a special filter rear mount filter set or were they built-in filters?

Thanks, Phil.

They come with a set of rear mounting filters (at least mine did)

[gofour3]

They come with a set of rear mounting filters (at least mine did)

Beautiful!

Thanks, Phil.

[stevebrot]

Does the Zen FE have a special filter rear mount filter set or were they built-in filters?

Thanks, Phil.

Filters (26.5mm x 0.5mm) are rear-mounted with clear, red, green, and light yellow included with the lens. Zenitar tradition is that the rear filter is a necessary part of the optical path. There is some disagreement as to whether this is true. One of these days I should do a few comparisons.


Steve