First shot with Nikkormat FTN

[gsgary]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.

Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm

 

[gsgary]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.

Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm

£12 not bad for camera and lens

 

[bribrius]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.

Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm

£12 not bad for camera and lens

agreed.
i have low standards. if i shoot something on my ten dollar film camera with my three dollar film i am pretty happy it came out at all. i think i mentioned that above. Especially with 20 year old film. Now if i had a 4k camera and a 2k lens, that is something else... take it for what it is worth, if anything.

 

[gsgary]

While I don't mind the grain (due to film and ISO) I'm looking at the subject. It could have been a nice photo, but it's OOF IMHO.

can't even tell. i have a couple old lenses that look oof when they are in the most in focus they go. wonder what the lens is? some are just plain soft. Others, the manual focus is a little to be desired at times.

Nikkor hc auto F2 50mm

£12 not bad for camera and lens

agreed.
i have low standards. if i shoot something on my ten dollar film camera with my three dollar film i am pretty happy it came out at all. i think i mentioned that above. Especially with 20 year old film. Now if i had a 4k camera and a 2k lens, that is something else... take it for what it is worth, if anything.

Wait till you see the next shots

 

[timor]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...

how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????

Know what ?

 

[bribrius]

The developer for T-Max was made by Kodak...and formulated to offer the best grain AND to develop full emulsion speed...which is something that other, traditional developers suck at. T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Bottom line is the image he presented was made using a film that is utter rubbish for push processing in Rodinal. Twenty years out of date T-Max 400, and then he pushes that two stops AND makes a bad developer choice? Come on...as was said above by pixmedic, the result of the entire outdated film/pushed to 1600/guessed development time/wrong development method is.... a binner. Don't shoot the messenger, okay, timor?

Stand developing in 1) a developer designed for traditional silver-type emulsions when was it? Before World War II? Stand developing on 2-stop pushed AND twenty years out of date T-Max 400? All bad choices, but what the heck.

As you mentioned, T-Max is a good film...buuuut....the choice of the wrong developer, and the wrong type of development (stand), and the 20 years' outdated film lead to...a muddy mess witn zero shadow detail, flat tonality, blown out highlights in the upper areas, and overall, golfball-sized grain (Rodinal's speciality!!!), and flat, ugly mid-tones with almost zero microcontrast...

The proof of my opinion lies in the results...yeah, an image was made...and technically, it's very poor. But I know what he was after...just pop a roll of film in, push it two stops, and then take a wild guess at developoing it with whatever developer he happened to have. Obviously, poor choices, Timor. You ought to know that. And again to re-answer the first dumb, aggressive, insolent question you asked, "What will be the film developer designed for t-max?" is the one Kodak spent millions of dollars formulating... T-Max Developer B H Photo Video

Uff... When you say something, you say something. I think the furthest you ever went with you b&w film development was factory recommendations. And maybe even not that far. Kodak specifically says: Tmax dev is a general purpose formula, NOT MADE specifically for Tmax films. Name has nothing to do with that, Kodak recommends this formula to every film Kodak makes. It is just automatic assumption and wrong logic. Tmax dev was destined to replace d76 as more practical and just better formula for modern films. Formulas made especially for Tmax films you can buy at Photographers formulary, stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer. But than it comes from guy asking dumb questions, why would you consider...

how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????

Know what ?

"stuff designed by former Kodak chemists. If you ever gonna get around to develop tmax 100 use Xray developer"

 

[timor]

Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.

 

[bribrius]

Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.

think i said this before. i get into film more you gonna be my new buddy....

 

[timor]

Maybe just I am deeper in film than average.
X-ray developer ? It fits profile of what's needed for Tmax 100. To get from this film the best one has to taken care of micro contrast. D76 or HC110 B are not able to do that, this formulas take care only of general contrast. Same with Tmax dev 1+4 and many others. But try Polymax T 1+49 and you tmax film will be sharp, smooth and grainless. Develop it in d76 and see under microscope, what it does to grain.

think i said this before. i get into film more you gonna be my new buddy....

Can't wait...

 

[gsgary]

Scan of wet print

 

[tirediron]

EVERYTHING else aside, given that this is holy s**t out of date 400 ASA pushed two stops, I think that's a pretty darn respectable print.

 

[Gary A.]

You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.

As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.

 

[timor]

Perfection.

 

[limr]

how do you even know all this?????????????????????????????????????????

Because timor is an effing darkroom rock star, man.

And hey, since we're sharing, remember this one? New HP5+ pushed to 1600 in Caffenol C-L (semi-stand development for...hmm, I want to say 45 minutes?)

Street food by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[gsgary]

You clean up the hell out of it with that scan.

As a comparison, new Tri-X pushed to ASA 1600, developed in new HC110.

Straight scan nothing done to it, print looks better than the scan