dshfoto
Well-known
Here's some thoughts --
EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Black & White Negative Film 5222 / 35 mm x 1000 ft / On Core / BH-1866, Catalog # 1982511 - $644.69 direct from Kodak ($65 per 100' roll)
~ 22-23 rolls of 36 exposures from a 100′
So 220 rolls from 1000 ft. ~ $3.00 / roll.
We would need some way to spool this into 100 ft. rolls, and a lot of loadable canisters.
Arista 35mm Metal Reloadable Cartridge - 25 pack #183125 - $27.99 = 1.10/roll
25 reloadable cartridges would handle about 100' of film @ 36 exposure.
EASTMAN DOUBLE-X Black & White Negative Film 5222 / 35 mm x 1000 ft / On Core / BH-1866, Catalog # 1982511 - $644.69 direct from Kodak ($65 per 100' roll)
~ 22-23 rolls of 36 exposures from a 100′
So 220 rolls from 1000 ft. ~ $3.00 / roll.
We would need some way to spool this into 100 ft. rolls, and a lot of loadable canisters.
Arista 35mm Metal Reloadable Cartridge - 25 pack #183125 - $27.99 = 1.10/roll
25 reloadable cartridges would handle about 100' of film @ 36 exposure.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Steve,
I have a Topcon loader for loading 250 exposure cassetes. 250 exposures is 33 feet. If I lift a lever it resets the counter so pretty much I can accurately spool 99 feet. This is not a daylight loader though... I think this 250 exposure bulk loader will be very handy. Bought it at KEH for about $30.00.
One can buy directly from kodak from in 400 and 800 foot spools. The best pricing is in 800 foot spools.
From Photowarehouse the cost is a bit more than $5.00 a roll so it carted up for you and pricing is competitive with Tri-X.
Forget buying 25 cassettes, buy a 100 if you are serious about shooting film at $3.00 a roll. Mark Cuban said, "Go big; or don't go." This is where I'm heading. Also I have the formula for ADOX. 5222 with ADOX is finer grained than D-76 and is mostly Borax and cheap enough to use as a one shot. I have a triple beam scale, ultrasonic bath, brass weights, graduated cylinders, so already I'm equipped to do chemistry. Primary ingredient of ADOX is Borax so cheap-cheap...
I have the Massive Development Chart with all the developers. Diafine is a maligned developer that many do not understand. I have learned how to make it work for me. Freestyle recommends 500 ISO with Diafine but I like mucho density for negatives for easy wet printing that can be straight printed. MDC I believe specs 650 ISO with Diafine. 400 ISO works for me.
Cal
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Keep in that MDC specifies ISO 650 really means some guy in Omaha specifies ISO 650, so it is just a starting point. It's doubtful that ISO 650 was arrived at through sensitometry.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
PTP,
Of course I do my own testing.
With Diafine the stated ISO's were way aggressive. Not even close. Also I tend to promote the compensating effect to get a HDR effect but with film by minimizing aggitation and extending development. I also get finer grain. 1600 ISO with TriX??? For me it is reasonable to get about an honest 2/3rds of a stop push with most films with Diafine.
With P30 I get only 50 ISO with my testing.
With Panchro 400 about 320, requires a long presoak, and added development. Without a presoak ISO seems to be around 150-180. Maybe because this is a dual emulsion film.
Rollie 400S is really only 125 ISO.
The recommended film speeds on these new film to me are lies. I happen to like them though. What is this promotion of higher film speeds? To me there is nothing bad about being honest or reasonable. Fake-Data. Seems there is over rating of film speeds when using Rodinal, Microphen... ID-11.
Cal
Prest_400
Multiformat
Seems like the rerating in the 60s still lives on (when TriX went from 200 to 400 ASA without change).
Always kept details about B&W, next year I may have community darkroom access and I'll delve into the art (Yes, I procrastinate that one a lot!). HP5 seems like it will be my staple, sits at a nice price range in Europe.
Saw a discussion elsewhere where HP5 really sits around EI250 with standard development in D76.
Curiously enough in the modern perception of film, the new generation of wedding derived and online scanning labs encourages shooting Portra 400 or 400H +1 or +2, or more. Also some counterintiutive exposures overexposed and pushed. There's a lot of scan and post magic. Sometimes I laze with metering and do shoot Portra with generous exposure at noon, doesn't look bad with those scanners.
Heck there was some hype around 120 HP5 pushed to 3200 in Xtol (what the labs use I guess). Didn't look bad, very strong contrast. But of course, small screens hide a lot of sins.
Showing some bankster behavior; I like to complain about film prices and instead of buying some Portra that went out of stock, whose pricing seems will increase, I went for a roll of Aerochrome.
Will do a mini fun project around mountains and small medieval churches with that.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Jorde,
Yesterday we convened upon Kodak 5222. Really an old school film with a thick emulsion with mucho silver that makes for broad exposure latitude.
Bulk loading required. About $65.00 per 100 feet but only available in 400 and 1000 foot rolls. Cine film.
I get 400 ISO with Diafine 4+4. Negatives look retro and are nice and dense for wet printing.
For scanning it seems thin negatives are favored.
Cal
Yesterday we convened upon Kodak 5222. Really an old school film with a thick emulsion with mucho silver that makes for broad exposure latitude.
Bulk loading required. About $65.00 per 100 feet but only available in 400 and 1000 foot rolls. Cine film.
I get 400 ISO with Diafine 4+4. Negatives look retro and are nice and dense for wet printing.
For scanning it seems thin negatives are favored.
Cal