Sigma 3.5-4.5/21-35, EOS 10qd, Agfa Copex HDP13 RO9 1:100

[iangreenhalgh1]

Sadly I've run out of my preferred developer for high contrast films like this Agfa microfilm so had to use RO9 diluted 1:100. It does tame the contrast and produce a proper grayscale, but the results are not as nice in tonality terms.

I rated the film at 50 and developed for 90mins at 22C in 1:100 RO9 without agitation.

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

[skida]

What a great set of results Ian. I am especially drawn to number 5 for the textural contrast between the hardness of the stone and the softness of the door. Number 8 is lovely too - a veritable feast of textures!

[ForenSeil]

Thanks for sharing results!
+1 for great texture in #5 and #6
Lens is not bad aswell, at least for an old Sigma zoom. Only vignetting is bit disturbing in some (~18mm?) pics.

Little tip: You should think about trying Kodak Xtol next. It's cheap! It gives best grayscale with low grain and without loss of speed. Best ability of Xtol is that it's balancing blown out/bleeding highlights and blackout-areas which, especially in direct comparision with Rodinal etc.,- improving microcontrast, resolution and overall tonality. Highly bleeding films like Lucky SHD 100 becoming awesome in resolution and tonality. APX100, TriX400 etc. have an highly improved resolution and microcontrast. My favourite developer for most B/W films! It does not work well with a few less common rebranded surveilance films like Superpan 200 though - but here works Rodinal very well. Anyway I think you would like it.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers guys.

The lens is actually better than I make it look here. Winter light and 50 speed film mean I was mostly shooting it wide open or 1 stop closed. #5 for instance, you can see top right the very corner is soft, that's because the lens was wide open, close it a stop and the corners improve. On some of the shots, I had to use 1/20 shutter speed, such as with the one of the tractor, therefore there is a tiny bit of shake which has reduced the sharpness slightly. A faster film or better light so I could have used it at f8-f11 and it would perform really well. It's a very cheap lens on ebay, fairly common too, the Canon version doesn't work on digital bodies (well, it works, but only wide open) but if you are a film shooter, that's no problem. There is the later 18-35 too, which I hope to grab sometime when I see it really cheap. I only paid 22ukp inc postage for the 21-35 in great condition so I'm happy with it, it's very well built too, unlike modern Sigmas.



Thank for the X-tol tip, I'll give it a try soon. I'm very upset about not being ale to find any more Microdol-X, diluted 1:3 it gave absolutely beautiful results with microfilm and other extreme contrast films. Kodak discontinued it years ago but a company called Speedibrews made a copy of it. I went to buy some from Process Supplies and it's disappeared from their website. I emailed them about it and got no reply. Ilford Perceptol is pretty much the same thing, but it's 5ukp for a a litre whereas the Speedibrews copy was 15ukp for 15 litres.

Microdol-X and microfilm was a magical combo, the tonality was so smooth and creamy, the grain non-existent and the sharpness fantastic. If X-tol can do the same, I will be delighted.

[fuzzywuzzy]

#2 and #3 could be anywhere in my area, that beautiful stone barn not so much

Massey Ferguson started out in Canada, my dad's got a 50's model, still uses it every winter to run the snowblower.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Massey Ferguson are very common here, as are old beaten-up small tractors of all makes, I seem to end up taking pictures of them pretty often.

[skida]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I agree, the corners are rarely of much consequence.

[Orio]

Fascinating subjects, I would personally like more contrast and less exposure. Pictures like #11 or #12, where you have lots of detail but no
(or almost no) real black in the scene, become problematic with a compensating development.
Instead, where you have a wider tonal range, like in the door pictures, or in the wood pole picture, the results are much better (in my personal opinion).

[iangreenhalgh1]

Hi Orio

I very much agree with you, the scenes with trees are packed with fine detail but are unsatisfying to my eyes in tonality terms.

5 and 6 are the kind of tonality I like, fairly contrasty but also with a wide tonal range.

I had some difficulty scanning this roll, it was difficult to get the scanner to not blow out the highlights, I think the development was slightly too much. I just don't care for RO9 with this film, it does an okay job but the tonality is far less to my tastes than that which I got with this film and Microdol-X.

It's a really frustrating time for me as my beloved Microdol-X is not available to me anymore so I'm going through a laborious process of trialling various other developers. I tried Kodak DK-50 which I bought 15 litres of powder form very cheap on ebay, but I'm very unhappy with the results it delivers. Fomadon LQN is working very nicely for me but I only have a litre of it left and I have to import it from Europe, I just bought some D-76 cheap to try next, I've used it before and liked it but found Microdol-X suited my tastes better. X-tol and Fino S31 are the next ones I will try, eventually I will find something I really like and will stock up on it so that I won't run out of it like I did with Microdol-X.

[Yebisu]

I think these are great. Especially 5 and 6. Really evoke a sense of place.

I also think the tonality looks pretty good on 11 and 12. Apart from the inside of the barn and the shadows under the logs in the bottom right corner, I can't see where any strong blacks should be. Perhaps those two areas should be a bit blacker.

[iangreenhalgh1]

Cheers Yebisu. Old rural buildings are a favourite subject of mine.

I think the problem with the contrast issue is how flat the light was and how little contrast was actually in the scene, there were no dark areas and no bright areas either. A colour picture would have been all browns and grays.