วีดีโอ

Very jealous of your 55! Microprisms are very personal - I can't quite define it but the "coarseness" makes a huge difference to me if that makes any sense at all. Sorry to hear about the chain, that's really annoying. As you say at least it can be used in some sense!

Thank you! I have no evidence for this at all but I like to think that f/2.0 was the target, and wonder if a floating element design might have compromised that. Environmental portraits are perfect because any lens will give you decently shallow DoF close up, so I do agree with you in that sense.

@@Shaka1277 you may be right regarding the omission of the floating lens group in the fast/compact lenses. Semi-recently I purchased and cleaned 100mm f/2, 90mm f/2, 28mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.2 Zuikos. And the only one of those lenses not to have a floating group is 50mm f/1.2. But, my understanding is that floating groups are necessary to improve close-up performance in off-center areas, but not in the center of the image. Admittedly, I may be wrong 😅 Also, I gave the idea that the lens was designed for environmental portrait type of shots another thought and it doesn't really add up. During the film era, lens designers were creating fast lenses mostly for low light shooting with little regard for the shallow depth of field effect. So now I'm curious to find marketing materials for this lens to see how it was marketed.

I'm not well versed in optics - I can rattle off the characteristics of a Sonnar but couldn't distinguish a Distagon and a Biogon from the optical diagram alone - but I've seen a good boost in performance across the frame with some older wider lenses with a FLE design and a dedicated FLE ring. Maybe it benefits the corners more, and the centre less? Not sure. I had a look and the datasheet on Hasselblad Historical lists, in order: sports and press photography (both with fast speeds and in poor light), group photos (Planar design), and lastly portraits.

I honestly don't have any tips, sorry. I've heard of a few people having issue loading it into different cameras and not being able to get it loaded.

Oh that's a fantastic point. I've never delved into that world so the thought never occurred to me. Thank you for bringing that up.

I've actually taken a short break from using it because I thought it was getting a bit derivative, and I'm actually breaking it out again tomorrow for a trip so your kind words couldn't have come at a better time! Thank you very much. I'd like to see your own work with it if you'd like to send me an email or Instagram message. I process and scan all my own film - I couldn't possibly shoot as much as I do with lab costs. B&W, C-41, E-6, and more. I am a chemist "by trade" so this is quite enjoyable for me. :) I use a GFX100S in 35 mm crop mode for 35 mm film and scan at ~0.9x life size netting me ~50 MP scans which is plenty. The slightly sub-1x size allows me to seamlessly stitch without artefacting by allowing a bit more overlap between frames. It works out to around 70-75 MP. Then I process the scans with Negative Lab Pro.

@@Shaka1277 Good luck with the trip! I’ve just DM’d you on insta 😊

The film "gate", the hole light hits the film through, is half the size so you still advance the wheel after every shot.

@@Shaka1277 appreciate this. Thanks a lot!

Honestly, very unlikely. It's too much work for me to do this with any regularity. There is something I'd like to do with the Vision3 films but it's nothing as deep as this.

I'm talking broadly, in the sense that it's hard to rationalise how exchanging a hydroxy group for a sulphonamide changes the absorption spectra and molar extinction coefficient. How dyes work as a concept, and how colour dyes work for film are relatively simple and no I don't understand it fully (likely never will). I've personally made a compound series where varying an alkyl chain from 1 to 10 carbons resulted in one fluorescent compound and nine that don't fluoresce. That kind of stuff is hard to rationalise and communicate in any meaningful way in a 15-20 minute video. Consider the actual audience for film videos on TH-cam. I'm not claiming to be a major authority on this, but you're being a bit harsh. I will take that on board and try to be clearer about where my limits lie vs what's just beyond the scope of a video.

It doesn't have to be strictly 4+1 but the powder can take a short while to dissolve (depending on temp and mixing) so using less water would make it take a little longer. Nothing critical to the process!

@@Shaka1277 Great! Then I can use my 3l Erlenmeyer and magnetic stir bar :)

I'm away on a trip but will get back to you in a couple of days with precise settings, or a link to a preset if that works out easier to share!

@@Shaka1277 appreciated

@@Shaka1277 I've just processed another phoenix in ecn2 and I'd be keen to try your preset.

This is all very hand-wavy and I don't know if there's standardised terminology, but you are thinking about it right. When I share my images online I get around this by saying something like Harman Phoenix 200 (@ 500) Bellini 3-Bath C-41 kit (+3, 38 °C) Which would indicate I'm shooting at 500 with 3 stops of overdevelopment specifically, rather than calling it a 3 stop push which isn't strictly correct as you've noted. It wouldn't be correct to call it a 1.5 stop push as that implies 1.5 stops of overdevelopment! It's only strictly a 3 stop push if you underexpose 3 stops and overdevelop 3 stops.

@@Shaka1277 So, phrasing it differently, how much is a stop of overdevelopment? Is it 1 degree warmer development temperature? To me, 1 stop of overdevelopment is the overdevelopment that will get me a more or less equivalent middle gray if I underexpose by 1 stop, and that will be a different increase in development time for each film and developer combination. So I *would* call it a 1.5 stop push, if that overdevelopment was only buying me 1.5 stops of speed.

There are prescribed time extensions for pushing, eg +30 seconds for 1 stop of overdevelopment. So regardless of how you expose, a 3:45 dev time is +1 vs the standard 3:15 which would be +0. A 3 stop push would require +1:30 of dev so we can't truly call this either a 1.5 stop push (film wouldn't be developed long enough) or a 3 stop push (film wasn't underexposed by 3 stops).

@@Shaka1277 thanks, that answers my question :)

Excellent description, and thank you! Cost aside, I'm reading of more and more people moving away from the most modern f/1.2 primes because they're too sharp/unforgiving for some.

Yeah I just spritz it into the neck of the bottle to displace the air! It isn't truly inert as it's flammable but for this purpose it's effectively inert.

Thanks. I might try a bit of spritzing myself. Thanks for the tip

That's very interesting to know, thank you!

As am I! I'd love to bring just one camera but for 1.5 weeks in Canada I'd want two as a backup if nothing else. It's just a question of which two. :)

This was wonderful to wake up to - thank you! Diving into learning how everything ACTUALLY chemically works is fascinating to me and I'm so happy to hear others are enjoying it. I spoke to Harman about the Direct Positive Paper before and it's very complex; I don't really "get" it yet. Even Polaroids and the like are so much more complex than regular films. I would like to look at these things at some point but I have no experience with them unfortunately.

@@Shaka1277 Thank you so much for responding! I'm very new to film photography and this channel has given me a ton of useful info that I can put forward into taking better photos. It reminds me of how learning a manual transmission made me a better stick shift driver.

It's not the half-stops per se (I actually prefer that to third-stops), just the weird shift from full-stop to half-stop and back to full-stop that's a bit weird. It screws with muscle memory a bit.

Represent 🙌

I don't, sorry.

You’re literally agreeing with the video rbkid moment

Yeah I have come to the same conclusions. I don’t understand the point of this comment.

Honestly, at the very least Rollei (and AfgaPhoto) sells these films for somewhat reasonable markup. I think it's about right for the added value you mention - finishing and packaging the film in quantities and form most people can reasonably shoot. JCH also repackages Aviphot, but at ~50% higher price than Rollei (region dependent, of course, I can only speak for Europe). Cinestill has very ""healthy"" margins, too, when we consider how cheap bulk rolled Vision3 can be, even at fairly low volumes compared to master rolls CS buys.

It's on the list for this series for sure - James has made sure of that :)

It is not garbage most of the time if you know how to проявлять её. Not Ilford film, yes

@@endingmirage No, it's garbage with excessive contrast and a disgusting substrate. if you need a similar photographic film, then you can easily buy the original AGFA avifot. we sell it everywhere in reels of 30, 40 and so on meters. and it sells cheap. but it's better to buy a photographic film from FOMA, it's cheaper than Ilford. этот роляй нам ненужон.🤣

@user-jk9sh1wz6d I use NOS Aviphot 200 when making 120, 220, and sheet films, my results are very good even with expired film. However the 70mm supply on eBay is running out, so I will be switching to Astrum/Svema films as they are fresh and they are extremely flexible in terms of the film types and sizes you can get. And, are on par with Foma in terms of pricing! (They might also use Aviphot films, however I cannot confirm that). Out of curiosity, where do you get rolls of Aviphot? I have asked around, but regular Aviphot is sold in very large quantities (27 rolls 540m in length for 61.5mm from Agfa).

I don't think so. Rollei 80S and RPX25 being the same film, 80S is already a pushed version of RPX25. So no wonder 80S doesn't like being pushed even 1 stop. Same goes for 400S being already pushed (it's the same as Superpan 200, they're both respooled Agfa Aviphot 200). Those original AFGA films were made for aerial surveillance, so they needed to be contrasty. My guess is their original ISO ratings (80 and 200) was decided to get that needed contrast. If you test them both you can find Rollei 80S (AGFA Aviphot 80) has a better tonal range at 25 ISO. And Rollei 400S (or Superpan 200) work better at 100-125 ISO.