Tmax 100 in D76 +/- development

[Pere Casals]

Going by the Schneider catalogue, #IV is the correct shutter - https://web.archive.org/web/20130501...eider_7_03.jpg

Yes, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501...eider_7_03.jpg, it says Symmar "5.6" , from 100mm to 360mm, and #IV for the 360. Later Schneider specs say Shutter 5FS https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...lenses/symmar/

So with the #IV should be what you said, some half stop less. Still the aperture scale marks 5.6, wide open, and this is wrong for sure, so the question is if the rest of the scale is right... I don't know if that was the original shutter of the lens.

Also it says, with 620, extension is 1025mm for a 3m far subject, this is 2 cambo in a row, ideal for handheld, dynamic shootings

[interneg]

Yes, https://web.archive.org/web/20130501...eider_7_03.jpg, it says Symmar "5.6" , from 100mm to 360mm, and #IV for the 360. Later Schneider specs say Shutter 5FS https://www.schneideroptics.com/info...lenses/symmar/

So with the #IV should be what you said, some half stop less. Still the aperture scale marks 5.6, wide open, and this is wrong for sure, so the question is if the rest of the scale is right... I don't know if that was the original shutter of the lens.

Also it says, with 620, extension is 1025mm for a 3m far subject, this is 2 cambo in a row, ideal for handheld, dynamic shootings

The '5FS' was a not very successful Compur electronic shutter intended for lenses too big for the Compur 3 after the Compound shutters were discontinued in the 1960s - & not long afterwards, the non-convertible 360/6.8 Symmar-S that fitted into a #3 shutter replaced it. Schneider are absolutely correct in their specifying of the aperture for both the Compound & Compur versions - it's more likely to be your maths that is wrong.

Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless - and anything longer than a 360mm at portrait distances gets quite challenging rather fast. Getting your subject to remain in your plane of focus becomes your number one priority.

[Pere Casals]

The '5FS' was a not very successful Compur electronic shutter intended for lenses too big for the Compur 3 after the Compound shutters were discontinued in the 1960s - & not long afterwards, the non-convertible 360/6.8 Symmar-S that fitted into a #3 shutter replaced it.

The question is if the f/5.6 aperture is possible with the 52mm aperture of the Compound IV. f "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself."

I was mentioning the 5FS because it was the way a Symmar 360 could reach f/5.6, with 64.5mm aperture. So, with my Compound IV is that 5.6 mark right for the 360? (apeture is 52mm)

Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless - and anything longer than a 360mm at portrait distances gets quite challenging rather fast. Getting your subject to remain in your plane of focus becomes your number one priority.

"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was made with the 23" (580 mm) component of the Cooke triple convertible.

The 620mm with a 8x10 will have similar framming (at infinite) than a 80mm in 35mm film. So I think it still can be an interesting length.


IMHO, for portraits a 600mm focal it can be suitable for 8x10, that "80mm" after bellows extension will be perhaps like a 120mm FF DSLR framming, still a useful portraiture length to have subject at suitable distance and framming a face, perhaps also shoulders.

The same than using a 300mm with 4x5 for face portraits...

The conversion starts at f/12, so not much for available light from windows...

My other option is a Lomo O-2 600, but it lacks shutter, for the moment.

Regards

[ic-racer]

I've been shooting Tmax 100 for a while now and have been developing it in D76, straight. I really like the look of the film, but every once in a while I'll take several shots of the same scene and try to compensate in development for a misread exposure.

you can't change film speed to any significant extent with development

Or I might try the "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights" thing.

Not really a "thing" but just the way film behaves.

Anyway, developing everything at the usual time and temps, I get the normal results I expect.

But if I try to extend or pull back my development times by as little as 10% or so, I get wildly different and unusable results

Using graded paper, one does not need to alter development to match a scene. In fact that is a pretty 'dated' technique.

[interneg]

The question is if the f/5.6 aperture is possible with the 52mm aperture of the Compound IV. f "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself."

I was mentioning the 5FS because it was the way a Symmar 360 could reach f/5.6, with 64.5mm aperture. So, with my Compound IV is that 5.6 mark right for the 360? (apeture is 52mm)

They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring - and re-read that statement "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself." Have you measured the statement I've bolded, rather than the 52mm opening in the shutter?

"Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" was made with the 23" (580 mm) component of the Cooke triple convertible.

The 620mm with a 8x10 will have similar framming (at infinite) than a 80mm in 35mm film. So I think it still can be an interesting length.


IMHO, for portraits a 600mm focal it can be suitable for 8x10, that "80mm" after bellows extension will be perhaps like a 120mm FF DSLR framming, still a useful portraiture length to have subject at suitable distance and framming a face, perhaps also shoulders.

The same than using a 300mm with 4x5 for face portraits...

The conversion starts at f/12, so not much for available light from windows...

My other option is a Lomo O-2 600, but it lacks shutter, for the moment.

Regards

Very considerable difference here - getting down to 10-50m range for landscape work (what, 30mm of extension beyond the focal length?) is massively different from portraiture at closer ranges. Take a look at Walker Evans' work with 8x10 & a triple convertible - sure he used the long component for severe compression of urban scenes & landscapes, but his portraits are pretty clearly done with the whole lens - or whatever else he had to hand. Remember that the Deardorff 8x10 that a great many mid 20thC photographers used has 762mm of bellows to play with.

Following the 35mm 'mugshot' routine of long lenses for portraiture in 8x10 is a quick route to wasted film, boring pictures and ridiculously unwieldy cameras. I know it may seem hard, but you don't need to repeat the same focal lengths as 35mm in 8x10. Take a serious look at Richard Avedon's 8x10 work - all shot with a 360mm lens & plenty of head & shoulders images in there.

[Pere Casals]

They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring...

Yes... it would be something weird from Schneider... Copal 3 opens to 45mm, so there is room to exlpain that a Compound IV may deliver 5.6 with the 360. Still the last 5FS (64.5mm aperture) Schneider recomendation makes things not clear, IMO it's something to be checked with luxometer in front of a white wall, to at least having accurate reference for meterings...

They weren't going to engrave nonsense on to the aperture ring - and re-read that statement "is the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the entrance pupil, which is the optical image of the iris opening as seen through the front of the lens, rather than the diameter of the iris opening itself." Have you measured the statement I've bolded, rather than the 52mm opening in the shutter?





Very considerable difference here - getting down to 10-50m range for landscape work (what, 30mm of extension beyond the focal length?) is massively different from portraiture at closer ranges. Take a look at Walker Evans' work with 8x10 & a triple convertible - sure he used the long component for severe compression of urban scenes & landscapes, but his portraits are pretty clearly done with the whole lens - or whatever else he had to hand. Remember that the Deardorff 8x10 that a great many mid 20thC photographers used has 762mm of bellows to play with.

Following the 35mm 'mugshot' routine of long lenses for portraiture in 8x10 is a quick route to wasted film, boring pictures and ridiculously unwieldy cameras. I know it may seem hard, but you don't need to repeat the same focal lengths as 35mm in 8x10. Take a serious look at Richard Avedon's 8x10 work - all shot with a 360mm lens & plenty of head & shoulders images in there.

Well, I was rebating "Using anything longer than a 480mm lens on 8x10 is getting a bit pointless". But at the end you are right because for 8x10 landscape we always can crop and still have lots of image quality, and this have same compression than with a longuer lens. But if we are to make contact prints (I'm doing some) then a "80mm 135 equivalent" focal (600mm) can make sense. Landscape shots are usually wide, but this is not a rule.



For portrait, IMHO we need to be at some 3m from subject, this delivers the look that human brain remembers from people, if too close we see the nose to big... Well, we also can crop here...

A Karsh favourite was 14", but a lot of his portraits were not close.

IMHO a bit 8x10 mug shots are a bit boring prehaps the lens, IMHO to take soulders we need a longuer than usual focal, and perhaps some stairs to see the GG.


Anyway the focal it is never too long, when this happens is camera that's too small. If the 620 comes to long... I've a piece of firewood that's 11x14 camera shaped


This is 4x5, but it's inspiring me for 8x10:

[wclark5179]

What do you folks think of stand development?

I will use it with T-Max 100 and I like the results.

Rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes at 68 degrees.

[Pere Casals]

What do you folks think of stand development?

I will use it with T-Max 100 and I like the results.

Rodinal 1+100, 60 minutes at 68 degrees.

Depending on shooting conditions and on what you want obtain it can be very useful or even the wrong way.


Stand development is very useful to control strong highlights and to increase microcontrast, as there is a local (small) competition to get the developer, a depleted resource.

IMHO a lot of scenes may benefit from it. Still microcontrast also depends on other factors, as a multicoated good lens, or the scene itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRYQObyyIsI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfx22wbksaA


Regards