Thanks for the comments! Here's another from the same session.
Century Studio 10A w/8x10 back
E. Krauss Tessar 500/6.3
Arista.EDU Ultra 100 / Rodinal 1+50
I often run across posts where people talk about Tessars being too sharp or contrasty. Maybe that's the case for more modern coated versions of the lens, but I've found the old uncoated examples I use (and their clones) are wonderful for portraiture and general use. This French made E. Krauss lens in particular is a gem. Although E. Krauss licensed the Tessar design from Zeiss, they obviously hadn't mastered the glass-making. The optics are filled with dozens of tiny gas bubbles... flaws that I'm grateful for because I love the glow the lens gives images.
Any problems with quality control? I believe this is Foma 100 and, while I continue to see results like this that I really like, I've also read quite a bit about emulsion defects. One poster on a UK forum I've been following had an entire box with lines across the film, an apparent coating defect.
Thanks. It took me a while to get results I liked with Arista.EDU Ultra 100. I do tray development and was having trouble with uneven development, and it not seeming to expose properly at its ISO 100 rating. Finally I found a winning combination with Rodinal as my developer. You might find the results too grainy for 4x5, but it's worth playing around with.
I actually like Adox CHS 100 Art better in terms of its look, but I have a terrible time with the Adox emulsions getting scratched when I'm developing multiple sheets in a tray. I end up having to develop it one sheet at a time, but that kills my workflow. The modest cost savings from the film being less expensive are more than offset by the additional time I have to spend processing it.
Ilford HP5+ and FP4+ are what I use when it's for something that actually matters.
The first box of it I bought in 2008, 5x7 size, had some emulsion defects. It wasn't anything catastrophic, but a few areas in the developed negatives that looked like maybe some small bubbles had formed in the emulsion coating.
I wouldn't use it for anything critical, but it's a decent film once you get used to working with it. It's great for learning and experimenting, and I feel like it's priced fairly for what it delivers.
You can't expect gold when you pay for brass.
I'm using Adox which is fine. I get confused with Efke/Adox/Foma, but a few people I know use some of those three no problem.
I'm about to put in a film order. I will still get the TMY I mainly use, but what the heck - at the price, I'll try some Foma! (Or Arista brand Foma..)
"You dont take a picture, it's given to you"
www.alextimmermans.com
www.collodion-art.blogspot.com
email : collodion-art dot onsmail dot nl
Another vote for Foma, the 200 was realy wonderful, lets hope that it returns soon. I've used the film for ages and once you get used to it it's great. I've never tried the 400 yet though.
Pete.
Bookmarks