The Economics of Developing Your Own Black & White

The economics of developing your own black and white are very attractive. The way I see it, you can start developing for maximum of about $80 in fixed costs and then about $0.60 a roll after that. If you would otherwise pay for developing, at perhaps $7 a roll, the break even is after 13 rolls.

Developing is also fun and the turnaround time is much quicker.

Here's the breakdown of costs:

Fixed Costs

• Tank System -Patterson tank system is cheap and easy - $23 new, but you likely can also find used gear.
  
• Changing Bag - If you don't have a really dark room to unload the film, you need one of these. Get a big one as it makes life easier. - $30
  
• Thermometer - you should already have one.
  
• Storage Bottles - You can save milk bottles if you want reduce cost. I find official bottles with graduated markers to be useful.3 x $3 = $9
  
• Scissors - everyone should have this
  
• Bottle Opener - everyone should already have this
  
• Squeege - $7 - but any semi-hard rubbery surface will do and you wipe off one size at a time.
  
• Film Hanger - $3 - I also successfully use bag clips.
  
• PhotoFlo - $8 - helps wisk water away. Add it to the final rinse. You need about 2 drops per 10 oz. With 600 drops per ounce, this pint size container will last a long time. I'm going to treat it as a fixed cost.

Variable Costs

• Developer -D-76 $9 - One gallon of powder makes 128 fluid oz which is further diluted to 256 oz. Each reel needs about 16 fluid oz. So you get about 16 uses, which comes out to be $0.56 per roll.
  
• Stop Bath - Kodak $6 - One pint concentrate bottle. Mix 3 ml per liter of dilution solution, and again apply about 10 oz of dilution solution. You get 533 uses per pint of concentrate. This is about $0.012 per roll. Or you can use tap water.
  
• Fixer - Kodafix - $7 - One quart of concentrate makes one gallon of solution. You can reuse solution 120 times. This would technically work out to be over 1500 uses per quart of concentrate, but there is some attrition (you don't get 100% when you pour the fixer back in the bottle). If you can reclaim 99% of the solution, you'll get 250 uses, or $0.028 per roll.

Canon Canonet GIII QL 17

Back in the 1960s and 1970s Canon made a serious of consumer grade, manual focus, fixed lens rangefinders, branded the Canonet. Released in 1972, the long named, GIII QL17 was final evolution of the Canonet. The camera has achieved a bit of a cult status. It sold new for $94 then ($412 today), but now can resell for about $140 from a dealer, like keh.com. It can be found on eBay for cheaper but you likely risk it not working. The following sites can provide a lot of the technical detail:

Photoethnography
Favorite Classics
CameraQuest

The upside:
--Sharp, fast, 40/1.7 lens.
--Aperture priority and manual override.
--Small and portable

The downside:
--It takes an outdated mercury battery.
--The foam light seals have degraded over the last 40 years.
--Fixed lens

The Verdict:
The camera is great for someone looking for a film camera to give it a try. Don't be surprised if you want to try another lens and are quickly looking for . I took one roll and quickly wanted one with an interchangable lens.


The Camera:
The Camera:








The Photos:
Downtown Houston with Kodak TMAX 100:

Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5 Review

The Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 (made by Cosina), is a sharp, fast lens that is not excessively large. We buy fast lenses for their speed, and this lens performs great wide open. Some complain about the quality of the out-of-focus area, but I think it good. You'd have to spend 10x the money to get an incremental improvement in quality (Leica Summilux 50/1.4)

at f/1.5, Portra 400NC:


either f/1.5 or f/2, Portra 400NC:


either f/1.5 or f/2, Ultra Color 400:


f/1.5-f/2, Portra 400NC:


More photos here:

Fuji film reviews

I normally have been a consistent user of Kodak films, but I've been branching out based on curiosity and need.


Neopan 1600: High contrast, high speed, modest grain. Great for more artistic photos.





Superia 1600: While I really like Kodak's Portra 400, I was underwhelmed with Portra 800 I decided to give the Fuji 1600 a try.

The grain at 1600 is about equal to Portra 800, and the color balance is much better.



Fuji Pro 800Z - A high quality high-speed film. In 35mm format, it results in very light grain and good colors. Regarding 120 format, the larger size of the negative eliminates any noticable grain.

120 format:

Leica Summicron DR 50/2 Review

Built in the late 50s and early 60s, this lens combines performance quality with outstanding built quality. It's my go-to lens for black and white. Normally, it focuses as close as 34", but with a close focusing attachment also called the "eyes," it can focus down to 19". At that distance at f/2, the depth of field drops to an 0.4 inches.


The Summicron DR with the close focusing "eyes" on a M3:


Portra 400NC, likely at f/2:


Tri-X, likely at f/2:


With close focusing attachment, f/2.8, Fuji Neopan 1600:


With close focusing attachment, at f/2, Kodak 400NC:

Big Negatives: Getting into Medium Format

Besides an initial foray into 110 format when I was 8, I've spent my life shooting 35mm. I wanted to try medium format a try. Why medium format? 120 film has over four times the area of a 35mm negative, which facilitates big clear enlargements. With only 12 shots on a roll (with a 6x6 format), you have to be more careful and deliberate.

Being the bargain hunter I am, I wanted to limit my investment. Popular modern medium format cameras like the the Mamiya 7, Hasselblad, Bronica, Fujica, often still start at around $500 and go up from there.

The least expensive, and smallest, foray into medium format will be with a rangefinder-less folder (guess focusing). If you plan on using small apertures and distant focusing, then the lack of focusing guide won't be an issue. The Zeiss Ikonta or Voigtlander Bessa I come with reputable lenses and easily go for under $100. Update: I got a Zeiss Ikonta 523/2 - reviewed here.

I think TLRs offered the best value for the money, such as 50s era Rolleiflex or the Ikoflex. You can get a body with fixed Zeiss lenses for $150-$250. (A body and Zeiss lens for a Hasselblad system will cost multiples more.) The Yashica Mat is another quality camera which will go for . Rolleicords have a few less features than the 'flex, but the price discount isn't that much. There are a multitude of "off brand" TLR, such as the Ricohflex, Minolta Autocord, Ricoh Diacord, or the Ciroflex. Many of these can be easily had for under $100. Given the closeness in price on the used market, I went with the classic, a 1955 Rolleiflex with Zeiss Tessar 75/3.5 in user condition for less than $200. (Later Rolleis get quite pricey).

Examples of the Rollei

Portra 400NC, f/3.5:


Portra 400NC, f/3.5:

Leica Compatible Rangefinder Lens Reviews

My goal is eventually to review and comment on all of the lenses I own or have owned. I'll update this page as I complete the reviews. For lenses that I use extensively, I'll create a separate page for the review and add a link.

Voigtlander

• 21/4 Color Skopar
- Great lens: no distortion, very minimal vignetting.
• 35/2.5 Color Skopar- It's a great small lens, but the fact it was f/2.5 bothered me. With 400 film, 1/30 shutter and f/2, I can take a photo indoors without a flash.
Smaller aperture (f/8 - f/16), Fuji Velvia 100:
• 50/1.5 Nokton- A wonderful lens. It's my go-to lens. Sharp wide open, which is what you want from a fast lens. You'd have to spend 10x the money to get an incremental improvement in quality (Leica Summilux 50/1.4)

Leica

• 35/3.5 Summaron
- Solid performer, although slow. It is very tiny lens, sometimes, almost too tiny to quick change apertures. If you leave your finger on the focusing scale, you risk getting your finger in the photo. I don't use it terribly often because the Canon 35/2 not much more bulky and is almost 2 stops faster. Mid-aperture, Portra 400NC:
• 50/2 Summitar - Recently acquired. Haven't shot it yet.
• 50/2 Summicron DR (M)- One of the greats. Beautiful built quality. My go to lens for black & white.
• 50/3.5 Elmar - Compact collaspible lens that takes sharp pictures. I have a post-war coated "red scale" version, that is nominally one of the best. Aperture adjustment is a bit time consuming.
• 90/4 Elmar - Decent performer given the cost. However, the Canon 100/3.5 is the same size, slight faster, much sharper, and only slightly more expensive.
•  
• 135/4 Tele-Elmar (M) - Sharp, not overally huge. Can't ask for more. Much better than the 135/4.5 Hektor
• 135/4.5 Hektor - An early long focal length lens. Performance is average at best.

Canon

• 35/2 Canon
- This compact beauty is one of my "go-to" lenses. It's fast and produces good results.
• 50/1.9 Serenar
- Collapsible Summitar take-off. It's a bit soft wide open, but not really soft enough for artistic shots. Wide open with high speed film (more grainy) produced some disappointing results. Wide open on Kodachrome:
• 85/2 Canon Serenar - Sharp fast lens from the early 1950s. The major drawback is that it is huge and heavy. It can be bought for about $100 give or take $20. I sold it to buy the Nikkor 85/2.
probably wide open on Tri-X:
• 100/3.5 Canon - Sharp, tiny 6 element lens. Great for travel.
  

Nikon

• 85/2 Nikkor compact chrome early Nikon lens. It is a Sonnar design based off the Zeiss Sonnar. The Germans effectively lost their patents after WWII and Nikon couldn't build equipment for the Japanese Navy anymore, so they started making camera lenses. It's probably the smallest 85/2 for any camera system, although its chrome body makes it heavy. It's got nice center sharpness and the out-of-focus area is pleasing.
Kodak Portra 400NC, at f/2: Kodak Portra 400NC, at f/2:
• 135/3.5 Nikkor - compact chrome early Nikon lens. It is a Sonnar design based off the Zeiss Sonnar.
Here it is compared in size to the Hektor 135/4.5. It's at least 1/2 stop faster and it is smaller in size: