Worthy of Redundancy

Ultrafine Xtreme! It seems a little silly to brand something with "Ultra" and "Extreme" in the title. In Latin, the prefix 'ultra' means 'extremely' or 'beyond'. So they are trying to send a message here. They want us to know that this film is fine grained. Now if you've shot enough film, you know that these claims are largely created by the marketing department of the film company and don't always hold true in real life. Especially with black and white film, grain is affected by so many variables from EI (exposure index or apparent iso) to the plethora of developers, dilutions, temperatures, agitation schemes... The list goes on. So I'll be forgiven if I approach "Ultrafine Xtreme" film with a touch of skepticism. This is compounded by the very (not Xtremely) reasonable price, which in Western culture means lower quality. I bought 10 rolls of 120 Ultrafine Xtreme 100 for around $5 per roll. For comparison, Ilford Delta 100 and Kodak T-Max 100 are both over the $6 mark (what? no more Acros 100?? BOOOOO! to Fuji!!!). So let's see what my $1 per roll savings is going to cost me.

I loaded my roll up in my 'chrome-tastic' Bronica S2a (read more about that camera here) with the always pleasant and reliable Nikkor-O-C 50mm f/2.8 lens. This is the sharpest medium format option I have and a great camera to use, so why not? I shot the film at iso 100 because that's what the box says on it. Can I push it? Can I pull it? What are it's reciprocity characteristics? None of these questions mattered. I just wanted to shoot it straight and see what the baseline is. And that's what I did.

Before I get to the shots, I'll describe my development scheme briefly for the home developers out there that nerd out on this kind of stuff. I used two DIY developers mixed together. First was My-tol (Kodak X-tol look-alike). I mixed that up at 2:1. Then I added some Parodinal at 1:100. I developed the film for 11 minutes at around 70F using the usual agitation scheme (constant for the first minute and then 4 inversions every 30 seconds). Fixer was Ilford Rapid Fix 1:4. There, how's that for brief?

One of the tough subjects when it comes to fine grain and sharp lenses is animal fur. I scanned this shot at 1200 dpi and I think I am running out of pixels before I run into grain.

Here is a 100% crop of that shot.

I have to say I was impressed. At least with this developurr combination (sorry), this film does indeed show very very fine grain. Is it "Ultrafine"? Well, we are dealing with sort of subjective, qualitative terminology here, so I'm going to say YES! It is Ultrafine! Put this film behind your sharpest lens, develop it with a high accutance developer, and be confident that you are going to get some Xtremely good results. "But James", you say. "Doesn't high accutance and sharpness mean that the low contrast areas are going to look grainy?" Let's see. Here is a 100% crop of the blank out of focus wall behind the subject.

The answer is "yes, there is some visible grain." Is it distracting? Is it "golf ball grain"? No. It is what I would characterize as "filmy" grain. It's the grain that lets you know that you are shooting film. I personally like grainy film (usually). The exception to that rule was Fuji Acros in Caffenol-CL. That was so smooth and creamy and lovely. I could just stare at the blurry backgrounds. But usually I like to have some grain in the image just as a creative device, sort of like the way I left the S2a film mask in this image as a border. It's a layer of abstraction that adds interest.

Now we come to the 'caveat emptor'. Here we see what saving $1 cost me. There were two shots on the roll of 12 that had artifacts. These looked like perfectly round clear spots on the film. I don't think that they were air bubbles that didn't get developed since that is not ever a problem with my agitation and there were only two of them on the whole roll. I think these are actually flaws in the emulsion. Take a look near the bottom of the gate. I'll keep an eye out for more of these in future rolls. I hope this is a Xtremely rare slip up by the QA department. If it is truly a "feature" of this film, I'll probably spend the extra $1 per roll and use T-max. But if not, if it turns out that Ultrafine Xtreme 100 is a good reliable fine grained film, then I will certainly buy more.

Vericolor III Expired

If you read the post on DIY 120 Film, then this will be old news. Skip to the pictures.

A couple of weeks ago, I found a deal on a 100ft roll of 70mm film. The film expired in 1989 and the seller didn't know how it had been stored, so was selling it at a deep discount. I bought it, knowing the risk. If it had been stored in a San Diego car trunk, chances were that it would be so badly fogged that it wouldn't be usable. However, if it had been stored refrigerated or in a freezer, it could very well make some nice images. As with most 'aged' film, the grain would be pronounced and the speed would decrease about one stop per decade. Vericolor III had a nominal speed of 160, so I decided to shoot it almost 2 stops slower at iso 50. I cut off 1 cm from the edge using the film slitter I made (see link above) and loaded it into my Bronica S2a. I shot the roll and developed it with an old-ish Unicolor C-41 kit at normal times and temps. The uncorrected scans have a bluish cast, but that is pretty easily corrected with the Epson Scan software. It actually does a pretty good job with the 'automatic' corrections it does. So here are a few shots off of that roll. It isn't high art, just some test shots to see how the color and grain fared over the last 26 years.

Zenza Bronica S2a

There isn't a lot (or maybe anything) worth saying about this camera that hasn't already been said. You can Google-up it's history, versions, lenses, accessories, user manuals, etc. So why does the internet need one more article about the Zenza Bronica S2a? Well, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, I (as do most people who blog or write for any media) like to hear myself talk (or type as the case may be). Seriously, I look at my stats and realize that only a handful of people worldwide will every stop and read this. So I write for my own amusement. Secondly, when I am researching something like which medium format camera to buy, I search and read voraciously and I really appreciate people sharing their thoughts and experiences regarding the item I am looking at. Pictures of the item are nice, but I want to hear about how you love the glass or how you hate the WLF. These are the things that drive my decisions... people's passions about the item in question.

With that in mind, I will tell my story...

I got my tax refund. I wonder how many camera purchase stories start that way. I'll be a LOT! I have a Yashica Mat 124 G that I really loved, but it fell off of a shelf onto a concrete floor and now leaks. I try to plug the leaks with gaffer's tape, but between the aesthetic of a taped up camera and having to constantly check to make sure the leaks are still plugged, I just don't use it much anymore. Shame really. I could have bought another 124G, but I started thinking about the SLR family of medium format cameras. A Hassleblad was well out of my budget, so I started looking at the 'upright' types like the Pentax 67 and the Pentacon Six. One of the appeals of this type of camera is that it has a familiar feel for 35mm SLR shooters. You hold it up to your eye and actuate the shutter with your right forefinger. So I looked at those for a while, considering what kinds of lenses I could afford for each and stay on budget. I am not wealthy by American standards, so my camera budget is modest. While looking around studying these two and the Kiev offerings, I came across a review that I had read before, but not really considered, and had actually forgotten. Even if you are not interested in this camera, the review and photos are worth reading. Zenza Bronica MADNESS! over on moominstuff. There is also a very good thread over on Filmwasters. These two reads are largely what sent me down the WLF/Hassy Clone path. I found the looks of the S2a to be very charming. The chrome accents were straight out of a 1950's cafe or soda fountain.

The descriptions of the sound of the shutter on this camera are a bit hyperbolic, but based in fact. It is loud, like a Japanese shinai coming down on your bogu men. It will turn heads, so if stealth and discretion is the name of your photographic game, save up and get the Hassleblad, or something else with a leaf shutter. I like it, personally. the great "THA-WHACK" of the shutter lets people around you know that you are shooting vintage. About 1 in 2 dozen or so people will comment positively and maybe half of the time they want to talk more about it. I like talking about old cameras, especially with young people (I'm 47, so sort of in the middle presently). They often have a curiosity, but also often don't quite "get it". I was at the Japanese Garden in Los Angeles recently and a mom and her ~ 12 yr old daughter wanted to look at the big camera around my neck. I gave them a brief tour of the features and took the film back off to show them the size of the negative. The girl's eyes lit up when I wound it and fired the shutter. Big smiles all around. Love that.

The camera itself is a bit of an engineering marvel. The idea behind it was to improve upon the Hassleblad. In some ways they succeeded. Partnering with Nikon to make the lenses and do the QC on the cameras was a stroke of genius. The camera itself will surprise you with some of the features. The fact that the focusing helicoid is separate from the lens and the body is very cool and kept the price of the lenses down. The body "knows" whether the shutter is cocked and also knows whether the film is wound. That means you can wind the film and cock the shutter, then change the back to one that hasn't been wound and the camera won't fire until you wind the film. Awesome! Inversely, if you have not wound the film or cocked the shutter and then switch to a back on which the film has been wound, you can turn the crank to cock the shutter without winding the film and losing a frame. Spectacular! The shutter won't fire with the dark slide in and the back won't come off without the dark slide in. The dark slide won't come out of the back when it is not mounted on the camera. Like I said, a marvel.

I would recommend a good strap for this camera. It is not light by any stretch of the imagination and a thin leather one will make you want to swing it around and pitch it like those olympic hammer thrower guys. I highly recommend the Op-Tech Pro line. They make them with the correct attachments for the Bronica lugs. There are two versions so make some careful measurements and order the right one.

I should say in conclusion, that I really like this camera. The weight helps me to hold it steady when using the WLF (waist level finder). The ergonomics are good for my hand size and the size and sound help me meet other people who are interested in old cameras. On the down side, the view finder could use some help. It is not very easy to focus with, even with the nifty pop up magnifier. There are brighter fresnel lenses that will fit, so I may get one of those and see if it helps. There is also a well-known problem with degradation of the foam under the ground glass. This is easily fixed, so it is only worth mentioning for those who want to buy a 50 year old camera in perfect working order and never have it serviced. Over all, the benefits outweigh the liabilities by a mile. I am going to really enjoy shooting with this camera for a long time. Let me know if you have experiences good or bad. I like to talk to others about old cameras. ;)