Fluidr
about   tools   help   Y   Q   a         b   n   l
User / paul.barden
Paul Barden / 1,900 items

N 35 B 288 C 0 E Jan 15, 2025 F Jan 15, 2025
  • DESCRIPTION
  • COMMENT
  • O
  • L
  • M

Rolleiflex MX (f3.5 Tessar, 1951) today and loaded it with Adox CHS 100 II. I developed it in Adox FX-39. 1:19 for 12 minutes. That little Tessar is a very good performer.

N 47 B 535 C 6 E Jan 15, 2025 F Jan 15, 2025
  • DESCRIPTION
  • COMMENT
  • O
  • L
  • M

Yesterday I repeated (roughly) the photos I made the previous day, using the same camera (Rolleiflex 3.5 MX, Tessar) but with Adox CHS 100 II film instead, for comparison purposes. This roll of Adox film was also processed using Adox's own FX-39 developer at 1:19 for 12 minutes.
This film gives the impression of greater acutance (edge effects that enhance perceived sharpness) but the grain was much more coarse, and the tonal curve was significantly different, with a more abbreviated separation of both shadow and highlight values when compared with Delta 100

N 37 B 471 C 4 E Jan 15, 2025 F Jan 15, 2025
  • DESCRIPTION
  • COMMENT
  • O
  • L
  • M

Yesterday I repeated (roughly) the photos I made the previous day, using the same camera (Rolleiflex 3.5 MX, Tessar) but with Adox CHS 100 II film instead, for comparison purposes. This roll of Adox film was also processed using Adox's own FX-39 film at 1:19 for 12 minutes.
This film gives the impression of greater acutance (edge effects that enhance perceived sharpness) but the grain was much more coarse, and the tonal curve was significantly different, with a more abbreviated separation of both shadow and highlight values when compared with Delta 100 (See: flic.kr/p/2qFgWjE)
I like this film a lot, but it isn't going to be ideal for certain uses. Great in flat (overcast) lighting!

N 45 B 512 C 11 E Jan 14, 2025 F Jan 14, 2025
  • DESCRIPTION
  • COMMENT
  • O
  • L
  • M

A different version.

I got out the old Rolleiflex MX (f3.5 Tessar, 1951) today and loaded it with Ilford Delta 100. I developed it in Adox FX-39. 1:19 for 14 minutes. That little Tessar is a very good performer. I ought to use the Rolleiflex more often.
Because this was really inexpensive (a friend sold it to me for $70 USD) I tend to neglect it, which is a mistake. It has its original focusing screen in it, and I ought to replace it, since it’s really dark and difficult to see in anything less than bright sunlight. Any tips on how to buy and install a better view screen?

N 38 B 808 C 10 E Jan 13, 2025 F Jan 13, 2025
  • DESCRIPTION
  • COMMENT
  • O
  • L
  • M

I got out the old Rolleiflex MX (f3.5 Tessar, 1951) today and loaded it with Ilford Delta 100. I developed it in Adox FX-39. 1:19 for 14 minutes. That little Tessar is a very good performer. I ought to use the Rolleiflex more often.
Because this was really inexpensive (a friend sold it to me for $70 USD) I tend to neglect it, which is a mistake. It has its original focusing screen in it, and I ought to replace it, since it’s really dark and difficult to see in anything less than bright sunlight. Any tips on how to buy and install a better view screen?

Tags:   Rolleiflex ilford Ilford film FX-39 Zeiss Tessar Tessar Ferns trees dark trees noiretblanc


0.3%