First film bulk-loading. Woot!

[shadowfox]

With a sense of trepidation I pulled the film from the tank and reel... and yess! there are pictures in there, no signs of light leak either, so the Soligor bulk-loader I got is in good condition. 

The film is really Arista Premium 400, not Tri-X (although, I doubt that there are a lot of films out there that has anti-halation layer dissolving into purple when the developer is poured out  :rolleyes:).

Another thing I learned is that I need to put in about 16 count of frames to get 12.  Is this what y'all find also?

Anyways, I'll scan the pics later and post it in this thread.

Thanks to Pete, Larry, and others who make the discussions on bulk-loading become a lesson and encouragement for a first timer like me.

[BillyBob]

With a sense of trepidation I pulled the film from the tank and reel... and yess! there are pictures in there, no signs of light leak either, so the Soligor bulk-loader I got is in good condition.

Excellent!

Another thing I learned is that I need to put in about 16 count of frames to get 12.  Is this what y'all find also?

Yep.  To account for the leader, and to make sure that the final frame is a whole one, I usually do 40-42 clicks for a 35 exposure film.  I like those 7-rows-of-5-frames PrintFile things; they fit nicely in a regular binder, and you can contact print on an 8x10 sheet.  Hence the 35 exposures instead of 36.

And bulk rolling is great for "test rolls" - as you've seen.  Not sure of effective film speed; your 12 exposure rolls are perfect.

Of course, since the amount of wasted film is constant per film (leader plus end), longer rolls are more economical.

cheers!
Bill

[radiophoto]

::wistful::  Ah, yes, I can still remember my first time.

Congratulations, Will!  I've got one test roll done of some Plus-X that came in the Lloyd's loader I got in the mail the other day, and another one set to go (same stuff) in the Kiev 4a from Kirk that arrived last night.  Both are between 12-20 exposures.  I hope to develop both of them by tomorrow.

[Julio1fer]

Another thing I learned is that I need to put in about 16 count of frames to get 12.  Is this what y'all find also?

Will, glad it worked - congratulations and welcome to the club!

My own habit is to load either 36-frame normal rolls (30 turns), or 10-frame test rolls (13 turns). I rarely do test rolls anymore.

[radiophoto]

::wistful::  Ah, yes, I can still remember my first time.

Congratulations, Will!  I've got one test roll done of some Plus-X that came in the Lloyd's loader I got in the mail the other day, and another one set to go (same stuff) in the Kiev 4a from Kirk that arrived last night.  Both are between 12-20 exposures.  I hope to develop both of them by tomorrow.

My film mentioned above appears to be no good.  No light leaks, just old stuff, I guess.  Hardly any viable images, even when shot with flash.  If anything, I overexposed, but everything's super faint.  Better luck with yours, Will!

[LarryD]

Congrats and you are welcome... I am going to shoot a short roll of the Supposed Tri-X that came in the old bulk loader in a few to see how old it is.... I know the old TMX is about 1 stop slow so I shall see what the Tri-X is... Diafine is my friend with some of this old film .

[shadowfox]

Here are two rather contemplative shots from the 12 bulk-loaded roll:

[radiophoto]

Hey, hey!  Really nice, Will.  You didn't say which camera helped you produce these.

[shadowfox]

Thank ye, Pete.

Die Kamera ist ein Agfa Super Silette.

[LarryD]

Well the Tri-X in the bulk loader I got seems OK but there was some edge fogging... I am going to rip out about 15 feet and try another roll I got 800 in Diafine.

[jamesmck]

Will - There seems to something odd about these scans.  Were they scanned as color from b/w?  Reason I ask is that when I apply some "auto color correction", they turn a little purplish.  If I convert to monochrome first and then do auto correction, this doesn't happen (but the image seems improved).  If you are scanning in color, do the negatives have a purplish cast?

James

[shadowfox]

James,

You're correct, these are scanned as color. 

I usually do that when scanning b&w rolls because sometimes I like the way it came out, there seem to be no rhyme or reason on the hue, sometimes it is greenish, purplish, or brown even within one roll.

These two in particular are left alone straight out of the scanner.  Because I like the "toning" effects on it.

I'm interested in the "improved" version that you tweaked, btw.

[radiophoto]

Agfa Zuper Zilette?  Ach du lieber Augustine, I haff von uff doze.  Der raynch-finder iss off on mein.  A leedle beet.

[jamesmck]

Will,

These two didn't have much 'punch' on my monitor, and I just wanted to see if something simple might improve.  I did "auto levels" and increased contrast in Photoshop (after converting to grayscale) and this helped.  I find that almost always I need to do a little diddling after scanning (unless this is done beforehand with the scanning software) to get acceptable images.  This is really no different than altering times and apertures or enlarger filters to change contrast when doing wet prints. 

What you describe about different color tints on negatives within rolls sounds odd.  Is this with all types of b/w film?  Is it visible when looking at the negatives or does it only show up after scanning?

James

[shadowfox]

James,

Yeah, as of late my taste in B&W photos has shifted to lower contrast ones.
Maybe those hours staring at platinum/palladium print examples has finally got into me

Same here, I like to tweak scanned files also.  My favorite tool is Lightroom.  I especially like its "toning" module.

Back to the different hues, it's not on the negative.  I speculate that it has something to do with the way the scanner trying to map a monochrome image (the negative) into three different color channels (RGB).

To me, it has no impact on my processing because I can always get rid of the hue.  Or keep it as the above two photos.