Following up on the previous post in which I detailed my process for developing C-41, here is a quick experiment trying to develop at 38°C instead of the 30°C I have used until now. According to the feedback I got from experts, there are probably more disadvantages than just the timing when lowering the processing temperatures. You may follow the discussion on APUG for all the details.

In order to further compare the results and figure out what kind of differences it make, I scanned the two strips together. It can be tricky to compare negatives by scanning them because the scanner or scanner software always applied some curves and corrections to the images. As far as I can tell, the only way to really make sure the exact same processing is applied to the two negatives is to scan them in a single image. This way, whatever the scanner or software applies to the images we are at least sure that the same is applies to the two things we want to compare. 

The two images above are the same scan but with the white balance and exposure adjusted for either the top or bottom strip. The adjustments are applied to the whole image in order to keep things comparable within each image. I did not try to make the image look especially good but just adjusted the white balance using the grey wall in the middle of the center image and then adjusted the exposure to get exactly the same grey on both strips. This allow to confirm that the bottom strip is brighter (as would be expected from the darker negative). It also shows that there is significantly different color cast on the two strip: when adjusted for the top strip, the bottom one has a cyan cast to it and when adjusted to the bottom one the top one has a red cast to it. This comparison cannot tell which is more "correct" than the other but there is clearly a big difference. 

It is not possible to fully conclude anything from this experiment but I really did not expect to see such a big difference. Is it all because of the processing temperature? Could it be because somehow I did not have the exact right temperature or time? At 30°C I have very very consistent results, all the differences I have ever seen are on the level of tiny differences, never such a big jump in color balance or exposure. I have to process more film at 38°C to see if I get the same consistency. If it is the case, I can then confirm that the big difference I observe here is really related to the temperature of the processing.

Note: One thing I was worried about was having uneven development when developing at 38°C because I have seen a couple of instance of people having the problem. On the piece of film I have developed there are no sign of any issues, that is reassuring. In terms of agitation, I used the stick for the first 10-15 sec and then 2 inversions every 30 sec.

Here is the development process I currently use:​

1. Prepare a water bath at 30°C to bring all chemicals to temperature (Developer, Stop, Blix and Stabilizer).
2. Load the film in the developing tank and put the tank in the 30°C bath as well for about 5 minutes.
3. C-41 Developer at 30°C for 8'00" with agitation the first 15s (with twisting the stick) and 10s (3 inversions) every minute. Tap the tank and put it back in the 30°C water bath after every agitation. To account for the Developer being re-used and slightly diluted, after the 5th batch developed with the same 1L of developer, I increase the time to 9'00" instead of 8'00". I dispose of the chemistry after the 10th batch.
4. Stop bath at 30°C for 0'30" with continuous agitation (with twisting the stick).
5. Blix at 30°C for 6'00" with agitation the first 15s (with twisting the stick) and 10s (3 inversions) every minute. Tap the tank and put it back in the 30°C water bath after every agitation.
6. "Ilford" wash with tap water at 30°C. 1 inversion + dump. 5 inversions + dump. 10 inversions + dump. 20 inversions + dump. 20 inversions, let it sit one minute + dump. Repeat the last if the wash water is not clear (with some film it is necessary).
7. Stabilizer at 30°C for 1'00" with slow continuous agitation (with twisting the stick).
8. Hang the film to dry. I do not use and squeegee but sometimes remove some of the liquid from the film by squeezing it between two fingers. I have not decided what the best strategy is as far as some possible drying marks vs some possible scratches but that is not specific to color negative film :-)

​So far, that is the process that I have come to and I get results which I am happy with. I believe that it is a good process for me or any body developing low volume manually. I would use a different strategy if doing higher volume or professional work. Bellow are the reasons / explanations / discussions / experiments for the different choices.

To bring the chemicals to temperature and keep the temperature correct, I use a large 10L water bath at 30°C and put all the chemicals and the developing tank in it at all times during the process. When using a Jobo processor, the automatic temperature control is very convenient and very precise but I do not have one at home and found that it is reasonably easy to keep within 1°C of the target temperature by using a thermometer and adding a bit of hot water once in a while. Technically, it is important to be very consistent and precise during the developer step but for the rest a couple of degrees up or down are not a problem at all (the instructions for the kit give some wide ranges of acceptable temperatures for the Blix and Stabilizer).

UPDATE: Following the discussion on APUG, it seems that developing at 30°C has more impact on the development than just making the development time longer. It could result in negatives that are inferior in quality and harder to print / scan. See my next post here about an initial experiment at 38°C. I will develop at 38°C for a while and update this post as I go.

The benefits of a pre-wash are (i) to get the tank and film at the right temperature before adding the developer and (ii) wash the anti-halation layer of the film (or any other coating) if the film has one. When developing black and white with one-shot developer I typically do a pre-wash for 120 film which has an anti-halation layer. For C-41 I am not sure which films have  anti-halation layers. The disadvantages with doing a pre-wash are (i) it is an extra step and (ii) the small amount of water left on the film and in the tank when pouring the developers slightly dilutes the developer. I would not mind the extra step but the dilution can really become an issue when reusing the developer over and over again.

I was a bit skeptic about the dilution issue at first but with a little experiment and calculation, I am now convinced and that is the reason why I do not pre-wash when developing C-41 film. To know how much the developer is potentially diluted a simple experiment of measuring how much of the pre-wash water actually comes out allows to estimate what is left on the film and in the tank. For 500mL of water poured in my tank containing either 1 roll of 120 or two rolls of 35mm, only between 475mL and 490mL come out of the tank. That means that between 10mL and 25mL are left on the film. When adding the developer, this small amount of water gets  mixed with it. If using a one shot developer or using you 1L in 2 or 3 development batches, the effect of this dilution is quite negligible but I intend to reuse my 1L of developer for 10 batches or mores! that means that in the end a total of between 100mL and 250mL (!!!) of water ends-up being added to the developer. That is really significant and would for sure lower the developer concentration enough to affect the results.

Remark: Some recommend the pre-soak to make sure that the developer spreads more evenly and avoids bubbling on the film. While this may have been true at some point in history and with some specific films, I really haven't seen anyone reporting issues with bubbles or uneven development when doing a normal initial agitation and taping the tank to dislodge bubbles directly with the developer so I am not including it as a benefit here.

The reason for using a stop bath is to avoid contaminating the Blix with too much developer. As explained in the previous paragraph, there is always some amount of liquid left in the tank when emptying it from the previous chemical. My estimation for a 600mL tank is that between 10mL to 25mL is typically left on the film and in the tank. That means that if the Blix is used right after the developer, it is contaminated by 10mL to 25mL of developer for every batch. That may be negligible if you are only reusing it 2 or 3 times but after 10 batches, that is more than 100mL of developer in the Blix and that would certainly create problems.

The stop bath I use is 2% acetic acid (i.e. diluted vinegar) it helps get the developer off the film and greatly dilutes and neutralizes the developer left in the tank. Of course when pouring out the stop bath, 10mL to 25mL remain in the tank and ends-up diluting/contaminating  the Blix but the acid of the stop bath is not as bad for the Blix as the alkaline developer would be. Based on this, I believe that it is very important to use a stop bath if you intend to re-use you chemicals for many batches.
​
I make my Stop bath by diluting white vinegar to 2%. In the shops the typical kitchen white vinegar is 7% or 8% but I also found some around 30%. Typically, I make a new stop bath solution every 4 or 5 batches or whenever it starts to have a brownish tint to it. The reason I use vinegar is just because it is cheap and widely available but any stop bath would do. In terms of preserving the Blix, using plain water as the stop bath would do the job almost as good but at least in theory the acid of the stop bath helps to neutralize the developer.

This is one for which there should not be any debate. The point of the Stabilizer is to be used as the final rinse! It contains a wetting agent which avoid drying marks on the film and some chemicals to "stabilize" the film (whatever that means) and prevent any mold or other parasites to develop on the film later. It has to be the last thing on your film before you hang it to dry. You should not wash after the stabilizer.

You may choose to replace the stabilizer by another wetting agent (for example Photo-Flo) but in that case there is no point in using the Stabalizer before since you are just washing it away and with it all its potential benefits. From my understanding in short term you will not see any differences but in the long term (after many years) color negative film is prone to mold growing on/in it and that is what the Stabalizer prevents in addition to being a wetting agent. That is why I use the Stabilizer for C-41 and not Photo-Flo which I use for black and white film.

Remark: In case Stabilizer leaves drying marks on the film, one option seem to be to add some Photo-Flo to it. I have not had any problems with drying marks so I have not tried. I believe that the Stabilizer (at the the one I am using) already contains a wetting agent but I am not 100% sure and maybe in some case it helps to add more.

In order to figure out how much I could reuse the chemistry and how long I could keep it, I logged how I used a single 1L kit. Bellow are the dates and film I processed with that kit.

In order to evaluate the quality of the processing, I used one of my test roll of film which contains many times the same sequence of 3 pictures and developed a small strip together with the first batch and with the last batch. To the right are the two strips next to each others on the light table. The top strip was processed with batch #10 while the bottom one was processed with batch #1. By just looking at the negative, there is no way to tell any difference between the two. To investigate a bit further, I scanned the images in RAW and applied exactly the same level adjustments to all of them. Bellow are the 6 images that were scanned. Definitely not pretty pictures but I just wanted to have some colors, shadows and highlights on these test shots in order to see if there would be any obvious differences. 

That is the hardest question and the only correct answer is that it depends. According to the instruction of the C-41 kit, the unopened concentrate are good for a couple of years the opened concentrates can be kept for 3 to 6 months and the mixed chemicals for 6 weeks for the developer and 6 month for the blix and Stabilizer. I believe that these are quite conservative numbers but it gives a good indication that the most delicate chemical is the developer.  In terms of the number of rolls which can be processed, the instruction recommend 12 to 16 rolls (35mm or 120) depending on film sensitivity (12 for film over ISO400 and 16 for film under ISO400). I typically process a mix of ISO 100 to 400 film so the chemistry should be good for 15 rolls without problems.

In terms of the number of batches, the instructions are not very specific but mention a maximum of 3 batches when processing film over ISO 400. That probably means that 5 or 6 batches can be recommended with film under ISO400. The number of batches is really something I want to be able to stretch because (i) I want to develop film as I shoot it and (ii) my biggest developing tank can only hold 2 rolls of 120 or 3 rolls of 35mm.

In summary, here is what I currently do:

• Change my chemicals after 5 month / 15 rolls / 10 batches whichever comes first.
• Test my chemistry whenever I have doubts or need to develop an "important" roll of film.

The only way to make sure the Developer and Blix are still good is to test them. The stop bath is very cheap so I change it whenever it starts to be too tinted. The Stabilizer should be good for a very long time so there is no need to worry about it (unless it can have been contaminated by some other chemicals). There are two ways I use to test the chemicals: and quick and dirty one and a proper one which takes quite some time. The quick and dirty use the film leader and allows making sure that the developer and blix are not completely dead and that some sort of images will be developed. It does not allow to ensure that the chemistry is good enough to get good quality images. The proper one consist of developing a test piece of film and compare the results with a control. It is time consuming but really the only way to be sure that the developer and blix are fully functional.

Quick and Dirty: Dip half the film leader in developer and let the developer sit on the film for 2 or 3 minutes. Rinse with water. Dip the whole film leader in blix and leave it in blix for 1 or 2 minutes. Rinse with water. As a result, the film leader should be clear for the part that has not been in the developer and dark where it has been in developer. If the result is different, for example all clear, all dark or no clear difference between the two parts, it means that you chemistry is completely dead. In case you get the expected pattern, it does not mean that your chemistry is good but at least it is guarantied that you will get some sort of images. I do not think that we can test more than that using the film leader.

Proper Test: This is quite simple but more time consuming. The idea is to develop a piece of film and compare it with a control. The important part to be able to do that is to actually have a piece of film and a control which are comparable, that requires a bit of planning up-front. For that, you have to shoot a test roll of film. What I do is that I shoot a whole roll of film with the same sequence of 3 or 4 pictures. What is important is to make sure that the pictures are about the same across the whole roll and that the same pictures are shot with the same settings. This is to make sure that images are fully comparable. In terms of the pictures themselves, I try to make sure that there is a good selection of different bright colors and both some shadows and highlights. Once you have this test roll, the idea is to develop a small section of it with your first batch, right after mixing you chemistry. This is going to be the control. Later, whenever you are unsure or want to get a good test of your chemistry, you can develop another small section of the test roll and compare it with the control. I would really encourage you to make this test roll and control right away if you are starting, it is a very good tool to have later if you want to make sure you have perfect images quality and not through away perfectly good chemistry. It is not a very expensive investment and can allow you to reuse the chemistry over and over again without taking any risks.

Bellow is an example of what you can get. This test was done on chemistry mixed 7 month before and developing 11 rolls of film. The results shows that the density of the negatives are pretty similar but some defects starts to show. If you look at the colors on the positive image on the right, it seems that the yellows are fading away on the bottom strip compared to the top. On this test roll I was not very consistent in taking exactly the same pictures but a difference is clearly visible between picture #3 on top and picture #1 in the bottom and also picture #4 on tom and picture #3 on the bottom. In that case I was testing an old batch of chemistry to know if it would be good enough to process a 25 year old roll of exposed film which I found in the attic. I was really not sure if there were any pictures at all on that roll and how good they would be. After this test, I decided to go ahead and develop despite the small color shift and I got some pictures of me as a kid :-).

Another example of a test don with another test roll and for another batch of chemistry can be seen in the section "Example usage log for a Colortec C-41 1L kit" above.

Processing C-41 is easy and reasonably cheap. The process described here typically allows me to process an average 12 rolls per liter of of chemistry. The last I bought is a 5L kit. I hope that the concentrate will keep long enough and not go bad before I can use it. time will tell! I hope you have found some useful information on this page and do no hesitate to leave me comments questions or suggestions! 

When googling for self developing C-41 many many forum posts, tutorials and review come up. Many of them just basically repeat the instruction manual of a specific kit or contain one process without much explanations. Bellow are a few links to the ones which I have found the most useful when getting started and elaborating my own process.

• TETENAL C-41 Rapid Negative Kit Review: Experiments showing the differences in the results obtained when developing with manual agitation at 38°C and  30°C. This review is the reason I went for 30°C right away.
• Home Processing of C-41 Color Negative Film: Some good description of the development process step by step. And a discussion on adding FotoFlo directly in the Stabilizer if you experience drying mark. The article claims that the Stabilizer does not contains a wetting agent. My impression is that the one I am using contains one and I have not experiences any troubles with drying marks but that may be something to keep in mind.

To get a better feeling of the process, there are also quite a few videos on Youtube from start to finish. Here are a couple which I have watched before getting started

• Developing Color Film (C41) by The Art of Photography: Shows the process of developing with manual agitation and a simple water bath to keep temperatures.
• How To: Develop Color Print Film (C-41 Process) by ForesthillFilmLab: Processing C-41 with a Jobo processor.
• Color Film Processing by The Rescued Film Project: Processing hundreds of rolls manually !!!

Here are a few pictures of the city center of Oslo taken while walking around with the family on Saturday. I had the Nikon FM3A and Ilford HP5+ film. As a lens, I usually either take the 50mm f/1.4 or the 35mm f/2 but I wanted to test a 28mm f/2.8. The lens is in good condition but there is a little fungus on one of the internal element. I do not think that it affects the images much but I'll probably have to clean it at some point. Annyway, as a wide angle lens I have used the 24mm f/2.8 quite a lot but I want to try something between the 24mm and the 35mm to see how it works for me. I addition to the 28mm, I also took the 105mm f/2.5 to have a longer lens (the 105mm is one of my favorite Nikkor lens, the image quality often surprises me).

Above is a shot of the Royal Palace (Det Kongelige Slott) as seen through Karl Johans gate from the Norwegian Parliament (Stortinget) on the left. This is kind a a classic shot of Oslo but I wanted to try to get somthing like it with the 105mm lens. I am quite happy with the way it turned out. Bellow are a couple of shots of the Oslo Tram (Trikken) in two streets. Shot with the 28mm lens.

Bellow are a couple more shots with the 105mm lens. The Royal Palace on the left and Karl Johans gate on the right.

An finally bellow are a few random shots with both lenses.

Overall, this seem to be a good combination of lenses. Add the 50mm f/1.4 and it may be all I will even need. It is hard to judge if the little fungus in the 28mm has any impact on the images, I have not notices anything but of course Ilford HP5+ 400 is quite grainy and not so high resolution.

Here are a few picture taken in 1986. Most of them have been taken by me except the first one which is a picture of me :-)

And now for a test to see if the camera still works. When I found it in the attic, it was in its original soft case. The case was not in good condition, falling apart and most likely with fungus all over it. I took the camera out and through away the case. The camera itself looked pretty good, I just gave it a wipe and blow some air on the lens to remove dust. Inside, the light seals do not look too good and will probably need replacing at some point, that is really the only thing. Some quick testing seems to indicate that the light meter is still functional and prevents taking underexposed pictures by showing a little red flag in the viewfinder whenever there is not enough light. I put a roll of Ilford HP5+ 400 in it and set the ISO dial to 400. I would have liked to set it to 1600 but 400 is the maximum. Using a 24 exposure roll, I got 48 pictures! Here are a few of them:

This little Olympus seem to still work just fine! The meter seems pretty ok and all the picture came with a pretty good exposure. I took some shots indoors and outdoors in various lighting conditions. I also took a few picture using a strobe connected to the PC sync port but a couple of times the flash did not fire. I'll have to check and maybe clean some contacts. Apart from that last 10 pictures of the roll came out severely underexposed but I cannot blame the meter... I just forgot to set the camera to auto after shooting with the strobe and just left it on f/8 or something like that. This is definitely a fun camera to use and the portrait orientation is interesting. The only thing which is a bit hard is to get the focus right especially in low light with wide apertures. Quite a few shots (including some of the examples above) are not quite in focus.

For a first test, I just shot a test roll with it using a roll of Ilford HP5+ film which expired in 2005 (10 years ago!). I have shot film from the same box before and I typically shoot it at 200 instead of 400 and develop it normally. That kind of "compensate" for the expiration. The goal for this test is just to get some pictures to make sure the camera works and that I am loading and handling it properly. Since there is no much light, I needed to use a strobe to be able to shoot at 200 and I was not sure if I would be able to sync it properly. After a few tests looking though the lens (without the film back), it looks like using the sync port on the lens in X mode works fine so that is what I used. ​Using the sync port on the body also gets the strobe to fire but not at the right time, it is probably only meant to be used with slow shutter speeds, I'll have to check. Anyway, for this test, I did it very simple and setup a soft-box on the strobe and used a dark grey background. I metered with my digital camera and got an aperture of f/5.6 at ISO 200. For the shutter speed I used 1/250s.

Above are the 12 pictures I got. I scanned them in "RAW" and the applied the same basic levels adjustments to all of them. The image quality is not so good and there is some visible dust and grain but that is just because the film is severely expired which makes for some negatives with low contrast. Apart from that focusing does not seem to be so bad even if some of the pictures are off (I blame the model for that).

I looked again at the camera trying to figure out if it could be the shutter in the lens which was too slow. It does not seem so and the shutter sounds about right. It may not be perfect (I would have to do some measurements for that) but it really does not seem that 1/250 would be 2 or 3 stops slower. However, while testing I think that I have found the real issue. Sometimes when firing the shutter, the rear doors open before the lens shutter is closed. This means that in those cases the film is indeed exposed twice! This does not happen all the time but when it happens it typically does it a few times in a row. I have tested using the pre-release button and sure enough, once in a while the rear doors open while the shutter is closing.
I have also noticed that when I press the shutter release all the way in, sometimes the shutter does not fire. The rear doors opens normally with the shutter closed (or or sometime closing) but it is only when I slightly let go of the shutter release button that the shutter fires. If I press the shutter slowly, then the shutter seem to fire as it should (but sometimes there is still the problem that the rear doors open before the shutter is closed).
This seem to be a more serious problem than a slow or sticky shutter in the lens. I have no idea if this could be a fault in the body or if it is a problem with the lens shutter. Both? Hopefully not! :-) 

To get a better idea of where the problem comes from, I tested the body with another lens (and 80mm F/2.8 Plannar). Without film I can clearly see the difference. With the 150mm lens, when using the pre-release, I can clearly see the shutter closing in the lens after the back doors have opened. With other lenses, this never happens. I have tested with an 80mm and with a 250mm and no metter how many tests I make, the shutter is always closed before the back opens. When I put back the 150mm the problem is clearly visible. My guess is that the reason is that the shutter is somehow a bit sticky. It does not seem to affect the shutter speed that much but it clearly retards the closing of the shutter before it is released. Not too sure what to do about it... it seems that the fix is beyond DIY and service could be very expensive. We will see! Anyway, since the 80mm worked, I shot a second test roll with it, here are a few pictures (Same setup and expired film as the first roll but with a black background and the 80mm lens).

After the second test and a lot of testing with different lenses and without film, it seems that the camera is working perfectly as it should. So far I have not noticed any issues with the film back either, it works smoothly and there are no signs of any light leaks (I have not been shooting in bright daylight because there is no bright daylight these days). However, the 150mm f4 Sonnar lens has a faulty shutter. Knowing it, I could use it if on a tripod by putting the lens cap on, hitting the pre-release, removing the lens cap and then firing the shutter. This could work for some landscape shots but for any portrait this is not realistic. I'll have to find a way to fix it or to have it fixed!

Another walk in the forest, this time with the Nikon F3, a Nikkor 35mm f/2 lens and a roll of Kodak Gold 200 film. I would have likes to use the Pentax 6x7 but it is definitely too cold for it now (bellow 0°C the mirror often get stuck when firing the shutter which is really annoying!). The Nikon F3 on the other hand seems 100% reliable and any conditions, I have never had any issues with it. For this roll of film I chose it over the FM3 because I assume it is a bit tougher and it is better for long exposures (shutter speed goes down to 8 sec instead of 1 sec for the FM3, it has a mirror lock-up and a reliable timer). In terms of metering however I had not used the F3 for a while and I really do not like the LCD meter, the needle in the FM / FM3 is so much better!!! In addition, the meter in the F3 is totally unusable in the dark. There is a small light to light up the LCD but the button to turn it on is hard to impossible to push, especially when wearing gloves! I ended up several times using my digital camera for metering. Anyway, here are a few pictures I got.

There is not so much light in Norway at this time of the year so fast primes (in addition to push processing) are pretty much needed any time no flash is used. I have typically been using 50mm lenses (f/1.8 or f/1.4) but I often feel that I would like a slightly wider field of view so these days I am using my 35mm lenses as my default daily lens and I quite like it. I have both the Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 AI-s and the Nikon 35mm f/2 AI-s, lets compare them a bit to see which I should use. The pictures bellow show the f/1.4 on the left and the f/2 on the right.

The size and weight difference between the two is quite significant since the f/1.4 had significantly more glass. Both are quite old and in used condition but the glass is nice and clean.
The f/1.4 has a few specks of dust inside but probably not anything which could affect the pictures. I did some quick tests when I got the lens and confirmed the general opinion that it is not so good at f/1.4. The sharpness is poor across the frame and it has a lot of vignetting. From f/2 it is much better so in practice I almost never shoot it at f/1.4.  
The f/2 is in marginally better condition but has also seen some use. It is much lighter and easier to use. It is about the same size at a 50mm which makes it very convinient to carry around. It is the challenger, if it perfoms, I am considering using it instead of the f/1.4.
Here are some simple test shots with both lenses at different apertures. I am not really looking for what lens is the sharpest here but more at the overall contrast and image quality they provide in a challenging backlit scene.   

On the simple test above, the 35mm f/2 seem to give better contrast were the images from the 35mm f/1.4 is a bit washed out. I do not know how this translate when it come to 'real' images since this test is quite special and has a lot of flare which can explain the lost of contrast. I'll have to test with other images.  The size difference between the two is quite significant and since the 35mm f/1.4 is not that good at f/1.4, I am considering getting rid of it if the f/2 is on par from f/2 and up. Bellow are a few pictures shot with the 35mm f/2.

I have 4 lenses which I can use with the Pentax 6x7. I have a 90mm f/2.8 normal lens, a 45mm f/4 wide angle and two telephoto lenses 135mm f/4 and 200 f/4. Bellow are my notes on those different lenses based on  information I could find about them as well as my experience with them. I also include a few sample pictures taken with the different lenses.

The SUPER-TAKUMAR / 6x7 1:4 / 200mm was released in 1969 (see pentaxforum.com). It seems to have a quite good reputation in terms of sharpness, bokeh and durability. I can confirm the durability since we are in 2015 and the one I have is still fully functional with a smooth focusing ring. That is quite impressive considering its age and the fact that it has not been serviced recently (at least within the last 20 years). Interestingly, it seems to be a very good lens for astro-photography: People use it with digital sensors and get very good pictures of the stars. I may have to try that sometime! In terms of limitations, it seems to produce some chromatic aberrations and color fringing. I have not had issues with that since I mostly used it with black and white film. Another limitation is its minimum focusing distance of 2,5m. This is not close enough to be able to fill the frame when shooting portraits. To get around that, I need to use extension tubes. It would have been nice to have a closer focusing distance out of the box. Bellow are a few sample pictures taken with it. The last one has been taken using one extension tube to get closer.

The Super-Multi-Coated MACRO-TAKUMAR / 6x7 1:4 / 135mm was released in 1971 (see pentaxforum.com). I don't not think I have shot more than a couple of pictures with this lens for now. From the information I could find, this is a good lens for close-ups. It has macro in its name but its maximum magnification is only about 0.3x. The minimum focusing distance is 0.75m. I should probably use this lens over the 200mm for taking close-up portraits of the kids. In terms of sharpness it seems to be quite ok, especially when stopped down. I'll have to experiment with it. So far I do not have sample pictures for that one but stay tuned!

The Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR / 6x7 1:2.8 / 90mm Leaf Shutter was released in 1971 (see pentaxforum.com). This is a normal lens on 6x7. The main benefit of it is that it is one stop faster than the other lenses I have. According to the information I could find, this is not a very sharp lens.From my experince with it it is hard to say if I have noticed it. Because I am scanning the negatives with a flatbed scanner, I am not really impressed with the sharpness of the images I get but the low quality of the scan makes it difficult to blame the lens. One interesting thing about this lens is that it has a leaf shutter built-in in order to allow for flash sync at up to 1/500s. I have not use the leaf shutter so far. Because of its rather inferior optical quality compared to the other lenses, I will probably not use it too much unless this focal lens is really a must. In the same range of focal lens, the one to get seem to be a 105mm f/2.4. Bellow are a few sample pictures. More pictures taken with this lens can be found in this autumn post.

The SMC PENTAX 67 1:4 45mm is a more modern lens which was released in 1989 (see pentaxforum.com). This is a wide angle lens which field of view is approximately equivalent to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera. It is the main lens that I am using for shooting landscapes and it is the lens I typically have attached to the camera because it is the smallest in size and weight.  From what I could read it has a very good reputation in terms of sharpness, distortion and overall images quality. There seem to be no obvious cons to this lens but there is apparently a 55mm/f4 which is slightly sharper. I'll continue to use it! Bellow are a few sample pictures.

It seems that the set of lenses I have is pretty ok with the exception of the 90mm f/2.8 which is inferior to the others. If I get the opportunity I should get a 105mm f/2.4. Out of the other lenses, I should get some experience with the 135mm f/4 which seems to be a very good lens which I have neglected up until now. I will add more sample pictures as I go. I may also add pictures of the lenses themselves. Leave me your comments if you have any different experiences and/or recommendations for Pentax 6x7 lenses!

Bellow are the 9 pictures we got from this roll. The 10th picture of the roll is the portrait on my assistant above :-) Overall I am quite happy with how the pictures turned out despite the fact that the film was expired and that I shot all picture handheld.

Bellow is a shot of the developed negative next to another Fuji 35mm negative which was not expired. I have no idea how the film base of non expired Fuji PRO 400H is supposed to look like but as with other expired films, it seem a bit dark, as if the film was slightly fogged. When I hang the film to dry, I was a bit worried that the image quality would be very poor but once scanned I was quite surprised by  both the color tones and the resolution.

The Pentax 6x7 is a fun camera to use, I will for sure take it out more often. For this roll I only took the 90mm f2.8 lens (which is a normal lens on 6x7) but I also have a 45mm wide angle and a 200mm telephoto which I would like to play with.

Bellow is a strip of developed Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 which shows the various markings and patterns on the edges of the film. The color of the base of the film seems to be slighly more greenish that the Kodak films I have tested before (Kodak Gold and Kodak ColorPlus).

Bellow are a few images I got from the two rolls of Fuji Superia X-Tra 400 I have shot. I was not necessary very happy with the pictures I have got from those two rolls but I am not going to blame the film :-) The pictures were scanned with my Nikon LS-2000 film scanner using VueScan. I did not use and preset from VueScan and just saved the RAW image from the scanner. I then adjusted the curves and colors in Darktable.

So far, the scans I have got have been quite easy to work with. In comparison I think that I prefer the look of Kodak Gold and Kodak ColorPlus but they are both 200 films (I have not tested Kodak Gold 400). I have to find other 400 films to test to decide if this is a good film for me to use.