u/Perfect-Mode-8036

Ferrania Condor I, Kodacolorplus 200, Axel kit C41

I recently bought a LAIK heated flattening plate for about €19, with no

prior reviews or recommendations. Since I couldn’t find any real-world

tests, I decided to document mine. The results should also be applicable

to similar heated flattening plates.

This is not a product review. I only tested its primary purpose:

flattening fibre-based photographic paper.

Paper:

- Fomabrom Variant 111 FB (glossy fibre paper)

Test procedure:

The metal plate (which appears to be stainless steel, although I cannot

confirm the material) was thoroughly cleaned before use.

The plate was preheated before every test.

Each print was placed emulsion side up.

To protect the print, I made a simple sandwich using two sheets of

tissue paper: - one below the print, - one above the print.

No additional pressure was applied other than the plate itself.

Test sequence:

Test 1 - 80°C - 60 seconds

Test 2 - 85°C - 60 seconds

Test 3 - 90°C - 90 seconds

Each print was photographed/scanned before and after flattening.

Results:

Flattening: Excellent.

All prints became essentially flat.

Surface: This was the biggest surprise.

The paper feels noticeably denser and more homogeneous after treatment,

almost like a pressed illustration board rather than a traditional fibre

print.

The surface also appears slightly smoother and more uniform.

Dmax

I compared the scans before and after flattening.

I could not measure any objective increase in Dmax.

However, when viewing the physical prints under normal lighting, there

is a slight subjective impression of deeper blacks. This may simply be

the result of a smoother surface reflecting light more evenly rather

than an actual increase in silver density.

At this stage I consider this an observation, not a proven effect.

Conclusion

For €19, I’m genuinely impressed.

If your goal is simply to flatten FB prints, this little plate performs

far better than I expected.

I’m attaching the before/after scans and the test prints.

Ferrania Condor I, KodacolorPlus 200, Axel C41

Capture
• Ferrania Condor I
• Fomapan 100
• Developed in Amaloco AM74 for 5 minutes

Printing
• Durst M305 enlarger
• Schneider Componon 50 mm f/4
• Aperture: f/11
• Paper: Fomabrom Variant 111
• Magenta filtration (25M, 30M, 35M and 60M)
• Bellini BWD 100
• Fomacitro stop bath
• Fomafix fixer
• Bellini Sel Tone 1+19 selenium toner

Test prints
• 25M × 10 s
• 25M × 11 s
• 35M × 9 s
• 60M × 9 s
• 30M × 10 s

Final print
• 30M × 10 s
• Bellini Sel Tone 1+19

Among all the possible paths, in the end I chose to follow the character of the camera and the negative.

Konica Autoreflex T3, Soligor 135mm 2.8, Kodacolor plus 200, Axel Color C41 Kit

Following up on a previous post.

Final workflow:

• Camera: Ricoh 500RF
• Film: Fomapan 200 Creative
• Developer: Amaloco AM74 (5 min)
• Paper: Fomaspeed Variant 313 Pearl
• Enlarger: Durst M305 + CLS305

Final print:

• Filter: 50M
• Exposure: 7 s
• Light dodging on the tree

I then made three final versions:

1. No selenium
2. Selenium 1+39
3. Selenium 1+19

After comparing the prints, I settled on the 1+39 version.

Thanks to everyone who commented on the previous thread and suggested paying attention to the tree and overall contrast.

Which version would you pick?

Konica Autoreflex T3, Soligor 135mm 2.8, Kodacolor plus 200, Axel Color C41 Kit

35mm negative → darkroom print.

Shot on a Ricoh 500RF with Fomapan 200, developed in Amaloco AM74.

Printed on Fomaspeed Variant 313 Pearl using a Durst M305 enlarger.

The two prints shown here were made from the same negative.

• Print A: M40, 3 seconds
• Print B: M40, 4 seconds

No dodging or burning. Same paper, same chemistry, same processing.

Which one would you choose, and why?

I'm especially interested in comments about highlight retention, tonal separation and overall print balance.

First image: original negative.
Second and third images: the two print versions.

[supprimé]

Ferrania Condor I, Fomapan 100, Amaloco Am 74 for 5 minutes

Kodak Retina IIIc, Kodak color plus 200, Axel C41 3 Bath

I have just completed my first home C-41 roll and wanted to share both the results and the workflow, since there isn't much information available online about the Axel Color Newbies kit.

Film: Kodak ColorPlus 200
Camera: Kodak Retina IIIc
Tank: AP Mono Tank
Chemistry: Axel Color C41 3 Bath
Working volume: 500 ml
Scanning: Epson V350 Photo

Temperature control

I used a sous-vide circulator and water bath.

The bath was set to 40°C, while the process itself was intended to run at 38°C. I chose this approach to compensate for heat loss from the bottles, tank and surrounding environment.

The chemistry bottles were pre-heated in the bath before use. The loaded tank was also kept in the water bath during waiting periods between steps to help maintain temperature.

One issue I encountered was that the chemistry bottles tended to float while warming up, so I'd be interested in hearing how others handle this.

Workflow

• Pre-soak: 5 min at 38°C
• Developer: 3 min 15 sec
  • first 30 sec continuous agitation
  • then 4 inversions every 30 sec
• Blix: 6 min
  • first minute continuous agitation
  • then 10 sec agitation every minute
• Wash: 6 min
• Stabilizer: 1 min
  • 15–20 sec initial agitation, then stand

Results

I'm attaching:

• photographs of the negatives on a light table
• Epson V350 scans with corrections disabled
• a few scans after only basic black point, white point and contrast adjustments

The negatives appear consistent to me and the scans look reasonably good after minimal correction, but I'd appreciate feedback from people with more experience developing C-41 at home.

Questions

1. Do the negatives look properly developed?
2. Does the overall density look normal for Kodak ColorPlus 200?
3. Do you see any signs of development issues that I may be missing?
4. Does the temperature-control approach seem reasonable?
5. Based on the negatives alone, would you consider this first run validated?

I know there isn't much documentation available about this chemistry, so hopefully the workflow, negatives and results may also be useful to someone attempting their first home C-41 process with the same kit.

Thanks for any feedback.

I have just completed my first home C-41 roll and wanted to share both the results and the workflow, since there isn't much information available online about the Axel Color Newbies kit.

Film: Kodak ColorPlus 200
Camera: Kodak Retina IIIc
Tank: AP Mono Tank
Chemistry: Axel Color C41 3 Bath
Working volume: 500 ml
Scanning: Epson V350 Photo

I used a sous-vide circulator and water bath.

The bath was set to 40°C, while the process itself was intended to run at 38°C. I chose this approach to compensate for heat loss from the bottles, tank and surrounding environment.

The chemistry bottles were pre-heated in the bath before use. The loaded tank was also kept in the water bath during waiting periods between steps to help maintain temperature.

One issue I encountered was that the chemistry bottles tended to float while warming up, so I'd be interested in hearing how others handle this.

Workflow:

• Pre-soak: 5 min at 38°C
• Developer: 3 min 15 sec
  • first 30 sec continuous agitation
  • then 4 inversions every 30 sec
• Blix: 6 min
  • first minute continuous agitation
  • then 10 sec agitation every minute
• Wash: 6 min
• Stabilizer: 1 min
  • 15–20 sec initial agitation, then stand

I'm attaching:

• photographs of the negatives on a light table
• Epson V350 scans with corrections disabled
• a few scans after only basic black point, white point and contrast adjustments

The negatives appear consistent to me and the scans look reasonably good after minimal correction, but I'd appreciate feedback from people with more experience developing C-41 at home.

Questions:

1. Do the negatives look properly developed?
2. Does the overall density look normal for Kodak ColorPlus 200?
3. Do you see any signs of development issues that I may be missing?
4. Does the temperature-control approach seem reasonable?
5. Based on the negatives alone, would you consider this first run validated?

I know there isn't much documentation available about this chemistry, so hopefully the workflow, negatives and results may also be useful to someone attempting their first home C-41 process with the same kit.

Thanks for any feedback.

Part of an ongoing series of portraits that reinterpret well-known portraits from art and photography.

Ferrania Condor I • Fomapan 100 • Amaloco AM74

Comments and critiques welcome.

I'm a lucky guy because I was given a Durst M305. Now I have a happy choice between two lenses? Which one would you use?

Some time ago, I shot a photo at an outdoor Muay Thai exhibition using a Konica Autoreflex T3 with a 50mm lens on Fomapan 100 film.
The frame captured the fighter in the corner of the ring during the opening ritual. The scene was illuminated by direct sunlight, but the girl's face was completely in shadow, sitting around Zone 4 or 5 on the negative.

In the darkroom, I faced the typical limitation of Fomapan 100 in these scenarios: severe midtone compression that left the grays on her face completely muddy and flat.

To print the negative on 13x18 cm paper, using Ilford Multigrade IV Deluxe Pearl and an Axomat Student enlarger with the lens set to f/8, I first had to adjust the framing. At the top, there was a section of white, completely opaque sky with no detail. I chose to exclude it by raising the enlarger head just enough to crop out about two centimeters of the frame, and then re-focused on the grain using a grain magnifier.

To fix the muddy grays on the face and simultaneously achieve deep blacks on the ring, I realized I could not use medium contrast filters. I needed to sharply separate the close tonal values, so I placed an Ilford Multigrade 4.5 filter in the drawer. Due to the raised head and the high density of the filter, the total exposure time increased to 42 seconds.

At that point, I needed to shift the face into a clean and bright Zone 6 without compromising the rest of the image. Since 13x18 cm is a small format, using my hands to dodge would have been too imprecise. Instead, I built a specific tool: a thin wire with a small oval of Patafix (Blu-Tack) on the end, molded to match the proportions of the face projected on the easel.

I started the exposure and held the tool in the light path for the first 10 seconds, keeping it in constant micro-oscillation to blend the edges and avoid any harsh transition lines on the paper. At the 10-second mark, I removed the dodging tool, allowing the light to hit the entire sheet for the remaining 32 seconds.

Finally, I developed the print in Bellini D100 chemistry, diluted 1+9, for exactly 90 seconds at 20°C with constant, gentle agitation. The combination of the high-contrast filter and local light subtraction worked: the background and the ring reached maximum black density, while the face shifted into a clean Zone 6, with the grays finally separated and no longer muddy.

How do you usually handle Fomapan 100’s muddy midtones when printing?

I finally managed to find the time to test the grandmother of all my cameras: the Ferrania Condor I, made in 1948 in Florence by Officine Galileo.

The camera has a rangefinder viewfinder for focusing, plus a wider Galilean viewfinder for composing the shot. Since it doesn’t have a light meter, every shot is a bit cumbersome to set up, but I’ve noticed that it forces me to slow down and think — which honestly isn’t a bad thing.

Before shooting with it, though, I had to open it up and repair the rangefinder, which had completely lost its contrast. Over time, the secondary mirror inside the rangefinder loses the silver coating that makes it semi-reflective. I fixed it by applying a small piece of semi-reflective adhesive film, the kind normally used for tinting windows.

Once the rangefinder was calibrated, I loaded a roll of Fomapan 100 following the instructions in the manual, inserting the film leader into the slot on the left side of the take-up spool. Apparently I wasn’t careful enough, because as you can see from the photo of the negative strips, the film gradually drifted downward and eventually even jammed, causing a few accidental double exposures. It was just a loading mistake, since I didn’t have the same issue in another test roll.

Anyway, I took it to a neighborhood festival, shot a roll, and developed everything in Amaloco AM74 for 5 minutes. These are the results. The lens has a soft, forgiving rendering that is very kind to skin and wrinkles, and I really love that look. What do you think? Any criticism or advice?

Sono finalmente riuscito ad avere il tempo di testare la nonna di tutte le mie fotocamere, la Ferrania Condor I, prodotta nel 1948 a Firenze, nelle Officine Galileo.

La macchina è dotata di un mirino telemetrico per la messa a fuoco e di un mirino più largo di tipo galileiano per guardare l'inquadratura. Considerando che non ha esposimetro, ogni scatto è un pochino macchinoso, ma ho notato che mi costringe a pensare e non è un male.

Prima di scattare, però, mi è toccato aprirla per riparare il telemetro che aveva perso tutto il contrasto. Col passare del tempo, lo specchio secondario del telemetro perde la lucidatura argentata che lo rende semiriflettente. Ho risolto applicando un pezzettino di pellicola adesiva semi riflettente di quelle che si usano per oscurare i vetri delle finestre.

Tarato il telemetro, ho caricato una pellicola fomapan 100 alla maniera consigliata dal manuale delle istruzioni, inserendo la linguetta nella fessura a sinistra del tamburo, ma non devo essere stato molto attento visto che la linea dei negativi, come potete vedere dalla foto delle strisce, ha preso un trend discendente e sul finale si è perfino incastrata provocando alcune multiesposizioni. Ho solo caricato male, perché in un altro test non ho avuto questo problema.

Insomma, sono andato a una festa di quartiere e ho scattato, per poi sviluppare il tutto in Amoloco Am 74 per 5 minuti. Questi sono i risultati. L’obiettivo ha un fuoco mordido molto clemente con la pelle e le rughe, e questa cosa mi piace molto. Cosa ne pensate? Critiche? Consigli?