Post your recent film shots!
p.1264 #3Post your recent film shots!
James Markus wrote:
Ilford FP4 with the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 ais on a version 3 Nikon FM, Nikon LS-4000, Vuescan, NLP, Lr, and Ps. The grain is a bit overly accentuated in this, as I discovered the scanning software was making it worse than it actually was in real life. Used partially exhausted Df96 Monobath for 6 minutes at 68 degrees.
http://www.photomatter.com/2024/Edit_Nikon-FMv3_50mm-f1.2-ais_Ilford-FP4_VS-raw0022.jpg
I have found that ‘aggressive’ agitation w DF96 makes the film much grainier and with more contrast..
Ilford FP4 with the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 ais on a version 3 Nikon FM, Nikon LS-4000, Vuescan, NLP, Lr, and Ps. The grain is a bit overly accentuated in this, as I discovered the scanning software was making it worse than it actually was in real life. Used partially exhausted Df96 Monobath for 6 minutes at 68 degrees.
http://www.photomatter.com/2024/Edit_Nikon-FMv3_50mm-f1.2-ais_Ilford-FP4_VS-raw0022.jpg
I have found that ‘aggressive’ agitation w DF96 makes the film much grainier and with more contrast..
Jul 06, 2024 at 07:20 PM
p.1264 #4Post your recent film shots!
I did the "intermittent" agitation, and extended the time due to finding precipitate in the bottom of the jug. I decanted the top bit so none of it ended up in the developing tank, and afterwards topped off with water to reduce oxidation. I've only done four rolls in Df96, but it seems to enhance the edge of every grain crystal. I have Rodinal, but I fear that is an over correction - even though _jim_ gets great results. I likely will pick up some HC110. I hate the smell, but it always gave good balanced results in the past.
In this case turns out the grain that bothered me on the FP4 was the scanning software. Same frame on the LS-1000 using Silverfast ai v5 from the 1990s was way better - so I messed around with the Vuescan scanning software on the LS-4000 until it looked about the same. I basically turned off grain reduction, sharpening, and infrared dust removal (Vuescan's version of Nikon's digital ICE), and viola - that is more like what I expected. Subject - A cheap well worn Casio watch I use to wear many years ago.
LS-4000 @ 4000 dpi (cropped to match the LS-1000's perspective)
LS-1000 @ 5400 dpi
Initial scan with the LS-4000 @ 4000 dpi
Desmolicious wrote:
http://www.photomatter.com/2024/Edit_Nikon-FMv3_50mm-f1.2-ais_Ilford-FP4_VS-raw0022.jpgI have found that ‘aggressive’ agitation w DF96 makes the film much grainier and with more contrast..
In this case turns out the grain that bothered me on the FP4 was the scanning software. Same frame on the LS-1000 using Silverfast ai v5 from the 1990s was way better - so I messed around with the Vuescan scanning software on the LS-4000 until it looked about the same. I basically turned off grain reduction, sharpening, and infrared dust removal (Vuescan's version of Nikon's digital ICE), and viola - that is more like what I expected. Subject - A cheap well worn Casio watch I use to wear many years ago.
LS-4000 @ 4000 dpi (cropped to match the LS-1000's perspective)
LS-1000 @ 5400 dpi
Initial scan with the LS-4000 @ 4000 dpi
Desmolicious wrote:
James Markus wrote
Ilford FP4 with the Nikkor 50mm f1.2 ais on a version 3 Nikon FM, Nikon LS-4000, Vuescan, NLP, Lr, and Ps. The grain is a bit overly accentuated in this, as I discovered the scanning software was making it worse than it actually was in real life. Used partially exhausted Df96 Monobath for 6 minutes at 68 degrees.http://www.photomatter.com/2024/Edit_Nikon-FMv3_50mm-f1.2-ais_Ilford-FP4_VS-raw0022.jpg
Jul 06, 2024 at 07:52 PM
p.1264 #5Post your recent film shots!
Makua Beach, HI. I’ve been enjoying having a Contax G2 back in my life. But damn it eats through batteries!
Contax G2, 21mm f/2.8, Portra 800
Contax G2, 21mm f/2.8, Portra 800
Jul 06, 2024 at 08:32 PM
p.1264 #6Post your recent film shots!
Pro400H Mamiya 7ii
100% magnified crop
100% magnified crop
Jul 06, 2024 at 09:39 PM
p.1264 #7Post your recent film shots!
Hualien City, Hualien County, Taiwan.
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2023.11.26 Roll #345-08425-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2023.11.26 Roll #345-08425-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Jul 07, 2024 at 12:00 AM
p.1264 #8Post your recent film shots!
ocean2059 wrote:
Fuji GW690III + Kodak Gold 200 negative film
Beautiful!
Fuji GW690III + Kodak Gold 200 negative film
Beautiful!
Jul 07, 2024 at 05:22 AM
p.1264 #9Post your recent film shots!
Haven’t done much photography lately but getting back to it.
Leica M7 + 75 Lux + 50D
Leica M7 + 75 Lux + 50D
Jul 07, 2024 at 05:25 AM
p.1264 #10Post your recent film shots!
I've been developing my own bulk rolled vision 3 film in ECN-2 chemicals that I make up from the Kodak recipe. I've developed about 20 rolls now in it, modifying small details each time. Almost all tests though. But just for kicks I cross processed a roll of Portra 400 through it as well. Chemicals cost less than $1/roll.
Leica M7 + 35 Pre FLE + Portra 400
Leica M7 + 35 Pre FLE + Portra 400
Jul 07, 2024 at 05:45 AM
|
p.1264 #11Post your recent film shots!
lifeandmylens wrote:
I've been developing my own bulk rolled vision 3 film in ECN-2 chemicals that I make up from the Kodak recipe. I've developed about 20 rolls now in it, modifying small details each time. Almost all tests though. But just for kicks I cross processed a roll of Portra 400 through it as well. Chemicals cost less than $1/roll.
Leica M7 + 35 Pre FLE + Portra 400
Once you get the bugs worked out please share the recipe and what you have learned. I am going to start my own developing probably next spring.
I've been developing my own bulk rolled vision 3 film in ECN-2 chemicals that I make up from the Kodak recipe. I've developed about 20 rolls now in it, modifying small details each time. Almost all tests though. But just for kicks I cross processed a roll of Portra 400 through it as well. Chemicals cost less than $1/roll.
Leica M7 + 35 Pre FLE + Portra 400
Once you get the bugs worked out please share the recipe and what you have learned. I am going to start my own developing probably next spring.
Jul 07, 2024 at 07:37 AM
p.1264 #12Post your recent film shots!
geekcop wrote:
lifeandmylens wrote
I've been developing my own bulk rolled vision 3 film in ECN-2 chemicals that I make up from the Kodak recipe. I've developed about 20 rolls now in it, modifying small details each time. Almost all tests though. But just for kicks I cross processed a roll of Portra 400 through it as well. Chemicals cost less than $1/roll.Leica M7 + 35 Pre FLE + Portra 400
Will do!
Jul 07, 2024 at 07:39 AM
p.1264 #13Post your recent film shots!
lifeandmylens wrote:
Beautiful!
Thank you so much for your kind word!
ocean2059 wrote
Fuji GW690III + Kodak Gold 200 negative filmThank you so much for your kind word!
Jul 07, 2024 at 08:16 AM
p.1264 #14Post your recent film shots!
Kodak Gold 200 negative film + Rollei QZ35W.
 |
||
 © ocean2059 2024 |
||
|
Jul 07, 2024 at 08:28 AM
p.1264 #15Post your recent film shots!
Today was the F1 in Silverstone. This is not Silverstone. Lomo Tiger on the Agfathingy 2008.
lomo-11 by Panos Voudouris, on Flickr
lomo-10 by Panos Voudouris, on Flickr
lomo-11 by Panos Voudouris, on Flickrlomo-10 by Panos Voudouris, on FlickrJul 07, 2024 at 10:19 AM
p.1264 #17Post your recent film shots!
Rolls 154, 155, 156, and 157: Evaluating Delta 400, T-max 400, HP5, and Tri-X for ISO 400.
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal to see just what the tradeoffs were. In addition to simplifying my inventory of chemistry, I also wanted to explore the possibility of simplifying my film stock inventory. Specifically, I have shot Delta 3200 with good results, but I use it so infrequently, that it might be simpler to just use an ISO400 film and push it two stops. Once again, perhaps Rodinal is not the best choice for this, but I was curious enough to try it out.
The first step was to pick a few ISO400 film stocks. I am a lazy snob, so I only considered Delta 400, T-max 400 (TMY-2), HP5, and Tri-X 400 (400TX). Next I picked a recipe that seemed like it should give me something close enough for ISO400: Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C. Finally, I characterized the film curve for each stock. The goal was to measure the actual film speed (defined as film density 4 stops below normal exposure = 0.1) and contrast. I was hoping to find one film that was not only fast but also had a low/normal enough contrast, so that push processing to ISO1600 would still keep the film density of highlights reasonable.
Sample image of how data were collected
Curves (Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C). Rolls were developed one at a time.
Film: Speed/contrast
Delta 400: 280/0.9
T-max 400 (TMY-2):320/1.11
HP5: 400/0.57
Tri-X 400 (400TX): 200/0.66
Well, HP5 wins this round, although I should add:
- This is only Step 1 where I am looking at speed and contrast. I am not considering grain or performance on actual subjects.
- Delta 400 is a known-good performer. I like the grain I get with my scanner though the scanner probably does not actually resolve the grain.
- T-max 400 gave physically flatter negatives making them easier to load into the scanner right after they have dried.
- Tri-X 400 smells pretty bad.
The next step is to compare HP5 and Delta 3200 in Rodinal, 1+25 [20 mL + 500 mL], 20 min, 20 C. If they are close enough in speed, I might do a comparison on actual subjects. If Delta 3200 is at least a full stop faster than HP5 I will probably give up on simplifying my film stock and instead continue using Delta 3200 for low light situations. But if Delta 3200 does not even reach ISO1000, I will perhaps just stick to my Q2M. Stay tuned.
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal to see just what the tradeoffs were. In addition to simplifying my inventory of chemistry, I also wanted to explore the possibility of simplifying my film stock inventory. Specifically, I have shot Delta 3200 with good results, but I use it so infrequently, that it might be simpler to just use an ISO400 film and push it two stops. Once again, perhaps Rodinal is not the best choice for this, but I was curious enough to try it out.
The first step was to pick a few ISO400 film stocks. I am a lazy snob, so I only considered Delta 400, T-max 400 (TMY-2), HP5, and Tri-X 400 (400TX). Next I picked a recipe that seemed like it should give me something close enough for ISO400: Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C. Finally, I characterized the film curve for each stock. The goal was to measure the actual film speed (defined as film density 4 stops below normal exposure = 0.1) and contrast. I was hoping to find one film that was not only fast but also had a low/normal enough contrast, so that push processing to ISO1600 would still keep the film density of highlights reasonable.
Sample image of how data were collected
Curves (Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C). Rolls were developed one at a time.
Film: Speed/contrast
Delta 400: 280/0.9
T-max 400 (TMY-2):320/1.11
HP5: 400/0.57
Tri-X 400 (400TX): 200/0.66
Well, HP5 wins this round, although I should add:
- This is only Step 1 where I am looking at speed and contrast. I am not considering grain or performance on actual subjects.
- Delta 400 is a known-good performer. I like the grain I get with my scanner though the scanner probably does not actually resolve the grain.
- T-max 400 gave physically flatter negatives making them easier to load into the scanner right after they have dried.
- Tri-X 400 smells pretty bad.
The next step is to compare HP5 and Delta 3200 in Rodinal, 1+25 [20 mL + 500 mL], 20 min, 20 C. If they are close enough in speed, I might do a comparison on actual subjects. If Delta 3200 is at least a full stop faster than HP5 I will probably give up on simplifying my film stock and instead continue using Delta 3200 for low light situations. But if Delta 3200 does not even reach ISO1000, I will perhaps just stick to my Q2M. Stay tuned.
Jul 07, 2024 at 12:21 PM
p.1264 #18Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote:
Rolls 154, 155, 156, and 157: Evaluating Delta 400, T-max 400, HP5, and Tri-X for ISO 400.
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal...Show more →
Are you exposing at box speed or paying the Rodinal one stop penalty?
Rolls 154, 155, 156, and 157: Evaluating Delta 400, T-max 400, HP5, and Tri-X for ISO 400.
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal...Show more →
Are you exposing at box speed or paying the Rodinal one stop penalty?
Jul 07, 2024 at 03:06 PM
p.1264 #19Post your recent film shots!
Since I got the Sony A7CII and have been learning my way around NLP, I've been using negatives from the last few months that initially needed more adjustment because I wasn't using NLP properly. Here are a few from March of this year. These are all Linear Gamma tone profile conversions with no other adjustments.
M4-2, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, Tri-X @ ISO 400, Film Photography Project FPP-76 1:1
Little Free Library, Multnomah Village, Portland, Oregon:
Fat City Cafe, Multnomah Village:
Fat City Cafe, Multnomah Village:
Guitar Shop, Multnomah Village:
Pet Store Art:
Old Multnomah Post Office:
Old Multnomah Post Office:
The first time around, I thought either my metering or developing was faulty. Hopefully, I'm learning some new tricks.
M4-2, Voigtlander 35 1.4 Nokton Classic SC V2, Tri-X @ ISO 400, Film Photography Project FPP-76 1:1
Little Free Library, Multnomah Village, Portland, Oregon:
Fat City Cafe, Multnomah Village:
Fat City Cafe, Multnomah Village:
Guitar Shop, Multnomah Village:
Pet Store Art:
Old Multnomah Post Office:
Old Multnomah Post Office:
The first time around, I thought either my metering or developing was faulty. Hopefully, I'm learning some new tricks.
Jul 07, 2024 at 03:22 PM
p.1264 #20Post your recent film shots!
madNbad wrote:
Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal to see just what the tradeoffs were. In addition to simplifying my inventory of chemistry, I also wanted to explore the possibility of simplifying my film stock inventory. Specifically, I have shot Delta 3200 with good results, but I use it so infrequently, that it might be simpler to just use an ISO400 film and push it two stops. Once again, perhaps Rodinal is not the best choice for this, but I was curious enough to try it out.
The first step was to pick a few ISO400 film stocks. I am a lazy snob, so I only considered Delta 400, T-max 400 (TMY-2), HP5, and Tri-X 400 (400TX). Next I picked a recipe that seemed like it should give me something close enough for ISO400: Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C. Finally, I characterized the film curve for each stock. The goal was to measure the actual film speed (defined as film density 4 stops below normal exposure = 0.1) and contrast. I was hoping to find one film that was not only fast but also had a low/normal enough contrast, so that push processing to ISO1600 would still keep the film density of highlights reasonable.
Sample image of how data were collected
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p529340407-6.jpg
Curves (Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C). Rolls were developed one at a time.
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2133893-5.jpg
Film: Speed/contrast
Delta 400: 280/0.9
T-max 400 (TMY-2):320/1.11
HP5: 400/0.57
Tri-X 400 (400TX): 200/0.66
Well, HP5 wins this round, although I should add:
- This is only Step 1 where I am looking at speed and contrast. I am not considering grain or performance on actual subjects.
- Delta 400 is a known-good performer. I like the grain I get with my scanner though the scanner probably does not actually resolve the grain.
- T-max 400 gave physically flatter negatives making them easier to load into the scanner right after they have dried.
- Tri-X 400 smells pretty bad.
The next step is to compare HP5 and Delta 3200 in Rodinal, 1+25 [20 mL + 500 mL], 20 min, 20 C. If they are close enough in speed, I might do a comparison on actual subjects. If Delta 3200 is at least a full stop faster than HP5 I will probably give up on simplifying my film stock and instead continue using Delta 3200 for low light situations. But if Delta 3200 does not even reach ISO1000, I will perhaps just stick to my Q2M. Stay tuned.Are you exposing at box speed or paying the Rodinal one stop penalty?
I am exposing at ISO400 (box speed), and I shoot an array as shown below to determine base + fog, what exposure gives density = 0.1 (= film speed), and Zone 8 density.
So if I meter at ISO400, and Zone 1 (4 stops below normal exposure) gives me a film density of 0.1 then the film is indeed ISO400. On the other hand, if I only get a film density of 0.1 with an extra stop of exposure then the film speed is in fact ISO200.
theHUN wrote
Rolls 154, 155, 156, and 157: Evaluating Delta 400, T-max 400, HP5, and Tri-X for ISO 400.Summary: HP5 wins this round.
Details:
In the interest of resolution (with fine grain films) I switched over (from DD-X) to Rodinal last year. Results with slower speed films were great, and even though I liked the results with Delta 400, some people had commented that Rodinal was perhaps not the best choice for films with ISO400 and faster. But I really wanted to simplify my inventory, so DD-X had to go (in the long term), and I therefore had to characterize ISO400 films in Rodinal to see just what the tradeoffs were. In addition to simplifying my inventory of chemistry, I also wanted to explore the possibility of simplifying my film stock inventory. Specifically, I have shot Delta 3200 with good results, but I use it so infrequently, that it might be simpler to just use an ISO400 film and push it two stops. Once again, perhaps Rodinal is not the best choice for this, but I was curious enough to try it out.
The first step was to pick a few ISO400 film stocks. I am a lazy snob, so I only considered Delta 400, T-max 400 (TMY-2), HP5, and Tri-X 400 (400TX). Next I picked a recipe that seemed like it should give me something close enough for ISO400: Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C. Finally, I characterized the film curve for each stock. The goal was to measure the actual film speed (defined as film density 4 stops below normal exposure = 0.1) and contrast. I was hoping to find one film that was not only fast but also had a low/normal enough contrast, so that push processing to ISO1600 would still keep the film density of highlights reasonable.
Sample image of how data were collected
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p529340407-6.jpg
Curves (Rodinal, 1+60 [15 mL + 900 mL], 20 min, 20 C). Rolls were developed one at a time.
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2133893-5.jpg
Film: Speed/contrast
Delta 400: 280/0.9
T-max 400 (TMY-2):320/1.11
HP5: 400/0.57
Tri-X 400 (400TX): 200/0.66
Well, HP5 wins this round, although I should add:
- This is only Step 1 where I am looking at speed and contrast. I am not considering grain or performance on actual subjects.
- Delta 400 is a known-good performer. I like the grain I get with my scanner though the scanner probably does not actually resolve the grain.
- T-max 400 gave physically flatter negatives making them easier to load into the scanner right after they have dried.
- Tri-X 400 smells pretty bad.
The next step is to compare HP5 and Delta 3200 in Rodinal, 1+25 [20 mL + 500 mL], 20 min, 20 C. If they are close enough in speed, I might do a comparison on actual subjects. If Delta 3200 is at least a full stop faster than HP5 I will probably give up on simplifying my film stock and instead continue using Delta 3200 for low light situations. But if Delta 3200 does not even reach ISO1000, I will perhaps just stick to my Q2M. Stay tuned.
I am exposing at ISO400 (box speed), and I shoot an array as shown below to determine base + fog, what exposure gives density = 0.1 (= film speed), and Zone 8 density.
So if I meter at ISO400, and Zone 1 (4 stops below normal exposure) gives me a film density of 0.1 then the film is indeed ISO400. On the other hand, if I only get a film density of 0.1 with an extra stop of exposure then the film speed is in fact ISO200.
Jul 07, 2024 at 03:28 PM