carstenw wrote:
Martin, I expect you have tried both Tri-X 400 and T-MAX 400. How do you find them?
Tmax is "punchier" and less forgiving, but with better sharpness and extremely low grain. You can get sort of the same end result from each of them, but I'd choose Tri-X for high contrast scenes and Tmax for low contrast ditto.
The developer also plays an important role. I was never happy with Tri-X in D-76 or Rodinal, while it gives a very nice tonality in Tmax developer. The Tmax film on the other hand, gave really nice results in Rodinal, especially when exposed for ISO 800.
These are from my very first attempt of developing slide film at home, with only a Paterson tank and a hot water bath in a plastic tray. The shadows are blocked and there are color casts of every sort, but at least I tried!
The camera was the Voigtländer Bessa III, loaded with Fujichrome Provia 400X...
Sweet! Gives me hope that maybe I'll try with my 4x5 tank someday. I'm not spending the penny on the Jobo stuff. They look great to me. The sharpness and contrast in that last one brings out the texture.
Definitely worth it, Martin! I want to try this! Ever since a couple of days ago when I realized that there were other possibilities than Kodachrome, I have wanted to try it. I will see if I can pick up some for the weekend. Will you also try Ektachrome?
Zaitz wrote:
Sweet! Gives me hope that maybe I'll try with my 4x5 tank someday. I'm not spending the penny on the Jobo stuff. They look great to me. The sharpness and contrast in that last one brings out the texture.
carstenw wrote:
Definitely worth it, Martin! I want to try this! Ever since a couple of days ago when I realized that there were other possibilities than Kodachrome, I have wanted to try it. I will see if I can pick up some for the weekend. Will you also try Ektachrome?
I bought 10 rolls of Provia 400X and 5 rolls of Velvia 50, so I'll stick with that for a while. Even if the results are OK, it should be much better and not crave the work I've put into it after scanning. The most interesting part is that even with sloppy development, the colors are less off than with some of the negative films I've developed. You can of course also see with your own eyes what's wrong directly on the film, which is impossible with negatives.
carstenw wrote:
Definitely worth it, Martin! I want to try this! Ever since a couple of days ago when I realized that there were other possibilities than Kodachrome, I have wanted to try it. I will see if I can pick up some for the weekend. Will you also try Ektachrome?
Makten wrote:
I bought 10 rolls of Provia 400X and 5 rolls of Velvia 50, so I'll stick with that for a while. Even if the results are OK, it should be much better and not crave the work I've put into it after scanning. The most interesting part is that even with sloppy development, the colors are less off than with some of the negative films I've developed. You can of course also see with your own eyes what's wrong directly on the film, which is impossible with negatives.
I bought 2 rolls each of Ektachrome G, Ektachrome VS, Velvia 50 and Portra 400X, as well as an E-6 kit good for 12 films.
I think I will shoot one roll of each with my Hasselblad 203FE, and one roll of each with my Contax 645 AF. I will choose a separate project for each, probably nature for the Hasselblad and something technical or detail-oriented for the Contax. That will allow me to compare all 4 films directly in two fields.
Once I have shot and developed these eight, I will choose a favorite and buy four more of that. Then I will evaluate what I have done and see where I go from there. Total cost about 100 Euro. Fun fun fun!
A little town and country on minolta srT201 with 50 f.17md rokkor wide open. Film was fuji reala 100 processed at Walgreens and scanned home on a 4690. Minimal processing if any.
Used to not like reala but beginning to like it more and more. Just don't like how it performs in heavy shadows. Seems to have a purple cast. Anyhow, like how these turned out.
1
