So this winter, I decided to expand my little collection of Olympus stylus P&S into the zoom range. Here is from a stylus zoom 115 that was picked up for a couple bucks in like new condition from Goodwill. Also have scored 2 zoom 70's and a very nice, like new LT zoom 105 (stylus wrapped in red leather with a chrome flip down dust cover). Somewhere I also picked up another stylus (the 35/3.5 version). Just a few from a day out and about on a drive. Really like having a P&S with this zoom range (38mm-115mm) on 35mm film. Souped at home in tetenal and scanned on a pakon 135+. Film was gold400
and one selfie of my srt102 awaiting some landscape work
wfektar,
Thanks for the helpful tips
What I meant by "catch-all" has to do with how it s sold by many, that you can basically throw any film, ISO, over/under exposed, in the same batch at 1:100. I only tried it on some redundant 4x5 stuff & it wasn't the best result BUT that's what I wanted to learn/figure out.
I did a roll of 35mm in Rodinal 1:25 as you had suggested & a few were a "little" more grainy than I desired, but I knew it was a high acutance going in. I have a few other developers in the queue to try. I'm just getting back into doing development after about a 1/2 century so lots of reading & experimentation to find what I like using.
dswiger wrote:
wfektar,
Thanks for the helpful tips
What I meant by "catch-all" has to do with how it s sold by many, that you can basically throw any film, ISO, over/under exposed, in the same batch at 1:100. I only tried it on some redundant 4x5 stuff & it wasn't the best result BUT that's what I wanted to learn/figure out.
OK, that makes sense now. Stand is pretty forgiving that way. But I was misled by the word push. Push and pull to me are not ways of dealing with exposure errors, they're methods for matching scene brightness range to negative density range. But while stand is pretty forgiving of exposure, it'll never give you the steep curve of a push (as you discovered).
I did a roll of 35mm in Rodinal 1:25 as you had suggested & a few were a "little" more grainy than I desired, but I knew it was a high acutance going in. I have a few other developers in the queue to try. I'm just getting back into doing development after about a 1/2 century so lots of reading & experimentation to find what I like using.
Again, thanks for info
Dan
There are always the old standbys, like D76 or XTOL (better IMO than D76 but fussier about shelf life). Fine grained at full strength (though not like a proper solvent developer), acutance at high dilution. That's one of the great things about BW -- so many tunable parameters which don't interact linearly. I like the idea of experimenting to see what works for you. But you could also make a case for knowing one way and knowing it well. Then again, there's no reason not to stick to one or two ways after you've experimented for a bit
Those are great pics. And it seems you have quite the variety of equipment, including a Bronica SQ-A.
That takes me back -- a few years ago I did a major equipment purge, and the one I miss most is the trusty Bronnie (Ai, but I never used the i functionality). Such a sweet handling, no drama, roll up the sleeves and get on with it camera. Selling it was a mistake. So here are a few frames in memoriam (pardon the edges and corners, I really need a decent film holder.)
rattymouse wrote:
Great shots there wfektar! Wonderful to see Astia film here in the thread. Such a terrible loss to us film shooters.
I have 15 rolls of Astia 220 in the fridge. Hard to give it up.
Thanks! Yeah, that's a real shame about Astia. I like the long tonal range and color palette. Velvia was just too blocky and ham-handed for my taste, Provia a little bit neither/nor. You did well to stock up.
Gary Sommer wrote:
Bronica stuff is pretty cheap at KEH.COM
Heh, I've been tempted. A couple more:
Frankfurt am Main, I believe. I'm going to have to rescan this, highlights are blown and shadows crunched. Delta 400 in XTOL 1:3
HP5+ in XTOL 1:1. I don't usually use HP5+, but man it's fabulous for high key
