I, for one, like the DeLorean pics!!! What did you meter the film at? I came into a bunch of 400H from 2009 recently, and it seemed to do well metered at ISO 100.
helimat wrote:
I, for one, like the DeLorean pics!!! What did you meter the film at? I came into a bunch of 400H from 2009 recently, and it seemed to do well metered at ISO 100.
67 + 105/2.4 + 400H
Thank you! Haha, I’ve become a bit tired of seeing the car after dealing with the negatives and post processing the Monochrom (M10M) images with it (when I had the M10M). The car was sectioned off for people waiting in line to get up to the car (but not in it!) and take photos/selfies of/with it. As someone who wasn’t a fan of waiting in lines, in these social distancing circumstances, my only choice was to take lots of the same photos, but with different media.
As for the 2017 expired Fuji Pro 400H, I believe I shot the few rolls I had at ISO 200. I have one more 2017 expired roll in the fridge and will try shooting that one at ISO 100 and see if that helps. I know I had some strange blue/cyan and yellow tint to my developed images. Perhaps more light will help.
Edit: Ok, one more pic...but it should give you an idea of how the DeLorean was setup on display. This one is cropped a bit since my 105/2.4 was a little too wide...which is rare indeed!
helimat wrote:
I, for one, like the DeLorean pics!!! What did you meter the film at? I came into a bunch of 400H from 2009 recently, and it seemed to do well metered at ISO 100.
67 + 105/2.4 + 400H
Your photos are pop'n with color! Did you have any issues with unexpected expired colors and whatnot? The expired 400H I used was given to me, so I don't know how it was stored over the years. Your shots look like the images came out of a factory fresh roll.
Very cool. How did you get your center border so narrow? PP or did it come out of the camera like that?
Mine gives much thicker borders between shots (consistent but thicker).
Desmolicious wrote:
Very cool. How did you get your center border so narrow? PP or did it come out of the camera like that?
Mine gives much thicker borders between shots (consistent but thicker).
PP. The 35mm negative holder for my Coolscan 9000 crops off most of the clear area of the film as well as the edge of one frame if I try to scan adjacent half-frame negatives as a single image. (Duh! While writing that sentence I realised that I could use the 6x9 glass negative holder but I prefer the way I’ve done it anyway). So I merged the two adjacent frames and established the 10-pixel center border in Photoshop then added the other borders and captions in Lightroom with LR/Mogrify.
No doubt this approach contravenes the traditional method of presenting half-frame diptychs/triptychs—displaying as a single image multiple adjacent frames from the same roll of film with their thick borders intact—but I can live with that. I’m even fine with the greater heresy of creating diptychs or triptychs from frames widely separated in time or space and from separate rolls of film. (I can do this without any sense of guilt because, back in the day, I filed out the negative carriers of my Beseler enlarger so I could print the borders which proved I hadn’t cropped the image. I’ve paid my dues!)
Alpha_Geist wrote:
Your photos are pop'n with color! Did you have any issues with unexpected expired colors and whatnot? The expired 400H I used was given to me, so I don't know how it was stored over the years. Your shots look like the images came out of a factory fresh roll.
Thanks! The first few times I shot 400H, I shot it at box speed & was pretty unimpressed, I found it came out muddy and flat. However, a while back I picked up a whole gaggle of film from a wedding photog that was shutting down his business, and there was a bunch of 400H in it, so it was time to give it another go. I had read that even more so than most film, 400H likes overexposure by a stop, so I added a stop for that and a stop for being a decade expired. Other than that it was processed & scanned by a new lab I'm trying out, and I'm super happy with the results, I only added a little sharpening in post. No weird colours or anything in the two rolls that were processed that I've noticed.
Added bonus, most of the expired 400H I acquired is 220, love getting 20 shots to a roll.
helimat wrote:
Shitty news... At least you managed to get some fine shots out of it. It appears mine is faulty as well; Meter 'works', but is reading 2-3 stops low.
helimat wrote:
I plan to use an adapter as well for all the same reasons, but they are weeks away and the Wein was on the shelf 10 minutes away. The reason I asked is because if your Pen is doing the same thing as mine, but with the adapted battery, there's not much point in waiting for the adapter to troubleshoot my Pen further.
Well, I tested the Pen FT meter with the MR-9 adapter + SR43 and also the Wein battery, with a G.Zuiko 40/1.4 mounted on the camera. As a reference I used my Sony A7R4 with a Sigma DG DN 65/2 (which has a similar field of view) as well as the MyLightMeter Pro app on my iPhone. The AR4 and the app consistently read within ⅓-stop of each other. However...
* With the adapted SR43 battery, the FT’s meter read about 2 stops lower than the A7R4.
* And with the Wein battery, it read about 3 stops lower than the A7R4.
I got the sense from an earlier post by Desmolicious that his FT meter works satisfactorily but neither you nor I appear to have been as fortunate.
genji wrote:
I got the sense from an earlier post by Desmolicious that his FT meter works satisfactorily but neither you nor I appear to have been as fortunate.
It seems as such. Thanks for the update, I guess I'll be initiating a return.
What did you meter the film at? I came into a bunch of 400H from 2009 recently, and it seemed to do well metered at ISO 100. 
