Desmolicious wrote:
Great pose/lighting.
If you are talking about all those spots, that looks like dust and/or dirt/debris from the dev process.
But really, it look like dust to me.
Some of it is debris for sure. I'm referring to the larger white spots where it just looks like there isn't any emulsion.
Debris, dust, but what about that chunk right in the middle?
RZ67 Pro II, mostly with the 110 mm, but a few with the 210 mm apo.
First roll of Astia is far more vibrant than I expected, and I like it. Expired in 2013, but previous owner told me they stored it in a freezer, so I metered it at 100. Looking forward to the next 7 rolls.
First roll of Foma 100 is mostly a disappointment. Lots of defects that look like:
Fortunately it requires pixel peeping. Still, I am interested in hearing opinions. Is this a common defect, or is this a lab thing?
beardedspoooon wrote:
Some of it is debris for sure. I'm referring to the larger white spots where it just looks like there isn't any emulsion.
I've had chunks like that in the middle. For me, it's always been a gnarly bit of dust directly on the film. The fainter stuff tends to be on the scanner surface (for me that would be the diffuser surface as I digicam scan)
Fortunately it requires pixel peeping. Still, I am interested in hearing opinions. Is this a common defect, or is this a lab thing?
So a lab dev/scanned it for you?
Do you have a loupe to see if you can see that on the film itself? It's either a slight defect on the emulsion, or dirt from the lab when they processed your film.
I've seen stuff like this before, but don't sweat it and just clone it out in PP. Because at the same time I'm cloning out regular ol' dust bunnies!
Desmolicious wrote:
So a lab dev/scanned it for you?
Do you have a loupe to see if you can see that on the film itself? It's either a slight defect on the emulsion, or dirt from the lab when they processed your film.
I've seen stuff like this before, but don't sweat it and just clone it out in PP. Because at the same time I'm cloning out regular ol' dust bunnies!
Lab developed it, I scanned it, and it's visible with the naked eye, so not a scanner issue. I know it's not a big issue, but I am still new to this, so I am still learning what "normal" looks like, and what deviations are normal.
I read that Foma scratches easily, so maybe that is it. No big deal.
Desmolicious wrote:
I've had chunks like that in the middle. For me, it's always been a gnarly bit of dust directly on the film. The fainter stuff tends to be on the scanner surface (for me that would be the diffuser surface as I digicam scan)
I'm going to look on the loupe. It doesn't bother me too much, the distracting bits aren't a big deal to clone out. But would prefer to reduce PP as much as possible.
So I haven't shot film since 1993. Spent 8 years exclusively woodworking, fabricating, and gilding before digital brought me back. I grew to loathe darkroom work.
I just came across a half dozen sheets of Type 55 from this "shoot" (I maybe shot 2 frames), so as soon as I get my hands on some sodium sulfite and hardening fix I'll see if that film is any good and post the results:
Dead Horse Point, Moab, Utah Thanksgiving day 1992 (On my move west):
Desmolicious wrote:
Love the results you've been getting.
What's your dev and scan process?
Thank you! Unfortunately I'm unable to develop at home at the moment, so I've been taking rolls to my local lab. I scan on an Epson V550 and process minor adjustments on Lightroom.
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes. Three individual black and white frames shot through Tiffen #25 Red, #58 Green, and #47 Blue filters, respectively, then combined using GIMP to create a trichrome color image.
I found the blurry rangefinder patches of the two Canon 7S cameras I tried to be too annoying to persist with but shot a couple of rolls before I returned them.
