Post your recent film shots!
p.846 #1Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?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?
beardedspoooon wrote
Speed Graphic, Buhl 200/3.2, Arista Edu 400Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?
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?
Apr 10, 2021 at 11:58 AM
p.846 #2Post your recent film shots!
SergeyT wrote:
In the picture the log structure looks dangerously unsafe ...
Everything was under control. Thanks for your concern though
helimat wrote
Here's a shot of the kiddos taken with the Xpan + JCH Street Pan 400Everything was under control. Thanks for your concern though
Apr 10, 2021 at 12:06 PM
p.846 #3Post your recent film shots!
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?
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?
Apr 10, 2021 at 07:19 PM
p.846 #5Post your recent film shots!
finnphotos wrote:
Leica MP, 28 Elmarit, Tri-X 400, Orange Filter
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51104943216_4c60ab1f97_b.jpg033021-39 by clayfinn, on Flickr
Love the results you've been getting.
What's your dev and scan process?
Leica MP, 28 Elmarit, Tri-X 400, Orange Filter
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51104943216_4c60ab1f97_b.jpg033021-39 by clayfinn, on Flickr
Love the results you've been getting.
What's your dev and scan process?
Apr 10, 2021 at 08:52 PM
p.846 #6Post your recent film shots!
beardedspoooon wrote:
Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?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.
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)
Desmolicious wrote
beardedspoooon wrote
Speed Graphic, Buhl 200/3.2, Arista Edu 400Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?
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.
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)
Apr 10, 2021 at 08:54 PM
p.846 #7Post your recent film shots!
theHUN wrote
First roll of Foma 100 is mostly a disappointment. Lots of defects that look like:
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732426.png
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732427-4.jpg
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!
First roll of Foma 100 is mostly a disappointment. Lots of defects that look like:
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732426.png
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732427-4.jpg
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!
Apr 10, 2021 at 08:58 PM
p.846 #9Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732426.png
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732427-4.jpg
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!
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.
theHUN wrote
First roll of Foma 100 is mostly a disappointment. Lots of defects that look like:https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732426.png
https://geza.zenfolio.com/img/s/v-10/p2306732427-4.jpg
Fortunately it requires pixel peeping. Still, I am interested in hearing opinions. Is this a common defect, or is this a lab thing?
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.
Apr 11, 2021 at 08:08 AM
p.846 #10Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?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.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.
beardedspoooon wrote
Desmolicious wrote
beardedspoooon wrote
Speed Graphic, Buhl 200/3.2, Arista Edu 400Any idea why the negative is so dinged up? Could it be from loading it or being too aggressive at some stage of the development process?
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.
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.
Apr 11, 2021 at 08:33 AM
|
p.846 #12Post your recent film shots!
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):
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):
Apr 11, 2021 at 12:29 PM
p.846 #13Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51104943216_4c60ab1f97_b.jpg033021-39 by clayfinn, on FlickrLove 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.
---------------------------------------------
d.s. wrote:
...
Love the high key look here!
finnphotos wrote
Leica MP, 28 Elmarit, Tri-X 400, Orange Filterhttps://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51104943216_4c60ab1f97_b.jpg033021-39 by clayfinn, on Flickr
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.
---------------------------------------------
d.s. wrote:
...
Love the high key look here!
Apr 11, 2021 at 12:44 PM
p.846 #14Post your recent film shots!
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.
2021.01.16 Roll #267-05618-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
2021.01.16 Roll #267-05618-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Apr 11, 2021 at 06:12 PM
p.846 #15Post your recent film shots!
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.
Apr 12, 2021 at 12:18 AM
p.846 #19Post your recent film shots!
Desmolicious wrote:
Recovered my M3 DS with olive leather from Hugo Studios.
Schweeet!
Recovered my M3 DS with olive leather from Hugo Studios.
Schweeet!
Apr 12, 2021 at 08:59 PM
