Jump to content

I like film...(open thread)

Doc Henry

By Doc Henry
in Other

 Share

Recommended Posts

Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Henry.

 

As a shot it's OK, but take a look at post #9 here.

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/259129-do-we-already-have-an-open-thread-for-macro-pictures/

 

Yes, it's digital which is why I placed the link, but there is a heck of a difference.

 

Certainly easier too.

Gary

Gary ,thanks for the link,

I agree but on some pictures , edges of the petals are "too cutting" , "too sharp" * , not natural ,emphasizing thinness, also giving a "flat"  appearance and agressive aspect (digital aspect) !  in the nature everything is sweet

not aggressive ! except a little digital side of the image when you scan for posting but more natural when print

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/259129-do-we-already-have-an-open-thread-for-macro-pictures/?p=3025836

This is what I reproach to digital. Look at the edges of my poppies I posted above for you

Great difference ! softer and natural color of poppies , "thick" petals !

The second reason color is sometimes not faithful and need correction but not satisfying after correction

Best

Henry

* required by the camera software which smooth edges made of square pixels

 

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
x
  • Replies 94.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Doc Henry

    13494

  • A miller

    6032

  • Ernest

    3882

  • stray cat

    3030

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Michael Hiles
Michael Hiles

Bonjour Henri,   I still prefer black and white film (I use almost no colour). The advantages of digital don’t mean much to me. Seeing instant results is not so useful, since what comes out of a cam

grahamc
grahamc

Kodak Ultramax & 35:1.4v2 , MP 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Cyril Jayant
Cyril Jayant

This photo is from a series from some of my crazy, extreme photo adventures I  had photographing Mountains "Alpinists " and rock climbers. This is Alpes mountain range which is called   "Le Massive du

Posted Images

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Posted
Posted
Cheers Henry

I think this talks about a different developer D76 or something like that. But thanks for taking the time to help.

I did notice that I had some water marks on my last roll so I Ned to take extra care when squging the negs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fotoklaus

Fotoklaus

Posted
Posted

yep that sounds about right. I know from looking at my negs that my current method is fine. My initial question was because someone threw a spanner in the works. I've got 11 or 12 rolls of 120 to devolop tonight and I will mix a separate mix for each half a dozen. I will post up later the results

Sounds good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chrism

chrism

Posted
Posted

Further to the discussions about c41 b&w films I have just had some scans of Ilford XP2 back from UKfilmlab and liked the look of it having not used it before.

 

RC179516EX004291-06 by biotecbob, on Flickr

 

RC179516EX004291-20 by biotecbob, on Flickr

 

RC179516EX004291-15 by biotecbob, on Flickr

 

Is it possible to make good darkroom prints for these negatives? If so I might try printing some of these when I next go to a darkroom.

 

With XP2, yes you can and any photographic paper will do—it was designed for B&W paper. (Curiously, Ilford's PDF about it omits the fact it can be developed perfectly well in B&W chemicals. I know it was made for the convenience of B&W in C-41, but these days Ilford might sell a bit more of it if they told everyone they can do this.) The Kodax equivalent (BW400CN) kept the orange mask of colour C-41 films, and this was done so it could be printed on the same RA-4 paper as colour films. See here.

 

Chris

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Cheers Henry

I think this talks about a different developer D76 or something like that. But thanks for taking the time to help.

I did notice that I had some water marks on my last roll so I Ned to take extra care when squging the negs

Neil use Photoflo or a few drops of dishwashing liquid

After fix , soak for 30 seconds to 1 minute film in PhotoFlo

Release the film , passing the film gently between two fingers like a clamp

and no trace ! hang the film straight for drying

In the case you still have some marks , put the film again in the water , clean it again

and after again soak in Photoflo

Good development

H.

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Neil I give you this link because it is what you wrote above on the advice of your labo

 

This method Jules Steinmetz (JL) is for saving the developer and to keep longer
can be used for several months , from one liter of D76

 

The process JL is based on the development of film with D 76 in stock solution (dilution:1:1), and only in stock solution.
Preparing two bottles of  D 76 stock (1 liter each) .

The first bottle called A, will be used to develop films. For each development, the developer used is recovered and put back in the bottle A except 10% you throw !
The developer of the bottle B, it serves for complement (10%) each time the bottle A , and to compensate losses due to development.

So the content of the bottle A is gradually regenerated by the content of the bottle B.
When there 's nothing left in B, developer A is discarded.

Development times are as follows.


At 20 ° C

TX exposed to ISO 200, 8 minutes
TX 400 11 12 minutes
TX 800 18 minutes
TX 1600 22/24 minutes.

 

It works. you can try it !

Henry

Edited by Doc Henry
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fotoklaus

Fotoklaus

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Rolleiflex 2,8C, Fuji Velvia 100F

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
Fotoklaus

Fotoklaus

Posted
Posted

Rolleiflex 3,5B. Tmax 400, D76 1:1

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
Robclarke

Robclarke

Posted
Posted

With XP2, yes you can and any photographic paper will do—it was designed for B&W paper. (Curiously, Ilford's PDF about it omits the fact it can be developed perfectly well in B&W chemicals. I know it was made for the convenience of B&W in C-41, but these days Ilford might sell a bit more of it if they told everyone they can do this.) The Kodax equivalent (BW400CN) kept the orange mask of colour C-41 films, and this was done so it could be printed on the same RA-4 paper as colour films. See here.

 

Chris

Thanks for the link to the pdf. I probably should have read that before.

 

In fact they say you shouldn't use conventional b&w developers:

 

Conventional black and white developers and fixers are not recommended for use with XP2

SUPER film as inferior results are obtained. Always use C41 type chemicals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobitybob

Bobitybob

Posted
Posted (edited)

Creeping through...

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Fuji GA645Zi, Kodak Portra 400 (processed at home :) )

Edited by Bobitybob
  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobitybob

Bobitybob

Posted
Posted

Another one from my recent wander down the Langdale Valley....

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

M6, Tri Elmar-M MATE, Kodak Ektar 100

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
sblitz

sblitz

Posted
Posted

Guys got a question.

I'm going to Scotland for 2 weeks and staying with my daughter and future son in law. After that I am going to Switzerland for 11 days then back to the rig. I really want to shoot film for this trip but worry about airport security and screwing up my film. Yes I am sure I can send film online to my daughters place but what can I do after that plus I would either have to take all those exposed rolls of film to Nigeria ( not a good idea) or get my wife to hand carry it back to KL for me....... She ain't going to like that idea.

Other option is Leicac S..... But I want to shoot film :)

not sure if this was answered or not, just catching up on this thread, there is a lot to catch up after a few days ...... anyway, slower the film the better....never had a problem with iso 400 or less (never had a problem with 800 either, but that was by accident, as a rule stick with 400 and just push it a stop or two if needed when shooting) ..... ALWAYS bring the film on board with you, checked luggage is subject to stronger x-rays and film, any iso, has a high probability of being ruined

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
christoph_d

christoph_d

Posted
Posted

Question regarding processing B&W film.

The pro photographer that ran the Darkroom class that I was at last week said that you can use the LC29 with a 1/19 mix ratio to process about 10 rolls of film.

The shop where I get my color film processed says you should make new Dev and fix for each roll of film

Who is correct????

Up until now I have been going with one batch for about 10 rolls and all looks okay, but now doubting if what I am doing is correct??

Neil

 

 

Neil,

 

I am not familiar with LC29. It's Ilford, so on their website you normally find excellent information wrt the use of their products. 

Personally I am almost never re-using developer. Two reasons for that:

  • Firstly, if I have fresh developer (usually, D-76 or Rodinal) every time, I know what result I get. There are already so many variables in the analogue process, that I try to minimise variables where I can. And I suppose that a slightly used developer gives different results from a fresh one, even taken refreshment solutions, or extended development times into account.
  • Secondly, I probably will forget how many films I'll have developed, how to extend the development times, etc.. I simply cannot be bothered to note down every time...

An exception would be two-step developers like Tetenal Emofin, which are designed with re-use in mind, and offer unique balancing effects. However I have not used those recently.

 

Rodinal, by the way, is quite an unusual developer. It is diluted in almost homeopathic ways (which means it lasts forever). And it changes with time into a nice dark brown colour but that does not impede it's developing function (contrary to all other developers that I know of). 

 

If you have time to read, and possibly an inquisitive and experimental mind you might consider buying some books on the matter of analogue film development; "The film developing cookbook" being one of the titles that come to mind. 

 

Regards,

 

Christoph

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
MT0227

MT0227

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't see color adding much to the photo; as a result ...B&W for me!  Also, the water in the B&W version shows more of the ripple in the highlights (center frame) which is not present in the color version.  Not sure if this is the film or if the wind was just not there for the color version.

 

 

Which you prefer b&w or color both Kodak film ?

 

 

Canal Saint Martin

May 2016

Paris

Paris remains Paris and for photography we must spend a lifetime to photograph

 

Kodak Portra 160

(dev home :Tetenal - 30°C - 8 mns)

Leica M7

35 SummiLux Asph (35 LA)

 

attachicon.gifImage3canstmartkp16lfhtvv+++950.jpg

 

Kodak TX400

(dev home : Kodak D76 - 6mn45sec - 20°C)

Leica MP

50 Summilux Asph

 

attachicon.gifImage5canstmartkodtxlfht+++950.jpg

 

Rg

H.

Edited by MT0227
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Henry

Doc Henry

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I don't see color adding too much to the photo; as a result ...B&W for me!

Marc thanks

I'll post another pictures of the same place , with sunny weather taken many years ago

Rg

H

Edited by Doc Henry
Link to post
Share on other sites
MT0227

MT0227

Posted
Posted

I updated my note, not sure if you saw it.  The water in the B&W version shows more of the ripple in the highlights (center frame) which is not present in the color version.  Not sure if this is the film or if the wind was just not there for the color version.

 

Marc thanks

I'll post another pictures of the same place , with sunny weather taken many years ago

Rg

H

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...