Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
As you all know when trying out a new film one has to get to grips with how to expose and develop all over again, as to attain the level of qaulity one self has set as a benchmark. For most developers this is rather easy as the manufacturer provides you with tables for such things. With Caffenol however that's not an option. Browsing the internet to find other people's experiences is as good as it gets. A nightmare really since no-one agrees as to how to mix Caffenol as to be reproducable by others. A heap of that, a pinch of this and if you are lucky a teaspoon of t'other (heaped or level?)
This is why I managed to ruin 3 rolls of Acros 100 before I found out I in fact had more or less both exposure and development nailed, but the results where still nothing to be desired. As fate had it a leaf shuttered lens on my main user started to stick at the exact same moment as I swapped films.
However, some of these very, very dense negatives can just be scanned on my Epson, and to a certain degree have their own rather pleasing effect. Or do you not agree?
Estimated exposure is at least 5 stops over box speed now that I have had time to look at the negatives properly. I would guess even more for some.
This is why I managed to ruin 3 rolls of Acros 100 before I found out I in fact had more or less both exposure and development nailed, but the results where still nothing to be desired. As fate had it a leaf shuttered lens on my main user started to stick at the exact same moment as I swapped films.
However, some of these very, very dense negatives can just be scanned on my Epson, and to a certain degree have their own rather pleasing effect. Or do you not agree?
Estimated exposure is at least 5 stops over box speed now that I have had time to look at the negatives properly. I would guess even more for some.
videogamemaker
Well-known
I don't care too much for the first and third image, but the middle one is simply striking. The grain is really only noticeable on the sky, but it adds texture to an otherwise featureless area. The buildings are strong, contrasty, and straight, giving them a solid feel. Really love the toning too, it just seems to work. The square format is great too, with the swishing horizontal road lines providing a base for the vertical buildings to sprout up out of.
Would love to see this as a small 15x15cm print with a massive off-white matte, in a dark wood fatigued frame.
Would love to see this as a small 15x15cm print with a massive off-white matte, in a dark wood fatigued frame.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Weird grain in the 2nd and 3rd photo. Why take a fine grain film if you want to have grainy stuff? Graphically I like the 1st and 3rd.
I take Acros 100 because of low grain like here: http://thomaswphotos.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/orte-nizza2/film09_05/
I take Acros 100 because of low grain like here: http://thomaswphotos.wordpress.com/2010/11/09/orte-nizza2/film09_05/
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Hi
@Tom.w.bn: If you read my post you'll see that this was not at all intentional. I know very well how fine grained Acros is, its officially my new favourite film. The shutter on my lens stuck as to expose these in seconds rather than the intended 1/15s or 1/30s. This gives a lot of grain in the most overexposed areas, whereas the darker areas are still quite fine grained. My question was if these negatives may still be used to some effect?
@Videogamemaker: I too in fact prefer the middle one. It was the negative that gave me the incentive to ask the question. The other two were added as a matter of reference. Though I understand some do like them.
@Tom.w.bn: If you read my post you'll see that this was not at all intentional. I know very well how fine grained Acros is, its officially my new favourite film. The shutter on my lens stuck as to expose these in seconds rather than the intended 1/15s or 1/30s. This gives a lot of grain in the most overexposed areas, whereas the darker areas are still quite fine grained. My question was if these negatives may still be used to some effect?
@Videogamemaker: I too in fact prefer the middle one. It was the negative that gave me the incentive to ask the question. The other two were added as a matter of reference. Though I understand some do like them.
user237428934
User deletion pending
You are right. Probably I shouldn't try to attend a boring telephone conference and try to read some posts here at the same time
So it's a fault of the shutter and not because the use of caffenol.
robklurfield
eclipse
That first image is very nice. And, I like the big, fat grain in the other two as well. Accidents will happen.
paulfish4570
Veteran
a happy accident, i reckon. very interesting grain from the overexposure ...
gho
Well-known
The most useful resource for Caffenol recipies I have found is this site:
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/
Reinhold seems to be quite serious about reproducible results and correct measurements. I tried Caffenol-C-L with HP-5. Works fine.
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
I know, that's where I started 6 months ago. I've used C-C-M and C-C-H with TMX and TMY-2 wirh great success. My own blog is even mentioned in Reinhold's. He is one of very few that keeps to a strict measurement regime. Which is why I got the development for Acros right first time around, I just didn't know it at the time, the fault laying somewhere else altogether.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Erik, if you can get those kind of results with way overexposed film in Caffenol, then you can count me as a convert. Just recieved two 120 bales and a tall can to put them in, so I'll have to crank up the old Zeiss, and give things a whirl.
PF
PF
Ezzie
E. D. Russell Roberts
Thank you PF. You may want to go to my Caffenol set on the gallery here, and to my blog to see recent (Acros) and past (TMAX) successful results. Links in my signature. The blog especially will give you a lot of information on recipies and process, and links to other caffenol blogs.
Good luck
Good luck