Haha, yeah. Maybe the only other thing that gives away the era is the license plate. If not the design (I'm not familiar with Utah plates), then certainly the registration stickers. Here's another motel around the corner that could be from the 70s or 80s, too.
Welcome to the forum, @mike3996! I have not tried to deliberately underexpose it like you describe, but in my experience the film handles overexposure much better than underexposure. It might work for certain scenes and subjects, or if you are going for a certain mood/feel. Personally, I prefer open shadows so I typically give it a bit more exposure (see Post #824 above).
I've considered push processing it, but I don't really like the mushy look this film can get when underexposed. I doubt it would look very good exposed at 800 and not pushed in development.
Thank you. I think will skip the box development, opt for maybe +1, maybe +2 push. In daylight I'll probably spot-meter against shadowy spots to get a +/-0EV reading. In the night time, probably wing it more.
Could always try Diafine if you really want to go for an EI800.
stevenlawrencepictures.com
Just Plus-X generally. I was in north-western India recently, and the light made me mourn Plus-X. Again.Could always try Diafine if you really want to go for an EI800.
kentmere 400@800. diafine developer. olympia, wa.
A few months ago, Ilford announced they would offer the Kentmere 100 and 400 films in 120 format. I purchased 5 rolls of Kentmere 400 for under $5 at Cinestill ( These are images from the first rol…
I used to LOVE PlusX at EI400 in Diafine. Nothing better.
I found Adonal to produce really not-good results at 1:25 and 1:50. I was surprised since I like my results with other films. It's part of what drove me to buy some TMAX dev, which works pretty well. I'm sure Microphen will do well, from what I've heard.
