Show us a recent one from your favorite TLR

^^^ Both excellent shots from Hong Kong. I'd love to visit one day.

Really looking forward to getting out and using my new 3.5F. Still waiting for my strap to arrive and I'm too clumsy to handle it without one.
 
Proving we can grow oranges in the frozen north.


Oranges! by chrism229, on Flickr
Rolleiflex 2.8GX, XP2, HC-110, Hasselblad X1 scan.

Might take a while to make a batch of marmalade though....


Chris
 
1064703_large_2AECED4A-F901-11E6-A550-EB248C4C0282.jpg


C330f, 80mm 2.8. Foma 100, xtol 1+1. First ever scan - Epson 750. Slightly altered in Lightroom.

Something that could have been done differently in scan/post-processing?
 
I was concerned that the meter in my Rolleiflex wasn't right, so I used up a film with duplicate exposures, one using the internal meter and one using an external spotmeter. It turns out I was right,and the internal meter underexposes by 1-2 stops, but the funny thing is that the underexposed negatives allow me to pull out more detail in scans. This might be a quirk of the XP2 I was using. Anyway, one of the 'underexposed' negatives:





test film by chrism229, on Flickr



C.
 
When I discovered that XP2 could be processed in B&W chemicals (I still get people who assure me this isn't possible) with very fine grain I bought an awful lot of it for the freezer. I have recently begun to experiment with abusing it in the ways that standard silver halide films can be pushed and pulled, just to see if it stands up to it. So for a starting point I exposed a roll at EI 200, and cut the processing time in half, and wandered about the house taking photos of the relatively dark interior with a bright window in the frame. I just wanted to see if I could get a reasonable image in both areas. This is the kind of thing I got:


Experiments in Pull Processing 1 by chrism229, on Flickr

On scanning this negative the histogram was showing it 1-2 stops underexposed, so I should try again at EI 100, or maybe just a bit longer in the developer. The other thing I'd like to do is find out of pushing it is possible without excessive grain. I know that XP2 goes very grainy in Diafine and in Qualls' monobath and I suspect I'll find I can get one stop but probably not two extra out of it before it gets too crunchy, but you don't know unless you try!
 
lynnb said:
^^jamin-b, that's such a sweet picture, and I like the tones you got from Foma200 in Diafine (a developer I've never tried).
Click to expand...

Thanks! I am really getting enthused about Diafine with the different Fomapan emulsions, especially in 120, and respecting conservative ISO values.
 
I think I've come to the end of my experiments, with ISO 800 now completed. It seems it's easy to pull XP2, and to push to 800 and 1600. 3200 is hit and miss as being a half-stop out in the exposure ruins the picture. Here's an example of ISO 800, using HC-110 1+49, for 13.5 minutes:


Experiments in Push Processing 12 by chrism229, on Flickr

C.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom