Here’s an interesting one (can you guess where?). This is an uncorrected scan of one of my negatives. To be fair, the swirls and nastiness are probably because they didn’t dry well. Next time I’m running film I’ll wash this strip again. Something about it is appealing the way it is- it seems convincingly “retro.” Interesting.
More expired T-Max 100, Clayton F76+ 1+19.
A group with political ambitions that I would be hard pressed to disagree with more created a September 11 memorial display that, all politics aside, was extremely visually interesting. I would never post a political or otherwise controversial image for any other reason.
All deep political thought aside, this is the first fruit of my minimal grain minimal contrast experiment and the results are interesting. The images have less apparent grain (because 100TMX is one of the finest-grain films on the planet), but still didn’t scan very well. At least I’ve tried it. I think my next experiments will involve Plus-X 125.
100TMX, the usual suspects for developer and scanning.
(In contrast to Rear Window. And no, not the new one. The real one). Finally, something current! I picked this one up this very day. That’s right, picked up. It’s expired Fuji Portrait NPS 160, so I had to let someone else do the dirty work, and dirty is the right word because the negatives came back with all sorts of grime dried into the emulsion and the prints are a mess. I won’t name any names (CVS), but as usual I am not impressed. I do slightly like the desaturated and low-contrast look of the expired film, but it’s simply not worth doing when developing is $11 a roll and it’s, well, poor. Shooting digital color really does make sense, especially since I have virtually no control over the color film process and can only hope to make furtive changes to my scans once the damage is done.
This is the same building as this and this.
Fujicolor Portrait NPS 160 shot in the Nikon N75, poorly developed by CVS, and scanned from the print. Quality is obviously job #1 from start to finish with me.
Filed under Film, Landscape
Not my favorite image, but one I still find interesting. I am having a miserable time getting it saturated enoguh to look even close to how it appears on my full version or how it really looked. Something about the conversion and upload is desaturating everyting and I’m not sure why. It’s a problem I’ve had before viewing images in Firefox, and it’s probably related to conflicting colorspaces and my general ignorance about them. I just recently got comfortable with post processing- why not rest on my laurels for a little?
In other news, the Ricoh is out and shooting now that I’m more or less moved in to the new place, so maybe I’ll be able to stop recycling pictures sometime soon and post something really recent. Unfortunately, 36-exp film is not compatible with short attention span and film miserliness. Unfortunately, I think that’s the only way T-Max comes (in 35mm of course). Atl east once I develop it I’ll feel confident enough handling it to develop my recent DC trip pictures, which I have been terrified of ruining (one roll Tri-X, which I’m not worried about, and one roll of T-Max which is apparently weird). Maybe those will make it to here sooner or later.
Shot with my Pentax digital SLR setup some time early this summer. It’s in the EXIF, so I’m sure you can find the date if you’re curious. I’m not.
Something about the original appealed to me, so I re-shot the scene with Tri-X about a week later, and there’s something I find interesting about this one as well.
Kodak Tri-X 400 developed in Clayton F76+.
This is from my first-ever roll of color film, at least since I was ten or so. I started shooting film when my digital body was back for warranty repairs, and this is how I came to shoot various types of film.
Fuji Superia X-tra 400 scanned from print.
Filed under Film, Landscape