Just surprised myself with agfa vista plus film

Asha

Asha

Blithering Idiot
Messages
11,274
Name
Asha
Edit My Images
Yes
Seeing as it was dark before getting a chance to go out with a camera today and not wanting to lugg a tripod around in the drizzle, I decided to see what if anything would come from shooting some agfa vista plus 200 film at 1600 iso.

Shot half a roll and just devd it......

I have yet to scan them and tbh, I am not expecting anything brilliant as they were all shot hand held with quite slow speeds (1/15 and 1/30 most of em) but the fact that
there are what look to be half reasonable results ( exposure wise anyway) is quite exciting for me ( I know it's sad aint it!:LOL: ) as tbh I didn't think a 3 stop push would work cross processing a C41 film in b&w chems.

I'll get some results posted asap ......I just wanted to share my excitement!:D
 
Should be interesting! (baited breath here :wave:)
 
wontolla said:
Should be interesting! (baited breath here :wave:)
Click to expand...

My impatience will have me scanning tomorrow I reckon.....Only grabbed snapshots around town so don't expect anything special in image content:D as like I said, I didn't actually think the film would push that far.

It was curiosity that got the better of me to try it for a laugh.....:p
 
Well here's a few results ( will post some more in a bit).

Shot them handheld in "Auto" mode through the OM10 set at 1600 iso

The originals are exactly as they've come out of the scanner.

The retouches are simply an add of some contrast to account for the scan and the cross processing.

As they are simply test/experiment shots, I've not bothered with reframing, dust removal etc.

I don't think they're bad for a 3 stop push tbh...what do you guys reckon?

1. Original F/4 1/8
91097676.jpg


1. Retouched
15retouched.jpg



2. Original F/4 1/15
92241061.jpg


2. Retouched
14retouched.jpg



3. Original F/4 1/15
18959697.jpg



3. Retouched
11retouched.jpg
 
4. Original F/4 1/125
75255993.jpg


4. Retouched
7retouched.jpg



5. Original F/4 1/8
67820106.jpg


5. Retouched
10retouched.jpg
 
Love the re-touching, just shows what can be achieved, well done.
 
medwaygreen said:
Love the re-touching, just shows what can be achieved, well done.
Click to expand...

Thanks Richard....I had planned on pushing different film this year....this little experiment has certainly given more enticement to play around.
 
Looking good Asha! Only on mob so will have proper look later
 
Well done, they've come out really well.

Andy
 
wontolla said:
Looking good Asha! Only on mob so will have proper look later
Click to expand...

Andysnap said:
Well done, they've come out really well.

Andy
Click to expand...

Jao said:
What he said!
Click to expand...

Thanks Guys,

Last few:

6. Original F/4 1/30
40394323.jpg



Retouched
4retouched.jpg






7. Original F/4 1/60
21440228.jpg


Retouched
2retouched.jpg



And this last one was actually the first shot I took not realising the aperture was stopped down at F/22.....shutter stayed open for approx 1 full second...quite impressed at my andholding skills tbh:D

Original
66466181.jpg


Retouched
1aretouched.jpg
 
Last edited:
Very respectable results. Could you give more details on what steps, chemicals and times you used for the process?
 
Pretty impressive for a 3 stop push. I'm going to be honest though and say I actually prefer the tones in the original scans. The retouched versions just seem overly contrasted to me. Anyone else?
 
KayJay said:
Pretty impressive for a 3 stop push. I'm going to be honest though and say I actually prefer the tones in the original scans. The retouched versions just seem overly contrasted to me. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

No - retouches much better - it's Called Black and White, not muddy grey and dirty white.
 
Hmmmm, even more impressive on my lappy. In particular #6.
Must try pushing a couple of my little Olly's and see what happens.
 
KayJay said:
Pretty impressive for a 3 stop push. I'm going to be honest though and say I actually prefer the tones in the original scans. The retouched versions just seem overly contrasted to me. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

TheBigYin said:
No - retouches much better - it's Called Black and White, not muddy grey and dirty white.
Click to expand...

Prefer the tones in the retouched versions. That's why I'm interested in what processes were undertaken - because that greyness might be caused by a C-41 negative film backing.
 
Cezar said:
Photos 3, 5 and 7 are bloody brilliant! I think I'll give it a go, I mean developing colour negs with B&W chemistry in my college darkroom.
Click to expand...

Welcome to F&C and of course TP and thank you for your comments.

I've devd this agfa film many times in b&w chems when shot at box speed ( ie iso 200) .....10 mins in Rodinal (1:50 solution) @ 20°C.....water stop (couple of rinses) .....Ilford rapid fixer 5 mins......thorough wash. Scan then boost contrast a bit in photoshop.

If you push it then I doubt the 10 mins dev time will be sufficient hence why I used semi stand development...see below.

freecom2 said:
Very respectable results. Could you give more details on what steps, chemicals and times you used for the process?
Click to expand...

With pleasure FC2:

I was tempted to try adding a couple of minutes dev time for each stop pushed to the standard 10 mins that I would typically dev for at box speed but tbh I wasn't convinced it would work so opted for a Semi Stand process instead:

Rodinal
1:100 solution

60 minutes @20°C ( dropped a degree or two during processing duration but it's not a big problem)
Agitated (gently) for 1 full minute then again for 30 seconds at 30 minutes.

Water stop...2 rinses.

Ilford Rapid Fixer...8 minutes ( but my fixer has been used many times and is becoming exhausted!!)

Wash

Scanned Canoscan 8800F 2400ppp

Contrast boost in photoshop elements 5.0




KayJay said:
Pretty impressive for a 3 stop push. I'm going to be honest though and say I actually prefer the tones in the original scans. The retouched versions just seem overly contrasted to me. Anyone else?
Click to expand...

Yes tbh some are too contrasty for my liking too.

I have done a very quick pp of contrast simply to "sharpen" the shots up for your viewing lol

I'm sure they could be done much more subtly from their original scans.
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
No - retouches much better - it's Called Black and White, not muddy grey and dirty white.
Click to expand...

So, anyway. Like I said, I prefer the originals. Just as well we all have the gift of free thought eh? ;)
 
Asha said:
Welcome to F&C and of course TP and thank you for your comments.

I've devd this agfa film many times in b&w chems when shot at box speed ( ie iso 200) .....10 mins in Rodinal @ 20°C.....water stop (couple of rinses) .....Ilford rapid fixer 5 mins......thorough wash. Scan then boost contrast a bit in photoshop.

If you push it then I doubt the 10 mins dev time will be sufficient hence why I used semi stand development...see below.



With pleasure FC2:

I was tempted to try adding a couple of minutes dev time for each stop pushed to the standard 10 mins that I would typically dev for at box speed but tbh I wasn't convinced it would work so opted for a Semi Stand process instead:

Rodinal
1:100 solution

60 minutes @20°C ( dropped a degree or two during processing duration but it's not a big problem)
Agitated (gently) for 1 full minute then again for 30 seconds at 30 minutes.

Water stop...2 rinses.

Ilford Rapid Fixer...8 minutes ( but my fixer has been used many times and is becoming exhausted!!)

Wash

Scanned Canoscan 8800F 2400ppp

Contrast boost in photoshop elements 5.0






Yes tbh some are too contrasty for my liking too.

I have done a very quick pp of contrast simply to "sharpen" the shots up for your viewing lol

I'm sure they could be done much more subtly from their original scans.
Click to expand...

Asha, I'm not saying the retouched versions are rubbish or anything like that, just that I prefer the originals. It's a look that I personally like. Mark's reply to my original post made it sound like I've not got a clue how black and white works. Please don't take my original comment the wrong way.
 
Thanks Asha. I assumed it was a normal dev rather than a stand development... interesting. And this was with a developer not especially well known for controlling grain! Wonder how it would fare with something like XTOL/HC110/T-MAX.
 
TheBigYin said:
No - retouches much better - it's Called Black and White, not muddy grey and dirty white.
Click to expand...

These things are subjective you know...

Just glancing over at the missus' Farrow & Ball paint chart and would like to suggest as an alternative admiralty grey and politician white:nuts:

THis is one of those inspirational "have a go at something different" threads, well done the OP on dealing with poor light and dodgy greys and whites (crikey that sounds like a clandestine cavalry regiment!)
 
freecom2 said:
Prefer the tones in the retouched versions. That's why I'm interested in what processes were undertaken - because that greyness might be caused by a C-41 negative film backing.
Click to expand...

Yes the greyness is caused by the C-41 negative film backing........I've devd C-41 in Rodinal both at 10 mins 1:50 solution and 60 mins Semi Stand 1:100 solution.....the greyness is always there but easily remedied in PP.
 
This is very interesting, that's how long I usually do colour films when I rate them at, or under, box speed. It's not nearly as grainy as my normal results, I wonder if that's to do with me usually using long expired film stock.
 
KayJay said:
Asha, I'm not saying the retouched versions are rubbish or anything like that, just that I prefer the originals. It's a look that I personally like. Mark's reply to my original post made it sound like I've not got a clue how black and white works. Please don't take my original comment the wrong way.
Click to expand...

Not taken the wrong way at all......I like my results b&w as against murky grey but at the same time I'm not one for seriously sharp contrasting although depending on the picture content, it may work sometimes.
 
freecom2 said:
Thanks Asha. I assumed it was a normal dev rather than a stand development... interesting. And this was with a developer not especially well known for controlling grain! Wonder how it would fare with something like XTOL/HC110/T-MAX.
Click to expand...

Only one way to find out! ......the fact that results like this have come shooting at 1600, me wonders how much further it might push :nuts:
 
tikkathreebarrel said:
THis is one of those inspirational "have a go at something different" threads, well done the OP on dealing with poor light and dodgy greys and whites (crikey that sounds like a clandestine cavalry regiment!)
Click to expand...

I like to "experiment", have a go at something different, then best of all, share my findings with others so they too can play around and possibly benefit/improve on what I've achieved.
 
steveo_mcg said:
This is very interesting, that's how long I usually do colour films when I rate them at, or under, box speed. It's not nearly as grainy as my normal results, I wonder if that's to do with me usually using long expired film stock.
Click to expand...

How long expired Steve??

The emulsions will probably have deteriorated which will inevitably add to grain.

Don't forget different brands of film reacts differently to being pushed, expired, chems etc.

I've actually got a "Telecolor" 100 iso 126 film to scan which I devd in the same tank as this Agfa film.
I guess it's in excess of 30 years old so rated it at about iso 6 and shot it in bright full sun scenes.....will get some results up later today...I reckon it will have plenty of grain!
 
I'm impressed what you have managed to get out of this film especially dev'ing in b&w chems and I think they have an interesting look. I accidentally pushed a roll of Vista a while back, I didn't notice that the camera wasn't set to DX setting :bang: But once I'd started I thought I'd carry on, the roll was processed by Jessops (remember them?) and they didn't seem to sure about pushing it to 1600 and they did come out a bit on the dark side but most were salvageable.



Nikon F5 Agfa Vista 1600-5 by Raglansurf, on Flickr
8238457966_89c0b60223_z.jpg

8238457966_89c0b60223.jpg

Nikon F5 Agfa Vista 1600-24 by Raglansurf, on Flickr

Nikon F5 Agfa Vista 1600-27 by Raglansurf, on Flickr

Overall not too bad for cheap film.
 
Last edited:
RaglanSurf said:
I'm impressed what you have managed to get out of this film especially dev'ing in b&w chems and I think they have an interesting look. I accidentally pushed a roll of Vista a while back, I didn't notice that the camera wasn't set to DX setting :bang: But once I'd started I thought I'd carry on, the roll was processed by Jessops (remember them?) and they didn't seem to sure about pushing it to 1600 and they did come out a bit on the dark side but most were salvageable.

Overall not too bad for cheap film.
Click to expand...

Nice results Nick(y).......at a quid a time, could you not have run off a roll of film a day just to keep your local Jessops going??:D :D
 
Asha said:
Seeing as it was dark before getting a chance to go out with a camera today and not wanting to lugg a tripod around in the drizzle, I decided to see what if anything would come from shooting some agfa vista plus 200 film at 1600 iso.

Shot half a roll and just devd it......

I have yet to scan them and tbh, I am not expecting anything brilliant as they were all shot hand held with quite slow speeds (1/15 and 1/30 most of em) but the fact that
there are what look to be half reasonable results ( exposure wise anyway) is quite exciting for me ( I know it's sad aint it!:LOL: ) as tbh I didn't think a 3 stop push would work cross processing a C41 film in b&w chems.

I'll get some results posted asap ......I just wanted to share my excitement!:D
Click to expand...

Hope you don't mind but you're famous now as I put you test results on another forum with a link and it's probably all over google now (y)
 
wow great pictures guys! i've been sceptical about stocking this film, but i guess its time to go raid my local poundland store :D
 
Asha said:
Nice results Nick(y).......at a quid a time, could you not have run off a roll of film a day just to keep your local Jessops going??:D :D
Click to expand...

Poor Jessops, I know they had their knockers :eek: but the guys at the shop that I used most in Victoria were a helpful and knowledgable bunch, they understood film and some were keen film users as well and it was a sad day when they disappeared from the High St.
 
excalibur2 said:
Hope you don't mind but you're famous now as I put you test results on another forum with a link and it's probably all over google now (y)
Click to expand...



Well I've failed miserably for four decades at trying to gain fame.....thanks to you Brian, it may have finally arrived! :LOL:

I'm presuming that you too are quite impressed by the results.....I think you're the perfect victim(( oops candidate:D) to try push this film a little further.

I would put a good bet on it going another stop possibly even two......
 
hlens said:
wow great pictures guys! i've been sceptical about stocking this film, but i guess its time to go raid my local poundland store :D
Click to expand...

Thanks hlens......although sold at a quid, this film has thrown out more than one surprise in it's quality.

Not sure how the stocks are now in the stores as all the "crones" :D in f&c have took shares in this film I think.:cautious:....me incuded when i was last in the UK:p......Doubt I'll get anymore by the time I'm back there in May though:(
 
RaglanSurf said:
Poor Jessops, I know they had their knockers :eek: but the guys at the shop that I used most in Victoria were a helpful and knowledgable bunch, they understood film and some were keen film users as well and it was a sad day when they disappeared from the High St.
Click to expand...

Agreed, not nice for anyone when somewhere closes down, least of all the employees especially when it seems film related outlets are becoming less and less, the guys are unlikely to find similar line of work elsewhere.

At least you supported them whilst they were there Nick....(y)
 
Loving these results. I may put a roll through the x-300 at 3200 round the house tonight and see what comes of it! I have a roll of Kodak Gold 200 in the Nikon L35AF at the moment but the iso wheel only goes to 1000 :)
 
Asha said:
Well I've failed miserably for four decades at trying to gain fame.....thanks to you Brian, it may have finally arrived! :LOL:

I'm presuming that you too are quite impressed by the results.....I think you're the perfect victim(( oops candidate:D) to try push this film a little further.

I would put a good bet on it going another stop possibly even two......
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a B/W film man anymore but pushing that film was VG and with more experience you can probably get even better results.....but if we can get more people to buy this film from forums, google or anywhere else then Poundland will be more encouraged to stock it. Also it may encourage more people to try film that are put off by expense because of silly prices on the bay for OOD film. (y)
 
Sorry to "dredge this up" and not posting for an argument - but thought I'd better address your comments, as I've finally got 10 minutes to do so...

KayJay said:
So, anyway. Like I said, I prefer the originals. Just as well we all have the gift of free thought eh? ;)
Click to expand...

KayJay said:
... Mark's reply to my original post made it sound like I've not got a clue how black and white works...
Click to expand...

As you say, it's personal opinion. My personal opinion is that black and white should at least TRY and come near to having at least one aspect of it's name present in the photo - my original post was a little short/terse because I was attempting to reply whilst fire-fighting in another area of the forum, but writing 4 paragraphs on the subject wouldn't alter my opinion.

The original scans are much like most of my scans come out - I'd rather not push the scanning software too hard, and instead make the corrections (based on my judgement not someone else's algorithms) within pp software.

I'm sorry you took it to be an attack on your knowledge of BnW developing, processing, printing, scanning or any such part - however, after years of having prints torn up in my face and being told to "go away and print them properly now", I've become something of a stickler for getting a full tonal range out of a print, and frankly, the PP'd shots of Asha's came far closer to that ideal than the originals - otherwise, why on earth would he have invested the time and effort in doing them ?

You see - this is why I don't give anywhere near the amount of critique that I used to, or that I like to do - time will not allow the page after page of comments I used to be able to, and I absolutely refuse to go "one line fluffy-wuffy", as nobody gains from that.
 
TheBigYin said:
Sorry to "dredge this up" and not posting for an argument - but thought I'd better address your comments, as I've finally got 10 minutes to do so...





As you say, it's personal opinion. My personal opinion is that black and white should at least TRY and come near to having at least one aspect of it's name present in the photo - my original post was a little short/terse because I was attempting to reply whilst fire-fighting in another area of the forum, but writing 4 paragraphs on the subject wouldn't alter my opinion.

The original scans are much like most of my scans come out - I'd rather not push the scanning software too hard, and instead make the corrections (based on my judgement not someone else's algorithms) within pp software.

I'm sorry you took it to be an attack on your knowledge of BnW developing, processing, printing, scanning or any such part - however, after years of having prints torn up in my face and being told to "go away and print them properly now", I've become something of a stickler for getting a full tonal range out of a print, and frankly, the PP'd shots of Asha's came far closer to that ideal than the originals - otherwise, why on earth would he have invested the time and effort in doing them ?

You see - this is why I don't give anywhere near the amount of critique that I used to, or that I like to do - time will not allow the page after page of comments I used to be able to, and I absolutely refuse to go "one line fluffy-wuffy", as nobody gains from that.
Click to expand...

Please excuse the use of a smilie but it is the best way to express my feeling over this post.

(y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top