Ian's Contact Sheets
- Thread starter Harlequin565
- Start date
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
And we're done!!
And with it I got a promo link:
It's £25 off a book that has to be over £50 and it has to be a new account. I get a 40% discount on my next book if you use the link.
www.talkable.com
You may be able to go to Blurb and get it as a new customer too. I'm not sure.
And with it I got a promo link:
It's £25 off a book that has to be over £50 and it has to be a new account. I get a 40% discount on my next book if you use the link.
Get £25 off your first book at Blurb
I bet you have hundreds of photos! Turn your Instagram into a beautiful photo book!
You may be able to go to Blurb and get it as a new customer too. I'm not sure.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
OK, so I renamed the thread "Contact Sheets". I think I'll carry on doing it, but as Nige hinted he might do, I'll just put up stuff that's "interesting".
I have 5 rolls of Neopan 400CN that have been sat in the fridge "waiting" for me to shoot it. When I did a 400 speed film test a few years ago, this came out as "most pleasing" but it's a C41 B&W film and thus is a pain in the arse for me. So I developed it in DD-X. It worked!
I just used the MDC time of 7 minutes in DD-X. I'm pretty sure this is for the old Neopan 400 Professional but had no other baseline to go from. I'm pretty happy with the results considering it probably shouldn't be developed in B&W chemistry. I wish eBay would do a £1 fvf day because this would sell quite well. Probably of more use to someone who doesn't dev their own and can thus shoot B&W and get it dev'd cheap in C41. Maybe a swap in the classifieds for the remaning 4 rolls. I'd rather just shoot HP5.
This was also a test of my M3 with a new 50mm. I p/x'd my rigid Summicron at Ffordes in exhange for this Carl Zeiss Sonnar f/1.5 which is a billion times more user friendly. Has problems with focus shift at f/1.5 apparently so more tests required there, but I really like this lens.
Got some nice wintry picks to kick off 2021 though.
I have 5 rolls of Neopan 400CN that have been sat in the fridge "waiting" for me to shoot it. When I did a 400 speed film test a few years ago, this came out as "most pleasing" but it's a C41 B&W film and thus is a pain in the arse for me. So I developed it in DD-X. It worked!
I just used the MDC time of 7 minutes in DD-X. I'm pretty sure this is for the old Neopan 400 Professional but had no other baseline to go from. I'm pretty happy with the results considering it probably shouldn't be developed in B&W chemistry. I wish eBay would do a £1 fvf day because this would sell quite well. Probably of more use to someone who doesn't dev their own and can thus shoot B&W and get it dev'd cheap in C41. Maybe a swap in the classifieds for the remaning 4 rolls. I'd rather just shoot HP5.
This was also a test of my M3 with a new 50mm. I p/x'd my rigid Summicron at Ffordes in exhange for this Carl Zeiss Sonnar f/1.5 which is a billion times more user friendly. Has problems with focus shift at f/1.5 apparently so more tests required there, but I really like this lens.
Got some nice wintry picks to kick off 2021 though.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I have no idea. It's been so long since I shot this stuff I'm not even sure where the negatives are. My scans in LR are awful, but back from before my V500 and before I knew how to get decent results. I should probably rescan to see how they look.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Book arrived this week. Looks fab.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Have 2! Pretty much all the pages are the same. Contact sheet with Month, film and camera underneath. First page is my "stats" page that shows how many rolls I've shot and on which cameras. Useful to find things to sell
Thank you!
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Well here we are in 2021. This is contact sheet #18 for the year, and the first one for this thread.
Washi F in Diafine, shot through the F-1n. Meter was set to 200. The box speed is 100 but I find this film works best under exposed, even though developing in Diafine makes that kinda redundant...
I've never been sure of my developing of Washi F because it's so "bright" and the lack of anti-halation layer makes it quite dreamy. Since I got my Diafine I really wanted to try it out with this (and Washi Z but need sun for that) to see what the results were like.
It looks over exposed, which isn't supposed to happen with Diafine, so I can only assume that the base film emulsion requires under-exposure to get it right, and that is taken care of with the times Lomig provides.
That said - over exposure isn't such a terrible thing, and with this being a bit of a "special effect" type film, it's even less hurt. I still got usable images from the roll, although I would have preferred a bit more depth to the shadows.
Also - bonus. 32 frames out of this roll which is marked as "24". The instructions state that you should load in darkness and shoot 6 frames before taking anything serious with it because of light bleed through, but I think I got lucky!
This was going to be my entry for "Cluttered" in the FPOTY but I didn't think it would get many votes.
I love that glow...
This on a grey overcast day. I really should shoot this on bright days but we've had so much grey recently I just wanted something different.
Washi F in Diafine, shot through the F-1n. Meter was set to 200. The box speed is 100 but I find this film works best under exposed, even though developing in Diafine makes that kinda redundant...
I've never been sure of my developing of Washi F because it's so "bright" and the lack of anti-halation layer makes it quite dreamy. Since I got my Diafine I really wanted to try it out with this (and Washi Z but need sun for that) to see what the results were like.
It looks over exposed, which isn't supposed to happen with Diafine, so I can only assume that the base film emulsion requires under-exposure to get it right, and that is taken care of with the times Lomig provides.
That said - over exposure isn't such a terrible thing, and with this being a bit of a "special effect" type film, it's even less hurt. I still got usable images from the roll, although I would have preferred a bit more depth to the shadows.
Also - bonus. 32 frames out of this roll which is marked as "24". The instructions state that you should load in darkness and shoot 6 frames before taking anything serious with it because of light bleed through, but I think I got lucky!
This was going to be my entry for "Cluttered" in the FPOTY but I didn't think it would get many votes.
I love that glow...
This on a grey overcast day. I really should shoot this on bright days but we've had so much grey recently I just wanted something different.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Time to share another bit of a disaster.
I bought this roll of Maco Eagle (extended IR sensitivity) surveillance film, in bulk from Nick 'n' Trick. The problems started when I couldn't get it fed into the bulk loader properly. Had to snip the corners to get it to feed through which resulted in sweaty hands! Next issue was that the clicker has broken. The clicker makes a click when 1 frame has passed, allowing you to count the number of frames you put in the can. With no clicker (and no counter turning) I had to "guess" at 30 turns of the handle. I ended up getting 17 rolls out of so was curious to see how many frames I had got per can. I was assuming 36-40 as 18 is the number of 36xp films you're expected to get out of 100ft.
So null points for the AP Bulk Loader which has managed at most 10 bulk rolls through it before packing up.
Also, null points for the Cavon EOS-1v which reads the frame count from the DX coded can and is un-alterable and un-overrideable. Stupidly I didn't realise this, and inserted a 24xp marked can. Ended up getting precisely 24 frames and a load of undeveloped film.
Lastly, I chose to dev in Diafine. Figuring I'd shoot the base film at various ISOs and with various filters to see what teh difference was. Diafine is supposed to develop "just enough" and is good for "pushing" film.
You decide...
Box speed is 400 ISO. I shot frames 1-8 at 800 and with a red filter. Problem #4 is I shot this on gloomy overcast days which isn't recommended for IR film. Interestingly my (freshly washed) bright red boot laces came out white. Frames 9-18 were shot on similarly gloomy days at 800 with no filter. They look significantly under exposed. 19-24 were shot at 400 with no filter and look a bit better but still under exposed.
The internet reckons that 4 minutes is a better time for Diafine rather than 3, but my biggest mistake was changing too many things. Should have stuck with a developer I know (HC-110) until I'd got to grips with the film before changing the various shooting conditions.
So roll #2 has gone back in and I'm only shooting it on sunny days. So I won't see the results for a couple of months probably!!! Going to develop that in HC-110 as per manufacturer instructions and go from there. Should have probably rolled a couple of short cans for this testing, but I figured Diafine would be a one-stop-shop and also with my broken clicker, don't know how many frames are going in anyway.
Where is the "Digital Is Easier" gif?
I bought this roll of Maco Eagle (extended IR sensitivity) surveillance film, in bulk from Nick 'n' Trick. The problems started when I couldn't get it fed into the bulk loader properly. Had to snip the corners to get it to feed through which resulted in sweaty hands! Next issue was that the clicker has broken. The clicker makes a click when 1 frame has passed, allowing you to count the number of frames you put in the can. With no clicker (and no counter turning) I had to "guess" at 30 turns of the handle. I ended up getting 17 rolls out of so was curious to see how many frames I had got per can. I was assuming 36-40 as 18 is the number of 36xp films you're expected to get out of 100ft.
So null points for the AP Bulk Loader which has managed at most 10 bulk rolls through it before packing up.
Also, null points for the Cavon EOS-1v which reads the frame count from the DX coded can and is un-alterable and un-overrideable. Stupidly I didn't realise this, and inserted a 24xp marked can. Ended up getting precisely 24 frames and a load of undeveloped film.
Lastly, I chose to dev in Diafine. Figuring I'd shoot the base film at various ISOs and with various filters to see what teh difference was. Diafine is supposed to develop "just enough" and is good for "pushing" film.
You decide...
Box speed is 400 ISO. I shot frames 1-8 at 800 and with a red filter. Problem #4 is I shot this on gloomy overcast days which isn't recommended for IR film. Interestingly my (freshly washed) bright red boot laces came out white. Frames 9-18 were shot on similarly gloomy days at 800 with no filter. They look significantly under exposed. 19-24 were shot at 400 with no filter and look a bit better but still under exposed.
The internet reckons that 4 minutes is a better time for Diafine rather than 3, but my biggest mistake was changing too many things. Should have stuck with a developer I know (HC-110) until I'd got to grips with the film before changing the various shooting conditions.
So roll #2 has gone back in and I'm only shooting it on sunny days. So I won't see the results for a couple of months probably!!! Going to develop that in HC-110 as per manufacturer instructions and go from there. Should have probably rolled a couple of short cans for this testing, but I figured Diafine would be a one-stop-shop and also with my broken clicker, don't know how many frames are going in anyway.
Where is the "Digital Is Easier" gif?
Well, aren't we having a bit of a time of it!
As is common with the whole scanning and digital "contact sheet" I'm not sure I'm getting the whole experience. My observations are: 1-8 they worked; 9-18 didn't work; 19-24 better but not as good as the early ones (which is odd, as you have given them more exposure).
Bad luck with the AP loader. I inherited an ancient Computrol one (just like the one I used to have and *threw away - argh*), but no bulk film. There was some in it, and I thought ah-ha. But it turned out it was enough for 3 frames. I have ordered some, but it hasn't arrived yet.
I did not know about the EOS 1v frame count. I just rechecked the manual, and I really should have spotted it, since it offers a count-down option, so it must know how many frames there are. I wonder what it does with non-Dx encoded films, probably sulks and won't play. I had already decided to only use new, factory loaded films in my 1v, as I can quite imagine it tearing the film from the spool, or ripping out the sprocket holes, especially since I have (but do not always use) the High Speed motor (very, very fast wind between frames).
Changing a lot of things is a problem, but sometimes we don't have a lot of choice. At least you must have kept records of your choices - I tend to get wrapped up in the excitement of it all, then it's all finished and I have no idea what I did.
Sure, digital is easier, and a much better learning environment - but it's not so much fun. At least we are trying new things and learning something along the way.
As is common with the whole scanning and digital "contact sheet" I'm not sure I'm getting the whole experience. My observations are: 1-8 they worked; 9-18 didn't work; 19-24 better but not as good as the early ones (which is odd, as you have given them more exposure).
Bad luck with the AP loader. I inherited an ancient Computrol one (just like the one I used to have and *threw away - argh*), but no bulk film. There was some in it, and I thought ah-ha. But it turned out it was enough for 3 frames. I have ordered some, but it hasn't arrived yet.
I did not know about the EOS 1v frame count. I just rechecked the manual, and I really should have spotted it, since it offers a count-down option, so it must know how many frames there are. I wonder what it does with non-Dx encoded films, probably sulks and won't play. I had already decided to only use new, factory loaded films in my 1v, as I can quite imagine it tearing the film from the spool, or ripping out the sprocket holes, especially since I have (but do not always use) the High Speed motor (very, very fast wind between frames).
Changing a lot of things is a problem, but sometimes we don't have a lot of choice. At least you must have kept records of your choices - I tend to get wrapped up in the excitement of it all, then it's all finished and I have no idea what I did.
Sure, digital is easier, and a much better learning environment - but it's not so much fun. At least we are trying new things and learning something along the way.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I thought this too. I'm not fully trusting of Diafine yet.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm sure it does what it does on my 36 cans with 24 xp in them and feels the tension at the end of the roll and rewinds. Why you can't switch it to "detect-end-of-roll" is beyond me. Maybe Kodak paid them a bribe to make it mandatory.
In that case, could you not tape over the Dx patches?
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
Thought I'd an update, mainly because this was Tri-X in DD-X at 1600.
When it comes to B&W film at 400, it's a battle between HP5 and Tri-X. HP5 in DD-X looks so clean and lovely it's difficult to justify the higher price of Tri-X. But to my eye, Tri-X has a beautiful contrast and grain to it that is much less "mushy" than the similar effect seen with HP5 in other developers like HC-110 and Rodinal. Pushing Tri-X accentuates this but not in a horrible way, and when it's pushed to 1600 and developed in the much gentler DD-X developer you get the "look" of 800 Tri-X in HC-110 with that extra stop.
Mostly this was a recreation of a photo I took back in November (but was out of date for the FPoTY) with the addition of Robert Smith's face for the "Accurate" theme to go alongside the watch. Shot under a desk lamp with the EOS-30 and a Raynox on the pancake Canon 40mm f/2.8 it was an enjoyable evening. The last 6 frames all taken yesterday morning when it was a bit misty.
And those frames are the ones I really like. The grain in the over-development coupled with the very low contrast misty scene has really worked well and close up, the images look very nice indeed.
When it comes to B&W film at 400, it's a battle between HP5 and Tri-X. HP5 in DD-X looks so clean and lovely it's difficult to justify the higher price of Tri-X. But to my eye, Tri-X has a beautiful contrast and grain to it that is much less "mushy" than the similar effect seen with HP5 in other developers like HC-110 and Rodinal. Pushing Tri-X accentuates this but not in a horrible way, and when it's pushed to 1600 and developed in the much gentler DD-X developer you get the "look" of 800 Tri-X in HC-110 with that extra stop.
Mostly this was a recreation of a photo I took back in November (but was out of date for the FPoTY) with the addition of Robert Smith's face for the "Accurate" theme to go alongside the watch. Shot under a desk lamp with the EOS-30 and a Raynox on the pancake Canon 40mm f/2.8 it was an enjoyable evening. The last 6 frames all taken yesterday morning when it was a bit misty.
And those frames are the ones I really like. The grain in the over-development coupled with the very low contrast misty scene has really worked well and close up, the images look very nice indeed.
OP
- Messages
- 8,309
- Name
- Ian
- Edit My Images
- No
New film, new update. Washi D in Diafine. Images taken with Canon F-1n.
So my cock up with this film was my usual problem of not being able to focus the F-1n properly. I missed focus on half the shots which I'm really annoyed about. Still, I can always reshoot and now I have the idea, I'll continue to roll with it.
Second "issue" was the film itself. It's like flimsy tissue paper. Getting it on a reel (and I like to think I'm pretty good at it) was a nightmare. The problem is that because it's so thin, it comes out of the "track" really easily. Getting it started wasn't a problem, but as you wind more and more film on (and this comes in 36xp) the tension of so much film pulls it off the track and kinks it. I ended up having to switch to my Jobo reels as they are more forgiving, and even then ended up with kinks. At least I got it all on the reel though.
Resulting images were very meh. It's supposed to be contrasty and I was hoping for Washi S or Ferrania P30 contrast without the silly low ISO but I didn't see it. I'm supposing Diafine as a developer hasn't helped. No grain to speak of which is really nice for a 500 speed film, but I quite like grain so that's not a plus for me. Sharpness was pretty poor too but that's difficult to evaluate when I didn't get the focus right most of the time. The main question is: Is it worth the utter pain of getting it on a reel? No. No it's not.
So my cock up with this film was my usual problem of not being able to focus the F-1n properly. I missed focus on half the shots which I'm really annoyed about. Still, I can always reshoot and now I have the idea, I'll continue to roll with it.
Second "issue" was the film itself. It's like flimsy tissue paper. Getting it on a reel (and I like to think I'm pretty good at it) was a nightmare. The problem is that because it's so thin, it comes out of the "track" really easily. Getting it started wasn't a problem, but as you wind more and more film on (and this comes in 36xp) the tension of so much film pulls it off the track and kinks it. I ended up having to switch to my Jobo reels as they are more forgiving, and even then ended up with kinks. At least I got it all on the reel though.
Resulting images were very meh. It's supposed to be contrasty and I was hoping for Washi S or Ferrania P30 contrast without the silly low ISO but I didn't see it. I'm supposing Diafine as a developer hasn't helped. No grain to speak of which is really nice for a 500 speed film, but I quite like grain so that's not a plus for me. Sharpness was pretty poor too but that's difficult to evaluate when I didn't get the focus right most of the time. The main question is: Is it worth the utter pain of getting it on a reel? No. No it's not.