Show us yer film shots then!

moggi1964 said:
Beautiful, Kevin.

When I get paid this month I'm going to pick up some 116 to 120 film converters for my Kodak 1A Autographic and put it to use. Martin Henson did a great video on the folder version recently.
Click to expand...
That's great Morris. Look forward to seeing your results. I may do a roll film adaptation at some point with the No 3 folding brownie - it used 124 rolls - but the shot above was done by sticking a sheet of 5x4 across the film gate.
 
Good Stuff @Kevin Allan.
So do you expose the paper and then have to take it out and develop it?
I'm asking because im clueless, never heard of paper negative.
 
Marino said:
Good Stuff @Kevin Allan.
So do you expose the paper and then have to take it out and develop it?
I'm asking because im clueless, never heard of paper negative.
Click to expand...
The paper is the same type of darkroom paper that is used to create positive prints with an enlarger in a darkroom.

I load the paper into film holders (for a large format camera) or put it directly into the camera for some other cameras. This is done using a red safelight in the darkroom. After exposure, the paper must be taken out of the film holder or camera under safelight again; it is then developed, goes in a stop bath, and fixed, in trays.

The resulting negative can be either scanned and inverted to make a positive, or a contact print made in the darkroom to create a positive, or enlarged on the darkroom to make a bigger positive print.
 
moggi1964 said:
Love the second one, Kevin.

I'm watching a Joe Van Cleave video on paper negatives at this moment. I have a fridge full of expired paper to experiment with.
Click to expand...
Have fun. I find that expired paper works best for paper negatives as contrast is lower. Even if the paper is too fogged to be used for positive prints, it can work well for paper negs.
 
Kevin Allan said:
The paper is the same type of darkroom paper that is used to create positive prints with an enlarger in a darkroom.

I load the paper into film holders (for a large format camera) or put it directly into the camera for some other cameras. This is done using a red safelight in the darkroom. After exposure, the paper must be taken out of the film holder or camera under safelight again; it is then developed, goes in a stop bath, and fixed, in trays.

The resulting negative can be either scanned and inverted to make a positive, or a contact print made in the darkroom to create a positive, or enlarged on the darkroom to make a bigger positive print.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a really lengthy process!
And i suppose correct exposure must be the most difficult part because you can’t do anything after it’s been developed. maybe one option is leaving it in the developing Bath longer to get more contrast?
 
Marino said:
Sounds like a really lengthy process!
And i suppose correct exposure must be the most difficult part because you can’t do anything after it’s been developed. maybe one option is leaving it in the developing Bath longer to get more contrast?
Click to expand...

If the exposure is not too far out, you can make some adjustments to a scanned version in Lightroom or Photoshop or whatever. If making a contact print or enlargement, then you can vary the length of the exposure at that stage, again as long as the first exposure wasn't too far wrong. To some extent these issues are common to film and paper. Yes, developing for longer will increase contrast.
 
AT LAST !! SUNNY DAY on a Coach Trip to WORTHING, Sussex, England - this time The Wife Came but we had an agreement -- she went around The Shops and I wandered around with CAMERA then we met up later for snacks - I paid of course ! my 'Gift' 1984 MAMIYA C220 + 1999 dated Fuji ASTIA 220 size which I processed myself in a BELLINI E6 1litre kit from FirstCall Photographic I have lots MORE of that film in 5 packs so want to USE it up ! I used a 'warm' 81B 46mm filter as film comes out 'Blue' in scans.
WORTHING 02 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
WORTHING 05 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
WORTHING 07 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
WORTHING 12 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
WORTHING 15 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
WORTHING 16 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
Flighter said:
Nice colours! Was it processed using C41 or ECN2 chemistry?
Click to expand...

Well, I must admit to tweaking the greens and yellows, ever so slightly. But other than that... ECN2, as far as I know. Developed by Silverpan in Bristol, who did a first rate job.
 
Went on a 5-day Kirbys Coach Holiday to Linconshire, Leicestershire and Rutland. Hotel was on Lincoln Waterfront. First Excursion was to Belvoir Castle home of Duke and Duchess of Rutland -- it was so dark and NO flash or Triopds allowed so I had to use my New Toy a SAMSUNG PHONE but I DID manage to get a couple of Interiors with Mamiya C220 loaded with 1999 Dated Fuji ASTIA 220 size FILM !
Belvoir Castle 13 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Belvoir Castle 14 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Belvoir Castle 15 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
Belvoir Castle 17 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
a FLASH SHOT in the BASEMENT -- nobody saw me using FLASH !
Belvoir Castle 18 by Peter Elgar, on Flickr
 
Another from my first outing with the Linhof.

Tech stuff:
Linhof Kardan, Nikkor 150mm f5.6, Kodak Ektar 100.
Developed in Cinestill C41, Paterson System 4 tank with MOD54 film holder.
Fluid mount scanned using Epson V850 and epson fluid mount with Silverfish 9 and corrected (as best as I can) using Canon DPP

It's a shame re-sizing for web destroys so much detail.

I had forgotten how many things could go wrong with large format but I've seen most of them this week.

Hayling 2023 hut.JPG
 
Last edited:
soupdragon said:
It's a shame re-sizing for web destroys so much detail.

I had forgotten how many things could go wrong with large format but I've seen most of them this week.
Click to expand...

Do you have a Flickr account? You can post full resolution imaes there and then link embedded versions from here. The free account allows up to 1,000 images to be uploaded.

On the second point, tell me about it. While my hit rate in terms of images I'm satisfied with is very high for 35mm and medium format, it's much lower with large format, with niggly annoying problems on most of my pictures. I'll hopefully get better with time and practice but, given the effort of shooting it, it's more than a little disheartening when yet another anticipated picture is a letdown because I did something wrong. :(
 
Last edited:
horrocks said:
I remain intrigued as to how you get such apparently grain-free photos from 400asa film, though JCN Streetpan is completely new to me?
Click to expand...

I think JCH Streetpan is a aerial surveillance fim or something, so that might be why the grain is fine. Using Ilfotec DD-X to develop might also help with the grain (although I get plenty in some shots with other films). I don't do anything to deliberately remove grain in post-processing though - I don't mind film grain when it's there.
 
FishyFish said:
I think JCH Streetpan is a aerial surveillance fim or something, so that might be why the grain is fine. Using Ilfotec DD-X to develop might also help with the grain (although I get plenty in some shots with other films). I don't do anything to deliberately remove grain in post-processing though - I don't mind film grain when it's there.
Click to expand...

DD-X is my favoured developer for 400asa upwards, though is is very expensive, more so if you don't use it quickly enough. I've actually been using Perceptol at 1+3 for 35mm HP5, even rated at box speed, as it is capable of giving a finer grain than more 'suited' developers such as ID-11. I too have no issue with grain per se, in fact I often love it, but I like to have a measure of control over it.

Anyway, these are impressive - if I have a criticism it would be that the grain is almost too fine, a bit like XP2 or Acros, there is a risk of the photos appearing almost digital! The AS application certainly makes sense.
 
20230715_0010_1080_2.jpg


Sheep and tree, Merrivale, Dartmoor, July 2023

Nikon FE2
Ilford Delta @400
Perceptol 1+3 22 mins@20C
 
Last edited:
horrocks said:
Anyway, these are impressive - if I have a criticism it would be that the grain is almost too fine, a bit like XP2 or Acros, there is a risk of the photos appearing almost digital! The AS application certainly makes sense.
Click to expand...

To be honest, whenever I see medium format, or above, images on here I always think they could be digital. The quality is that good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zx9
FishyFish said:
I think JCH Streetpan is a aerial surveillance fim or something, so that might be why the grain is fine. Using Ilfotec DD-X to develop might also help with the grain (although I get plenty in some shots with other films). I don't do anything to deliberately remove grain in post-processing though - I don't mind film grain when it's there.
Click to expand...
I think JCH Streetpan is an old Agfa traffic surveillance film put back into production for Bellamy Hunt (JCH)
https://www.japancamerahunter.com/2016/03/film-news-announcing-jch-streetpan-400-film/
 
horrocks said:
I remain intrigued as to how you get such apparently grain-free photos from 400asa film
Click to expand...

On top of the comments by @FishyFish on the particular film/developer combo, I would add that in my experience, most scanned 400ISO films show extremely fine grain in 6x6 and above formats unless underexposed or overdeveloped or both. Underexposure and overdevelopment can, when scanning negatives, enhance grain or result in artefacts that visually approximate excessive grain.

Another culprit is often oversharpening - sometimes Noritsu/Frontier scanner software as well as Silverfast etc automatically apply liberal amounts of sharpening to the scans that increase perceived grain.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top