Got into the darkroom this evening, and here's the first print in the wash:Originally Posted by bob carnie
Wow, if you can make your prints POP like these samples , especially the rock I am impressed.
This is a straight print with a #5 filter on Ilford WT. High values are a bit less grey, I could burn them a bit with a #0 filter. Might try that tomorrow. What do you think?
Yeah, on my monitor the detail of the rock on the print is less then the scan.
Ilford WT is a funny thing - it seems to have a bit of a dry-down effect in the highlights. Upon looking at the prints this morning, dry, the tonality on the rock has darkened to just a hair lighter than the scan, much more grey than the cell phone pic in the wash. I won't bore everyone with another pic/scan.
I think this problem is from going through X-rays with this film, unexposed, about a year ago. It's Pan F, which I shot yesterday and processed today. I was experimenting with a camera I don't often use, and I had been suspicious of these rolls of Pan F, because I had had the white dot problem with the ones I shot in England last year. But this is a new one to me.
I absolutely love this image Jason. I concur with Corran, the falling snow adds significantly.
I see processing streaks, is that what you're referring to?I think this problem is from going through X-rays with this film, unexposed, about a year ago. It's Pan F, which I shot yesterday and processed today. I was experimenting with a camera I don't often use, and I had been suspicious of these rolls of Pan F, because I had had the white dot problem with the ones I shot in England last year. But this is a new one to me.
I don't think it's processing streaks. I processed with normal agitation with fresh chemistry. The streaks are on every frame of the roll.
Thanks for looking.
Dave
What format is this? 6x7? 645?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks