Page 248 of 591 FirstFirst ... 148198238246247248249250258298348 ... LastLast
Results 2,471 to 2,480 of 5910

Thread: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

  1. #2471

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    218

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Corran, Thank you. 'Was so dark under the canopy I needed a flashlight to reliably hit focus - as you can see in the first shot.

    Brasstown Bald is rather killer. Sky & light are super.

  2. #2472
    John Olsen
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Posts
    755

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400. Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights. Scanned from Ilford print.


  3. #2473

  4. #2474
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,438

    Lightbulb Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Quote Originally Posted by John Olsen View Post
    Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400.
    Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights.
    If you use Rodinal as designed, it's a compensating developer that does not blow the highlights.

    - Leigh
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  5. #2475

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    35

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    I've had similar problems using Rodinal and Tri-X at 1:100. It might have been a temperature issue, but I never did a scientific test to find out.

  6. #2476
    Maris Rusis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Noosa, Australia.
    Posts
    1,095

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing


    Private Jetty, Noosa Afternoon

    Gelatin-silver photograph on Agfa MCC 111 VC FB photographic paper, image size 18.5cm diameter, from a 120 format Tmax 100 negative exposed in a Seagull 4A-103A twin lens reflex camera fitted with a Marexar Ultrawider fish-eye auxiliary lens and a #25 red filter.
    Photography:first utterance. Sir John Herschel, 14 March 1839 at the Royal Society. "...Photography or the application of the Chemical rays of light to the purpose of pictorial representation,..".

  7. #2477
    John Olsen
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Posts
    755

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Quote Originally Posted by Leigh View Post
    If you use Rodinal as designed, it's a compensating developer that does not blow the highlights.

    - Leigh
    Sorry, my post was too terse. Previous attempts with other developers did not work. I meant that the Rodinal was more successful for me in this environment.

  8. #2478

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Pugetopolis
    Posts
    2,189

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Quote Originally Posted by John Olsen View Post
    Starting to learn about Rodinal 1:100 stand development. This is TriX400. Previous attempts here have been blown out in the highlights. Scanned from Ilford print.
    How does the negative look for highlight detail? Scanning a print is now a 3rd generation image. And the print can't grab all the density that is on the negative without help just like commodity scanners can't get all that's on a negative either.

  9. #2479
    John Olsen
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whidbey Island, WA
    Posts
    755

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Quote Originally Posted by tuco View Post
    How does the negative look for highlight detail? Scanning a print is now a 3rd generation image. And the print can't grab all the density that is on the negative without help just like commodity scanners can't get all that's on a negative either.
    That's true. There's more on the Rodinal-developed film that a digital scan would be able to recover, compared to this scan of a print. So a digital print would probably be a better image if I wanted to direct my life down the digital path. I am pleased with this, however, because it allows me to get a decent image under a circumstance where HC-110-development would have been hopelessly blown out, even with pull-processing.
    If we ever see the sun again, I've got some coastal trees that I want to re-visit with my Rollei i.r. film and use this development again.
    Another image from the same excursion:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	neg 12 a web.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	126.2 KB 
ID:	156614

  10. #2480

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    2,468

    Re: MF (6x4.5,6x6,6x7,6x9,6x12) B&W film images sharing

    Alleyway, 2016. Oxford, England/ Fuji GA645Zi
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	pdf205-002.jpg 
Views:	194 
Size:	131.0 KB 
ID:	156631

Similar Threads

  1. MF (6x4.5 to 6x12) COLOR image sharing
    By richardman in forum Image Sharing (Everything Else) & Discussion
    Replies: 1185
    Last Post: 13-Jan-2021, 20:08
  2. Stitching Several 6x12 Images
    By Richard Wasserman in forum Digital Processing
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 9-May-2015, 06:29
  3. Sharing LF images in full resolution/Stitching
    By Ed Richards in forum Image Sharing (LF) & Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 7-Sep-2014, 23:29
  4. Cutting a 4x5 film holder slide cover for two panoramic images on one sheet of film?
    By l2oBiN in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 29-Nov-2012, 17:59

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •