Arg!!! Rusafrussaamphfff
Grafmatic must have slipped when I was advancing the septum or something and pulled away from the rear standard enough to let some light in? The next frame is also slightly fogged but not as bad, all other images are fine...
Arg!!! Rusafrussaamphfff
Grafmatic must have slipped when I was advancing the septum or something and pulled away from the rear standard enough to let some light in? The next frame is also slightly fogged but not as bad, all other images are fine...
StoneNYC... yeah graphmatics... awesome in theory. I spent a small
fortune accumulating them... never again
not sure how this happened, the bottom 3rd is blurry as if it there was camera motion,
top is totally sharp. No tilt was used... was a great day otherwise
I think this looks fantastic. Seriously, you should frame it and call it simply "Owls."Originally Posted by cuypers1807
Ok... A long list of problems here.... where to begin...
#1 This was originally supposed to be an 8x10 tintype portrait of a Great Barred Owl in a fenced enclosure at a raptor rescue facility near my home.
#2 Said Owl agreed to be photographed until the dark slide was removed and the shutter was cocked... he quickly decided the background at his location wasn't good enough and quickly flew to another spot trying to "help" me.
#3 This behavior repeated 3 times before I gave up on him.
#4 Trying to salvage the plate I attempted a portrait of 3 owls under an enclosure that had very little light. I exposed the owls for 45 seconds and hoped for the best considering the plate to be almost dry at this point.
#5 I poured the developer on too aggressively creating the flame effect from the bottom. The developer also created channels and uneven development throughout the plate.
The good news is that I did get a decent plate of the trio with a reflector and an exposure time of 60 seconds.
The owls did not move for the entire time except for blinking. The blinks were so short in relation to the over all time that the portrait still looks pretty good.
I like it. There is a lovely atmosphere.StoneNYC... yeah graphmatics... awesome in theory. I spent a small
fortune accumulating them... never again
not sure how this happened, the bottom 3rd is blurry as if it there was camera motion,
top is totally sharp. No tilt was used... was a great day otherwise
Tomas
I like it ,too.
I don't actually see the issue here, maybe it's just out of focus because you should have used some tilt?StoneNYC... yeah graphmatics... awesome in theory. I spent a small
fortune accumulating them... never again
not sure how this happened, the bottom 3rd is blurry as if it there was camera motion,
top is totally sharp. No tilt was used... was a great day otherwise
I usually don't have issues with the Grafmatics, so it's totally my error in not advancing it more carefully.
That said the only holders I've never had any issues with are the brand new Chamonix holders. They are spectacular, but new is $$$ so it's worth it for the 8x10 but I'm trying to get by with these for 4x5...
I did not know that you can develop color film in b&w developer and get a result. I accidentally loaded Kodak Portra 400 color neg film when I meant to load Tri-X. Did not notice until I had it ready to put in the Rodinal developer. So I figured it was now junk so I may as well develop it just to see what happens. I was surprised to get any image at all. It is even usable. Grainy, but usable. This episode shows two things: (1) when working with models I am capable of making the dumbest mistakes like loading the wrong film, and (2) I really don't understand color chemistry at all because I would have been pretty much 100% sure I would get nothing in b&w developer.
Nice shot nonetheless! I've developed quite a few rolls of cheap color film in rodinal. Like you found out, it's grainy and the silver content is pretty limited, but it works fine.
Although this is not LF, it's beautiful.I did not know that you can develop color film in b&w developer and get a result. I accidentally loaded Kodak Portra 400 color neg film when I meant to load Tri-X. Did not notice until I had it ready to put in the Rodinal developer. So I figured it was now junk so I may as well develop it just to see what happens. I was surprised to get any image at all. It is even usable. Grainy, but usable. This episode shows two things: (1) when working with models I am capable of making the dumbest mistakes like loading the wrong film, and (2) I really don't understand color chemistry at all because I would have been pretty much 100% sure I would get nothing in b&w developer.
That said, the only thing you need to understand is that all film has silver in it, so B&W developer will still develop the silver, it's just that color also has color dye couplers that attach themselves to the various layers of emulsion in the film etc.
That's a very BASIC explanation, but the "First developer" in color is basically just a regular old B&W developer, you could have used Rodinal as a first developer and then follow normal color developer for the remaining steps and gotten normal color images. Though that's for the full bath developments, the ones which combine steps may not work the same.
Anyway, glad it worked out.
Yes, the camera used was a Fujifilm GX680II - about as close as you can get to large format with roll film, because it has tilt-shift and it makes big 6x8cm negatives. Not many people know of that camera, but I rate it as one of the best medium format cameras ever made. It cost more than double a Hasselblad when new. I use mine as a companion to my Wisner Expedition 8x10. Here is a photo taken with the Wisner in the same session, using Fomapan 200 film and an old junk lens. The model, Ayla, was a champion gymnast in her teens.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks