Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: [OT] changing the foam of a Canonet QL17

Subject: [OM] Re: [OT] changing the foam of a Canonet QL17
From: Andrew L Wendelborn <andrew@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 May 2006 20:26:33 +0930
At 2:51 PM +0200 2006.05.03, Manuel Viet wrote:
>Le mercredi 03 Mai 2006 14:39, Andrew L Wendelborn a écrit :
>
>> What film were you using?
>
>TMax 100 ; processed in rodinal 1+50, 12', 20° (I don't really like TMax, but
>I was given the film some times ago, and thought it was a good idea to test
>the lens with a finer film than usual ; but still, I couldn't help souping it
>in good ol' rodinal for that little touch of micro-contrast I love, to the
>expense of grain control).



Another Rodinal fan, I see. Good.

One thing that I found interesting about your pictures was getting a chance
to look at a series of scans from the same roll. I've been trying out a few
different films over the last few months (TMax 3200, Delta 3200, more
recently HP5+ and so on).

One that I have been pleasantly surprised by is HP5+, at a range of film
speeds. And (see below) somewhat perplexed by PanF. All developed in
Rodinal, at 1:50.


Here are a couple of scans of HP5+ exposed at 400, taken at an outdoor
music festival in March. Some grain, but to my eye not unpleasant. I was quite 
pleased with these.

http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_013.jpg
http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_018.jpg


And again HP5+ but at 800, at a rural Farm Fair in mid April.
Grain a bit more obvious, but once again I'm quite happy.

Watching the shearing competition:
   http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_035.jpg
The loquacious blacksmith:
   http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_011.jpg


Then I tried PanF. I thought at 50ASA this would be fine grained and nicely
detailed. Which it mostly is, except for something like the first below,
which has a rather disconcerting absence of detail in some of the faces, and
elsewhere. It is underexposed, but I didn't think enough to cause this.

The second below is an amusing beach wedding photo from the same roll, also
underexposed but with a much more pleasing effect (well I think so at least):

http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_025.jpg
http://www.cs.adelaide.edu.au/~andrew/photos/bwscans/_022.jpg


Anyway, I'm quite puzzled by that strange effect from PanF. I've seen it once
before, in some outdoor portraits taken by a friend. I don't know where the
cause is -- maybe it's a characteristic of PanF (this is the first time I've 
used it). Possibly there is something in the density curve to explain it.

Maybe it just doesn't get on with being scanned. Will try some printing soon
when I get the "real" darkroom back in order.

If anyone has any clues ....



regards
  Andrew

PS Sorry for the delay in response. Too much work -- again.

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz