Well here are my two latest panes (pains?) First is a pond behind my house, F16 3 seconds, Kodak 137mm on a Eastman 8x10 http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii261/mrexplodo/IMG_9914.jpg The emulsion was way to thick on the left side of the plate, I developed 14 minutes in d76 (undiluted) and left it in the fix for too long, I think it would have been a lot more dense otherwise. It also seems underexposed to me. You can definately see the effects of the small image cirlce of that 137mm on an 8x10. The next is my GF on a couch in front of the blinds. F11 with a 54Gn flash about 6 feet from her. Totally underexposed. I left it in the developer for 22 minutes to try and bring out some detail, but to no avail. http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii261/mrexplodo/IMG_9904.jpg The emulsion was PE's SRAD, minus the ammonia, plus .1/.3 gold/sulfur mg per mole of silver. All in all, I'm not too irritated with the results. I metered a 1/10 second exposure with an slr for the pond shot @ ISo 100, F16, so I think I probably landed around ISO 1 or 2. for my emulsion. Next batch I will actually get some ammonia that doesn't turn my silver nitrate into brownish sludge. On one hand, I don't have to adapt my darkroom technique to working with home-made emulsions. On the otherhand, these two frames make the 5th and 6th negatives I've ever developed, so all in all, I'm happy I got something. I've got 4 more frames to shoot, plus enough emulsion in the fridge for 6 more frames, so hopefuly now that I have a better idea of the speed I have, I can get a little better exposure on the next few tries.