Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,206   Posts: 1,531,872   Online: 1040
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11
    lancekingphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Good points. I hadn't considered that the shutter itself might be off. I'm definitely going to replace the developer, and I think I'll order some smaller bottles so it's hopefully keep better.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Oregon and Austria
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    833
    Lots of possibilities here.

    I would really encourage you to track down the exact cause of this for one (ancillary) reason: There are many in this forum who strive to get the monster grain that you accidentally managed to get. If you figure out how to repeat this (film/exposure/development, etc.), there will be many grateful photographers out there in your debt!

    I, for one, like no grain at all, but appreciate the gritty look in others' work.

    As for diagnosing your problem; do check your shutter and meter to find out if overexposure is really a factor. If not, then overdevelopment looks likely.

    However, if you have underdeveloped negs and are increasing contrast while scanning, that may be a large factor in the grain. Does an analogue print show this grain? If so, then it's not a scanning artifact.

    Good luck,

    Doremus


    www.DoremusScudder.com

  3. #13
    lancekingphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Seriously? Did my question merit that level of snarkiness? I asked an honest question about a problem and you feel the need to belittle me with your supposed superiority? I see you're certainly doing your part to advocate film usage; I'm sure all the young whippersnappers want to be just like you. Yes sir.

  4. #14
    mhcfires's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    El Cajon, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    550
    Hmm… I didn't sense any degree of snarkiness. What I did sense was a serious attempt to help you determine what caused your problem. Looking at the photo you offered, I could definitely see a "been there, done that" problem which I have also encountered. I tried using Photoshop to correct the underexposure and really kicked up the grain. I was using Fomapan 100. It is a somewhat crappy film with a horrid curling problem (I'm using Fomapan 120), developed in HC-110 dilution B. To be honest, I thought the photo was pretty cool, the grain gave it some character.


    m
    Michael Cienfuegos


    If you don't want to stand behind our troops, please feel free to stand in front of them.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,905
    Quote Originally Posted by lancekingphoto View Post
    Seriously? Did my question merit that level of snarkiness? I asked an honest question about a problem .
    Don't take it to heart In a very large forum this is liable to happen unfortunately. Maybe the poster in question didn't appreciate that until this film the camera had been delivering good results so while cameras can and do go wrong all of a sudden this seems unlikely

    However check out the helpful replies on shutter and other issues and do try a print. This won't be the first time that what the scanner shows doesn't translate into what a print will look like.

    Best of luck

    pentaxuser

  6. #16
    lancekingphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Not from most people, pentaxuser. Sorry if it it was misdirected (I should have quoted the original comment.) This is what I was responding to:

    "Hummm. you're using a camera more than 25 years old and you wonder if the film is bad. My 1951 Studebaker won't start. I wonder if it sufferes from Climate Change. I have over 40 old film cameras and they are....well...old. I have an Olympus with a zoom lens that will not zoom. Every photo I take is wide angle. I have an original Nikon F that I dropped in 1974 and has not worked since. And I have a Brownie Reflex from about 1941 that works perfectly and takes pretty darn good photographs. Never had a bad roll of film although I've only been taking pix since 1947. "

  7. #17
    lancekingphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by mhcfires View Post
    Hmm… I didn't sense any degree of snarkiness. What I did sense was a serious attempt to help you determine what caused your problem. Looking at the photo you offered, I could definitely see a "been there, done that" problem which I have also encountered. I tried using Photoshop to correct the underexposure and really kicked up the grain. I was using Fomapan 100. It is a somewhat crappy film with a horrid curling problem (I'm using Fomapan 120), developed in HC-110 dilution B. To be honest, I thought the photo was pretty cool, the grain gave it some character.


    m
    Not from you or most other people (see my other reply). I do appreciate the many helpful responses I received. And thanks for the feedback on the photo.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3
    Hard to imagine this time of year, but could the D-76 have been warm?

  9. #19
    lancekingphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Oak Ridge, TN
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by hoopla View Post
    Hard to imagine this time of year, but could the D-76 have been warm?
    I can answer that one definitively: no. I'm careful to use it at 68 degrees F.

  10. #20
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by andrew.roos View Post
    One possibility is that a combination of over-exposure and under development (due to expired developer) resulted in very low contrast negs. When Gimp adjusted the exposure, it may also have pushed up the contrast, exacerbating the grain.
    Agree with above, I like your "accidental photo".

    BTW.... I have NEVER had a "bad roll" of film and I used to run 80 a week or more through my gear for years on end.
    Miss-handled film is another thing... too many times is the hot trunk, airport scanner, etc.

    Developer may have had stuff settled out... check the jug, anything more than a month for D-76 mixed especially with any air in the tank will cause underdevelopment... (my experience)

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin