Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,000   Posts: 1,524,348   Online: 776
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13
  1. #11
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,556
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    your film looks fine to me
    Me too.

    A good negative is quite often less dense than expected - especially if you are new to developing.

    I have made some good prints from less dense negatives than these. It is surprising sometimes to see the amount of detail you can get from a light negative.


    Steve.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    IMO, a camera with a reflected meter built in is one of the worst possible things for a beginner.
    I almost always use the spot meter of my camera to determine the contrast range of a particular scene, but as it shows I still have some difficulties interpreting the reflective values of certain colours. This is something that I'll certainly learn along the way...
    I'm looking forward to discover the wonderful world of film developing!

  3. #13
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by brofkand View Post
    According to the massive dev chart, you should be developing for 13 minutes. Continuous agitation for first minute, then 5 seconds of agitation for each 30 that elapses. You can't agitate for 10 seconds for each minute, you should agitate for 5/30.
    The difference between 12 and 13 minutes is 8%. That neg is not 8% off. Additionally, one *can* agitate for 10ag/60sec vs 5/30. People do it all the time. The reason I mention it is because it also does not look to be the source of the issue.

    The shots just look overexposed to me. It looks to be printable though.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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