Thanks for the kind words. When I compared the meter reading of my EOS to a known accurate handheld meter, they disagreed by 8 stops. I varied the development with each roll, taking detailed notes, so as to find the ideal time. The film has incredible latitude, I got scannable negs when exposed at ISO 25 then developed for 30mins at 25C, and also when given the same exposure then developed for 10mins at 25C.
The film is a panchromatic (HDP= High Definition Pan) microfilm on a 1.3mil clear ESTAR base, speed is ISO 6 I think.
If you could see the negatives, they look like black rectangles, incredibly dense, I was amazed my scanner could even scan them. The best ones were a bit thinner. Now I know the camera meter was wrong, I can work around it, get the exposure right and nail the dev time to get close to ideal density, that should improve the tonality.
The light here at 56.4N in January is usually awful, for instance, the shot of the two tires was taken while it was snowing and just before sunset, really dark, exposure was 30secs at f8 with the film rated at ISO 100. I have tried shooting in similar light with 'normal' films like FP4 and HP5 and I get grainy poor results, so this microfilm is quite remarkable in it's ability to produce nice images in the worst light conditions. Conversely, in good light, it is very contrasty, so it is a film to be used on cloudy, dull days, which is a very important thing for me as here is is usually dull.