Quote Originally Posted by Chris Lange View Post
Haha thanks for putting up with my stubborn charades, Stone. There really was no way I would have expected anyone to be able to identify a set of 4 random images down to emulsion...I actually had considered putting up the selection of HP5+/Rodinal images that I just posted as a ruse, but I'm not that cruel...

But that's the point really, the only reason I even remember what developers were used for those images is because 99% of my film in the past 6 months has been processed in Rodinal 1:50, which makes it easy to remember the rolls on which I didn't use it. I have come to prefer HP5+ over Tri-X for exactly one reason, and one reason only: it dries a little flatter. As I said, I use them interchangeably, and will return to Tri-X when I get my box of Arista flavored Tri-X, and once that runs out, I'll probably go back to HP5+.

EDIT: funnily enough, that photograph of the bass and bassist is technically the worst photograph of the bunch by far. It is underexposed and underdeveloped. Exposed for EI 1600, developed for 400 with unintentionally weak developer. Just goes to show...
I enjoy images that break the rules and still look intriguing

When I scan in images, I include the film type, dev, and length of dev time, and scan DPI