Quote Originally Posted by mohawk View Post
haha, yea I read that when I was doing research for the film. I really like the outcome of them(especially the double exposure one), thanks for sharing !
Heh - you'll have to tell Komrade P. that. He'll appreciate it. He shot the rolls - I just dev'd them. I was quite pleased that the results were about where they should be - that there was nothing untoward about the development process or results given the difficult subject lighting circumstances in most of the shoot. When we were hanging the rolls up in the bathroom, the film looked no more base-fogged than many ordinary film types exhibit, and certainly not a high amount. The frames looked a touch contrasty to me, but that's the difficulty of the subject. The main thing was that given the times on the massive dev chart (once I'd decoded it into meaningful units*) were pretty much spot on. The density of the dense parts of the film was about ideal, the clarity of the clear parts was ideal too - hopefully the bits in between fell somewhere useful along a linear portion of a curve.

* by which I mean, the massive dev chart gives its time units in a bit of an unprocessed manner which doesn't immediately translate into a time without further conscious processing by the user. I'd have thought (it being on a computer and all that) the web page should be doing this sort of thinking for us. I mean, it might say a time is 6.5 - what's that supposed to mean? 6 minutes 50 seconds? 6 minutes 30 seconds? 6 minutes 5 seconds? Stop making me think!