imsphotos

I'm just adding a few more shots, using the same template as the previous set except these were from a cassette of about 20 year OOD Kodak Gold. You can see how the image quality has degraded and shows a lot more grain compared to the In Date Agfa Vista submitted above, but still quite usable for my camera testing purposes. This time shot on a vintage Pentax MV … so fully automatic aperture priority exposure.

I understood from the original post that the photographer had in fact been paid. The unhappy client appears to be threatening a civil law suit to obtain a full refund. Threats are easy to make, but not so easy to carry out, especially without a 'good case'. In the circumstances, as described in the post I personally, in the UK, would sit tight.

Sit tight and await developments. OK ... I am in UK so lawa different but it sounds like so is complaining about the quality of a print she has had made from one of your digital images. In my world she is a very long way from describing the basis of even a complaint let alone a law suit. So, stay silent and wait would be my approach.

Interesting! I sometimes see that, but not so strong, in some of my scans - Epson V700 with Silverfast. You can just see it here in the sky area above the Spitfire. Agfa Vista, Semi stand processed in Adox F39, these are only quick scans

The mark preceding 'Biotar' is significant. It is reserved for First Quality work (it's a combination of 1 and Q). I've had it in a couple of 'special' Prakticas

Yes, the company concerned did not want to risk their reputation. In addition, an alternative I outlined to them was my willingness to undertake the uk 'small claim' civil court procedure what would almost certainly have found in my favour ... that would have been the trigger for naming and shaming. Plus, as a news outlet they would have had to report their own misconduct.

Stand Developing is worth considering but your results would interesting yet not 'conventional'. You did say this was an experiment, right?

After the above 'second test' I was quite happy to move to using this process, with my 'surplus' c41 film with cameras I was testing for real. Not withstanding some reservations about absolute image quality the process is clearly fine for what I require. I did however make another modest increase in the developer concentration which resulted in the two shots below, taken on Nikomat with 500 f1.4 Nikkor. These were taken in dimly lit interior (one with very strong backlight) of Montrose Air Station Heritage Centre (Montrose Air Station Heritage Centre). I will stick with this procedure for now. Summary of now established process for Agfa Vista C41 'Semi Stand' developed in Ado F39II: 8cc developer to 492 cc water at room temp (18deg) , 1 min agitation then stand for 35 min then agitate for 1 min, then second stand for 35min. Tap water rinse to STOP. Normal Fix, Wash and Rinse

A few years back a national TV company (in UK) used one of my copyright images (it was a client portrait) on a broadcast (my client had done something newsworthy). They had 'lifted' the image from his Facebook page without either of us giving permission. After some exchange of correspondence I sent them a couple of options and they settled by paying a bill I had estimated based on what they would have had to pay my agency (Alamy) to use that shot on national TV. We both knew that they were in the wrong and my request for payment was based on fair industry standard. Had they not paid then I would have 'named and shamed'

The OM 10, without the optional manual adapter, is Aperture Priority Auto. Therefore if the photographer chooses a small aperture the shutter speed will go down unnoticed ... I suspect this is the most likely explanation.

Thanks Marcus, here is another one of the 24 shots as described above. Crab claw and Rope.

That's the second test roll just done. I used the same process as before except added 1 cc more of developer (up from 5 cc to 6) and extended both stand sessions by 5 minutes (i.e. 35 min > Agitate >35). I also shot at ISO 160 rather than box speed of 200. The negatives were easy to see/cut this time. The histograms appeared to show that increasing shooting exposure was not required but that the extra developer / time helped significantly. All 24 shots were quite acceptable for my testing purposes to will keep the processing the same but revert to shooting at box speed. Here is the first shot from the film, taken on bright but overcast day at Stonehaven Harbour

I would assume that the authentic prints would be retouched in the traditional way and that the prints would be for sale.

Not me. The developer I was using was fresh bottled and fresh 'brewed' .... one shot of 5cc. Adox F39 is a tradition formula that can be stored for a long time and is relatively non toxic. Here is some basic information on it from my uk supplier. Note that this 0.5 litre bottle is sufficient to process 100 films by the method I used : ADOX Paterson FX39 500ml This is NOT the method recommended by the manufacturer but I did it this way (stand process) as an experiment, particularly in respect by applying it to c41 colour film.

For me it's about 'the hunt' not 'the kill'. By that I mean like fly fishing for Salmon .... not so great to eat but great fun to try and catch. If you really don't like the process there is little point. I agree with your comment about the 'puddle jump' shot but it was novel than and with the tools available at the time, quite an achievement.