"portrait film"

s

 

o

 

 

oh so witty are you? whenMOST of the discussion on my question has either been a sideways "cockwomble" and a canadian i know likes to say, or simply repeating the same objective thought,, why would each one need a reply?

 

meaning, if 10 people in a group ask if they can pet my dog, and i say NO,,,, would i tell them no,,, when they each ask me individually in front of everyone else?

Ok, ok, I give in.

Here is the answer to your question.

Fomapan 100 in Rodinal 1+50.

Dev for 9 minutes at 20°C.

That will give you results.

Bill you’re way off. Tri X in straight undiluted Acufine,73 degrees for three minutes, shakeN strongly every 15 seconds. A lazy idiot did that to two of my rolls one. ONCE.

Rick H.

Alternatively, if you really like Porta, one option would be to try processing it in traditional black and white chemistry.

I'd never tried this before, but did a roll of unidentified C41 film last week as it wasn't worth the cost of commercial processing, nor worth buying a C41 kit for one roll.

The results were surprisingly good.

So worth a try.

Start with times for Tri-X and adjust from there.

(I know the OP is banned, again, but this might be of use to someone, one day)

...Tri X in straight undiluted Acufine,73 degrees for three minutes, shakeN strongly every 15 seconds. A lazy idiot did that to two of my rolls one. ONCE.

Hmm... did you kill him...?

I woulda killed him...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

C41 'Jessops Diamond Everyday 200', Rodinal 1+100

The story of how I ended up shooting a roll of C41 film is far better than the photos themselves!

Anyway, I find the results to be quite acceptable, though I doubt it would print well with that orange-brown mask.

C41 'Jessops Diamond Everyday 200', Rodinal 1+100

Not bad for a 200 ISO film in Rodinal.

Maybe the multi-layer thick emulsion suppresses the grain a little?

I really like the guy circled in his own street art.

I'd crop it almost horizontal, losing the camera and tripod, but keeping the crowd beyond. And burning in the white-shirted guy that would end up as a distracting LH top corner.

Not bad for a 200 ISO film in Rodinal

Thanks, I was pleasantly surprised by the results. I'd even be tempted to try it again, but these days there's no financial advantage to shooting C41 over traditional B&W, so it'll only happen if I come across a random roll.

I think it's actually my scanning setup that is the limiting factor, when I view these at 100%, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts from the Xtrans demosaic, rather than clean grain, so the digital files do it something of a disservice.

I tried reshooting this morning with more magnification, but a 10 second exposure was beyond the capability of my improvised copying rig, too much vibration to get a sharp image.

I see a little more detail if I disable the demosaic and just look at the green channel.

Conclusion ? 16MP Xtrans is not sufficient to capture grain sharp 35mm frames, I reckon it needs 4-8 pixels per grain to get a true result, which is beyond my means.

I'm not saying that there is 50MP of image there, rather that you need, say, 48MP of scan resolution to accurately capture 12MP of film, otherwise the demosaicing algorithm tends to exaggerate the grain. Based on my limited experience.

Regardless, for a digital contact sheet and web posting, it works well enough.

but a 10 second exposure was beyond the capability of my improvised copying rig, too much vibration to get a sharp image.

You need to use flash as your copying light source!

WRT more pixels being needed for film copying: Not necessarily.

My Sony a7riv has 60 million of 'em, and does pixel shift to get co-sited RGB colour. Does it get rid of grain and dye-cloud artefacts? Nope!

All it shows is exactly how crappy 35mm sized film is.

Plus there's no point going overboard with magnification, because diffraction will just defeat your efforts.

24 megapixels from a straightforward Bayer-filtered digital camera is all you need; and it'll scrape every bit of detail off any 35mm film frame you're ever likely to encounter.

Fuji X-Trans? Not convinced by it. Fuji have been piddling about with sensor geometries for decades and still haven't come up with anything close to a breakthrough technology.

They still haven't tried true triad (RGB staggered GBR) filtering yet, nor a CRYB filter array. Both of which I believe would show more promise.

Oh, FWIW. Here are pretty good digital reproductions of dye clouds and film grain:

Pretty ugly huh?

Thanks, I was pleasantly surprised by the results. I'd even be tempted to try it again, but these days there's no financial advantage to shooting C41 over traditional B&W, so it'll only happen if I come across a random roll.

 

I think it's actually my scanning setup that is the limiting factor, when I view these at 100%, I'm seeing a lot of artifacts from the Xtrans demosaic, rather than clean grain, so the digital files do it something of a disservice.

 

I tried reshooting this morning with more magnification, but a 10 second exposure was beyond the capability of my improvised copying rig, too much vibration to get a sharp image.

 

I see a little more detail if I disable the demosaic and just look at the green channel.

 

Conclusion ? 16MP Xtrans is not sufficient to capture grain sharp 35mm frames, I reckon it needs 4-8 pixels per grain to get a true result, which is beyond my means.

 

I'm not saying that there is 50MP of image there, rather that you need, say, 48MP of scan resolution to accurately capture 12MP of film, otherwise the demosaicing algorithm tends to exaggerate the grain. Based on my limited experience.

 

Regardless, for a digital contact sheet and web posting, it works well enough.

Financially, I agree. I buy my b&w in bulk...and it’s cheaper than c41. My Fuji X-Pro 1 at 16mp can’t resolve all the detail and grain from fine grained 35mm film. In most cases, 24mp is sufficient, unless one is using Fuji Astia 100, Velvia, Adox CMS 20, TMax 100...and other fine grain b&w on contrasts subject matter. In real terms, you’ll need more than 24 mp from interpolated Bayer data. Still, film has its own look that cannot be relocated by software...so I’ll stick with it for now.

The de-Bayer algorithm assumes a color image.

It would be much easier, and generate a proper full-resolution image,

if it knew the source was black and white.