"We have nothing to fear...but 'grain' itself!"

After five years and one misstep last week, I have more or less successfully shot and developed a roll of Ilford Delta 400 in my Vivitar

SL/220, using Kodak Acufine developer. (http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00cxR4). It was even more fun with actual images. I had

to hook my Epson Perfection 2400 scanner up to our Windows 7 computer and download drivers. And I have been using GIMP since I

couldn't get Photoshop Elements 2 to work on the Win7 machine. I touched up some spots and scratches and here are some of the result:<div></div>

I shot all of the rest with an orange filter.<div></div>

Erika<div></div>

Cartography<div></div>

While I shot almost everything with a Mamiya/Sekor 55mm F/1.4 with the orange filter and a polarizer for the outdoor shots (that's why the sky looks so dark) this was taken with a Chinon 35mm f/2.8.<div></div>

It may not be the greatest shot, but what I like about it is that it reminds me of the non-flash b/w recording studio photos from record albums.<div></div>

<p>You may have "the bug" again.</p>

<p>Welcome back to film. Misha looks like a patient model. Did you rate the film at box speed or push slightly? I ask since Acufine often recommends E.I.'s above box speed with some films. Thanks for sharing your results.</p>

<p>Welcome to the dark side. It is so refreshing to do some film work in the digital age!</p>

<p>Nice going.</p>

<p>Nice shots, Robert! I really like "Misha" and "Cartography" a lot. Last August I received my late father's Vivitar SL/220 , and I'm looking forward to putting some film through it to see if I can create pictures as beautiful as he did with it. Thanks for sharing these!</p>

<p>Keep at it... Grain can be both evocative and expressive, or a PITA, depending on one's mindset. I like the "slightly off-center" image...</p>

Thanks, all. I'm gonna ease off

the filters and not shoot so wide

open. But up next is my 1948

Kodak Bantam. I tried rolling

some film together with backing

paper onto the 828 spools in the

changing bag like I used to, but

I was out of practice. I

practiced some more with the

ruined film and I should be good

to go for another round tomorrow.

Oh, yeah...I did shoot at box speed (400), and I meant

Acufine (which is not a Kodak product) and Kodak fixer.

<p>Some emulsions handle scanning better than others. The grain in your shots may not have been as noticeable with an optical print. Nice work, and welcome back to film!</p>

<p>Welcome to the dark side. Doesn't it feel like you're ahead of everyone else using old stuff?</p>

<p>Great going, looks like you are on a roll with no going back....love that grain too. I remember a quote from somewhere....."it's called grain, it's meant to be there"</p>

<p>If you can pick up some Kodak D-76 or Ilford ID-11 you might like Delta 400 even more. I haven't used Acufine in a while, but when I did I used it for Tri-X for a rating of 1000 and with Plus-X and Ilford FP-4 both rated at 250. <br>

With regard to Delta 400 (a fine film, btw) you can also process in Kodak's XTOL and HC110. Maybe look at some older posts on the subject for research if interested. And keep up the good work.</p>

Ahh welcome back to doing film... It's like waking up again eh? Often grain is desired or tht look. My 20 soemthing got

some photos that were (frankly terrible) very grainy due to the lights direction etc .. She loved it! I thought almost all wer

quite acceptable grain levels and as one mentioned it may be related to the other factors. The Tri-X light grain is quite

desirable. I liked the grain and the Bokeh on the first shot very much and outside shot of the dome. That was very

aesthetic. Please post more and do experiment. The Bantam always impressed me with its very beautiful lines. I think

we will see some retro designes imitating this.