hoshisato

<p>I shot this recently on Velvia 50: /><br /></p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Search the flash card to recover any lost files, I usually use <a href="http://www.piriform.com/recuva">Recuva</a> which is free and has worked well for me to recover files from formatted cards or files that I deleted way back.<br>

It is likely that the files are still there.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>I can imagine people cranking up the saturation in Photoshop or Lightroom for the scans of Velvia 50 slides, like they do for colour negatives and digital photos, and ending up with something that might be a little over the top :-)</p>

<div></div>

<p>In case you are in the UK: <a href="http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/negative-pages-307-c.asp">http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/negative-pages-307-c.asp</a><br>

I'm using the Kenro pages for both 120 and 135 film, I could recommend them.</p>

<p>Thanks David. To explain: I will mainly use the Velvia 50 I bought earlier for landscapes in daylight; I was thinking of using 1 roll to shoot some very saturated city scenes in Tokyo if the neon is still on this summer. Hence the maybe odd choice of Velvia 50 for this task.</p>

<p>Thanks everybody, very much appreciated! </p>

<p>I intend to shoot neon lights and some other street scenes on Velvia 50 at dusk or early evening; I checked the Velvia 50 product info and Fuji recommends adding:</p>

<ul>

<li>+1/3 stop for 4 seconds exposures</li>

<li>+1/2 stop for 8 seconds exposures</li>

<li>+2/3 stop for 16 seconds exposures</li>

<li>+1 stop for 32 seconds exposures</li>

</ul>

<p>First of all, do these recommendations from Fuji sound about right to you?<br /> I read some horrors stories about long exposures on Velvia 50, colour shifts, etc. I might pick up some Velvia 100 if you all agree that I'd be wasting my Velvia 50 on this.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>A bit awkward, but you could consider <a href="http://monochrome.me.uk/blog/browse/tag/645nii/1">my blog</a> for photos shot with my Pentax 645NII. I do also keep track of my B&W development recipes with links to the resulting photos.</p>

<p>Could you post a detail that shows the dots? Tthe image above looks just fine (great shot, BTW)</p>

<p>The confusion around the Rollei film might originate from the fact, apart from <a href="http://www.gommamag.com/v4/downloads/data/005_page/other_rollei_links/Rollei_infrared.pdf" target="_blank">Rollei Infrared IR400</a>, the <a href="http://aurelien.le-duc.perso.neuf.fr/Photo/The%20Rollei%20RETRO%2080s.pdf" target="_blank">Rollei Retro 80S</a> film is also sensitive to the infrared wavelengths and sometimes used for IR photography. The Rollei Retro 80S is only sensitive up to 750nm, or so, which will indeed give blank images with the filter you mentioned.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Like I wrote above, I am sure the problem was related to the imprint of data on the negative by the camera, once I switched that off, the negatives came out beautifully. So stupid I didn't think of that feature which I had left on by default as I like to copy the data into the scanned images as EXIF data.<br /> <br /> I am using the Hoya R72 filter. As for rating, I used the tip posted elsewhere in this forum and used manual exposure and set the camera to 0.5 seconds at f/11 and bracketed around that as was recommended for sunny days. <br />Coincidently, I had left the camera at 100 ISO and with the filter on, the camera judged the exposure only about half a stop over- or underexposed, depending on the subject. This could mean that for different lighting conditions, with the filter on, I may rely on the TTL metering to get the exposure right at EI 100.</p>

<p>*update* - I had only one Efke IR 820 film left and wanted to change two things:</p>

<ul>

<li>I disabled the imprinting of the exposre data on the negative</li>

<li>I wrapped the development tank in aluminium foil</li>

</ul>

<p>All other things were kept the same; the result is some healthy looking negatives. My guess is that it was the imprinting of the exposure data on the negative that was spooking, but due to the unscientific approach of changing two things at the same time, it is difficult to draw a conclusion for certain.</p>

<p>My Pentax 645NII does imprint exposure information on the side of the negative, I sort of forgot about that but I'll disable that for the next try. Still, if that were the problem, I would have expected more fogging on the side of the negative the camera writes.</p>

<p>I'm using a Pentax 645NII medium format camera, no bellows.</p>

<p>Please tell me a bit more about heat fogging; as far as I understand it, the film is sensitive to light just outside our visible range in the red spectrum but it is not so sensitive to IR that it registers heat and cannot be used to photograph in total darkness. Am I completely mistaken or are we taking about different things?</p>

<p>I tried to be very careful to avoid fogging: I did load the film in a dark place and I think my Patterson change bag is IR opaque but to be sure I did use my change bag in a dark place too and I put the camera in the change bag to take the film out and put it into the tank without risking fogging it. It is 120 roll film. I now start to have doubts about my Patterson tank; I wanted to wrap the tank in aluminium foil but we had run out and I went ahead without the foil.</p>

<p>See <a href="https://plus.google.com/115355372800233634836/posts/LBSun63zp32">here</a> for an example of one of the better negatives.</p>

<p>I shot some Efke ir820 in bright sunlight at F/11, 1/2 seconds (bracketed +/_ 1 stop). Developed in APH 09 1:40 for 11 minutes. The negatives are even but very dark, including the unexposed areas. When I hold them to the light, I see the details but when I put it on a piece of paper, the negatives almost appear opaque. I can scan them, but the results are not pretty. <br /> My guess is that they are overdeveloped. What would your next steps be in such a case, use the 1:80 dilution of the developer and use the same development next time and expect (greatly) improved results?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Indeed, I had similar results when I forgot to switch the digital ICE off.<br>

I invested in an Epson V500 scanner and a Vuescan license and have been happy with the results and lack of frustration of getting my negatives properly scanned.</p>

<div></div>