ciaran_mcmenemy

Thanks so much for your help!!

Thank you so much! It fixed it. By the way, what does 'PREVIEW PIC. EFFECT.' do?

Hi! My friend was playing with my camera a little, and now it's set a little differently and I can't work out how to restore it to how it was. It's acting like it's in A mode all the time. When the aperture, shutter speed, and ISO are set manually, the camera still reacts differently to the light. Which it shouldn't, because it's set to be manual. By this I mean, I point it at the ground, the screen brightens, and when I point it at the sky, it darkens. Then when I take the picture, the picture is made according to the manual settings, not what I saw on the screen. It's very troublesome, how can I fix it? The way I am supposed to use it is, set the aperture to whatever, then as I spin the speed dial, the light level goes up and down. That's it ~thanks!

<p>hey, thanks for the guidelines; really helpful. I'm doing more reversals today and used a slightly weaker bleach. After clearing I exposed it to light, and I noticed that the emulsion is actually fine. After second development it feels slippery and hey presto it wipes off. I'm suspicious of the developer... hmmm...</p>

<p>I guess it's a little thin - tell you what, Lucky SHD (100) is <em>incredibly</em> thin. It's like comparing paper to cardboard. Wow.</p>

<p>great idea, so how long extra would you do it for? I'm guessing you examined the film until it had the right colour. <br> Is it something to do with the pH?</p>

<p>Like I have a picture and I can see the ground in detail but also clouds in the sky. Since I can see it, why can't I print it? (I'm a real amateur at this sort of stuff). I'm understanding that neg films have high d.r. (for mistakes and exposure correction after?) but printing redcues the d.r.<br> oh, by double-negative, I meant slide film is actually negative too, you are basically getting a negative, bleaching it/re-exposing it, developing it again. I wonder if there are any other elements apart from silver that could be used in an emulsion?</p>

<p>admittedly it does seem quite grey, but I like the feel"</p>

<p>I'm confused since when you scan a negative, if it has high d.r. then you would see all the tones, and it doesn't look bad (not to me, anyway)</p>

<p>Peter, that helps so much. I should have realised that acid would do that!! Thanks for the advice Glen - I'm surprised that 25'C is considered hot since it's quite a routine temperature I use, being only a few degrees higher..</p>

<p>image</p>

<p>hi! I developed a 120 reversal previously<br /> details: Shanghai GP3 (100 used as 400). I used a temperature of 25'C for 11min initial dev with FD10 1+9. Agitation as normal. Washed, then a H2SO4 and KMnO4 cool purple bleach for 5 min, again at the same temperature. Washed, then cleared with sodium meta. It was a pinky colour prior to this I think, it turned banana yellow afterwards. Washed again - meta smells quite noxious, if that's te word. After redevelopment with a fresh solution of FD10 in the same way as for first development (a bit longer just in case) I hung the film up after more washing. I didn't fix it.<br /> I noticed that the emulsion was very soft and wiped off easily. I poured cold tap water on it but it didn't help it - I had to wait for it to dry. Why?<br /><br />Not just for GP3, I noticed it with another film too - it was 35mm Foma or Pan 400<br /> ----<br /> the film is some 'problem' GP3 from 86daigou, i.e. shipped from China. {I bought a few boxes on eBay I while back, and they proved to be great. Easy to push, although development could get lengthy. } As for this one, development yielded some sort of sticky residue which had to be cleaned (must be the weird backing paper) and I saw frame numbers on the film. The frame numbers are quite interesting in their own right (just not for serious photos) because it makes you, hm, aware that it's a photograph - it's something that happened in real life, but it itself is not quite real.<strong>.</strong> It's the same feel as watching an 8mm film with the sprockets showing, I guess?</p>

<p>I developed Ilford Pan 400 using FD10 (based on 11min at 20'C) and noticed on the scans that the skies are blown, or mostly vague. It's negative film so I'm surprised that this happened (and there is nothing wrong with my technique). Does development time influence contrast, darkness/brightness, or both? I thought it would only influence dark/bright but now I'm not so sure. Oh, agitation was initial 30 sec then three every 30 sec.<br /><br />Another question, what are the physical differences between negative and positive film? I'm wondering this especially since positives are actually made by processing double-negatives. I know E6 film lacks a colour mask - anything else different?<br> Lastly, why does slide film have much higher contrast (and thus less d.r./latitude)? Wouldn't higher d.r. be better since it is more similar to how we perceive what we see? (imagine looking at the sky with your eyes and seeing that it is 'blown') </p>

<p>if it was a shutter problem (I think it is called sticky shutter or something specific) then the black would start on the side, but here we see some image, the black, then the rest of the image. <br> what did you use to develop it? if it's a rangefinder then the finger idea has some relevance. not that you did it, probably... how about the frame markings, are they there? if the frame borders are clear (the blackness doesn't creep out) then it happened in camera. else, it happened when the roll was out.</p>

<p>EC means 'exposure compensation'. Just a dial that adjusts the time (usually between +/- 2 stops) for auto use. I much prefer AE lock though.<br> Does the XT1 have an AE lock?<br> It's a shame that it's an electronic viewfinder - it will kill the batteries - but I think it's the closest I can get. I'd like the picture to be 'real' in the 'finder, but oh well can't have it all/././</p>

<p>wow, that Fuji XT1 is beautiful! Thanks David!! I better start saving. Why are DSRLs/D cameras so expensive anyway? Is it just difficult to make them correctly and with precision? For one XT I could buy perhaps 30 X300s's, haha. Thanks for <em>all</em> of your replies, I sure appreciate them.<br> 'Consult the manual' - the man's admission of defeat <br />:D</p>

<p>oh yeah, lab development is very expensive over here. For the time being I got hold of 1L Rollei C41. It's very time consuming though!</p>

<p>Anyway, I will talk about some failures. Mine :D<br> - The camera shutter had a problem and a lot of photos were half-black. Result: Changed the camera, but the damage cannot be undone<br> - Film fogged. Guess it was old and I can only wait 'til after to find that out.<br> - Camera problem. Sometimes it takes a picture just after being wound (selenium rangefinder)<br> - Overexposed negatives. I realised that my lens is not switching to the narrow apertures instantly, rather, it slides down quickly. Most problematic for f/16 since for a picture of bright sky the speed will need to be fast, but the blades are not acting instantly.<br> - Hair absorbed into emulsion after drying. Seriously?!<br> - Coloured bands. I just don't know why. Light could be coming from anywhere, even the bottom of the tank.<br> - Dust. I hate it so much. I don't even have photoshop.</p> <p> </p>

<p>thanks for your responses! <br> I honestly think that DSLRs are an ugly bunch, from what I've seen. Oversized, heavy, always black... I like the style of film cameras. Some are, hmm.. 'elegant'. That Nikon DF is a good example of the right camera style for me. Thank you!<br /> I also want minimal functionality: viewfinder, shutter, some sort of automation, metering, manual focus lens. Well, some additional 'features' are unavoidable, but I don't want something that is a mess of buttons.! <br> I do process all my own film at home (except for E6). <em>Usually </em>I get acceptable results, but there are occasional problems. When they happen there's no going back - the photos are damaged; the memories are damaged. I like being able to take pictures and have it 'on there' to see later - I'm definitely not a chimp :-D I also like having physical copies - that's history.<br> So this is a difficult decision, but it's for the best. I will still use BW though since it's so simple to develop. The chemicals are very straightforward in comparison to colour. <br> I am wondering, do digital zoom lenses offer lower minimum apertures? For example, the lens on my Minolta X300s (that's the camera I use) has a minimum of 3.5, which could be better for low light ,.,,</p>

<p>I'm not sure what forum this belongs in, so I'll stick it here.<br> I'm wondering if there are some digital cameras that look like film cameras and have similar layouts. So far I know about the Olympus OM-D, if that was the name. any recommendations?<br> I have issues with the reliability of film - it's probably time for me to move on (although I'll still do B&W). Colour film development is either expensive or time consuming, and I recently had colour streaks (again). Not only that, but dirt. I just can't tell how light got in - camera? bag? the tank? I just want to be sure that I can get photos consistently</p>

<p>image</p><div></div>

<p>I developed some film, removed its remjet (fairly easy), and stabilised it, but after scanning it's very dirty - fingermarks, some weird dirt. I know it can be removed - the question is how?<br> On another note, sometime the film 'absorbs' bits when it's wet. I have a negative with a hair just in the surface, how can I remove it? it's very annoying to have to deal with these things</p>

<p>Sensitisation is what you should be careful of. It means if you keep touching these chemicals then your skin may become sensitive to it, so any further contact will cause irritation/dermatitis. Don't make a habit out of it！ Wear a glove one hand (use the other hand to feel the water temperature when washing)</p>

Thats what I wanted though: remove all silver leaving behind the dyes. I thought; develop as BW to bring out the silver image negative without the dyes. Fog and colour develop to bring out the remaining dyes that can be affected, with the complement colour of the original complement giving a positive

Oh, I used CD after the fogging! Didn't skip that