ciaran_mcmenemy

<p>university and sky</p>

<p>road and flare</p>

<p>here's the 'distortion' I was talking about. I think it suits this sort of picture, though. Has a 'feel' to it. If you simply adjusted the main histogram and scanned that, the coloured dots (dare I call it grain?) would be much more harsh.</p>

<p>red cast, I should have blued it out. Consistency is the issue with scanning bleach-skipped film. You could do a frame twice and it would look different (because of your interpretation). <br> Central Arcade.</p>

<p>statue</p><div></div>

<p>I worked out one method for scanning bleach-skipped film, and will attach some examples here. As Glen kindly mentioned that they can be blixed again (I shoulda realised that..!) some of the film is sitting in solution, so it will become 'normal' (though perhaps it will look underdeveloped. Even though I underdeveloped it, it was still dense).<br> For anyone who's interested in this (and knows less than even me!), a scannable, 'good' density will mean you can make out the frames without having to shine a light under the negative to see them. I thought the negatives were OK as I could see them under a light, but that's too dense. The scanner struggles, and interprets it as pure white with possible light blue parts. <br> Adjusting the main histogram so that the low (L) {shadows}, mid (M) {mid tones}, and high (H) {highlights} markers fall within the single (yes! only one) peak on the graph provides a really distorted image. A very strange sorta pixellated mess. There's a better way. Using Epson scan software (mine is V550 .):<br> -scan as negative<br />-on the main view (not thumbnails) draw boxes where all the frames are expected to be<br />- The tone curve should not be linear, it should be curving inward (to the bottom), like a bowl. That will bring out a lot more of the light blue. Keep in in mind that the film I used is Jessops SHR400, yours may have different colour characteristics, meaning you will adjust it a bit differently. <br />- Blue histogram: bring H down until the image turns yellow or greenish.<br />- Green histogram: bring L up to reduce the green/yellow intensity. It should go towards bluey red. If still a bit too tinted, adjust blue's H slightly. <br />-Colour balance. Here you can fine tune the result. I tend to shift the green-magenta (I think that's the pairing!) towards magenta. It's all about your interpretation. Often I try to get rid of a yellow tint, without having it <em>too blue</em>.<br />-Adjusting the brightness is probably a good idea. After all, the film is super-dense and so decreasing the brightness can bring out more of the detail.</p><div></div>

<p>heya Larry, thanks for letting me know. So you get a yellowy positive image? I suppose you would have to alter the yellow balance in scanning. So if you process that Rollei film normally then it won't look orange??<br> Flames are not good. I hope you have an external hard-drive for safety :)</p>

<p>thanks for your replies. And especially for explaining the mask; I was wondering why (or rather, how) positive film doesn't have it. Is is true that negative gives better colour reproduction? Seems a bit strange to me, since slide is 'professional' film and meant for projection, and the colours don't need to be interpreted. <br /><br />Also thanks for explaining about the filter. I had no idea. It's quite smart to use silver as a filter. How they invented this stuff, I don't know....<br> ::: Are you saying it's possible to bleach-fix and image that has already been stabilised and had the silver retained??? I didn't know anything about that. Maybe I can try bleach-fixing it just until the density is good. Since I underdeveloped it, if I bleach fix it completely I think the negative will be lacking in colour and detail. <br /><br />This site here has successful bleach-skip photos, take a look https://keefmarshall.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/bleach-bypass-processing/ although they did use Photoshop, and I don't want to buy it</p>

<p>This post is about scanning C41 colour film that has had the bleach omitted. If you have tried before, or have tried scanning the resulting negatives, then it would be great to hear from you. Any other advice is also appreciated, if you are sure of what you're saying!<br /><br />I used up a roll, ISO 400, with the camera set to 800 ISO, for one level of underexposure. Dyes <em>and s</em>ilver would make the negative dense, so I tried this. I developed it as normal and gave it a good wash, then fixed, washed, and stabilised it. I thought the negatives were okay because I could see all the detail when I hold it up to a light source. <br />I decided to bleach skip another roll of film. Since it was shot at the speed of the film, I developed it for 30 sec less. Same procedure afterwards. <br /> However, now that I am scanning (Epson V550) the scanner is having a lot of trouble. It can't recognise the film - it shows up as pale blue and white. I have tried three methods to get an image:<br />1) Scan as negative, adjust histogram. It works, but the scan is so noisy. Lots of coloured bits on the photo.<br />2) Scan as positive, adjust brightness, remove orange mask, invert on mspaint. This gave the best result, though it's still far from perfect. After the first attempt, it was a bit bright. I put the brightness up all the way on the scan so that the mspaint inversion would appear darker.<br />3) Scan as positive and edit with some program. I don't really know what I should do here, and the results show it.<br /><br />Do you have any advice on how to retrieve images from the negatives? There must be something I'm missing.<br /><br /><br />Advice on exposing and developing is definitely helpful as well. The best way would be to expose in a way that it can be developed normally and look 'normal'compared to other negatives. I tried one stop underexposure. Perhaps I should try two or even three stops less (e.g. 100 as 400 or 800). As for development, is it linear with time? So that, say, developing for 2:00 instead of 4:00 would give half the density? Another option is to add a weak solution of B&W developer after the colour developer and bleach steps, but then it's question of having separate bleach, which I don't (damn blix..!).</p>

<p>hi! I know that Lomo' is a brand, I mentioned it because cross-processed film usually has that label attached.. <br />When I search 'cross processing' almost everything is slides as C41 - I was hoping people could show me negatives as E6. <br />I use expired film mostly. Not really from choice. Mainly because it's much cheaper. I wouldn't use expired slide film though, since the colours are supposed to be accurate, and aren't meant to be adjusted. Having scanned some HG 1600 I developed (film is expired) I think it's lost speed and has increased grain. So stay away from high speed expired! Anyone got a 1600 photo? I'd like to see how grainy it should be.</p>

<p>hi! I know that Lomo' is a brand, I mentioned it because cross-processed film usually has that label attached.. <br />When I search 'cross processing' almost everything is slides as C41 - I was hoping people could show me negatives as E6. </p>

<p>Hi Andrew, thanks for your comment! I would like to try stand development (would be useful for 8mm film!) but, no dark room yet.<br> What's your agitation method? just pull the tray back and forth? I can imagine it would get messy if you're not careful.<br> With the long, long development, what do you do to maintain 20'C?</p>

<p>Hi all, a quick question. What is the limit of the developer temperature that I can use without the film becoming damaged?<br> I'm developing Tri-X as 1600, another as 3200, and I don't feel like spending half an hour sitting by the sink. <br> thanks!</p>

<p>It's all too easy too find examples of E6 films being developed as C41. Typically, branded 'lomography'. .<br /><br />what about C41 as E6? I can barely find any photos to demonstrate, and wikipedia just mentions a 'pastel' effect. anyone tried it and got photos to show?<br /><br />I wonder what happens to the mask. I think it would stay orange in the frames and dark orange / black for the other parts of the film. Would you have to scan it as a negative (so the software recognises that it should remove an orange mask) and invert it or just scan it as positive? (This scanning question also applies to E6 as C41. That said, I scanned as negative {Epson V550} and got great results) <br /><br /><br> -Thanks !</p>

<p>Hi Peter, I really appreciate your answers! Thanks for taking the time to explain, I really mean it. <br />What films do you prefer to use, and what range of speeds?<br /><br />Have you done B&W reversal then? I was considering it, but I'm a bit unsure about adding sulphuric acid to potassium permanganate (I think those were one set of 'ingredients'). Although, it is diluted with water...<br> I see what you're saying about blix. Does the fixer only fix the dyes? If it fixed the silver then it would be a race between it and the bleach. Are there any good home kits alternative to Tetenal?</p>

<p>(I'm sure this has been asked before, but I want to see examples and hear from experience.)<br /> On a bright, blue day, I might find, say, 5 or 6 levels of difference between a subject and the sky. How do I expose that without the sky becoming blank? I will link a photo: the colours are a bit dark and deep in the foreground, while the sky has nice detail. I'm wondering how that would be done. What if you worked out the range in levels (i.e. from useful brightest part to useful darkest part) and exposed in the middle? <br /> Please upload your photos, stating the film, what your method was, and anything else you have to say. 'Bad' photos are welcome too, since that's how we all learn. Look forward to seeing 'em!<br /> One thing that's been concerning me; why is slide so damn slow? I can't even find 400 film, only 100 available.. It's usually so cloudy and crappy in the UK so I have to wait for bright days, which are rare. 100 is just so limiting here! Negative film is available up to 3200 bw, and at least 1600 colour (yes, it's grainy, but still it's nice to have it available).<br> THE PHOTO: http://www.razzetti.com/#/bbc---myths-and-heroes/jason-and-the-golden-fleece/lemnos_01</p>

<p>So what chemicals do you use? <br />If there is a little shifting / colour bias would the scanner ignore it or would it treat it as if you'd been using a filter? <br />If the layers are sensitive to RGB or RBY but show up as cyan, magenta and yellow, then what about slide film? Are those layers sensitive to CMY? I don't understand how they make it different; since you can make a negative out of it as well.<br> Hah, blue table leg, does that mean the blue in the basket should also be black?<br> where you developing by some guidelines or just experimenting? I bet you've made some good findings.<br> ---<br> I was wondering why the called it a 'press' kit. funny, since I'd expect almost all publications to use digital these days.. perhaps National Geographic uses film photos? </p>

<p>thanks for the replies! I didn't find all the answers on those two links up there, so you're most helpful.<br /> So Tetenal isn't actually that good? I thought it would effectively the same as what a lab uses. Except for the bleach and fix: I was interested in doing them separately (I thought about trying a slight 'bleach bypass') but to be fair combining them does prevent the risk of picking up the wrong bottle at a stage in processing.<br /> Yup, oxygen is a real killer!<br /> With regards to dumping blix, is it safe to put steel wool in it first? (Something like that is supposed to combine with the silver particles). <br /> -Peter: So you develop each colour separately. That's interesting! How long does it take for each? You could tone them with that method, too, although it would be more sensible to do it through scanning .. <br /> Thanks for explaining what actually happens when you overuse it. Anyone have any photo examples? Once I am done with my latent colour films (still a few out of the 12-16 or so I stored in the fridge) I will run a test: develop for a lot longer, and develop at the wrong temperature. I'd like to see what happens</p>

<p>I apologise if this has been asked before, but I can't find the information. I will number so you can direct your answers.<br> 1) I have 1L of tetenal mixed and stored in black collapsible bottles, and it's stored at room temperature. What's the shelf life? I'm not expecting long, but I expect that the blix would last a while (my bw fixer mix has outlived a bottle of developer, and has been in a bottle since April!!) and that the stabiliser would last a while too since it's simply formaldehyde gas in water, I think (is this the most poisonous of them all?). <br> 2) So far I've done 12 rolls. After rolls 13-14 there is no more information given. How come the blix time increases much more than the colour developer time?<br> 3) What's the most rolls you would get out of this? what happens when you keep going, does the film look more and more dull or something?<br> 4) How do I dispose of the chems? I suppose the developer and stabiliser can be poured down the sink, but the blix contains silver so I'm not sure what I would do with that one.<br> Thanks for your time!</p>

<p>what you mentioned about contrast and density actually makes some sense to me, thanks! I will have to read about that effect. so when you print negative film, do you increase the contrast and decrease the density of the final picture?<br> anyone have any advice for exposing slides perfectly?</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses, guys! what would you say the main differences between HC100 and Xtol are?<br> I had a suspicion that it was due to printing, but since over-agitation is supposed to have a contrast effect, I was wondering... Thanks for your explanation of compensating devs, I wondered why the times were different for them.</p> <p>Nice photos, Wouter!</p>

<p>I really like slide film. I got some actual slides back to me when I got a roll processed, it felt great to hold and look at the things. (Last time I just got the film back curled up). Shame it's damn expensive! <br> I'd like to know what slide film(s) has the most saturated colours. There are actually aren't many different types, sadly. I will try Velvia, I think that is supposed to be saturated?<br> Say you were exposing a landscape, how would you do it? would you meter for the sky?<br> I'm just a little confused about the whole 'dynamic range thing'. is it to do with the response to light? like some sort of exponential response in which the lighting at a bit less or a bit more than the right level will affect the film more (highlights) and less (shadows) than negative film.<br> does it mean, for example:<br> an subject of mid brightness is in environment of low brightness, while the sky has high brightness. Exposing for the environment makes the subject too bright and the sky blank, exposing for the subject makes the env' dark and the sky too bright, and exposing for the sky makes the env' blank (black) and the subject too dark . ?<br> Sorry for sounding like an amateur. I just want to understand <em>why </em>negatives can 'catch' the various levels of light, while slide is selective. what's the science behind it?</p>

<p>Hm, I'm surprised that could happen. and you're right about the see-through cans! /// if you're wondering about my method: I use a permanent marker to draw a guideline on the film when it's reeled in, so I can always line it up exactly in the future. The first frame needs to be skipped/taken twice. It's useful for when I just don't have room for three+ cameras, or for when I don't want to look like a tourist :D The disadvantage is that you waste the battery. setting to 1/1000 and f/22 and covering the lens does the trick when advancing. The other important thing is to write the frames down when you take a roll out!<br> I just noticed this (see picture).<br> I don't know when it happened. might have been before the faulty roll (would I have noticed a change when loading?) or recently. I'd say it dropped since the grooves are straight, but the edge is still curved. how bizarre!</p>

<p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7168/6813861123_abb29c38dc.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="434" /><br> the above is the sort of effect that I was hoping to achieve through agitation. it's not the best example, but it demonstrates mainly black or white with little grey. I'm sure it could be done with a scanner, but I'd like to have it done as the first generation image.<br> thanks for your replies. I had a look at 'bromide drag', it basically leaves streaks? I use Ilfosol-3. no major reason, it's just that it was available when I started out, and I can stick with it. what about you all, what do you use / get from your chemicals?<br> I really appreciate the technical answers. Looking at, for example, HP5 400 with I-3 at 1:14, the time is 11min. With constant agitation the time is reduced by 10% to almost 10 min, will this give the look I want to achieve?<br> anyone bother to use the agitator stick?</p> <p> </p>

<p>hah, I never used a changing bag to swap films! the camera itself has very few light seals - one around the window and another at the hinge, I think.<br> that's very attentive of you to notice that - I didn't spot it! If I remember rightly, I had the film curled up at one point inside the bag, so then ... would it be a tiny amount of light that caused that? since it's blue then it would have to be orange light which would come from a bulb. your theory makes a lot of sense to me. <br> I should have known that this could happen; because once it happens photos are 'damaged'. is there any way to correct the colour casts? <br> for now I will use the bag in a dark room or under the duvet. can you recommend any reliable ones? I would actually like a changing box (haha, if it exists) so that my hands have more room.<br> ----<br> about blix, how do you agitate it? I feel like inversions would be best, but so messy..</p>