| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:40 pm Post subject: Damaged Film |
 |
|
themoleman342 wrote:
I haven't developed anything myself in about 2-3 years because I moved and lost my dedicated darkroom. I had a roll of exposed color 120 film sitting around for over a year. It was lomography 100iso which I've pretty good results with before: http://forum.mflenses.com/lomography-100-120-film-various-lenses-cameras-subjects-t68048.html I wanted to get the ball rolling on self-developing some color film again so I bought the Unicolor set from freestyle.
I was able to seal off a bathroom from light pretty well. I loaded up the roll on a reel. It seemed to be a tad rough going on but it advanced the whole way so I didn't give it much thought. My experience has always been if it's not on right, it'll just jam or basically fall out. When I opened the tank though it looked bad. Severely crinkled on the edges, some areas touching (so uneven development).
I've never done anything like that before, not even my first time in the darkroom. Too bad, it would have been a decent set of pictures. I'm not too discouraged. Shot a roll yesterday that I'll hopefully develop and get right this week.
This is one of the few that were salvageable:
Pentacon Six and a MC Biometar 120mm.
Only re-sized. It's got a interesting quality to it, no?
Be well,
~Marc |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Looks like a cheap, nasty 80s machine develop and print with bad colours. Either the film was deteriorated due to age, the development was faulty or, quite likely, it was just crap film, which is typical of lomography films - they have been known to pull some rotten tricks like selling out of date film under a new name at a hiked price and advertise it as having unigue colours etc.
If you need to keep a shot but undeveloped film for a period of time, it needs to be refrigerated, as they do deteriorate.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
Ok, I can only assume you read "lomography" and immediately went to write something scathing.
It doesn't seem like you read what I wrote or followed the link? It's actually a pretty decent film and a lot of that "cheap, nasty" quality is because I screwed up with loading it. Scanning damaged film isn't going to yield the best results. It's also the least expensive 120 color negative film for sale on adorama and b&h. Price hike? Where? Is it worth paying the extra 1$ per roll of Ektar? Yeah, probably. Does that make the Lomography film bad?
It was more just a story that I was returning to DIY color development and that I should have a roll on the way...
Here is the shot literally right before it on the roll. I spent a little extra time scanning/flattening and I played with the color for 2 minutes. Any better (and yes, it's not focused correctly)?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
The more I look at that first picture, the more I'm bothered with your comment.
The picture has low contrast (which I already said I didn't do anything to fix) but bad colors? To me they actually look pretty natural.
Can I get someone else's opinion on this please? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Posts: 3678
Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
I can't really contribute to the process of developing the film as I only did B&W film myself up to now.
I never liked the stress with the temperature control of color film, so I didn't try it myself till date.
However, the second picture looks quite good to me in terms of colors and contrast. So the film itself is most probably more than fine. At least I can't see any failure from that point of view. So it's most probably only a matter of practicing to improve the results even further. The tiny black spots are rather annoying; where do they come from? Dust is normally delivering white spots from scanning.
I definitely like more to shoot with positive slide films on medium format cameras. The Fujifilm Velvia is my most favorite one. Time to shoot something as well as I have still many rolls at home. Still waiting for the right model. 
_________________
Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
The black spots are emulsion damage. They're *damaged* negatives. I'm not presenting these as gallery photos or work I'm proud of, only the ones that came out without getting spotty/uneven development.
I very much appreciate your response. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Posts: 1364
Location: Slovenia
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
Personally I think the first photo looks great! Sure, it's not technically perfect but on the whole it's a beautiful photograph, end of story. The colours, the soft contrast, the light, the pose, the model by far outweigh any artefacts from mishandling the film.
Also I completely sympathize with you. 120 film is just a pain in the ass to get on the reel. One time it took me literally 45 minutes. And it wasn't exactly my first roll. It just wouldn't go on. 
_________________
my flickr stream |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009
Posts: 8982
Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Have you been able to tweak it like the second shot just for a comparison between the two?
I do like the first shot,the framing of your subject, especially the light on the hair and the details of the hair.I can see why you would be annoyed at "losing" this roll.
_________________
Moira, Moderator 
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
| themoleman342 wrote: |
| bad colors? To me they actually look pretty natural. |
to me too.. there is nothing wrong with the colors!
Sure you could tweak/repair it... like this:
(I hope you don't mind)
..and you get a technical more perfect photo. But why? You will just lose the special character it had without the altering. I like it as it was.. for me it doesn't has to changed a bit.
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
That's a really good edit Tedat! I'm glad a few of you liked it. Model pictures like this are a dime-a-dozen but I felt some of the elements of it worked. My girlfriend (the model) liked her "look" and I agreed so I just decided to post it. Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tedat
Joined: 08 Nov 2011
Posts: 800
Location: Berlin/Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tedat wrote:
thank you... but I still don't think this edit is needed. It's a great photo with a own character.
_________________
Regards
Jan
flickr
Sony A7RM2
Contax T*: Distagon 4/18, Distagon 2/28, Distagon 1.4/35, PC-Distagon 2.8/35, Planar 1.4/50, Planar 1.4/85, Planar 2/100, Planar 2/135, S-Planar 2.8/60, Tessar 2.8/45, Mirotar 8/500, Vario Sonnar 3.4/35-70, Vario Sonnar 4.5-5.6/100-300
Carl Zeiss for Rollei QBM: F-Distagon 2.8/16 HFT, Distagon 2.8/25, Planar 1.4/50 HFT, Sonnar 2.8/85
Konica Hexanon AR: 2.8/21, 1.2/57
Other: Minolta F2.8 [T4.5] 135mm STF, Meopta Meostigmat 1.4/70, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90.. and lots of early M42 Yashinon, Rikenon and Mamiya lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I see, you only accept praise and any other comments are unacceptable.
I didn't criticise you I criticised the film.
You clearly have an ego issue.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
themoleman342
Joined: 21 Oct 2007
Posts: 2190
Location: East Coast (CT), U.S.A.
Expire: 2013-01-24
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2015 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
themoleman342 wrote:
| Quote: |
I see, you only accept praise and any other comments are unacceptable.
I didn't criticise you I criticised the film.
You clearly have an ego issue. |
When did I say your comments were unacceptable? I actually asked you if my second picture showed any improvement and you didn't respond.
I said I was bothered with your comments because, to me, they didn't actually follow what I posted and seemed more like a separate rant on lomography, which I've seen you badmouth on more than one occasion.
I offered counterpoints to your statements which would be, ya know, the start of a discussion, a debate, something this forum is supposed to encourage. Then I asked if others saw it the way you did. Of course praise is welcome but if others saw it as crap too I would accept that.
I didn't attack you personally. I also didn't really defend myself, I defended the film. I pointed to multiple personal mistakes along the way. Where are you getting that ego stuff?
I did not agree with you because I've used the film and gotten good results from it.
Now I will say something personal, I believe you're a very negative influence on this forum. But please, comment away, they're always accepted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
