 Posted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 4:28 pm Post subject: Photos from horrid negatives |
 |
|
fish4570 wrote:
Well, my third roll to develop was nightmare. The film was Kentmere 400. It is thinner than Tri-X, which caused extreme handling difficulties in the changing bag.
It just did not want to stay in the reel, or it would bunch up after I had wonud on a few frames.
Then I would have to pull the film out ansd start over, manhandling it again. I was reeling with the film still in the little can. Finally, I reel until I feel a stop in the can, so I cut it off, but it will not finish reeling. Had to start over, and over, and over, creasing the film, and tearing a sprockey hole.
Anyhow, I get it loaded and into the Paterson tank. I messed up the development, too, by setting the tank on its covered top for several seconds, draining the devloper away from the film for that amount of time. Oh no! I turn it back over and continue the drill.
Finally, after washing, I pull the film and it is only 15 negatives. The rest stayed in the cassette!
And, the negatives were horrid. I did salvage three prints. I hope the grain cl;umpiness is a result of the messy development, and not a trait of the film. Anyhow, here are some mightily touched up pics from thopse terribly maltreated negatives, shot on my FED-2d, Industar-50:
This one required the least spotting of defects:
This one required at least 500 spot fixes (or so it seemed):
This one had sweeping slashes through it:
_________________
Paul
I chase Light
http://blackcreekjournal.blogspot.com/ |
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
This way I know to stay away from Kentmere. Plus, I find the Curse of the Third Roll (in my case, third and fourth) is pretty consistent. Psychological.
