cat: back to black
» RANDOM POST
» GO TO TOP
Dec 17, 2009, 12:01 am
nie wiem czemu, lecz tutaj najbardziej pasuje mi to ;)
(Thu 17/12/09, 1:49 am)
all your recent B&Ws look like delta 1. Meaning you’re pushing the heck out of your films. asa 3200 @ 12800? ;-)
(Thu 17/12/09, 5:54 am)
believe or not, they are 400@1600… its just my lack of darkroom skills probably – it was waaay easier to scan pushed ones :-P On the other hand, they are merely proofs… I’d spend considerably more time on a final print, dodging&burning.
(Thu 17/12/09, 8:31 am)
he ty chyba 90% dnia spędzasz na ulicy:) – gdzie ty to znajdujesz??:) – dobrze jest:)
(Thu 17/12/09, 9:10 am)
coś mi sie czcionka na biało wyświetla i mało widzę ?
(Thu 17/12/09, 10:10 am)
fajne, magiczne takie…:)
(Thu 17/12/09, 10:11 am)
juz poprawione :-)
(Thu 17/12/09, 10:36 am)
I as well have next to 0 experience in the dark room, but a good deal there of in developing film. When I push “old” emulsions like APX, TriX, HP5 to 1600, they usually tend to look just like a “native” 1600 film (neopan 1600 for ex.), and the prints tend to be far less contrasty than yours.
But I use grad 2.
(Fri 18/12/09, 5:17 am)
I use 3,5 to 5, depending on the scene.. maybe I’m underdeveloping…
(Fri 18/12/09, 7:59 am)
try using 2 and thoroughly developing the paper(!).
This makes the shadows deep, but does not mess with contrast, nor the midtones.
I dont think you’re underdeveloping – shadows seem to have enough detail.
(Sat 19/12/09, 8:22 am)
I am developing paper to completion… on the other hand, I like this look :-P It presents much better on the print itself :-)
(Sat 19/12/09, 10:41 am)
Url (not required):