[BigMackCam]

Cutting film with scissors by hand is a hit-and-miss and a source of frustration when you are a perfectionist. I use the 'KAISER Slide Cutter Diacut 1' for cutting strips exactly in the middle of the gap no matter how narrow it is. This small device is officially for dia's but you can cut any length of strips.

That's an interesting device... Though I think for my own purposes, scissors are OK. My current method is to cut the film into strips while it's still hanging - so, I remove the weighted clip, cut the first strip from the end of the roll, then move up to the next strip, and so on. So long as I have decent back-lighting, it's easy enough to see the gap between frames. Beyond that, it's just a case of maintaining a reasonably steady hand. My cuts aren't [i]perfectly straight, but for strips of negatives that will be scanned (as opposed to reversal film to be slide-mounted) they're good enough. Of course, I say that now... I might change my tune when I make my first cutting mistake

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 01-08-2022 at 11:17 PM.

[Kobayashi.K]

... I got 39 shots from a 36 roll film (though the first shot was taken before counter reached the "1" mark... I didn't want to waste it ). I wonder if this is typical for all 35mm cameras, a characteristic of the Olympus Trip 35, or a quirk of my specific copy.

After some time one learns to appreciate working systematically instead of squeezing the maximum amount of frames from a roll. At least, that's how it went with me.

For example I use Hama Pergamin sheets for 7 strips of 6 frames each (nr 2251 or 2252). So I always shoot exactly 36 frames (6 strips of 6 frames) and the remaining top row is used to accommodate a strip of paper (with the size of a film strip) for short notes, like date, film type, developer, camera, lens, the weather and subject. That gives you a system of self-supporting sheets that can be stored on date and searched easily.

Some professional camera's, like Nikon F5 and F6, can also be programmed to expose exactly 36 frames (or 35) and to advance automatically to the end of the film after that.

[BigMackCam]

After some time one learns to appreciate working systematically instead of squeezing the maximum amount of frames from a roll. At least, that's how it went with me.

For example I use Hama Pergamin sheets for 7 strips of 6 frames each (nr 2251 or 2252). So I always shoot exactly 36 frames (6 strips of 6 frames) and the remaining top row is used to accommodate a strip of paper (with the size of a film strip) for short notes, like date, film type, developer, camera, lens, the weather and subject. That gives you a system of self-supporting sheets that can be stored on date and searched easily.

That's a great approach... I'd not thought of that

I use also use Hama HA2251 glassine sheets for 35mm negatives, so I'll strongly consider your method.

I don't suppose you have any ideas for 120 negatives and the Hama HA2259 sheets?

[3by2]

Still, I can easily test by swapping out the K-5 with my K-3, re-digitising one of the frames and comparing the results.

I would imagine your K3 won't do any better. I mostly use my K5 for my 35mm copies rather than my KP and Pixel shift. There are perhaps a dozen or so slides I have, taken with a better lens, that the KP might do better with in terms of shadow and highlight detail, I've found no difference in grain yet, in fact my impression is the K5 does slightly better than the KP and at the least, no worse.

That's a promising 2nd film, looks good, you can be pleased with that I think.

[Kobayashi.K]

That's a great approach... I'd not thought of that
I use also use Hama HA2251 glassine sheets for 35mm negatives, so I'll strongly consider your method.
I don't suppose you have any ideas for 120 negatives and the Hama HA2259 sheets?

I use the Hama 2259 sheets for my 6x4 negatives from the Pentax 645N, but with 16 frames all 4 rows are filled up with strips of 4 frames. And there is no room for a strip of notes.
One could stack one film strip with also a strip of paper, but that should be acid-free paper. So that is not ideal. I have not looked into other formats like 6x6 and 6x12.

[Bob 256]

Great shots and good work!! In that photo of the sheep, if you look really, really closely, you can see the third sheep from the left is eating a red blood cell (negative of the cell, of course). As they say, "third roll is charmed".

[arnold]

Thank you for an interesting read. I wish I had your motivation to get involved with the chemical magic of the darkroom. That Olympus Trip is a gem with a lens to match,

[Eric Auer]

For Foma 200 and especially 400 use something else than Rodinal, its brings the grain out more than necessary.

Try an acidic stop, non citric acid so that you can halt the dev process, Plain water keeps it going longer than necessary, unless thats is your desire.
I use an Acetic acid stop with foma films. Citric can make pinholes in their emulsion.

Foma 200 in 120 is notoriously of mixed quality and has had lots of issues, just a FYI if one day you get mottled/scratched etc film. It aint you, it's Foma. 135 is fine.

Do your final rinse in distilled water with a drop or two of Photo-flo or similar.

I use HC110 and Legacy Eco-Pro (Xtol clone) for all my Foma films with good results.

Ditch the UV filter for a Orange (or even red) for some more contrast if need be.

Foma 200 in 120:


City Frame-107 by EA - Shares, on Flickr


City Frame-196 by EA - Shares, on Flickr

[stevebrot]

I got 39 shots from a 36 roll film (though the first shot was taken before counter reached the "1" mark... I didn't want to waste it ). I wonder if this is typical for all 35mm cameras, a characteristic of the Olympus Trip 35, or a quirk of my specific copy.

As noted above, it is not unusual to get more than 36 exposures per roll. That said, it is my personal practice to cut strips to fit the brand of sleeve pages that I use for storage (one roll per page, 35 frames per page).

As for spots...I use Photo Flo per instructions with distilled water as the final treatment after washing.


Steve

[biz-engineer]

I'm sure you can see why I was a bit shocked by the grain from 35mm Fomapan 400 using the same developer?!

For 1:1 crop of ISO400 film looks pretty good if you'd compare it to something like digital CCD from ~2008 at ISO800. Would that grain still be distracting when printed 300 ppi?
That film grain is distracting in the sky, could it be related to exposure for that particular film, too much or too little?

[tuco]

For 1:1 crop of ISO400 film looks pretty good if you'd compare it to something like digital CCD from ~2008 at ISO800.

It could depending on film/developer combo too. Here is a shot at ISO 1600 on a 2008 vintage CCD sensor.

[BigMackCam]

For 1:1 crop of ISO400 film looks pretty good if you'd compare it to something like digital CCD from ~2008 at ISO800.

The random layout and size of the grain on this film are quite different to digital luminance noise, though... Here it appears - to my eye, at least - that it "disrupts" fine detail. It's as if the grain is larger than some of the fine detail the film is clearly capable of resolving (I'm looking at the distant trees in the sheep shot as an example). By comparison, digital luminance noise is laid out in a uniform grid at pixel level, which doesn't seem to cause the same disruption to fine detail...

Would that grain still be distracting when printed 300 ppi?

I imagine it would be less distracting. At some point in the future, once I've got through a variety of films and developers, I'll have to curate a small selection of my favourite shots and have them printed at a few different sizes to see how they look when compared to on-screen viewing. Regardless of grain, they'll already look better, IMHO... printed photos just look a whole lot nicer to me (a shame, then, that I don't print more )...

That film grain is distracting in the sky, could it be related to exposure for that particular film, too much or too little?

It could... though I tend to think not. I examined the negatives closely after developing, and - based on the evaluation guidance I'm referring too, and my admittedly-novice eye - they look well-balanced, having a good range of highlights, mid-tones and shadows, with detail noted both in highlights and all but the darker shadows. They don't show any obvious signs of under- or over-exposure, nor of under- / over-development. The Trip 35's selenium-cell metering is a simple reflected-light measuring device, of course, so it will routinely under- or over-expose depending on the balance of elements in a scene. At best, it's only ever going to be approximate - but it seems to have done a decent job here, and I'm seeing broadly the same grain in all of the shots, so it doesn't seem to be significantly influenced by the camera's deviations from perfect exposure.

I think I'll try HC-110 (or Ilfotec HC) next, instead of Rodinal... and, once I've used up my rolls of Fomapan 400, I might try some 35mm Fomapan 200. It'd be interesting to see how it compares to the 120 roll I previously shot. The grain will look bigger, but I suspect it will be much less prominent than with the 400...

[CedrusMacro]

Great write up in your experience BigMackCam, I'm looking to get into home developing this year and hearing a novice at plays experience is damn fine encouragement.

Also, these are just the most 'British' shots possible- honestly amazes me how much I thought I was looking at some of my own (why does a field shot of sheep instantly make me see the UK countryside (not a positive to me &#128517.

But some really nicely exposed and developed shots, Fomapan is a lovely affordable film, and one that's great for experimenting with pushing the ISO (as long as you don't mind grain).

[BigMackCam]

Great write up in your experience BigMackCam, I'm looking to get into home developing this year and hearing a novice at plays experience is damn fine encouragement.

Thank you! Then it was worth posting

Also, these are just the most 'British' shots possible- honestly amazes me how much I thought I was looking at some of my own (why does a field shot of sheep instantly make me see the UK countryside (not a positive to me ��).

Ha ha Yes... Britain - though I'd break it down even further to each individual country in the UK mainland - has it's own very definitive character. I don't know what part of the UK you're in, but in my immediate vicinity there's not a lot of sheep farming. It tends to increase in the more elevated, hilly areas, but I don't recall seeing much in the lowlands. Lots of dairy and arable, though.

But some really nicely exposed and developed shots, Fomapan is a lovely affordable film, and one that's great for experimenting with pushing the ISO (as long as you don't mind grain).

Thanks again I've been going through the shots this morning, and I think I'm warming to the grain. Displayed at depth-filling size on my 17" laptop display, it has dimensions of roughly 12.75" x 8.5", and at that size the grain really isn't bad. It's noticeable, yes... but not obtrusive. I think perhaps I was guilty of pixel-peeping to begin with

[ProfessorBuzz]

BTW Alex is a fan of Pan F+ with Microphen. I usually have Perceptol for developer; either are excellent. And yes, it's slow film, so the sheep and the river waves have to hold still.