[nickthetasmaniac]

Paris

M2, VM 28mm f2 and Tri-X 400

[cooltouch]

Recently I've shot a couple of rolls of Tri-X Pan with my MX, developed in D-76 -- with mixed results. This is the first time I've ever used Tri-X Pan and I'm still getting used to my MX. The film expired in 2004 and I got it a few years ago as part of a camera and lens outfit I bought. I've had it in my freezer since I got it, but I suspect it was just sitting inside the camera bag that came with the gear for a decade or more.

I had a total of three rolls of the TXP and I've shot two of them so far. The third is in the MX. The first roll came out unusually grainy. The second roll was better -- and worse. I think at least part of the problem has to do with the way I was handling the MX. Its meter is accurate, but I'm not acquainted yet with the peculiarities of its supposedly center-weighted metering pattern. I think this can explain some of the problems I had with the second roll, but I don't think I can blame the metering pattern for the consistently grainy look of the first roll's shots. One thing I did discover after the fact regarding the first roll was I used developing times for 1:1 developing when I was developing full strength. The result was I ended up cooking the film for about two minutes longer than I should have. But I've been told that that wouldn't account for the increased grain.

So anyway, here are a few shots from the first roll. I intentionally maxed the "curves" setting in PP on the second shot of the cat, because that was the effect I was after, but still, the grain is very obvious. The lens I used for these first three shots was a Tamron SP 24-48.




And here are a few shots from the second roll, which was developed according to the directions on the Tri-X Pan box. The grain was more reasonable with these photos, I think, although I did hit the "curves" function pretty hard with the third photo of the cat on our driveway. It exhibited more grain than the others. The lens used was a Tokina 70-210/4-5.6 SD for the first two and the Tamron SP 24-48 for the last one.





Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out why that first roll was so grainy. I'm reasonably certain that the grainy shots in the second roll (not shown here) were due to under-exposure -- just unfamiliarity with the MX's metering pattern.

I'm gonna try and finish off the third roll tomorrow, paying extra attention to the MX's meter's values. One thing I noticed about the second roll, even after developing it properly, was the negatives all looked quite thin. So for this third roll, just to see if it will make a significant difference, I've set the MX to ISO 200 instead of 400. We'll see if it makes any difference.

[longbow]

Along the flooded shore of the Columbia River

ME Super, M28 f2.8 & Orange filter with HP5+ pushed to 1600 iso

[gofour3]

the second shot of the cat,

Looks pretty good!

PS: Post more shots of your cat, he/she always cracks me up with that "look"!

Phil.

[cooltouch]

Looks pretty good!

PS: Post more shots of your cat, he/she always cracks me up with that "look"!

Phil.

You mean, like this?



I have one more, but I didn't really think it was a keeper. Focus is a bit soft.

[gofour3]

You mean, like this?



I have one more, but I didn't really think it was a keeper. Focus is a bit soft.

Yep good stuff, that last one is interesting like a soft focus lens. Makes me miss my old cat, always was a willing model ready to go.

Phil.

[cooltouch]

Glad you like 'em. Incidentally, the black and white cat -- his name is Raja. The other cat in that second shot goes by a couple of different names. She's actually my daughter's cat, and my daughter calls her "Squirrel" because of her bushy tail. But she's a foul-tempered creature, so I call her The Brat Cat. Which she is.

I'm not sure if I have any more film shots of Raja. Digital, yes, film . . . I'll have to see. I do have at least one color film shot of The Brat Cat, though. Somewhere . . .

---

Last edited by cooltouch; 03-28-2017 at 11:03 PM.

[drmoss_ca]

It's snowing quite a bit today, so I took the Pen F briefly out. I took my 48 pictures and scanned about half of them, and I was surprised to see the presentable ones were from the shots taken indoors. I may add some outdoors ones tomorrow. The XP2 holds up well in the little half-frame negatives, giving smoother results than I've had with other films.










Chris

[drmoss_ca]

Some of our snow melted a bit today, leaving thick ice trails down the windows:




Chris

[Andreas51]

There is a saying that you cannot expect more than one, possibly two good shots from one roll of film. I want to turn the saying around and want to find at least one decent shot on a film. This was taken in the Drover Heide, near Düren. Used to be a military training ground and is now a protected area.

This was taken with a Pentax Mx and a Zeiss 50mm f/1.4

[45 Mike]

A few from my Yashica C TLR, Ultrafine Extreme 100, in D-76

[jtkratzer]

ME Super, K55/1.8, TMAX 400 pushed one stop

[Eyewanders]

Meow.


Pentax MX | A50/1.4 or FA43/1.9 (I can't remember) | HP5 Plus push+1 | Pakon F135 scan

[g026r]

This entire roll feels like I either back-focused constantly, or the rangefinder is off. I hope it's the former.

This shot wasn't bad, at least.



Contax IIa.
Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f1.5.
JCH Streetpan 400.

[murrelet]

This entire roll feels like I either back-focused constantly, or the rangefinder is off. I hope it's the former.

This shot wasn't bad, at least.



Contax IIa.
Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f1.5.
JCH Streetpan 400.

How are you liking JCH Street Pan? I've shot 3 rolls and I can't say that I've been too happy with it. But I'm certain it has more to do with me than with the film.