|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-22-2016, 02:59 PM
|
| |
Whoops, I should have specified SLOWER, not LOWER. But slower (overexposure and "over-development") is what I meant and what I know I would have to do - thanks for picking that one up.
I would indeed be doing it as a curiosity and a technical challenge. As far as ordering films from B&H is concerned, I live in Canada, and shipping costs for smaller orders & import fees will murder any gains I might make. Bulk loading is an idea I'm kicking around, but I'm not yet serious about taking that one up. We shall see what happens in due course when (a) the weather fines up, (b) I'm shooting and developing a lot more, and (c) my confidence in my capabilties increases enough to justify buying hundred-foot rolls of the same thing.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-22-2016, 01:26 PM
|
| |
I don't doubt that for a minute - but I think it's important to do simply to have a baseline.
I will hypothesise that not only does the speed drop, so does the latitude.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-22-2016, 11:10 AM
|
| |
It's already in canisters, in their boxes, labelled with the expiry dates, as they would have sat on any store shelf.
Is there a reason you would advise going for underexposure on the test sequence? Surely, as already discussed, any drift in the film's capability over time requires more rather than less exposure...
(Six stops under for an ISO 64 film is an equivalent ASA of ONE... :confused: :eek: )
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-22-2016, 07:14 AM
|
| |
I have considered bulk loading, especially since it would enable me to load short rolls and run experiments with pushing and pulling that did not use up much film... but it's more gear to buy, and I'm not sure I'm ready or comfortable to go down that road yet.
---------- Post added 22-12-16 at 10:49 ----------
It's a good idea, and I think I could make the downstairs bathroom dark enough, but I don't think I have the bench-space for it; I'm putting my films in the tank in a changing bag as it is. I'll mull on it and see if I can find a workaround.
For my current setup and space limitations, I suspect the varying-exposure approach is the best one for me right now. The key lies in extrapolating exactly how much I should increase the next development time by.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
12-22-2016, 06:24 AM
|
| |
So in my search for things to spend my photography money on, I stumbled across large lots of Soviet-era B&W film from behind the Iron Curtain.
Much of this dates back to late 80's and early 90's, sold under the Svema brand, with ASA ratings in the 64 to 80 range. God only knows what their effective ratings will be now, given that the rule of thumb is supposed to be one stop for every decade or part thereof since expiry; I'd have to be sure my film bodies went down that low! I'm pretty sure that none of them are DX coded.
It's tempting to get some of this stuff to play with, but has anyone here had any experience with it? I feel that a bulk buy (5 to 10 at least) would be in order, if only because I might take two or three rolls just establishing proper exposure and development parameters.
My plan would be:
Make up a static scene with fixed lighting.
Shoot a set of frames at box ASA.
Shoot another set of frames at one, two, three, and maybe four stops under.
Develop. (Fortunately, the Massive Dev Chart has a listing for the Svema 64, which is the one I'm tempted to get)
Shoot a second roll, similarly exposed.
Add 5 minutes to the developing time.
Reassess.
Consider a third roll with a further 5 minutes added, depending on the results so far.
The eventual goal would be to find a developing time which would enable me to push the film back up to its box speed.
The aim is not so much to produce usable pictures as to give me experience and confidence with darkroom chemistry outside of listed norms. Needless to say, it would probably be shot using my Industar...
The Massive Dev Chart lists "Svema Micrat-Orto" as having a rated ASA of ZERO POINT SEVEN FIVE. Is this a misprint, or is there really a film that slow? I suspect this is for technical or copy work only. We're talking about maybe f/2.8 in bright sunshine before you can even think about hand-holding it. The Lomography crowd should be all over this like a rash.
|
