That's great!
PS: Film holders are cheap on ebay. I got 4 of them for 25.00 shipped.
That's great!Well, I got three shots no problem. The fourth shot I took, put my dark slide back in and it fetched up, crunched, and withdrawing the film holder literally ejected one of the sheets of film. Obviously my film loading kung fu is weak. I'm going to use the ruined sheet to practice loading film so I can see what's going on. My beeping watch metronome is working very well, and now I have a new way of exposing the pinhole. I pull out my dark slide, and hold it in front of the cap- then I cup my hand around the cap, pull it off while shielding it from light and quickly put the dark slide up against the pinhole to block the light. Much easier to pull away and replace the dark slide to block the pinhole for short exposures. I'll try to get back to work today and develop these 3 sheets. Hopefully they turned out. Even though this is trickier to do, it's pretty obvious that it will become much easier once I work out the bugs. I do wish I had one or two more film holders though.
I'll need to take a peak for some!That's great!
PS: Film holders are cheap on ebay. I got 4 of them for 25.00 shipped.
I think you're spot on when it comes to that film placement. I must've put it into the same channel as the dark slide or somehow popped it over when I replaced the dark slide on the other side. Either way, user error. They seem to be working much better now though after a bit of practice with that "ejected film" on my end.Hey, those came out nice!
Good job.
I got one image but I'm not confident that I got it because I'm getting better with the Direct positive paper, or that it was just that chance was in my favor once.
From your description, it sounds like you accidentally shoved the film into the same channel as the dark slide inside of the inner channel.
View attachment 192705View attachment 192706View attachment 192707
So here are my day 2 results. I think they turned out much better than my first attempt. I just wish I'd cleaned the rollers and topped up the solutions a bit more on the processor. You can really see some gunk that's on the film in the sky. I think I have my film holders all sorted out. Loading the film properly is also going pretty well now. Definitely using the dark slide as the "shutter" has resulted in some clearer photos even though today was much windier. Overall, I'm quite pleased with the results so far!
I didn't scan it; it was just taken through a dirty window at my fence. I was just testing the exposure of the paper. I spot metered on the fence and placed that at zone V. It was a 5 minute exposure.I think you're spot on when it comes to that film placement. I must've put it into the same channel as the dark slide or somehow popped it over when I replaced the dark slide on the other side. Either way, user error. They seem to be working much better now though after a bit of practice with that "ejected film" on my end.
That image you got- did you post it? I'll need to go over to your thread now and take a peak!
I only pull the slide up enough to reveal the track that the paper goes into, not anything more. That way there is no way to get the paper into the darkslide track.I think you're spot on when it comes to that film placement. I must've put it into the same channel as the dark slide or somehow popped it over when I replaced the dark slide on the other side. Either way, user error. They seem to be working much better now though after a bit of practice with that "ejected film" on my end.
Looks great! I bet if you pre flashed the paper you'd get the results you want. Your most recent one looks great!I didn't scan it; it was just taken through a dirty window at my fence. I was just testing the exposure of the paper. I spot metered on the fence and placed that at zone V. It was a 5 minute exposure.
+1 me too!Good stuff, I particularly like the middle one with the close-in view of the tree structure.
I think you are right about that...more soot and chalk would have made it more "period" to me.@rpavich You know, the high contrast look of that direct positive paper would be the perfect esthetic for photos of old buildings (esp stone or brick ones), and anything with farm equipment/barns. Sort of a "period correct" look if you know what I mean? I took the photo below with a TLR and it looks fairly good but I think that direct positive paper would have really been a better choice.
For the hundredth time, does everyone know that a direct positive images will be 'mirror reversed', left to right. If there is a sign with print on it then it will be backwards. This may not matter to most folks (it does bug me) but just a heads up for those who are considering using it.
For the hundredth time, does everyone know that a direct positive images will be 'mirror reversed', left to right. If there is a sign with print on it then it will be backwards. This may not matter to most folks (it does bug me) but just a heads up for those who are considering using it.
I commented because so many are surprised when they develop direct positive and find it is reversed, left to right. It may not matter in some cases and not all folks care, but some do. So, the comment was just as a reminder, a heads up if you will. Some folks won't care at all and some don't like that effect.Strange comment. Seems out of the blue. Did someone say they were having a problem with images being mirror reversed and I've just missed it? Could you quote it? I'm just not sure where this comment is coming from.
Oh- Okay, I gotcha now.I commented because so many are surprised when they develop direct positive and find it is reversed, left to right. It may not matter in some cases and not all folks care, but some do. So, the comment was just as a reminder, a heads up if you will. Some folks won't care at all and some don't like that effect.
Was this direct positive paper?well my day 3 photos didn't turn out very well. 8 minute exposure (compensated for reciprocity as suggested by the app "pinhole assist"). Turned out very overexposed. I've tried to recover some detail with the photo below but this time things just didn't work out.View attachment 192859
Was this direct positive paper?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?