The roll is hung out to dry
One of the joys of Photrio is its international nature.
For your information, this phrase in English implies that you betrayed your roll of film
If you had said "The roll is hung to dry", that simply tells us that the roll of film is drying.
The second example looks particularly good.
The roll is hung out to dry.
It was completely obvious what you meant. Your English undoubtedly beats Matt's Italian senseless.
scan with epson V600, (2400dpi + scaling for posting: 1600X1029 jpg 1.4M) with active unsharp mask. No intervention in post (only slightly straightened).
i am very very satisfied. The camera is good, my Soviet lenses are perhaps not the best but I like them
View attachment 347954
This part B version works indeed. Add 10 or 15% to the developing time.
Crawley felt that borates induced "sheen" or fog, and needed careful balancing with restrainer. So it is likely he avoided it for that reason. That being said, I personally have not found borates inducing fog with PC developers. My main developer is Phenidone, Ascorbic acid, and borax and produces very low/nearly no fog vs other developers of similar formulation.
The negative looks fairly low contrast (but the scenes look like subdued light)
Mi sembra sovraesposto e sottosviluppato.
That would be the other way aroundIf so, it means that I unknowingly used the "William Mortensen technique"
It is always tricky to evaluate a digital photo of a negative because the contrast is variable. The negs initially looked a bit flat to me, but when I copied them, inverted to positive, then increased the contrast they looked good.also for me it seems overexposed.
underdeveloped it doesn't seem to me.
If so, it means that I unknowingly used the "William Mortensen technique"
John Finch predicted 8 minutes and 30 seconds for FP4 in his video.
I did 7 minutes and 30 seconds.
I will try the recommended time even if FP4 is not my favorite film.
That would be the other way around
In a nutshell, Mortensen’s method is one of slightly underexposing a subject with a very low brightness range and giving very full development to the resulting negative.
AND
“The new rule of thumb for negatives for projection is almost the reverse of the old adage: EXPOSE FOR THE LIGHT AREA AND DEVELOP FOR THE SHADOWS.”
From: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Mortensen/mortensen.html
It is always tricky to evaluate a digital photo of a negative because the contrast is variable. The negs initially looked a bit flat to me, but when I copied them, inverted to positive, then increased the contrast they looked good.
We have to set exposure and development (=contrast) to suit our process. Those negatives would have suited my darkroom process.
Looks overexposed and underdeveloped to me.
One thing: is there any reason to use potassium carbonate instead of sodium carbonate? There would be no problem getting the equivalent amount of sodium carbonate to dissolve in the stock A solution. Anyone?
I did find an interesting quote here.
OK just use 15.4 g instead
I thought so, but the scans look good. And the negatives look fairly easy to enlarge.
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?