Drying marks: Apart from using Photoflo as such, consider (1) using distilled or deionized water to mix the Photoflo. Minerals in tap water can produce these drying marks. (2) Use about half the amount of stock Photoflo recommended by Kodak. Apart from saving a little money on the chemical, you can mix Photoflo too strong and leave such marks. The negatives appear to be both over-exposed and over developed, rather extremely so given density shown. If using the "sunny 16 rule", then there is really no reliable reference, so who knows. Excess grain may be the film itself, the type of developer used, and/or overdevelopment. Rodinal is a course grain developer, so it really is not appropriate for half frame or subminiature formats unless grain structure is part of the desired image. The uniform excess density over the whole roll of images suggests that there is also an overdevelopment problem. My experience with half frame, extensive but long ago, suggests that film no faster than Ilford FP-4+ should be preferred, processed in a modern developer supporting sharpness and minimal grain, such as Iflosol 3 or Xtol. If film negatives are being processed though scanners and digital imaging, there is no reason why the final images should appear noticeably different than from full frame format. Get a light meter.
Thanks Randall, I haven't encountered such bad drying marks before so hopefully it's a one off. I do have a light meter but wanted to try the sunny 16 rule here for some strange reason on the first film.....lesson learnt. Thanks for the comments.
Interesting video. Definitely made me feel bad for subjecting people at the lab to this. The huge labs claim they dont develop half frame because of the difficulties that come with it. Well, they only find out it's half frame once theyve developed it because I dont tell them... Horrible, I know. The results vary. Sometimes they cut the negative ignoring the images and split some frames. Sometimes I get a print for all 72 frames (best case scenario!), other times I dont get prints at all and have to edit the scans together to get complete images. Just dropped off a roll, cant wait to see how they deal with it this time.
Surely its just a normal 35mm film development, just opt not to get the negatives cut perhaps to then do yourself at home? Thanks for watching and the comments.
Some lovely shots Chris! Well done. I miss England a lot.
Thank you Cerita.
Drying marks: Apart from using Photoflo as such, consider (1) using distilled or deionized water to mix the Photoflo. Minerals in tap water can produce these drying marks. (2) Use about half the amount of stock Photoflo recommended by Kodak. Apart from saving a little money on the chemical, you can mix Photoflo too strong and leave such marks. The negatives appear to be both over-exposed and over developed, rather extremely so given density shown. If using the "sunny 16 rule", then there is really no reliable reference, so who knows. Excess grain may be the film itself, the type of developer used, and/or overdevelopment. Rodinal is a course grain developer, so it really is not appropriate for half frame or subminiature formats unless grain structure is part of the desired image. The uniform excess density over the whole roll of images suggests that there is also an overdevelopment problem. My experience with half frame, extensive but long ago, suggests that film no faster than Ilford FP-4+ should be preferred, processed in a modern developer supporting sharpness and minimal grain, such as Iflosol 3 or Xtol. If film negatives are being processed though scanners and digital imaging, there is no reason why the final images should appear noticeably different than from full frame format. Get a light meter.
Thanks Randall, I haven't encountered such bad drying marks before so hopefully it's a one off. I do have a light meter but wanted to try the sunny 16 rule here for some strange reason on the first film.....lesson learnt. Thanks for the comments.
Interesting video. Definitely made me feel bad for subjecting people at the lab to this. The huge labs claim they dont develop half frame because of the difficulties that come with it. Well, they only find out it's half frame once theyve developed it because I dont tell them... Horrible, I know. The results vary. Sometimes they cut the negative ignoring the images and split some frames. Sometimes I get a print for all 72 frames (best case scenario!), other times I dont get prints at all and have to edit the scans together to get complete images. Just dropped off a roll, cant wait to see how they deal with it this time.
Surely its just a normal 35mm film development, just opt not to get the negatives cut perhaps to then do yourself at home? Thanks for watching and the comments.