Show us yer film shots then!

Rodinol and similar developers last many years but the rest do not. I don't know what the basis of T Max developer is but I would suspect it.

Not all pale streaks are bromide drag. Regardless of your agitation regime, fresh developer will move through the sprocket holes - if the developer is working at its limits, this developer movement will result in more development around the sprocket holes.
 
You also have some White Marks which I'm sure is dried Lime Scum from hard water -- you can usually find them on the back of the film so lay negs on some newspaper and breathe onto back of film and wipe off Lime Scum with a hanky ---
 
excalibur2 said:
Well I think record shots are important...can anyone beat this for the most untidy garage (this was my old house and the new one is just as bad) ...lateral thinking parking the door on the floor and parking the car over it :D
Click to expand...

That's not untidy, Brian, you can see floor! I daren't even try taking a photo of my garage. Not only can I not get in there, I think the spiders have formed a new civilisation and have reached the agricultural stage of development already. :(
 
So I've got received my first films back today, the Illford HP5 didn't have anything on so i assume the Nikon FN has a faulty shutter as it has not been exposed at all, i have however put 3 rolls of Afga Vista 200 through my F80 and it has worked perfect!

Not the best images but heres a couple off my first 3 rolls of film, straight from filmdev with no adjustments.

R1-04903-0009 by michael-little, on Flickr

R1-04903-0015 by michael-little, on Flickr

R1-04903-0017 by michael-little, on Flickr

R1-04903-0019 by michael-little, on Flickr

R3-04905-0011 by michael-little, on Flickr

R3-04905-0017 by michael-little, on Flickr

R3-04905-0023 by michael-little, on Flickr
 
Today is 'Expired Film Day' so I rushed out with my 1956 Agfa Isolette III + 75mm f3.5 Solinar lens loaded with 1998 dated Ilford HP5 which was in there since December 2016 !
It was SUNNY !! I rushed around Brentwood and finished up the film I had 7 shots left --I processed in my Home-Made Microphen formula and got good negs for such an Old Film !
Bike Rack.jpg Letter A.jpg Ruins 01.jpg Walker.jpg White Buildings.jpg
 
Strappy said:
Deez pikturs are all vewwy gud, Comrade Steve, but where iz the documentz you vere sent to photograph?

By which I mean, I rather like the grainy grittiness of these shots, suits the nature of the spy camera rather nicely. :)
Click to expand...

Zee cow is in the zee sky comrade Deano....

Cheers. I'm definitely going to shoot something slightly newer film next time, now that I know the camera is working properly just to see what it can do.
 
Last edited:
I'm glad that your Minox works well. There must have been some prettier views in Port Sunlight to try out though. Aren't the daffodils out in the gardens, near the war memorial?
 
NickT said:
I'm glad that your Minox works well. There must have been some prettier views in Port Sunlight to try out though. Aren't the daffodils out in the gardens, near the war memorial?
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, yes they are out in the Dell but the one shot I took of them was way out of focus!
 
stevelmx5 said:
Minox B - Expired Minopan 100

Minox B - Expired Minopan 100 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Minox B - Expired Minopan 100 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr

Minox B - Expired Minopan 100 by Steve Lloyd, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I'm impressed with the quality of the grain (or lack of it) in those shots developed in Rodinal. I have a Minox and a roll of expired Minopan 100, so I have been shamed into actually using it one day. As I'm very low on chemicals and I can't just wander into a shop and buy them now and resent paying a courier charge I'm going to test out my bottle pf Rodinal (RO9 actually) on a cut down roll of Vista 200. Despite claims to the contrary, I have proved to myself that RO9 doesn't have a long shelf life and when it deteriorates it goes through a step function from 'working fine' to 'useless'. I've gone so far as to use my bulk loader to make a roll of about 10 shot Vista 200. All I need now is a bit of motivation to go out and shoot some test frames and test the RO9. Exactly what I would do with any Minox negatives, I don't know, as no amount of fettling could make my Minolta Scan Dual II accept them.
 
NickT said:
I had a fair bit of success doing something similar with 6x9 negatives, as described in this post
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/t...elated-toy-thread.239121/page-61#post-4589455
I don't think it would work that well with tiny Minox negatives though.
Click to expand...

I scanned my Minox negatives using my Sony A6000 with Olympus OM Zuiko 50/3.5 Macro and 3 extension tubes. I laid the negatives flat on a light box and shot them using a tripod and remote control app on my phone.
 
Olympus XA2 and Fomapan 400. Glasgow street art
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1490038766.478735.jpg
    IMG_1490038766.478735.jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 16
  • IMG_1490038779.548960.jpg
    IMG_1490038779.548960.jpg
    176.7 KB · Views: 18
  • IMG_1490038792.489267.jpg
    IMG_1490038792.489267.jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 19
Last edited:
Disappointing outcome.
I was in the Botanic Gardens in Glasgow's west end when I saw this young woman taking a selfie, replicating the pose of one of the marble statues.
I asked if she'd mind me taking her photo, and she was happy to pose for me.
Only problem was, I had just walked in from the cold and didn't notice slight fogging on the lens of my OM2, which resulted in this soft image. Lesson learned. Acros 100, BTW.
IMG_1490040285.709402.jpg
 
Steven001 said:
That's a shame about the fog! I don't think it entirely ruins the image though, it's still a great capture.

Would you recommend the OM2? I'm impressed by the detail it's captured!
Click to expand...

This was the first roll I put through it and, yes, I'm very happy with it. It came with a 50mm prime, but I've since bought a 28mm and a 135mm prime too. It's a lovely camera.
 
Steven001 said:
I meant to say the XA2 sorry! The OM2 is a but more than I want to spend just now.
Click to expand...

Ha ha..
This was also the first roll through the XA2, which I got from West Yorkshire Cameras for £39. It's a neat little zone focus camera with a featherlight shutter release that takes some getting used to, but it's an ideal street shooter. Plenty around at decent prices, too.
 
I think Olympus lenses are some of the best for capturing detail but the problem I found with OM cameras is that they're so small, I had trouble using them comfortably with my paws and sausage fingers. Shame because they're ideal as travel cameras.
 
Steven001 said:
I meant to say the XA2 sorry! The OM2 is a but more than I want to spend just now.
Click to expand...

The XA2 is, without a doubt, the greatest camera ever conceived of by man.

Designed by a genius with mystical knowledge that Newton could only dream of.

The onions dance at midnight.
 
Strappy said:
I think Olympus lenses are some of the best for capturing detail but the problem I found with OM cameras is that they're so small, I had trouble using them comfortably with my paws and sausage fingers. Shame because they're ideal as travel cameras.
Click to expand...

They are dainty, I agree, but then I've only got small/medium sized mitts, so they suit me [emoji16] The XA2 and OM2 are my first Olympus cameras and so far I'm loving the results I'm getting
 
Steven001 said:
Would you recommend the OM2? I'm impressed by the detail it's captured!
Click to expand...
It's lenses that record detail, rather than cameras. A camera's just a light-tight box. But Olympus lenses of that vintage were pretty good!

As for the OM2 in particular, in my view it's overly complex which can prejudice its usability / durability. An OM1 might be a better bet (I like simplicity). But even then, you might consider that despite the Olympus M-series being very pretty cameras, their ergonomics aren't the best unless you have a contortionist's fingers and wrists. It's not just about the width of your fingers - it's about where you're required to put them! Unless you just want to just use auto, but even then ...
 
Last edited:
droj said:
It's lenses that record detail, rather than cameras. A camera's just a light-tight box. But Olympus lenses of that vintage were pretty good!

As for the OM2 in particular, in my view it's overly complex which can prejudice its usability / durability. An OM1 might be a better bet (I like simplicity). But even then, you might consider that despite the Olympus M-series being very pretty cameras, their ergonomics aren't the best unless you have a contortionist's fingers and wrists. It's not just about the width of your fingers - it's about where you're required to put them! Unless you just want to just use auto, but even then ...
Click to expand...
Hi Droj, I know it's the lens that records the detail :) I meant to type the XA2 which has a built in lens and as oposed to the OM2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top