We and our partners use technologies, such as cookies, to recognize you and show you more of what you like. Please read our Privacy Policy to learn more. By using this website you agree to the use of those technologies.
I agree.
Kodak 400 Max processed in fading C22 process. Random Dodge Truck that worked out well in post. "artist's" self portrait - picture of the artist taking a picture of the artist taking a picture. C22 on C41 film, especially stale C22 is interesting. CD-3 Developer is not as active as CD-4 (C41 developer) and so between the CD-3 and I think the benzyl alcohol, the pictures were underdeveloped (even at 14 minutes). Although I also did develop them at room temp - 21C / 72F. Perhaps a warmer bath would have more fully developed the film. However, I think the colors were very muted for the same reason. There is no real value in processing C41 film in C22. C22, at least the version most will use at home, is pretty close to ECN-2 (minus the benzyl alcohol) so it would probably be more useful to explore the color variations between C41 and ECN-2 - which also uses CD-3 as well as Process E-6. I was a bit disappointed in the truck pics as photos but photoshop helped make some pretty good art of them.
@charliedontsurf yes! I tried using this broken 35mm scanner I really thought these were poor shots. But I liked how they turned out. Then I got my other, not quite so ancient yet still broken scanner working and I am surprised how well the actual shots worked. I might not have got these good art pieces, had I only seen the good scans. Serendipty or pulverantilist? You decide. LOL
@mike1allison have you tried stopping down your dslr lens yet when you scan using that method? I'm sure that's contributing to the soft scans that you were disappointed with.
@charliedontsurf I have. I can't see a real difference but I have tried going to f8 and f11 to see if I can see anything. I TAKE THAT BACK, this shot was with a AF Nikkor macro and I can't control the aperture on that. The other lens I was using is a pre-ai and I tried messing with the aperture. The problems I know of are: The backlight is uneven and wrong, the lenses I've tried give me such a tiny focus window and there is some "play" in the slide duplicator that can just pull things off ever so. So it's always a bit of a crap shoot. I agree if it is open more, I should have more lattitude.
@charliedontsurf yes, that's the scanner's art work, I just wanted to get that up for comparison. They are still very difficult negatives but the work is much easier now that I'm not doing everything. Probably the scanner version of 'equalizer'
@charliedontsurf Kodak and Fuji have yet to make a film that could capture the actual tone of red faded into burnt yellow orange. I bet I'll find some Soviet film that will capture that.
@mike1allison the pre ai 50mm f 3.5 nikkor micro is the lens I use for my scanning. It works a treat but what makes it easy is the focus peaking on my Sony mirrorless, such a useful feature.
@charliedontsurf I broke out my Olympus Pen yesterday for that very reason. I have a Jupiter 8 in a screw mount that I was going to try. I'd on a Nikon adapter then mounted in a Nik to M4/3 adapter which makes it a great macro lens. I never really changed my set up because I thought it was working but I started to see the cracks...
@mike1allison yes the pen. When I bought my Sony it was the olympus pen that I really wanted but I got such a good deal on my Sony from Hong Kong. No regrets.
@mike1allison I don't know, it just works! It's not full frame , aps-c sensor, I only use it for scanning and videoing my sons gigs. Its great for movies in low light and the built in microphone is superb.
14 Comment