HOME | DD

SUDOR In reply to noperson [2010-03-23 10:44:03 +0000 UTC]

Tri X 400, but bad developing !

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

noperson In reply to SUDOR [2010-03-23 14:43:15 +0000 UTC]

i mean it's dark and yet the woman's leg is hanging like frozen... and by writing about the 3200 i didn't mean anything bad

btw. i like it - it's like from a fairy tale...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SUDOR In reply to noperson [2010-03-23 14:49:44 +0000 UTC]

No problem, but this is true, all the pictures of this film have too much grain !

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

noperson In reply to SUDOR [2010-03-23 14:53:20 +0000 UTC]

i like grain. that's why i even know there is iso3200, or academy 200 - that was a great film .

all i meant was it's short shutter - quite impressive for night

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SUDOR In reply to noperson [2010-03-23 15:11:43 +0000 UTC]

See this picture, Kodak Recording 1000 ASA (ISO), fil of the seventies. [link]
Better than "Mon Paris 12", better developping.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

noperson In reply to SUDOR [2010-03-23 17:33:28 +0000 UTC]

i have never developed my films - lab did it. they did a lousy job i think i prefer digital

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SUDOR In reply to noperson [2010-03-23 17:46:34 +0000 UTC]

I have developed my films during 30 years, labs are a disaster ! But digital is now perfect.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

noperson In reply to SUDOR [2010-03-24 14:48:30 +0000 UTC]

yes they are, and especially now after i've been told by former lab workers what the dril is, and how often they changed the chemicals it is clear that they couldn't have done the job right. anyway. I can see u're using a nikon scanner, and it seems to be doing a nice job on the negatives.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

SUDOR In reply to noperson [2010-03-24 15:12:55 +0000 UTC]

Nikon scanners are very good, but not always easy to use. And Nikon stopped their manufacture.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

SUDOR In reply to in-esse [2010-03-23 10:44:34 +0000 UTC]

Merci !

👍: 0 ⏩: 0