Digital BW, The Print

I just developed my two trial rolls of Bluefire Police film.

Overall they are both very thin. Some frames so thin that I fear whether I
can pull a satisfactory scans from them.

Both rolls were exposed at ISO 80 and developed using the low-contrast 16
minute development method in the developer provided.

Maybe the thin film is a result of the low-agitation/low-contrast
development because I am confident that my metering was done correctly. But
I have no point of reference about this.

Anyone else have experience with this film?

Dave.
-- 
Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Who uses film anymore ;)


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Keenan"
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I just developed my two trial rolls of Bluefire Police film.
> 
> Overall they are both very thin. Some frames so thin that I fear
whether I
> can pull a satisfactory scans from them.
> 
> Both rolls were exposed at ISO 80 and developed using the
low-contrast 16
> minute development method in the developer provided.
> 
> Maybe the thin film is a result of the low-agitation/low-contrast
> development because I am confident that my metering was done
correctly. But

> I have no point of reference about this.
> 
> Anyone else have experience with this film?
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
> 2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
> 2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I've have never used that particular film but if you have thin negs, it's an exposure problem. Not enough light getting to the film.  Increased development would only increae contrast. ie: a larger separation between the darks and lights.  Better to stay with known brands of film.  Some time ago there was a company out on the West Coast that was selling respooled movie film as regular 35mm.  That didn't work either.
   
  If you exposed at ISO 80 perhaps you should try Iso 25 (the old Kodachrome2 speed)  It seems that by providing you with a low-contrast developer they are looking for "beefy" negatives. If the information isn't on the film, you can't manufacture it.:-(
   
  T

flyflightdeck <cloudswimmer@...> wrote:
          Who uses film anymore ;)

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Keenan"
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I just developed my two trial rolls of Bluefire Police film.
> 
> Overall they are both very thin. Some frames so thin that I fear
whether I
> can pull a satisfactory scans from them.
> 
> Both rolls were exposed at ISO 80 and developed using the
low-contrast 16
> minute development method in the developer provided.
> 
> Maybe the thin film is a result of the low-agitation/low-contrast
> development because I am confident that my metering was done
correctly. But
> I have no point of reference about this.
> 
> Anyone else have experience with this film?
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
> 2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
> 2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



         

 
---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
 
---------------------------------
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Interesting observation and question. 

If very thin, flat film scans and prints well, it's no
surprise...though it may be overkill Vs your camera's lenses. I
wouldn't be surprised if you got equally good results with
"normal-looking" Fuji Acros, for example. 

Scanners don't necessarily "want" low contrast, thin negs, but I think
they do better with them than do enlargers. And with more density (eg
my Rodinal negs) I've noticed that dust is a smaller problem...

A parallel: I use Emofin much of the time because it doesn't build
grain or contrast...Fuji Neopan 400 @ 1200 scans and prints
beautifully and with low grain, but the negative can be frighteningly
thin-looking. On a lightbox, with a loupe, areas that seem to hold
virtually no detail turn out to be rich with detail when scanned. The
takeaway: My Nikon V take better advantage of B&W film's capability
than did my enlargers.

John



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "David Keenan"
<ausdlk@...> wrote:
>
> I just developed my two trial rolls of Bluefire Police film.
> 
> Overall they are both very thin. Some frames so thin that I fear
whether I
> can pull a satisfactory scans from them.
> 
> Both rolls were exposed at ISO 80 and developed using the
low-contrast 16
> minute development method in the developer provided.
> 
> Maybe the thin film is a result of the low-agitation/low-contrast
> development because I am confident that my metering was done
correctly. But

> I have no point of reference about this.
> 
> Anyone else have experience with this film?
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
> 2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
> 2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Yes, there are some of us who prefer film.

I am struggling with the urge to sell both of my R-D1 cameras since the
compromises I am forced to make inhibit me compared my film rangefinder
counterparts...

But back to the original Bluefire film matter, I have placed a picture on my
PAW 2007 <http://www.david-keenan.com/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=0> taken
with this film since I think the high contrast nature of the film suits it.

The clear base probably does affect my reading of the thinness of the film
but the histograms of many of the scans do indicate underexposure.

But it is the lack of midtones and contrast in midtones that are present
that will prevent me from ever using this film again. I understand that it
is the nature of the beast since it was not originally intended as a film
for pictorial use.

Dave.

--
Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dave, It is always possible that the thin film was a result of poor chemical
solution; bad mixing, bad package, etc. I have not seen or heard about it
but before I'd put it all on exposure, check and see if the film has edge
numbers. If they look bad, it doesn't look good for a properly processed
film.  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214-827-8301

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

 

Skype : ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David
Keenan
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 10:34 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: slightly OT: disappointment with Bluefire Police
film

 

Yes, there are some of us who prefer film.

I am struggling with the urge to sell both of my R-D1 cameras since the
compromises I am forced to make inhibit me compared my film rangefinder
counterparts...

But back to the original Bluefire film matter, I have placed a picture on my
PAW 2007 <http://www.david-
<http://www.david-keenan.com/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=0>
keenan.com/displayimage.php?album=35&pos=0> taken
with this film since I think the high contrast nature of the film suits it.

The clear base probably does affect my reading of the thinness of the film
but the histograms of many of the scans do indicate underexposure.

But it is the lack of midtones and contrast in midtones that are present
that will prevent me from ever using this film again. I understand that it
is the nature of the beast since it was not originally intended as a film
for pictorial use.

Dave.

--
Web Site: www.david-keenan.com
2007 PAW: www.david-keenan.com/paw
2006 EuroBlog: www.david-keenan.com/euroblog

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]